Talk:David Reardon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Science and academia work group.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Abortion, which collaborates on articles related to abortion, abortion law, the abortion debate, and the history of abortion. For more information, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.

Archives

1

Contents 1 Reardons' Academic Credentials 2 Summary of Books 3 Academic credentials section 4 Copyright suit -- Get it right to avoid libel 5 Post-Abortion Trauma -- An expanded purging of inconvenient evidence 6 Bazelon's Errors, Biases, and Distortions 7 Placement of PWU criticism 8 Do Not Cause Disruption by Deleting Verifiable Information 9 Publications in Bibliography 10 Bad Citation 11 New tag bombing tactic 12 Articles Books Politics 13 What Koop told Reagan 14 Verifiability, not truth 14.1 Koop & Reardon 15 Archiving? 16 Undue Weight on PWU 17 Deja vu all over again 18 Petty - Snide tone 19 This is not the place to debate abortion 20 Majority View 21 Bibliography 22 Book reviews 23 Proposal for reorg 24 Reardon's Responses 25 A request for small edits 26 Peer-reviewed studies

[edit] Reardons' Academic Credentials

I see someone removed the material, again, regarding the fact that Reardon has published over 25 peer reviewed articles. A listing of these journals was added to the section regarding his Academic Credentials as clearly peer reviewed publications ALWAYS belong on an academics CV and are used to judge the persons credentials.

After deleting this verifiable material, a hostile editor added original research, in violation of Wikipedia policy, regarding PWU (not Reardon) in an attempt to promote a "guilt by association" bias against Reardon.

All we have is Mooney's one sentence about Reardon and PWU. Assuming it is true, any repetition here should be limited to that one sentence, and arguably should be included only in the section regarding Mooney's article in which he levels this and other criticisms against Reardon. Calling out this charge that he has a degree from an unaccredited university in one of the first sections gives it undue weight, especially when editors insist on erasing his more important academic credentials as a frequently published author of peer reviewed studies. In the academic world, publications matter far more than where one got one's degree. Once one has been working in the real world, the work is more important than one's degree, much less one's school. Should we also investigate and report if Reardon graduated from a public or private high school?--Strider12 (talk) 18:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I actually believe that we should just leave the first sentence as: "Reardon received his Ph.D. from Pacific Western University, an unaccredited correspondence school. [7]". If we are going to include additional information about PWU, including the GOA investigation, then we need to include exactly what PWU was investigated for; which was illegally obtaining federal money for programs that were not eligible. If we just leave it at GOA investigation, we don't know what that investigation was about. And Yes, you are right, the fact that PWU was engaged in fraud does not mean that Reardon did anything wrong. I agree that it is important to mention the peer-reviewed research that was done. If Reardon had absolutely no degree, yet was still able to be published in several peer-reviewed medical journals, that is still an accomplishment of note. I think I can agree with placing a mention of this, what does everyone else think? Are the in-line cites enough?Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

An investigation means nothing and has nothing to do with Reardon...unless documentation links them. Also, the no original research rule means nothing if one is allowed to do separate research about PWU, which is not Reardon related, merely to expand on the criticism made by Mooney. It is fine to quote Mooney's criticism, but beyond that it is original research...and research purely intended to bias readers against Reardon at that. There is nothing illegal or immoral about getting a degree from a state licensed university which is not accredited. This is all a red herring. But since Mooney raises it, it's fair game to report in a fashion that doesn't give it undue weight.--Strider12 (talk) 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not "Mooney's criticism"; it was reported not only by Mooney, but by PBS as well, that Reardon's degree is from a non-accredited school. As to the morality of representing oneself as an expert by purchasing credentials which otherwise require many years of work, study, and dedication to acquire, I suppose that could be debated endlessly, but not here. I actually agree with Strider12 here that we should note his degree comes from an unaccredited institution (this is notable by virtue of mention in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources), but we need not get into citing extra material about PWU which does not bear directly on Reardon or mention him specifically. The GAO material is probably best used in the PWU page rather than here. MastCell ^Talk 05:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell and Strider--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If we are going to keep the sentence as is, then I agree with everyone else as well. IAA I think you misunderstand my edits. If we are going to include information about the PWU, including the GOA investigation, then we needed to provide information as to what the investigation was about. But after reading the above comments, I agree that that information is best for the PWU page, and I'll add it there. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I don't think there is agreement that the GOA investigation should be included. It is not related to Reardon.

Also, I don't believe there really are separate sources confirming that Reardon got his degree from PWU. Neither Mooney, Bazelon nor NOW report having interviewed Reardon or PWU and you can't find the link made at the PWU web site or the Elliot Institute sites. Bazelon and the NOW piece appear to be citing Mooney, as obviously they are repeating many of Mooney's other assertions. --Strider12 (talk) 15:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry. Multiple independent, reliable secondary sources vouch for this. It's actually really the best-sourced item in the article, from a WP:RS standpoint. You think PBS and Bazelon "appear to be citing" Mooney? Think what you like, but don't try to force your opinions into Wikipedia. When multiple independent sources mention the same fact, it's likely that said fact is correct and notable - not that they are plagiarizing each other or failing due diligence. As to interviewing Reardon, you continue to create much ado about this. The PBS piece in particular notes that they made extensive efforts to interview Reardon, which he refused. So please stop with this line of argument as an attempt to impeach the few reliable, independent sources actually cited by this article. MastCell ^Talk 16:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't believe reporters read and report what other reporters have reported? (The NOW piece is practically a video short of Bazelon's article.) If they got their info about PWU from Moody--which is an if--then it is not independent. That's the only point I was making.--Strider12 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. How do you propose we incorporate your unsourced hunch into the article in a way that lines up with Wikipedia's policies? Until you have an answer, let's confine this talk page to discussion of material that could actually impact the article. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Summary of Books

I've just finished re-reading Aborted Women-Silent No More. The following, which is in the article, is very inaccurate:

In 1985, Reardon surveyed members of a group called Women Exploited by Abortion, and found high rates of nervous breakdowns, substance abuse, and suicide attempts. Reardon described this finding as proof of a link between abortion and psychological harm. However, his findings were dismissed as non-generalizable by expert panels in the medical community, due to the selection bias introduced by surveying only women from a pro-life organization who already felt "exploited" by their abortion.[11]

Nothing indicates the survey was in 1985. He does not report on nervous breakdowns at all, and does not describe rates of substance abuse or suicide attempts, but merely reports (including in the stories contributed by WEBA members) that some felt suicide or engaged in substance4 abuse. And I find no where that he describes his "findings as proof of a link between and psychological harm." He also clearly addresses the limits of the WEBA sample as self-selected and not generalizable, and goes on to compare his survey of WEBA members to what was published by other researchers at that time such as Zimmerman. He mostly let's women just tell their own stories. Also, WEBA was not a pro-life organization. It was a post-abortion peer support group which included women who still considered themselves pro-choice despite also feeling that abortion had caused them great grief or other emotional distress. Finally, while it would not be in the book, the statement about "expert panels" that dismissed the WEBA findings needs clarification about what panels and what they said. This appears to be just a handwaving dismissal that is not based on actual panel reports. The APA panel report (Adler et al, Science 1990)for example, does not even mention Reardon or the WEBA sample so there is no record that even it dismissed the findings.

Unless somone can provide quotes from the book that support the accuracy of the paragraph in question, I will remove it and replace it with a more accurate summary.--Strider12 (talk) 15:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

While doing so would be in keeping with your general approach, I would strongly suggest you don't remove the material. It's sourced (see the footnote) to the New York Times Magazine. Which, as has been endlessly and fruitlessly pointed out, is the sort of reliable secondary source upon which this article should be based. All of the issues you raise are explicitly addressed in the NY Times Magazine article. There is no need to provide countervailing quotes from Reardon's book, and demanding such is clear evidence that despite endless interventions from other editors, you continue to fundamentally misunderstand our verifibility and sourcing policies. If you think the New York Times Magazine incorrectly described Reardon's work, then the solution is to write to the New York Times about it. They are a responsible organization which corrects errors of fact when such are identified. In the absence of such a correction, arguing from your reading of Reardon's book is never going to supersede what a reliable secondary source explicitly has to say about the subject. That is the basis of WP:OR. MastCell ^Talk 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

On other pages editors and admins are stressing that "sources don't have to be NPOV, only our use of them in the article must be NPOV." Are they incorrect? Further, the NYT is hardly; "non-partisan and reliable." You cannot unilaterally decide that only one reference is sufficient and that only one source provides all of the information on a particular topic. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I must further take a point of contention with your advice to Strider. Telling him to "write to the NYT about it" is hardly advice that is going to pass muster. What if the NYT writes a story saying that I am the Queen of England? Should we then publish that in wikipedia? Should the only recourse be to write to the NYT about it? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

BTW: Did you even look to see who the NYT magazine article was written by? EMILY BAZELON???? The NYT Magazine stated: "Emily Bazelon is a senior editor at Slate and frequently writes about the law and science." BUT WAIT, THERE IS MORE!!! Apparently, Emily Bazelon, consistently writes opinion pieces from a pro-choice perspective in Slate and other outlets like Mother Jones. (Both self-described left-leaning publications.) She is the grand-daughter of judge David L. Bazelon and the cousin of NARAL co-founder Betty Friedan." Her article was criticized by some of the very people she interviewed, including Dr. Priscilla K. Coleman of Bowling Green State University. http://www.bgsu.edu/organizations/cfdr/about/facultymembers/coleman.html How on earth can we consider this a "reliable non-partisan NPOV" piece. Are you seriously suggesting that we accept the reporting of Emily Bazelon as the gospel truth? Seriously??? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I'll take the biggest strawman argument first. The New York Times has a respectable fact-checking and editorial process. They would not print that you were the Queen of England. If they did, they would undoubtedly respond promptly to any correction you provided them. The New York Times is sort of the epitome of a reliable source in the manner in which the term is defined by Wikipedia (see WP:RS and WP:V). If you're seriously arguing here that the New York Times is not a reliable source for Wikipedia, then I'd suggest you take it to the reliable sources noticeboard.

I'm not suggesting you accept anything as "gospel truth". I am suggesting that when the New York Times publishes something, that it carries more weight for Wikipedia's purposes than someone's homepage or blog comments. The standard on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Wikipedia's articles are based on reliable, secondary sources - in fact, without them a subject is not considered notable. The NY Times Magazine is a reputable, independent, reliable secondary source as Wikipedia defines those terms. MastCell ^Talk 22:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Jayson Blair? He was with the NYT right? It is well known that the NYT is left-leaning. Just as the Washington Times tends to be right-leaning. I can cite multiple independent sources for both claims. I am not suggesting that the NYT shouldn't be used, as it most certainly falls within the mainstream, just as the Washington Times would. However, it is NOT the most reliable and non-partisan source as you are claiming, and it is certainly NOT the only source for which we should include information on a particular topic, especially since EMILY BAZELON is actually the source of the information. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

What would constitute reliable sourced information that we could include to make sure that Bazelon's version was not the only version represented? How about a sentence and link to the actual study that was conducted? Is that possible?Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

The New York Times is more respected and mainstream than the Washington Times, and I would suggest that the level of ideology being pushed by those two outlets is nowhere near as equivalent as you make it sound. But that's neither here nor there. Wikipedia doesn't work by you citing Jayson Blair and some alleged left-wing agenda of the NYT and thereby discrediting it as a source. Reliably sourced information is quite easily identifiable - see WP:V. I understand that you want to make sure that the New York Times is not the only view represented, but it's generally better to let the available reliable sources dictate the article, rather than searching high and low for a passable source to contradict one you don't like. Still, if you don't like seeing the New York Times cited, then the best approach is to find another equally reliable secondary source dealing with the same topics and cite it. MastCell ^Talk 23:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Again, I didn't say that the NYT shouldn't be used, I stated that it should not be the ONLY source used. The NYT is to the left what the Washington Times is to the right. Both fall within the mainstream, both are considered reliable sources. However, both also need to be taking with a grain of salt, especially if the writer of a particular piece is a known commodity. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Secondly, you missed my second question. What would constitute reliable sourced information that we could include to make sure that Bazelon's version was not the only version represented? How about a sentence and link to the actual study that was conducted? Is that possible? Wouldn't the actual study be a better source than Bazelon's summary of it?Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D01E7D8173DF936A15754C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1 Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper? :) Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Sure, but if we're using that as a source, then I could equally well quote Stephen Colbert to the effect that reality has a well-known liberal bias. :) As to the study itself, my understanding is that it was not published in the peer-reviewed literature (presumably due to its methodologic flaws). Do you have an idea of where it was published, beyond what the Times article says? MastCell ^Talk 23:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL! I see a clear difference between the Public Editor of the NYT and a comedian. In any case I'll see if I can find the actual study. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

MastCell. So if I understand you correctly, just because it is published by as a magazine article in the New York Times Magazine (not news, but opinion, commentary and analysis) we shouldn't bother to actually read the book to see if Bazelon got it right? Maybe she didn't even read the book but merely reported what she had been told by Russo?

Are you also saying that secondary sources should always trump primary sources? That's absurd. And by the way, could you please point me to the Wikipedia policy that informs us that secondary sources are to be preferred over primary sources. You say it a lot, but I haven't found it anywhere. I consider that to be a very anti-intellectual policy...if it actually exists.

I can't help but think that you are just using a string of excuses to try to eliminate the use of any sources which conflict with "reliable" left-wing newspapers.--Strider12 (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Strider 12, Do you have a link to the final study that Reardon did? If we can review that we can see if Bazelon's summary was correct or not. I've been looking but haven't had any luck.Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Strider12: The policy is called Wikipedia:No original research. It is one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia. It states, in part: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Please read the policy. Doing so may clear up some of the misunderstandings here. MastCell ^Talk 03:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've read the policy: Wikipedia:No original research. Nothing in there suggests that we cannot check up on a secondary source to ensure that they are not lying or misinformed. Example, If a writer for B claims Source A says X, and we look up source A and find out that it actually says Y, then we can obviously reject the misinformation from writer B as unreliable. I am not talking about our re-interpretation of a study or data, or posting our own analysis of one. I am referring to when a secondary source gets something obviously wrong, we can then reject the secondary source as not-trustworthy as applied to the circumstance.Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 11:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

[edit] Academic credentials section

I've retitled "Academic credentials" to "Academic degree". The simple fact is that the source of Reardon's degree is notable, having been discussed in several independent, reliable secondary sources. Listing the journals in which he's published is an artificial editorial attempt to "balance" this reliably sourced information, and violates WP:OR.

I've also removed the sources added by User:Strider12 to the Missouri Stem Cell initiative section. Reliable, independent sources on this do exist (there are other newspaper articles besides the ones I've cited, though I think they cover the issue adequately). There is therefore no need to insert newsletters from partisan pro-life organizations as "additional" sources (see WP:RS). I have specifically avoided using pro-choice organization material as sourcing, despite the fact that Planned Parenthood et al have plenty to say about Reardon, unless said sourcing is specifically identified. The more we can rely on independent, non-partisan sources (NY Times, PBS, statements from the APA, etc) the more neutral the article will be. MastCell ^Talk 19:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

The NY Times editorializes in favor of abortion. The APA is not neutral. In 1969 it adopted an official position in favor of abortion as a civil right and has lobbied for abortion, against parental notice, etc.. Your definition of "neutral" means any pro-choice source and the exclusion of any conservative or pro-life source. Why not be fair and just liberally accept any news source, much less ALL peer reviewed studies?--Strider12 (talk) 21:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

David Reardon's work is PUBLISHED in PEER-REVIEWED Journals. How on earth can Published Peer-reviewed research be considered OR??. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Please don't shout. And read a little further: "Material can often be put together in a way that constitutes original research even if its individual elements have been published by reliable sources. Synthesizing material occurs when an editor tries to demonstrate the validity of his or her own conclusions by citing sources that when put together serve to advance the editor's position. If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, then the editor is engaged in original research." Yes, David Reardon has been published in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, this is stated and cited repeatedly in the article. However, listing his journal publications as a counterpoint to information about his academic degree advances an editor's position that the unaccredited source of his degree doesn't matter. Using these sources in this way, to artificially "balance" direct, well-sourced information about his degree, is improper synthesis, as described in WP:SYN. MastCell ^Talk 22:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't accuse me of shouting when I already explained that I am not doing so. We've already had that particular conversation and we don't need to rehash it here. If we change the label of the section from Academic Credentials to Academic Degree, then we would be correct to limit the discussion to ONLY the degree. However, if the section is labeled academic credentials, then it would NOT be WP:OR or WP:SYN to discuss the peer-reviewed research and publications that Reardon has done. We need to pick a version and stick with it. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

As Reardon's publications are dealt with and cited at length elsewhere in the article, it makes the most sense to limit this particular section to discussion of his degree. I've altered the section title accordingly, as you suggest. Using all-caps is generally considered shouting. MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your current edit. I use all-caps in portions for emphasis, just as I sometimes use HTML bold. I don't consider it shouting and don't mean it as such. As I have no intention of using it thus, you shouldn't take any offense from it. That's how I emphasize something I feel important. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

OK. No big deal. MastCell ^Talk 23:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI: typing is all-caps is perceived by most as shouting. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe that There is a difference between using caps for emphasis and typing an entire paragraph in all caps. Example:

David Reardon's work is PUBLISHED in PEER-REVIEWED Journals. How on earth can Published Peer-reviewed research be considered OR??

DAVID REARDON'S WORK IS PUBLISHED IN PEER-REVIEWED JOURNALS. HOW ON EARTH CAN PUBLISHED PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH BE CONSIDERED OR??

1st example uses Caps for emphasis, second is yelling. Hope that clears things up. Remember, Not everyone subscribes to "internet laws." (Godwins law for example.)Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Hehe, is obnoxious use of quotations also an "internet law"? --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Doubt it. :) Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Poor Ghostmonkey. I see they're giving you the same old hassles and run arounds. Wasting time complaining about CAPS as if a word or two in caps threatens them with blindness. But such complaints are easier than actually coming up with reasoanble responses to support their unreasonable deletions of verifiable materials.--Strider12 (talk) 20:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Academic degree instead of Academic Credentials? Isn't this new title by MastCell just another way to exclude his credentials while highlighting quesions about his degree? How many other biographies begin with a separate section identifying the academic degree? I disagree and have reverted it. --Strider12 (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In discussing reasons to blank Reardon's publications as part of his academic credentials, MastCell seems confused about improper synthesis as described in WP:SYN. There is nothing at all wrong with giving facts A and B, even facts that may lead the reader to conclude if A and B then C. Giving facts to readers so they can draw their own conclusions is very valid and necessary. Improper synthesis occurs when an editor gives A and B then takes the extra step of expounding on C. Clearly, giving a scholar's bibliography is giving facts and clearly allowable and necessary to fairly represent his the work for which he is notable. Whether readers consider it to be notable and to qualify him as an expert is up to them.

Also, improper sythnesis includes original research which seeks to tie unrelated articles together in order to promote a conclusion that goes beyond the articles. For example, in this article this has been done with references stating (a) Reardon has a degree from PWU and (b) there was in investigation of PWU for being a rotten school, even though the second article has nothing to do with Reardon. In this case, while the conclusion Reardon has a rotten degree was not explicitly stated, the original research and wording of the paragraph were clearly intended to smear Reardon with the smell of PWU's investigation.--Strider12 (talk) 02:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, two reputable sources specifically stated that Reardon received his degree from an unaccredited school. We therefore mention this in the article as a notable and verifiable fact. End of story. There is no manipulation of references, or "smear attempt" - merely the recitation of a notable and verifiable fact, in terms identical to those in which it's reported by reliable secondary sources. MastCell ^Talk 03:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Since it is now clear that this section is not about Reardon's credentials, but is only here to call out questions about his degree, it is clear that this special section near the top of the article gives undue weight to the question regarding Reardon's degree being from PWU. This is a criticsm, raised by Mooney, and belongs in the section regarding criticims, where I have moved it.

Also, FYI, a mentioned before, this is a red herring argument. Most PhD programs in Europe (and even many in the US) have no classroom courses. At Oxford, for example, it is ALL based on the PhD candidate doing original research that contributes to his or her field. With all of his publications in peer reviewed journals, it is clear that Reardon has contributed to his field. That's why in the real world of academics, publications matter more than where one got one's degree. But in this case, ad hominum attacks on Reardon's degree are the best way to distract the public from his actual findings...which Bazelon, Moody, and NOW never bother telling the public.--Strider12 (talk) 04:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't insult our intelligence. Oxford is accredited. PWU is not. In the "real world", it doesn't much matter if your degree came from Harvard or Midwestern State U. It does matter if your degree came from an unaccredited correspondence course. For instance, a degree from PWU would not be accepted by a number of U.S. states. An M.D. with a degree from an unaccredited school might not be eligible for licensure. In any case, the source of his degree was deemed notable by multiple independent, reliable secondary sources, so we report it. MastCell ^Talk 02:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright suit -- Get it right to avoid libel

I'm replacing the information about the Elliot Institute law suit which has multiple citations to non-partisen, reliable sources. These are much better sources than the recent KC Star story which had one line on the matter. It is important to get this right because the way MastCell would have it read essentially accuses Reardon of being guilty of copyright infringement...when in fact he and the Elliot Institute were only accused of infringement and never found guilty and the web site shutdown was only temporary. In fact, on the "news" section of elliotinstitute.org you can find court documents regarding the settlement of the case and a copy of the license the Elliot Institute had to use the images that they were accused of having stolen.

I don't object to the issue of the lawsuit being included. We just need to be fair and accurate, and should use more complete sources as it is clear that both sides were trying to spin the press to report it in a way that was most favorable to their own positions. And since the KC Star endorsed Amendment 2, it is likely that they tended to spin it against the Elliot Institute.--Strider12 (talk) 20:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The KC Star article doesn't even exist anymore. (Leads to a 404 Error.) http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/383142.html

The Findlaw Coverage is mainstream and contains detail devoted specifically to the story. I don't see a problem with using the Findlaw article rather than the outdated and non-existent KC Star article. http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/cmp/20060324/20060324perihall.html Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 01:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Strider, there are wikipedia rules against threatening liable LIBEL (excuse me for going too fast).--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually there are not. LIBEL (not liable) is something that that every single wikipedia editor has a duty to avoid. Libel is written Defamation. Here is a quick legal definition: http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?selected=1153&bold=||||

Wikipedia has rules against making WP:No Legal Threats but there is absolutely no policy against making sure that we do not engage in libel. In fact, it's a DUTY of wikipedia editors to ensure the same. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I agree with Strider12's edit to the Elliot Institute section. Strider12's paragraph reads:

In 2006 the Elliot Institute launched a petition initiative in Missouri titled "Regulation of Human-Animal Crossbreeds, Cloning, Transhumansim, and Human Engineering Is Reserved to the People."^[1] The initiative was promoted via the website www.ElliotInstitute.org which mimicked ("cloned") the look of the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures' website which was at the same time promoting theThe Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative. The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures sued the Elliot Institute in federal court for alleged copyright and trademark violations and an emergency injunction was granted which resulted in the temporary shut down of www.ElliotInstitute.org.^[2]

There is much more detail in Strider12's edit all of which is sourced directly to the Findlaw Article. Findlaw is much superior to the KC Star in the respect. There is nothing POV about it, and it links to a reliable non-partisan secondary source which provides much detail and is specific to the event referenced. The KC Star article is not specifically about the website, not to mention that a link to a topix.com archive is not preferable. I will revert this one edit. We can discuss the others.Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 17:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

This part of the article, like all others, ought to be based primarily on reliable, independent secondary sources. Let's use the findlaw reference and the KC Star reference, both of which cover the incident, rather than the Elliot Institute's take on the matter. MastCell ^Talk 18:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

None of what was changed was the "elliot institute's take on the matter." The changes were direct from the Findlaw article, which was specifically about the website, as opposed the the KC Star article which was about the larger vote as a whole. Surely you don't suggest that findlaw and the elliot institute are in on something together? Why change a paragraph to include LESS detail, rather than greater detail, when it's sourced from a publication that covers legal matters? Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Check out the changes now. I changed the wording to reflect the findlaw article, removed the Dakota Voice and Covenant News Links, and added a link to the Missouri Cures website. There is absolutely nothing in the reworded section that reflects the "Elliot Institute's take on the matter." Instead, it reflects findlaws reporting on the matter, and now contains added information and a link to the missouri cures website. None of which were reflected in the previous two sentence version. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

GM, your paragraph simply isn't composed in a detached, summary style. The paragraph reads from the point of view of the Elliot Institute - as evidenced by the link to the Government of Missouri website, the content of which is just a re-print of the Elliot Institute petition. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

How? It's a restatement of the facts from the Findlaw Article. A detached reliable secondary source. I added a link to the Missouri SOS website, which shows that the information in the Findlaw article is correct. The Facts are as follows:

• The Elliot Institute was promoting a ballot measure titled: "Regulation of Human-Animal Crossbreeds, Cloning, Transhumansim, and Human Engineering Is Reserved to the People".
• Missouri Cures was promoting a ballot measure titled: "Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative."
• The Elliot Institute website promoting the measure mimicked the Missouri Cures Website.
• Missouri Cures filed suit in Federal Court for Copyright violation, and was granted a temporary injunction which temporarily shut down the Elliot Institute Website.

Those are the facts. Read the Summary Again. It contains all of those facts, as reported by findlaw, and linked to the Missouri SOS website.

Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

New Paragraph:

In 2006 the Elliot Institute launched a petition initiative in Missouri titled "Regulation of Human-Animal Crossbreeds, Cloning, Transhumansim, and Human Engineering Is Reserved to the People".[5] The initiative was promoted via the Elliot Institute's website. [6] The layout of the website mimicked ("cloned") the look of a website maintained by the 'Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures'[7] which was at the same time promoting Missouri Constitutional Amendment 2 (2006). The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures sued the Elliot Institute in federal court for alleged copyright and trademark violations and an emergency injunction was granted which resulted in the temporary shut down of the Elliot Institute Website.[8]

Old Paragraph

Reardon and the Elliot Institute opposed The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative in 2006. Reardon created an opposition website which mimicked the site of the initiative's supporters; Reardon's website was ordered temporarily shut down by a federal judge as a violation of copyright.[5][6]

The Old Paragraph is factually incorrect. Read the Findlaw Article: http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bt/cmp/20060324/20060324perihall.html

Each group was backing a conflicting pro- or anti-stem-cell referendum proposed for the November ballot in Missouri. The Missouri Cures website was promoting the Pro-Stem Cell Ballot Measure. The Elliot Institute was promoting the "Regulation of Human-Animal Crossbreeds, Cloning, Transhumansim, and Human Engineering Is Reserved to the People" measure. The Elliot Institute promoted it's measure on a website that mimicked the Missouri Cures website. That's the facts. There is nothing there from the POV of the Elliot Institute. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

IronAngel, you complain about a summary based on the actual MO SOS website because it literally discloses what the initiative truly says?!?!? Your requirement that only sources that put a spin against what the Elliot Institute and Reardon ACTUALLY say is getting a bit absurd. No wonder you like secondary sources so much. And by the way, the Elliot Institute initiative did not oppose stem cells or even embryonic stem cells drawn from non-destructive sources (such as plancta), it only opposed creating and altering human embryos which would not be allowed to be born. It is likely that Reardon, like most, favors stem cell science and research, but only oppposes the vivisection of human embryos for the purpose of providing raw materials for experiments.--Strider12 (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's still about Point of View. The paragraph is not detached, and you are both clearly sympathetic to the Elliot Institute.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

HOW? You cannot unilaterally declare "It's still about Point of View. The paragraph is not detached". The paragraph in the article as written is factually inaccurate. I linked to the Missouri Secretary of State Website, The Findlaw.com Article, And the Missouri Cures webpage. All of these SECONDARY UNBIASED sources verify the new paragraph. The new paragraph provides information that is factually accurate and NPOV! You cannot unilaterally revert the information to a factually inaccurate paragraph. The new paragraph is not pro-elliot institute or pro-reardon in any way. If it is, please spell out how!Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

OK. I don't think the current issue, between Ghostmonkey's version and IronAngelAlice's, is about NPOV. Neither version is particularly favorable or unfavorable to the Elliot Institute, and they're both source-based. There is no reason we can't cite the text of the Elliott Institute's petition; the only requirement is that it be done in the context of secondary sources. I don't think Ghostmonkey's version is biased in any way; it just seems unecessarily hard to read. I'm going to take a shot at a compromise version. MastCell ^Talk 22:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you!Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I read your compromise version. I think it's OK, but would change it thus:

Reardon and the Elliot Institute opposed The Missouri Stem Cell Research and Cures Initiative in 2006, and proposed a competing initiative which would have prohibited all embryonic stem cell research and other types of genetic research in Missouri.[5] The Elliot institute created a website which mimicked the site the Missouri Cures website. The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures sued the Elliot Institute in federal court for alleged copyright and trademark violations. Consequently, the Elliot Institute website was ordered temporarily shut down by a federal judge as a violation of copyright.[6][7] Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

That would be fine with me, though I would say: "...The Elliot institute created a website which mimicked the site of a pro-stem-cell-research group, the Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures. The Missouri Coalition sued the Elliot Institute in federal court for alleged copyright and trademark violations..." Just moving a few words around for clarity. Otherwise looks good. MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. Thanks for your input. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

Oh, I forgot, do you think we need the link to the Missouri Cures website?Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 22:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I don't think so; the existing refs seem to cover everything. Personally I think the ref to the Elliott Institute's petition is probably overkill, but I don't feel very strongly about it. MastCell ^Talk 22:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The shutdown was due to a temporary injunction. Such injunctions are granted to give both sides an opportunity to prepare and present evidence. The injunction was granted because there was sufficient evidence to believe there might be a copyright violation. As this case never went to trial, but was settled, there was never a "judgment" by the judge that there was IN FACT a copyright violation. Therefore it is reaching to far to say the shutdown was because the judge determined that there was a copyright violation.--Strider12 (talk) 04:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am with you on a lot of your edits, and I agree this article needs a lot of work, BUT you are wrong on this one. There are four very specific and exacting requirements that must be met for an emergency injunction to be issued. (1) a substantial likelihood that the petitioner will prevail on the merits of the case; (2) a substantial risk of irreparable injury to the petitioner unless the injunction is granted; (3) no substantial harm to other interested persons in the case; and (4) no harm to the interest of the General public. See "In re Federal Grand Jury Proceedings", 975 F.2d 1488, 1492 (11th Cir. 1992); "MacBride v. Askew", 541 F.2d 465 (5th Cir. 1976) "Lundgrin v. Claytor", 619 F.2d 61 (10th Cir. 1980) and "Vittitow v. City of Upper Arlington", 43 F.23 1100, 1108-09 (6th Cir. 1995). If the petitioner fails on ANY of those, the injunction can not be issued. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 13:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

A substantial likelihood that the petitioner willl prevail is not a final decision, however. The injunction does not conclude as a matter of law or fact that there was a copyright violation, only that the plaintiff brought forth a suffiicently compelling case to presume that there is a copyright violation until further deliberations can be conducted. If you check "Settlement Reached On "Cloned" Website Allegations" you'll see that the Elliot Institute subsequently introduced evidence that they had licenses to use the contested images. In my opinion, Reardon and the Elliot Institute were overmatched by the highpowered legal team the Stower Foundation hired to shut them down the day after their site was publicized. With enough money, attorneys, and lies you can make anyone look bad.--Strider12 (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course. So the findlaw.com source touted so highly, which is entitled "Court Shuts Down Anti-Stem-Cell Web Site for Copyright Violations", should be subordinated to your opinions about money, attorneys, and lies. Not surprised, but saddened. MastCell ^Talk 02:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A headline, or a reporters one liner, is not always fully accurate. The whole article needs to be read in proper context. In this case, the clear context is that this was a temporary shut down for an alleged copyright violation.--Strider12 (talk) 03:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post-Abortion Trauma -- An expanded purging of inconvenient evidence

As most of you know, all references to David Reardon's peer reviewed studies have been purged from post-abortion syndrome. You may want to join the discussion page there now where there is an ongoing discussion regarding the blanking of any views of many other pro-choice or anti-abortion researchers (and the statistically validated findings in peer reviewed journals) which undermine the views of Stotland, Russo, Grimes, and Bazelon.--Strider12 (talk) 04:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you aware of any on-line locations where I can find the Testimony of Nancy Adler on behalf of the APA before Congress in 1989. From what I can gather from secondary sources, including planned parenthood, she admitted that PAS is REAL (unlike what many wikipedia editors insist) but claimed it was rare. According to Planned Parenthood, Adler claimed that approximately 10% of women suffer lingering depression and other psychological symptoms after an abortion. Whether this is accurate or not, the testimony would be a blanket rejection of the common "PAS is not real claim" made by many editors here on wikipedia. I've been searching the Congressional Record, but haven't had any luck finding a reprint of her testimony yet. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

I don't know about Adler's testimony. Are you referring to the article she and others published in Science in 1990?

I do know that Brenda Major, another co-author of the Science article, reported in 2000 that 1.4 percent of the women she followed two years after their abortions had PTSD attributable to abortion. See Pro-choice Researchers Acknowledge Existence of "Postabortion Syndrome" — Half a Million Affected. See also the south africa study listed at post-abortion syndrome which indicates that the rate may be far higher.

Adler's admission of depression and other symptoms does not equal PAS, at least as defined by Rue. Rue defines PAS as abortion associated PTSD. Other symptoms, like depression and anxiety may be caused or aggravatedby abortion, but are not PTSD. But PAS in the common use is often used to refer to any negative emotional reactions. This causes a lot of confusion. I personally prefer to avoid talking about PAS and instead refer to PTSD, or depression, or whatever.

Bottom line. Yes, Adler, Stotland, Russo, Major and all the PAS-deniers actually admit that some women do experience significant problems post-abortion but use phrases like "Most women do not experience significant pscyhological illness attributable to their abortions." That's carefully worded for headlines, but actually is framed to allow that many women do, and that perhaps most women even experiene pscyhological distress...but not distress sufficient to be called mental illness. Lot's of games like this are played to promote the notion that post-abortion problems are "rare."--Strider12 (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Apparently Adler testified before Congress on behalf of the APA in 1989. She expressly admitted that PAS does exist, although she claimed it was "rare" and she stated that about 10% of women suffer lingering depression and other psychological symptoms after an abortion. I'd like to find that Testimony. All I have of it comes from Planned Parenthood's version of the testimony, not the original source. Since even planned parenthood et al are acknowledging that PAS does exist, I don't know why wikipedia editors are pretending that it doesn't. I need to find a reprint of that Testimony. Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 23:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

If you manage to produce an actual source supporting all of this conjecture, we can revisit it. Please mind WP:SYN and WP:OR, as I find the claim that "Adler expressly admitted that PAS does exist" highly suspect. MastCell ^Talk 02:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Planned Parenthood, the source is: "N. Adler, statement on behalf of the American Psychological Association before the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations, U.S. House of Representatives, 1989-MAR-16, Pages 130-140." Their version of the Testimony is: "Up to 10 percent of women who have abortions experience depressive symptoms of a lingering nature (Adler, 1989). Similar symptoms occur in up to 10 percent of women after childbirth (Sachdev, 1993; Ziporyn, 1984; Zolese & Blacker, 1992)."

A Similar version to Planned Parenthood's appears on the Left-wing Religious Tolerance Site.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_post.htm A representative of the APA has testified before a committee of the U.S. House of Representatives that PAS does exist, but is less common than post-partum depression after a birth. I want to see the actual testimony, not planned parenthood et el's version of it.Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

OK. I'm not familiar with religioustolerance.com, but I'm not clear that it's either "left-wing" or a reliable source. Nonetheless, while we're engaging in WP:OR: if 10% of women experience depression after abortion, and 10% experience depression after childbirth, then that is evidence against a "post-abortion syndrome" - it indicates that the rate of depression is no different whether a woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy or carry it to term. Right? MastCell ^Talk 06:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I am familiar with the religioustolerance.com site, and not only is it left-wing, it's expressly pro-choice, further it is cited in Numerous wikipedia articles as a reliable source(On site example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Era#_note-RelTolrnc), specifically, it's referenced 779 times on wikipedia: (http://www.domaintools.com/enwikipedia/religioustolerance.org). And NO, your contention is incorrect, as Wikipedia editors keep insisting that PAS does not exist. If 10% of women suffer from psychological symptoms after an abortion, then it does exist. You can't equate the 10% who suffer from post-partum depression with the 10% who suffer from psychological symptoms after abortion, as the causation for the post partum depression involves carrying the child to term, whereas the 10% who suffer from post-abortion depression specifically DO NOT carry the child to term. Additionally, if the testimony before Congress on behalf of the APA was that "PAS exists but is rare" that's a far cry from it doesn't exist at all. As soon as I find a copy of Adler's testimony in the Congressional Record, we can put an end to this. You won't believe how large the record is.Ghostmonkey57 (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)Ghostmonkey57

"The causation for post-partum depression involves carrying the child to term"? Citation? In fact, there are no conclusive data on the cause of post-partum depression, although the hormonal changes occurring when a woman goes from "pregnant" to "not-pregnant" have been implicated (e.g. PMID 8173402, PMID 10831472). These changes occur, to some degree, whether a pregnancy ends in abortion, miscarriage, or live birth. Again, if rates of depression are equivalent whether a woman terminates her pregnancy or carries it to term, that would be evidence against, not for, a "post-abortion syndrome." In any case, there's no point in further speculation. Just provide the source when you find it and we'll go from there. MastCell ^Talk 20:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't need Adler's testimony. See Brenda Major's article in Archives of General Psychiatry, 2000. In a two year followup study of women (with a 50% or higher dropout rate), and using careful restrictive measures to include ONLY cases where abortion was the only factor contributing to PTSD, she found 1.4% had abortion associated PTSD, which is exactly the definition for PAS as proposed by Rue. See also the Wilmouth quote that virtually no one denies that at least some few number of women experience PTSD and other lasting sequalae. The real argument is that not enough women suffer problems to deserve public notice or public policy changes. The argument that "PAS doesn't exist" is a political one which fleshed out really says "PAS does't exist widely enough to bother confusing the abortion issue with it." Look at Stotland's commentary where she famously says PAS doesn't exist. In it she cites as proof Lask and Belsely's studies describing that a significant minority, over 10 percent, have disturbances.--Strider12 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

More misrepresentation of the medical literature, but at least your M.O. is consistent. Regarding the Major study, it in no way suggests that "abortion was the only factor contributing to PTSD": the authors specifically write that "The design of this study does not permit determination of whether psychological distress reported by our participants after abortion was caused by the abortion or by other events (eg, divorce or job loss) that intervened between the abortion and subsequent assessments of distress." The authors wrote in their discussion: "The rate of PTSD associated with abortion (1%) was substantially lower than the rate of PTSD in the general population of women in this age group (10.75%) and than the rate following traumas such as childhood physical abuse (48.5%) or rape (46%)." In other words, they found that the rate of PTSD in their study population was 10-fold lower than the rate in the general population. Whatever the reasons for this, it is clearly not evidence of any sort of "post-abortion syndrome". If you weren't so persistently deceptive about the literature, you might be taken more seriously. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

You are the one misrepresenting. The quote above refers not to PTSD bu to other measure of "pscyhological distress." In regard to PTSD, Major is very specific. Major measured those specific symptoms ONLY if they were closely attributable to abortion, and abortion alone. See p 779 of her paper in which Majors carefully describes the ABORTION SPECIFIC PTSD instrument is described:

The presence of postabortion syndrome was assessed (T4) with a published measure of PTSD created for use with Vietnam War veterans29 that was adapted to make it specific to responses to the abortion. This measure assessed PTSD using diagnostic criteria set forth in the diagnostic manual of the DSM-III-R.30 Women were asked whether the abortion was persistently reexperienced (in dreams or flashbacks, for example); whether there was persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the abortion (such as efforts to avoid feelings or thoughts associated with abortion); whether there was a numbing of general responsiveness that had not been present before the abortion; and whether there were persistent symptoms of increased arousal (such as difficulty falling asleep). If these symptoms occurred, women were asked whether they lasted more than 1 month. If so, women were classified as meeting the criteria for PTSD; otherwise, they were classified as not showing evidence of this syndrome.

In other words, her measures attempted to EXCLUDE all cases of PTSD that may be associated with other trauma. As PTSD is often related to multiple traumas, this does not mean that other traumas did not contribute to these cases, but it is clear that the measure was intended to identify only cases where abortion was also a contributing factor of the trauma. This narrow abortion specific questionnaire is why she reports PTSD levels below that of other researchers. Ironically, since avoidance behavior is a factor of PTSD, it is likely that many women experiencing PTSD are not aware or cannot articulate that abortion is the reason they are avoiding, for example, vacuum cleaners.

While Majors goes on to dismiss a 1.4% rate of abortion induced PTSD as not being important, to her, it is very important to the 1.4% who suffer abortion related PTSD and actually confirms Rue's hypothesis. Rue never asserted that most women who have abortions suffer from PTSD, he only said it happens to some.--Strider12 (talk) 15:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

MastCell states: "In fact, there are no conclusive data on the cause of post-partum depression..." In that case, if lack of conclusive proof of a causal connection is a basis for generally denying the existence of mental health effects associated with abortion, why is she not also editing the article on post-partum depression to deny that depression post-partum is associated with pregnancy outcome? Why do different standards apply to abortion? --Strider12 (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I've responded in the other forum where you've spammed this comment. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bazelon's Errors, Biases, and Distortions

For analyses by media experts, researchers, and commentary by persons interviewed by Bazelon, see Symposium: Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome The contribution "Heartless Bastards" is particularly interesting--Strider12 (talk) 04:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

As this source fails WP:V and WP:RS in pretty spectacular fashion, I'm not sure what constructive purpose you hope to gain by posting it here. MastCell ^Talk 20:39, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it not verifiable that Bazelon does not mention Fergusson's research, nor that she does not give any specifics regarding Reardon's findings which are just dismissed? Are the quotes and points raised by her critics not as verifiable, even more so, than the quotes and points raised against Reardon? It is also verifiable that these critics have made these criticisms, and as long as the criticisms are properly attributed to the critic, as opinions, not facts, they are allowable, as you well know.--Strider12 (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't "well know" that every self-published or unreliable, partisan website that disputes something in the New York Times inherently deserves inclusion. Please stop the original research, advocacy, and tendentious editing. MastCell ^Talk 02:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The Human Life Review is a respected journal carried in many university libraries, see for example the Cornell Library. Just as Family Planning Perspectives, Planned Parenthood/Alan Guttmacher Institute's publication is widely accepted as a reliable source, so are many academic publications with a Christian or pro-life editorial slant.

Further, these criticisms highlight that Bazelon is not a "neutral reporter." She was writing a magazine article to prove her preconceived thesis. Trained as an attorney, she gathers evidence to support her case and presents HER case, not the other side's case. Her article is not an open ended investigation to give both sides of the debate--she deliberately excludes Fergusson and doesn't even report any of Reardon's actual findings--but instead lays the ad hominum attacks on thick.

Again, it is a notable article in regard to defining the controversy, but it is not a determinative article of WEIGHT, as you try to portray it, that can be used to exclude contrary opinions.--Strider12 (talk) 03:31, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

The Human Life Review is a partisan source. Since I have not proposed citing Planned Parenthood nor Guttmacher, those are strawmen. The New York Times Magazine is a reliable source. Next. MastCell ^Talk 05:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

New York Times is a partisan source as evidenced by the fact that it regularly editorializes in favor of abortion. Just because a publication has a large readership doesn't prove that it's material is neutral. Futhermore, the NYT Magazine is not even news...it a offered as a magazine providing commentary and analysis. Bazelon's article is an analysis, an argument promoting a viewpoint that the pro-lifers are using the question of mental health effects to promote a political agenda. She does not report on Fergusson or even any of Reardon's studies. She is trained as a lawyer. She is presenting the prosecution's case. She does not present the case of the defendants. The Human Life Review represents the views of academics, and some of those interviewed (cross examined), who point to flaws in the prosecution's case.--Strider12 (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The Human Life Review is a partisan source. The New York Times Magazine is a reliable, independent secondary source, per Wikipedia's definitions. If you disagree, take it to the reliable sources noticeboard, but you've failed to convince anyone here with your arguments and now you're just being tendentious. Next. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

((Broken record mode on)) First, many people have lists of publications a mile long. There is no point to listing them all. Second, I agree with Mastcell about our use of the New York Times Magazine article. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Placement of PWU criticism

Criticisms of Reardon's degree from PWU belong in the criticism section along with those who make this criticism. It has already been agreed that it is original research to expand on this by inserting comments or links to articles regarding PWU's perceived faults. And it is absurd to put a separate section in the article for this one point, especially with the heading "Academic Credentials" when editors are constantly deleting a listing of Reardon's peer reviewed articles, even though those form a more importnat part of anyone's academic credentials. Highlighting this criticism in it's own section gives it undue weight Strider12 (talk) 21:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It may be a good idea to merge the details of Reardon's degree into a larger section on his biographical details. However, it is not "criticism", nor is it an "allegation" as framed by Strider12's recent edits. It's a verifiable fact which gains notability by virtue of its mention in several independent, reliable secondary sources. MastCell ^Talk 22:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I'm still waiting for the link to Wikipedia policy showing that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources.--Strider12 (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I have provided it at least twice already, on threads above. The policy is Wikipedia:No original research, and your unfamiliarity with it is evident. Specifically, it reads: "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy observes, correclty, that science articles in the popular press should not be treated as reliable. Peer reviewed articles are clearly more reliable, and that is not disputed on the page you cite. As most, it would seem to recommend that preferred sources should be from peer reviewed articles that review the literature.--Strider12 (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia policy does not observe that. You are citing an essay. You can tell by the banner at the top of the page you cited, which reads "This is an essay... It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." (emphasis in original). Please consider re-reading it and revising your claims to reflect that fact. Individual primary sources (peer-reviewed or not), as selected and quote-mined by an editor with an obvious single-minded agenda, are not preferred over reliable secondary sources like the New York Times. There's just no amount of spinning that's going to override that basic, fundamental item of policy. I'm sorry. MastCell ^Talk 21:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, please stop moving the well-sourced info on Reardon's degree to "press criticisms". It's a verifiable, notable fact, not a "criticism". If you feel it's been given undue weight, I've proposed a new edit in which it's incorporated into an existing section rather than stand-alone, but please stop reverting - you clearly don't have consensus for this change, as has been made clear on the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 19:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Please show your proposed change, as I cannot find it. In the meantime, I'm replacing the verifiable, notable fact, clearly relevent material about his credentials as a published researcher. I can add a citation to each pubilcation if you like.--Strider12 (talk) 20:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do Not Cause Disruption by Deleting Verifiable Information

There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.1 To quote advice from wp:TEND Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.

Please do not cause disruption by deleting portions of Reardon's bibliography.--Strider12 (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please do not change consensus text. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you're off-base in repeatedly quoting that ArbCom finding. The issue under discussion is that many of us find that your edits generally do not comply with WP:NPOV and/or WP:NOR. Thus, as they are not properly sourced (for the conclusions you draw) nor neutrally written, they do not fall under the purview of the ArbCom finding, but rather that of Wikipedia's core policies. MastCell ^Talk 23:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Mast, you are always so thoughtful. I hate to see you waste your time, though. You are now at the point of repeating reasons 2-3 times. You should make a list of responses to cut and paste. And we'll all keep an eye on the page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

What is not verifiable or not neutral regarding the following?

Reardon has twenty-five publications in peer reviewed medical journals, including over a dozen statistically validated empiracle studies published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southern Medical Journal (SMJ), American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG), Obstetrics and Gynecology, Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), Journal of Anxiety Disorders, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Medical Science Monitor, American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, Sleep, and the Journal of Medical Ethics.

If you honestly see anything in it which is not verifiable let me know and I'll give a cite for each publication. If you feel the wording is not sufficiently neutral, fix it, don't delete it.

Deleting verifiable material is disruption and I've started keeping a log so that when we end up in arbitration and editors start getting banned, it will be clear who is deleting material for the purpose of POV-pushing. Clearly, Ghostmonkey agrees with me that this article is being strongly biased by anti-Reardon editors who want to emphasize criticisms and to hide his accomplishments. A list of his peer reviewed articles is relevent, verifiable and neutrally stated. Let's please work together to retain material and to organize it in an increasingly beneficial manner.--Strider12 (talk) 03:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

We've been over this before, but a listing of the number of articles and every journal he's ever published in is way out of line with other biographies. Listing his books is one thing; we should do that. Citing his published studies and summarizing his research is one thing; we should do that. Stating that he's published "25 statistically validated empirical studies", and then listing every one, is peacocking. We summarize his research, note that he's been published in the peer-reviewed literatuer, and cite his peer-reviewed studies; but Wikipedia is not PubMed and need not recapitulate the results of a PubMed search. You seem to believe that doing so adds to Reardon's credibility beyond what we already cover, but it doesn't - it just makes the article less readable/encyclopedic and more like a promotional blurb. MastCell ^Talk 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

And I and Ghostmonkey and others have disagreed. His studies are part of his academic credentials--and the most important part. Deleting these, in combination with giving undue weight to reports that his degree are from PWU (plus original research on PWU that is not related to Reardon), is clearly an attempt to diminish his credibility and to hide his peer reviewed studies. As time permits, I intend to add brief summaries of each study, which is also verifiable and relevent.

By the way, since you have not been able to find quotes from Reardon's book confirming Bazelon's characterizations of it, please move her summary down to the section about her article and clarify that these are her descriptions of the book. It is verifiable that she described the book that way, but as I have examined the book and not found her description verifiable and you have not been able to show that it is verifiable, we should not present her description as fact but rather asw her opinion. --Strider12 (talk) 22:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

((Broken record mode on)) First, many people have lists of publications a mile long. There is no point to listing them all. Second, I agree with Mastcell [above] about our use of the New York Times Magazine article. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not "undue weight" to mention PWU, since multiple independent, reliable secondary sources have found it notable. You seem to believe that Wikipedia works like this: "The New York Times said X. I have looked into it and I don't think X is true. Therefore, we cannot cite the New York Times." No. If you can produce an equally reliable source impugning or disputing the New York Times, then we include it. If you simply don't agree with what the Times wrote, then write a Letter To The Editor. MastCell ^Talk 23:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The PWU material is given undue weight by it's placement at the top of the article and by a separate heading and by your insistence on excluding other pertinent facts regarding his academic credentials.

Regarding Bazelon's characterization of his book, it is "fact" that she made these characterizations and it is appropriate to list them as HER characterizations. But they should not be portrayed as a fact in the body of the article since I have examined the book and found her characterizations to be false and you have failed to find quotes from the book that verify her characterizations. In other words, Bazelon's opinions may be cited as "notable" because they are in the New York Times Magazine, but they are not independently verifiable facts with regard to descriptions of his book. I'm allowing you the courtesy of being allowed to move it to the Bazelon sections of criticisms and attribute it, in the text, with quotes drawn from her article in fashion like "Bazelon describes his book as reporting 'found high rates of nervous breakdowns, substance abuse, and suicide attempts' and as claiming 'proof of a link between abortion and psychological harm'" etc. That is acceptable under NOR policy and reliable sources pointing to notable controversy. But the current paragraph regarding his WEBA research is clearly not verifiable, and no editor has offered verification for it, except to cite Bazelon's opinion. As it is only Bazelon's opinion, it MUST be reflected as such in the article.--Strider12 (talk) 22:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Sorry. This is a news piece in the New York Times Magazine, meaning it was heavily fact-checked before publication and open to correction should any factual inaccuracies be brought up after publication. Attribution via footnote is appropriate; prefacing every statement with "Bazelon claims..." or segregating its findings in a "Criticism" ghetto, because you personally disagree with them, is not appropriate. "Verifiable", in Wikipedia's context, refers to a fact reported in, say, the New York Times. It does not require that you, Strider12, be satisfied with it. If you have "examined the book and found [Bazelon's] characterizations to be false", then write a letter to the New York Times dsecribing these false claims. They employ a whole staff of people to correct factual mistakes. But the fact that you disagree with something printed in the New York Times does not mean it ceases to be verifiable. This is starting to feel like Groundhog Day. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If it is not verifiable by Wikipedia editors, it should not be listed as an objective "fact." The exception for including it is to include it as a "fact" that Bazelon describes the book in this way. You should know that. Let's stop disputing things that can be remedied just by moving them and better attributing the claim to the source in the text. I respect having material in, even if I disagree with the opinion, provided it is properly attributed in the text to the person who has the opinion. I believe that fits with the Wikipedia policy on how to deal with verifiable opinions. --Strider12 (talk) 22:15, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

This shows a remarkably deep misunderstanding of WP:V. It is verifiable by Wikipedia editors; follow the link to the New York Times website and you will see it verified by its publication in a highly reliable, fact-checked source. This is the difference between verifiability and "truth", a fundamental policy issue which your comment ignores. The statement is properly attributed, via footnote. We don't mark everything reported in the New York Times as "[Author name] claims..." and put it under a "Criticism" section. We inline-reference the source, thus attributing it. MastCell ^Talk 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

See Attributing and substantiating biased statements as just one policy regarding this. See also General references versus inline citations. Also WP:SOURCES specifically states that "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." In other words, the TEXT, not just the footnote, should attribute who says what. Following these practices would make this article more balanced.--Strider12 (talk) 23:11, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

More wikilawyering. Those apply when there is a dispute between two reliable sources. Here, there is a dispute between a reliable source and a partisan single-purpose tendentious editor who disagrees with that source. New York Times articles are generally not considered "biased sources" - that applies to sources like your priestsforlife.org citation, or equally to Planned Parenthood. The other pages you cite say nothing applicable here. MastCell ^Talk 23:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Publications in Bibliography

MastCell has been asserting that biographies should not include a listing of the subject's peer reviewed articles. I decided to check and found that such listings apparantly are common. See Einstein's publications for example. I'm therefore replacing the full bibliograpy. If MastCell wants to remove the letters to the journals, that would be fine.--Strider12 (talk) 21:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you'll agree that Albert Einstein is in a slightly different league than David Reardon, and that a number of Einstein's papers have acquired independent notability as artifacts in the history of science. A more relevant comparison might be, for example, Eric Fombonne, who has published over 130 peer-reviewed articles - yet they are not listed individually. Rather than produce a rather lame argument and reinsert an edit which lacks anything near consensus and has been reverted again and again, how about trying to actually convince someone of your position before edit-warring? MastCell ^Talk 22:25, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about leagues, we're talking about bibliographies. This article is slanted to imply that Reardon is a biased hack. This slant is reinforced by repeated efforts to delete a listing of his works that have been ACCEPTED BY HIS PEERS as evidence of his substantial contributions to his field of research. The undue emphasis placed on his degree from PWU is an example of this and is properly balanced by a listing of his peer reviewed publications. Even if had a Ph.D. from Oxford, it wouldn't make his findings any less controversial. And if he had only a high school education, would that make his accomplishments less or more impressive?

Ghostmonkey agrees with me that the listing should be included. And moreover, consensus is not necessary to include verifiable facts. Consensus should be sought for organization and presentation of facts...not for efforts to purge information that counters a POV-push.--Strider12 (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll ignore the broken record at the end of your comment. It is not appropriate to compare the article on Einstein to the article on Reardon and demand that they be stylistically identical. If you want to perform that sort of comparison, choose a more reasonable comparator. It's clear you're trying to insert a full bibliography, which is distinctly unusual for this sort of bio, as a tool to resolve what you see as a POV issue. Instead of playing games and comparing this article to Einstein's, resolve the underlying issue. You do that by getting people to see your point and agree, or compromise, which you've thus far shown no interest in doing.

There is no "undue emphasis" being placed on his degree. Undue weight would be if I combed through online records and I noted, using a primary source, that his degree was unaccredited. Instead, it's covered and deemed notable in multiple reliable secondary sources. It fact, it's one of the best-referenced, third-party-verified things in the article and warrants a single sentence, which is what it's been given. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see you've already got this down on your attack page... always nice to see good faith in action. MastCell ^Talk 22:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not an attack page. It's a log, because I find it hard to keep track of who is deleting all my contributions. I appreciate your wikistalking all my posts.--Strider12 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why you object to having Bazelon's descripiton of his WEBA study in her section properly attributed to her?--Strider12 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It is properly attributed to her, hence the reference footnote. I object to your attempt to poison the well by prefacing every verifiable item you dislike with "[Author name] asserts...". As to "wikistalking", please stop throwing out accusations to see what sticks. You're keeping a log of supposed flaws of other editors, including myself - it's hardly "wikistalking" to note that - and it violates the userpage policy in any case, as you obviously have no intention of pursuing any sort of dispute resolution. MastCell ^Talk 23:18, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Bazelon's attack article disagrees with every review article of Reardon's book and Reardon's book itself. As shown above, Bazelon's article has been widely criticzed for bias. NYT checks quotations, to avoid libel, not the opinions of it's free lance writers. An OPINION in the NYT is not a FACT. It is at best a notable OPINION which should be identified in the text as the opinion of the the author.

I have given you an opportunity to find support in Reardon's book for Bazelon's charcterizations, but you have not provided it. The policy to identify views to the author IN THE TEXT is clear and you continue to violate it, see WP:SOURCES. The only purpose served by this violation is to make Bazelon's OPINIONS look like universally accepted facts. They are not. You are the one trying to "poison the well" by filling the article with insinuations portrayed as fact while simultaneously blanking verifiable information about Reardon's bibliography and deleting quotes from his books and works which put the cherry-picked points from his critics into fuller perspective. You have shown no good will toward either the subject, Reardon, or to my contributions. As you know ArbCom has ruled that deleting NPOV presented, verifiable information is disruption. If you don't think the FACTS I include are worded in sufficiently NPOV fashion, edit the presentation, but do not delete them.--Strider12 (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times Magazine article is not an "opinion" piece, and there's no reason to think that the Times' normal fact-checking procedures were magically suspended for its publication. If there are independent reliable sources (e.g. not priestsforlife.org) which describe her article as biased, please present them because I've not seen them. I am not required to read Reardon's book to verify things printed in the New York Times; rather, if you think the Times piece is incorrect or biased, you can either a) present a reliable secondary source alleging such bias, or b) write the Times corrections department about these factual errors you keep alleging. I can guarantee that the Times will assiduously correct any inaccuracies that they've printed should you demonstrate them. Your tactics make it nearly impossible to work constructively with you, and I'm not interested in responding further to yet another screed filled with the same old personal attacks and wikilawyering. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

See "Symposium: Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome", (referenced and linked above) which was published in a respected journal of opinion dealing with life issues that is widely subscribed to by most major universities. The articles are by university professors and persons interviewd by Bazelon. NYT fact checking does not go to the level you imply as editors certainly allow magazine articles to have a provocative slant that express opinions and builds arguments. I have found that Bazelon's characteriztion of the book are not accurate. Perhaps she was just reporting how Russo described it. You do need to read the book if you want to verify material that other editors have found to be false, otherwise, just allow the material in the text to Bazelon. That's a simple compromise which follows policy, and retains the claims in the article, but properly presented as claims not fact. This isn't wikilawyering, it's common sense. Why are you so opposed to letting Bazelon's views be presented as her views?--Strider12 (talk) 18:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your obvious leading, framed questions have been asked and answered numerous times. You cite a partisan pro-life journal, which (like Planned Parenthood, for example) is an entirely different category of source from the New York Times. We're not talking about a "provocative slant" - you claim the NYT article is factually incorrect. The Times addresses factual errors quite assiduously. I am absolutely opposed to your constant attempts to poison and downplay the best reliable, independent secondary source we have for this article by citing a partisan pro-life journal and your own editorial conclusions. It should be apparent by now that an endless repetition of the same argument is not convincing; the options are to bring something new to the table or pursue dispute resolution by trying to get more outside input. MastCell ^Talk 19:04, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Citation

The article reads:

In a 2002 article in Ethics & Medicine, Reardon argued that in order to be effective, pro-life efforts had to present "a moral vision that consistently demonstrates just as much concern for women as for their unborn children."[22] Reardon therefore encouraged the pro-life movement to embrace and disseminate information stating that abortion was harmful to women, writing:

In some cases, it is unnecessary to convince people of abortion's dangers. It is sufficient simply to raise enough doubts about abortion that they will refuse actively to oppose the proposed anti-abortion initiative.[22]

Both citations to 22 are described as from the Ethics & Medicine article but 22 references Making Abortion Rare instead. Whoever changed this should verify and fix.

Also, the phrase "Reardon therefore encouraged the pro-life movement to embrace and disseminate information stating that abortion was harmful to women" is clearly not only OA but a claim of omniscience regarding waht was going on in his mind. A better transition is possible, but let's figure out which source(s) are to be cited.--Strider12 (talk) 22:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Reardon's article in Ethics and Medicine contains that quote; it is correctly cited to PMID 14700036. This entire article is an exhortation to the pro-life movement to embrace and disseminate information on the purported harmfulness of abortion to women. This is the "neglected rhetorical strategy" which Reardon advocates in the article. One need not be omniscient when an author explicitly sets forth a strategy. MastCell ^Talk 22:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I found a copy and do not find the quote anywhere in it. Can you give a page number? For the time being I removed the cite and replaced with cite needed.

My read on it is totally different. He's arguing with a pro-life radical, Beckwith, who is arguing against what he calls a "new rhetorical strategy" championed by Reardon which gives attention to women hurt by abortion. Beckwith argues that attention to hurt women distracts from the pro-life emphasis on the unborn child, which Beckwith insists is the only moral issue that needs to be addressed. Reardon says it is not a "new rhetorical strategy" but a "neglected" strategy which reflects the failure of the pro-life movement to adequately address the legitimate concerns of women pushed into unwanted abortions or hurt by abortion. Reardon is simply arguing with Beckwith to assert that BOTH the woman and child deserve equal consideration and attention, and moreover, increased public awareness of the fact that women are hurt by abortion may be more effective in changing public opinion on abortion in general. Reardon is not nearly as heartless or manipulating as you and Baezelon (or are you the same person?) portray him to be. --Strider12 (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Then the cite should be to Ethics and Medicine. The "therefore" is interpretation, because of A he does B. It is possible he does A and B without a therefore between them.--Strider12 (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

It would be absolutely fine to remove the word "therefore", if that is your objection. The cite is to E&M. MastCell ^Talk 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Weren't we going to take an action on Strider?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you call in a mediator? I don't know the procedure and don't have time to look it up.--Strider12 (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New tag bombing tactic

I'm not going to 3R today, but I will remove the tag tomorrow. Strider, you are attempting to influence the article by insinuating the references are biased via tag bombing. Again, please apply for arbitration if you feel your point a view is more valid. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing the "unbalanced" tag. You are the one making disruptive edits, as defined by ArbCom, in removing verifable material. Leave the banner tags alone. If you really want to work toward a balanced, NPOV article with verifiable sources, try working the material I bring forward into the article instead of cutting it all the time. THAT is how collaboration is supposed to work.--Strider12 (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Articles Books Politics

I've expanded these sections and moved the Bazelon comments on his WEBA study and Grime's "most doctors" claim to the criticim sections. Please try to work with me on this instead of just deleting stuff again. I think this is a good start to restoring some balance to this article.--Strider12 (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, segregating reliable, independent secondary sources into a "Criticism" ghetto and rewriting the article based on self-published primary sources affiliated with the subject is most certainly not a step toward "balance". Quite the opposite. MastCell ^Talk 23:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not use any self-published sources. Baezlon's opinions should clearly be attributed to her in the text.

I am not trying to create a "ghetto" for criticisms. Clearly it is a reasonable organization to put crticisms in their own section. But if you think it better to have a "he says" - "his critics say" organization pattern, I don't object to that. But even then, I believe Bazelon's criticisms of his WEBA study should be attributed in the text to her, as all criticisms rather than implying that any particular criticism is a fact or that it is held "most experts" unless we identify who is making the claim of what "most experts" believe. If we reorganize to put published criticims from reliable sources next to each of Reardon's publicatios, however, it would NOT be appropriate to delete descritions of his pulications which have not been criticized. In other words, this isn't supposed to be juat a collection of embarrassing facts and article about criticims about Reardon, it supposed to be about the totality of his career, criticized and uncriticized.--Strider12 (talk) 05:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your last point. I disagree with most everything else; separate "criticism" sections are generally undesirable. A better solution is to incorporate what reliable secondary sources have to say about someone (positive and negative) into a single narrative. Also, many of the things you identify as "criticism" are not really criticism; they are independent articles or studies from reliable sources about a controversial issue where most experts consider Reardon to be wrong. Segregating these articles as "criticism of Reardon" minimizes them and creates a false and inaccurate picture. MastCell ^Talk 06:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What Koop told Reagan

IronAngelAlice has changed the description of what Koop told Reagan from:

...and with the conclusions which Surgeon General C. Everett Koop delivered to President Reagan in 1988. Koop stated that "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women."

To:

...and with the conclusions which Surgeon General C. Everett Koop delivered to President Reagan in 1988. Koop stated that the psychological risks from abortion are "miniscule from a public health perspective."

In doing so she has changed the statement from truthful to untruthful. She transplanted what Koop said in Congressional testimony to replace what he said to Reagan.

What the cited Washington Monthly article actually says is:

In a letter to Reagan declining to produce the desired report, Koop wrote, "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." In congressional testimony, Koop added that psychological risks from abortion are "miniscule from a public health perspective."

Koop, of course, is pro-life. He knows that killing unborn babies is evil. However, as he told Reagan, despite the abundant anecdotal evidence of abortion causing psychological harm to individual mothers, there was no conclusive scientific data on the subject. What's more, he told Congress that the aggregate effect on public health of the psychological effects of abortion appeared to be tiny.

It is important to understand what that phrase, "from a public health perspective," means. It does not mean that abortion does not harm mothers. The risks from Naegleria fowleri are also miniscule from a public health perspective, because it kills only a handful of people per year. To state that something has a miniscule effect "from a public health perspective" simply means that it doesn't cause enough harm to enough people to have a large aggregate effect on the population as a whole. NCdave (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I have personally seen the devastation that abortion causes to at least some of its maternal victims. The following is a personal anecdote, so it obviously doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article. But it will serve to show why I have no patience with those who claim there's no such thing as post-abortion trauma. I know better. I've seen it for myself.

About a decade ago I did some volunteer work for a small local charity. During a transition, had the charity's phone number redirected to a distinctive ring number on my home phone for about a month, and during that month I got a phone call that I will never forget.

There was a hurricane threatening the NC coast at the time. (We get a lot of hurricanes here!) All over eastern North Carolina, grocery stores were mobbed by people buying bread and bottled water and flashlight batteries. That was what triggered the call.

The lady did not give her name. It was on caller ID, but out of respect for her privacy I didn't write it down or memorize it. She was crying and crying. She needed someone to talk to, and could not talk to anyone she knew. So she called a complete stranger, and she got me.

I didn't have any counseling training, but I did my best to lend her a sympathetic ear. I also gave her the phone numbers for Project Rachel and a Pregnancy Life Care Center, a local CPC which I knew does post-abortion counseling.

She had had her abortion a couple of years earlier, when another hurricane was threatening the North Carolina coast. She'd not told anyone she knew. After the abortion, she put it out of her mind, and just went on with her life.

That worked for a while. But when she walked into a grocery store a couple of years later, and saw the bare bread shelves and the lines of people at the checkout lanes, the walled-up memories burst loose, and she fell apart. (I've since read that that sort of thing is common.)

So she called me. She could not stop crying. She was overwhelmed with regret and guilt about what she had done. She'd have done anything to be able to undo it. She could not talk to anyone in her family because they didn't know her secret. She said she was in her upper 30s, and the child she'd aborted was probably the only one she would ever have. She was a Christian, and an active churchgoer, but she said she couldn't talk to her pastor or anyone at her church because she couldn't bear the thought of what they would think of her if they knew what she had done. She was obviously very repentant, so I reminded her that Christ paid the price for her sin, and God forgives the sins that we repent of. She answered that she knew what I said was true, but she could not forgive herself.

Nobody who heard the agony in that poor woman's voice could doubt the reality of post-abortion trauma. Even now I have a hard time telling the story without my voice catching. NCdave (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Woah, that's a giant leap in logic, NCdave. You can't compare abortion to Naegleria fowleri. If ingested, the Naegleria fowleri will cause your death. Abortion, however, does not cause negative mental health effects in and of itself. Of course an Evangelical (fundamentalist) or Roman Catholic will feel guilt after an abortion. But, this is a result of a specific kind of religious belief (see Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice for alternative beliefs), not the abortion itself. Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Ted Haggard, etc., have spent/are spending half their careers making sure that women feel guilty about their reproductive choices. Additionally, if a woman already has depression, or a substance abuse problem an emotional and difficult experience like an abortion will compound pre-existing emotional problems. For the vast majority of women, however, an abortion will be not cause mental anguish.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

NCdave, the above post is a pretty blatant misuse of an article talk page as a soapbox, right down to spamming external links for a "pregnancy crisis center" in the middle of your post (which I've removed). I'm not going to remove the post out of respect, but from here on please use this talk page appropriately, to discuss specific improvements to this article. Also, on controversial topics, it's sometimes wise to avoid excessively and intentionally inflammatory language ("He knows that killing unborn babies is evil") if your interest is in building consensus. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

In the first place, Alice, it is preposterous to claim that killing one's own unborn child does not cause negative mental health effects. Harm to a child is always traumatic to the mother. As Dr. Reardon has said, no woman wants an abortion, in the sense that she wants new shoes or a chocolate desert. Most women who get abortions do so because they feel trapped, with no other realistic options. Most don't truly choose abortion; rather, they get an abortion because they feel that they don't have any other real choices. A mom "wants" an abortion like a wild animal, with its leg caught in a steel trap, "wants" to gnaw its leg off. No reasonable person would argue with the fact that abortion is tragic. The argument among decent people is about when it is nevertheless justifiable, and who should make that judgment.

What's more, even not counting the babies who die, elective abortion kills more Americans every year than Naegleria Fowleri does. That also doesn't even count the increased suicide rates, the increased breast cancer rates, etc., later in life. That's just deaths while under the knife or immediately following. Even the CDC, which undercounts deaths caused by abortion, reports an average of 7-10 such deaths per year. N. Fowleri only kills an average of 2-3 people per year. (Also, a nit: being "ingested" is not how N. Fowleri kills you.)

I'm going to attempt a compromise on the Koop sentence, by including both of the quotes from the Washington Monthly article. Because of the left-of-center politics of that magazine, there is obviously a problem with relying solely on their short snippets from Koop's statements. It would be much better to find Koop's original letter to Reagan and the transcript of Koop's Congressional testimony. But until we find them, we can at least try to accurately describe what the Washington Monthly article said, and not skew it even further to the Left. NCdave (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

MastCell, that's not a soapbox, that's what I know from personal experience that is relevant to this article. That experience is why I have no patience for those who claim that post-abortion trauma is a myth. Those links are not "spam," they are references to the specific CPC whose phone number I gave to that crying lady, and the post-abortion counseling services that they offer. Please do not censor what I say, and I won't censor what you say. Okay? NCdave (talk) 19:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Alice, please stop equating "evangelical" with "fundamentalist" as you did in this phrase:

"...an Evangelical (fundamentalist)..."

I am an Evangelical. I am not a Fundamentalist. The terms have different meanings. NCdave (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was using the technical term. "Fundamentalist" refers to the theology popularized in America in the mid-1800's (The Great Awakening), of which "Evangelicalism" is a part. This theology was termed"fundamentalist" because in the belief of a literal interpretation of the Bible, and consequently getting back to "fundamentals." Those denominations that have a literal interpretation of the Bible are the Assemblies of God, the Church of Christ (commonly referred to as non-denominational), and the Southern Baptist Convention. A good book on this subject is Thy Kindgom Come by Randall Herbert Balmer, Professor of Religion and History at Barnard College.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

No, Evangelicalism is not a part of Fundamentalism. Here's an excerpt from an article, from the respected Barna polling organization:

Most pastors describe their church as “evangelical” (83%) and as “theologically conservative” (79%). While a majority says theirs is “seeker-sensitive” (54%), only one-third say their church is “seeker-driven” (34%). Four out of ten claim their congregation is “fundamentalist” (40%), while lesser proportions claim the descriptions “charismatic” (23%), “Pentecostal” (22%), or “theologically liberal” (13%).

If 40% are fundamentalist and 83% are evangelical, how can evangelicals be a subset of fundamentalists?

AoG is Charismatic. Most Church of Christ churches are Fundamentalist. Southern Baptist is Evangelical but not Fundamentalist. If that book you recommend says that evangelicalism is a part of fundamentalism, then I suggest that you find a new book, because the author doesn't know what he's talking about. NCdave (talk) 09:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(Beats head on desk) Historically, theologically, Evangelicals are fundamentalists. That's how scholars define them.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 15:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman, PhD, chairman of the religious studies department at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, has some good articles and books on the subject as well.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

That's nonsense. Christian scholars certainly don't define categories of Christians in ways that are radically different from how all other Christians (including Christian pastors) define them. Bart Ehrman, sadly, is a critic of orthodox Christianity. Nevertheless, I very much doubt that even Ehrman would mischaracterize evangelicals as being a subset of fundamentalists. He may be unorthodox, or even heretical, but he's not ridiculous.

If you really think that all evangelicals are fundies, then how do you explain the fact that 40% of the surveyed pastors call their own churches fundamentalist, but 83% call them evangelical?

Since you are not a Christian and I am, don't you think I just might know what I'm talking about? I am in classes about Christianity many dozens of times per year, and I very rarely fall asleep. NCdave (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

I am Episcopalian at present, and grew up in the United Church of Christ where I also feel comfortable.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

← Can we please make at least the appearance of an attempt to keep discussion on this page appropriate, focused, and on-topic? MastCell ^Talk 19:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

You are absolutely right, MastCell --IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Verifiability, not truth

One of my favorite phrases is from WP:Verifiability: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." I've found that a lot of talk page discussions and a lot of edit warring would disappear if more people paid heed to that one sentence. The preceding talk section titled "What Koop told Reagan" is almost entirely a debate about the truth, not about any WP policies. It is useless.

The discussion above was about whether certain wording was truthful or untruthful. The debate should be first about whether it is verifiable through references to reliable sources. Once a statement crosses that threshold, then there can be discussion about WP:NPOV and WP:Undue weight. Such a discussion is useful because it is about WP policies for including material.

Looking at the material in question, I see a reliable source that Koop wrote to President Reagan "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." I do not see a policy reason for removing that text. If you debate policy, not truth, not personal opinion, not anecdotal evidence, then you will have much shorter, easier-to-resolve debates and less edit warring. Sbowers3 (talk) 17:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The cited source quotes both "...do not provide conclusive data..." and "... miniscule from a public health perspective." However, since the focus of this article is David Reardon, it might make more sense to work with the text relating to Reardon rather than argue about which of Koop's quotes to use. Mooney wrote:

But the notion that abortion regularly causes severe or clinical mental problems has been rejected by, among others, a group of experts convened by the American Psychological Association and Ronald Reagan's surgeon general, C. Everett Koop.

Why not just say something like: "Mooney noted that the idea of abortion as a regular cause of severe mental problems has been rejected by the APA and by former Surgeon General Koop"? Leave the quotes out - we can fight about those on abortion and mental health. That would be my preference, since it's more in line with what the cited source has to say specifically about Reardon rather than about Koop and the abortion debate in general. MastCell ^Talk 17:30, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sbowers, the [Abortion and Mental Health Page] has the full quote, and the full story about Koop. Why muddy the waters with a quote from a sidebar to the actual article: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0410.mooney.html

In the article, Mooney writes only:

"But the notion that abortion regularly causes severe or clinical mental problems has been rejected by, among others, a group of experts convened by the American Psychological Association and Ronald Reagan's surgeon general, C. Everett Koop."

Are you proposing that the text say the following?:

"Koop stated in a letter to Ronald Reagan "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." However, a year later and after reviewing 250 studies, Koop told a Congressional Committee that that the psychological risks from abortion are "miniscule from a public health perspective."^[3]

If that is the case, I have no objection - though I think it is wordy and unnecessary since the full context is on the Abortion and mental health page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

IAA, you continue to get the facts mixed up. The review of 250 studies was done between 1987-1989, in response to Reagan's request for a report. After reviewing the report prepared by his staff and concluding it was based on inadequate studies, in Jan. 1989 Koop wrote the letter to Reagan saying no definitive conclusions could be drawn. Later in the same year, WEISS stated that Koop had previously used the word "miniscule" in regard to the public health impact of abortion on women in discussions with consultants to the report (probablyin the presence of Adler or other APA members) and Koop responded that it was probably true (but never used the word "miniscule") from a public health perspective, but it was certainly overwhelming for individual women. We already have a mixup of attributions, there is no need to also mix up dates and events.--Strider12 (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

J I N X - Mastcell. (Though your more paragraph is far more eloquent).--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:40, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that the text say any particular thing. For now, all I'm saying is that disputes should be resolved on the basis of policy. I brought up that section of wording only because it was the most recent debate on this page and one of the more recent reverts.

MastCell's comment that this article should focus more on Reardon and less on Koop seems reasonable.

I'll note that your (IAA's) recent edit left an incomplete sentence. Please take a look. Also what is "J I N X"? Sbowers3 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I suppose it's not technically a "jinx." Jinx is kind of a kids game, where if you say the same thing as someone else, and yell out "jinx," the other person has to be silent until you "unjinx them." I'm probably not explaining this properly - it was just my attempt at comic relief ;) --IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Koop & Reardon

The problem with the Koop material, as represented by Mooney, especially in regard to Reardon, is that it is NOT reliable. It is slanted. Mooney, author the Republican War on Science is a crusader with a definite slant on his writing. He cherry pick's Koop to imply that Koop "rejected" Reardon's thesis and findings. In fact, ALL of Reardon's peer reviewed studies were published AFTER Koop said the studies up to 1989 were too bad on which to base conclusions. So Koop's comments in 1989 simply don't apply to Reardon, period. Moreover, as repeatedly discussed elsewhere, while Koop said the research was inadequate to draw definitive conclusions, he also said he had no doubts at all that SOME women did suffer severe mental health effects that could be "overwhelming" for them and their families. THAT POINT actually tends to show Koop in agreement with Reardon's thesis.

Mooney, like many others, is trying to twist Koop's 19 year old statement that "we don't know enough" into an argument that we can ignore the last ten years of research done by Reardon and others. Ditto for Bazelon's advocacy journalism. She applies the APA 1990 and suggests that "panels of experts" have rejected Reardon's findings when in fact there hasn't been a panel since 1990. All this projection of 18 and 19 year old statements into the present day is simply stretching for excuses to dismiss inconvenient evidence that undermines past notions. Just because Mooney and Bazelon try to apply these old statements against Reardon, I see no point in bothering to repeat these time-warped claims. Far better is to include the criticisms of Brenda Major and Nancy Russo who are actually talking about two of Reardon's studies. That is where the real commentary and controversy is engaged.--Strider12 (talk) 06:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this lengthy battle over Koop is a waste of time and energy. Koop is mentioned largely in passing, as Mooney establishes that the reputable groups who have looked systematically at the question (APA, Koop) did not conclude that abortion was psychologically harmful. Koop himself is a bit tangential to the subject of this article, and I don't have the stomach for another 90kb fight about primary/secondary sources, misquotations, blah blah blah. I would suggest you drop the repetitive attempts to impeach the secondary sources - your objections to the New York Times Magazine and Washington Monthly are on record. Many times over. We are simply not going to discard reliable, independent secondary sources and base the article on what Reardon has to say about himself. That's not how Wikipedia works.

Look, the APA said what they said. It's a fact, inconvenient or not. Since they have not issued a new or different opinion, one can presume that their opinion stands. The National Academy of Sciences hasn't updated its opinion on HIV as the cause of AIDS since the late 1980's, despite much new research, but that doesn't invalidate it. The APA is in the process of producing an updated statement on this topic, so let's be patient and realize that we need to accept their old statement until they produce a new one. MastCell ^Talk 06:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving?

This Talk page is huge. Does anyone object to archiving everything older than 2008? Sbowers3 (talk) 19:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

No objection at all.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Archived today. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Undue Weight on PWU

Clearly the placement and structure of the "acadmic credentials" section was created purely to highlight questions regarding his degree from PWU. Indeed, we have FIVE sources for this one fact, one of which doesn't even refer to Reardon but is OA about PWU, and another is a link to a pro-abortion advocacy group.

And most notably, the editors who are Reardon-critics have jealously guarded this section from any balance by repeatedly deleting even a partial listing of the of the prestigious journals, such as BMJ, AJOG, CMAJ, which have accepted and validated his studies. As previously discussed, these publications and the notable places in which he has published are part of his "academic credentials," but editors continue to delete them in preference to focusing on the negative. They have even deleted a listing of his peer reviewed articles from the bibliography, only because such a listing demonstrates the breadth of his accepted publications in this field.

All of this gives undue weight to the PWU issue. I am suggesting that this separate section on his "academic credentials" should be eliminated and the material incorporated elsewhere. In my opinion, it should be referenced to a SINGLE source (probably Mooney, since he was first to publish this), or at most two.

As this point has only been raised in the popular media (since it is irrelevent in academic circles, where the focus is on methodology, not degrees), it would be best put in the media coverage section. If Reardon-critics want it near the top, then move the entire media coverage sections to the top, under Elliot Institute (which should really be it's own article).--Strider12 (talk) 19:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact, we do have a biography section for Reardon. I have seen no other biography page where every single article someone has participated in creating is listed. The page would be too long. Also, the academic credentials section is germane. His academic credentials, or lack thereof, have been noted in several prominent publications. Are you asking that we ignore that?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

See the other 12 times you've brought this up, edit-warred over it, and tried to segregate this documented and notable item in a "criticism" ghetto. The reason there are so many sources is because you - Strider12 - continually insisted that it was just a "criticism" by one particular writer, when in fact it's a widely documented and noted fact. So it's disingenuous, to say the least, to turn around and point to the multiple reliable sources added to address your constant argumentation as evidence that we're according this undue weight. The fact that this has been mentioned in numerous reliable secondary sources indicates that the weight it's given is, in fact, appropriate. It is not some sort of "media criticism" of Reardon; it's a relevant, notable fact cited in numerous reliable secondary sources. I can see collapsing the "Academic credentials" and "Elliott Institute" sections into one, but that's about it. MastCell ^Talk 20:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed this topic has been discussed exhaustively: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Strider12, you're going to have to let this one rest. The information appears in verifiable reliable sources and there is a rational consensus to keep it. If it makes you feel better about it, realize that it is an ad hominem attack - his opponents (and I mean the authors of papers, not WP editors) tried to buttress their attacks on his conclusions by attacking him personally. Their use of a logical fallacy weakens their arguments. You might also think back to some of the great figures from history who had no advanced degree, no college degree, and often very little of any formal education yet they became giants in their areas. What really matters is what one accomplishes, not one's background. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to Essjay. :) I don't see mentioning the source of his degree as inherently attacking him - if he'd gotten his Ph.D. from Harvard, you can guarantee we'd be hearing that as well. MastCell ^Talk 05:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear Sbowwers, it is not the PWU citation I object to, it is to the deletion of the following (which Ghostmonkey also objected to) which is also part of his academic credentials:

Reardon has twenty-five publications in peer reviewed medical journals, including over a dozen statistically validated empiracle studies published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Southern Medical Journal (SMJ), American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology (AJOG), Obstetrics and Gynecology, Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ), Journal of Anxiety Disorders, American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Medical Science Monitor, American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, Sleep, and the Journal of Medical Ethics.^[4].

The deletions of material supporting his credentials in the field of post-abortion research biases this section.

As per the previous discussion, MastCell and others continue to delete a listing of his studies in the bibliography. Again, Ghostmonkey agreed with me that there is no justification for deleting this from the biblography except to minimize his credentials in the eyes of readers.--Strider12 (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, though you categorically refuse to believe this, there is a justification besides a supposed desire to belittle David Reardon. I'm not aware of comparable articles which are well-developed and contain a laundry list of publications. Wikipedia is not PubMed; it is important to note that Reardon has published a number of papers in the peer-reviewed literature, but not important to reproduce search-engine results. By convention, at least from what I've seen, books written by an author are typically listed in a bibliography, but scientific papers are not listed exhaustively. Earlier you cited Albert Einstein as an exception to this, but I hope you'll agree that the historical significance of Einstein's individual papers is slightly higher than that of most peoples'. Additionally, I will admit to being very tired of you continually making the same edit every few weeks when you know objections exist and you lack consensus, especially when your only efforts to achieve consensus consist of accusing everyone who disagrees with you of nefarious motives. MastCell ^Talk 21:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deja vu all over again

Please don't do this. WP:WEIGHT clearly mandates reference to the majority/mainstream view when we present minoritarian views, so deleting it is inappropriate. MastCell ^Talk 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Your sources do not prove that it is the majority view. Just because Bazelon interviews Russo or Stotland (both of which belong to activists pro-choice groups) claiming that they represent the majority view is not proof that it is a majority view.

Claims of consensus "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." The sources cited are not neutral -- they are advocacy articles -- and are not reliable in regard to such a claim of consensus.--Strider12 (talk) 22:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This is utterly circular and I find we're repeating arguments we've had dozens of times. I'm not claiming "consensus"; I'm claiming that a majority/mainstream view is that abortion is not associated with psychological risks beyond those of carrying an unwanted child to term. That view is supported by, among others, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychiatric Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and many individual experts in the field. Reardon's findings, which consistently conflict with this majority view, cannot be mentioned in isolation; doing so produces an inaccurate and misleading view of the subject. I'm going to create a permalink to this post so I can just reference it the next few dozen times this comes up. MastCell ^Talk 22:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Petty - Snide tone

The wrong claim from the RCAR that Reardon is the only employee of the Elliot Institute was inserted as another attempt to diminish the object of this bibliography. When I corrected it with a cite to the groups own year end report stating that they have three employees, two full and one part time, "three" was cut in place of "two full time." Why the need to distinguish such a fine point except to diminish? Even mentioning how many employees the group has strikes me as sounding petty...and certainly not encyclopedic.

If the article was about the Elliot Institute, fine, the number of employees and budget would fit fine in a sidebar of facts, but here in an article about Reardon it is just another attempt at snide ridicule. Presented another way we could be appluading that this man has been able to publish so many books, research articles, and stir up such controversy with so few resources.

Finally, regarding the constant deletion of the list of his studies, a listing of his peer reviewed studies is certainly as important or even MORE important than a listing of his books. Moreover, if MastCell's favorite source, Baezelon, is right, then if Reardon is "Moses" of the post-abortion movement history may judge that he is just as important to this field of study as Einstein was to modern physics. The point of the Einstein article is that it proves MastCell's excuse for cutting the listing is spurious.

The bottom line is that editors are once again deleting verifiable material solely for the purpose of diminishing the significance of the subject of this biography.--Strider12 (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The size of organizations is typically measured by their number of full-time employees, because "part-time" can mean practically anything. The number of employees is mentioned because a secondary source highlighted it, and it seemed to warrant 3 whole words in this article. Thanks for consistently attributing malicious motivation, though - that's extremely productive and speaks to your desire to achieve consensus. The article is about the Elliot Institute, in that the Institute largely consists of Reardon and Elliot Institute (properly) redirects here.

Arguments which use Albert Einstein's biography as an explicitly literal model for this one are not convincing. MastCell ^Talk 22:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] This is not the place to debate abortion

This article is supposed to be a biography. It is - or should be - about his life and his works. The primary sources are his works. The secondary sources are what other people have written about him or his works. We should stick to what the sources say - and stick to sources that are about Reardon. Sources that don't even mention Reardon or his writings belong in some other article - not here.

If Reardon did a study and concluded that Coke tastes better than Pepsi, we don't bring in other studies that show Pepsi tastes better than Coke - unless those other studies analyze and report on Reardon's methodology. We don't try to decide which one tastes better - only what other people write about Reardon's taste test. It wouldn't matter if the weight of opinion is opposite to Reardon's - all that matters is what Reardon did and what other people wrote about Reardon's writings.

Similarly, this is not the place to write about all the various opinions about abortion. We're here to write about Reardon's own work, and what reliable sources wrote about his work. If reliable sources expressed varied perspectives about Reardon's works, then we report those perspectives fairly and proportionately. NPOV applies to the perspectives about Reardon, not to the perspectives about abortion.

Many of the references have nothing to do with Reardon or his work. I intend to remove all such references becauses they are not sources to the topic of this article. Then I will remove unsourced statements that have nothing to do with Reardon or his work. Sbowers3 (talk) 02:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm with you most of the way, except it's not Coke and Pepsi. There is a majority viewpoint, with which Reardon's findings consistently conflict. We don't need to overdo it, but a simple statement that Reardon's findings conflict with those of the multiple expert bodies that have looked at the issue is sufficient. I think your edits here are good ones and help focus the article. By way of background, the reference overkill tends to follow a pattern: Strider12 complains that there are no sources supporting X, or that a certain finding is just "Mooney's claim" rather than a multiply substantiated verifiable fact. Other editors add a series of references to address this complaint. Strider12 then claims that we're giving it undue weight and piling on unecessary refs. Wash, rinse, repeat. Anyhow, I think your edits were good ones; that's just by way of background. MastCell ^Talk 03:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad I did not create a new bone of contention. Sbowers3 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Well there weren't as many off-topic references as I first thought. (My sample size was too small. I looked at a small sample and found that many were off-topic. When I looked at all the references I found only a few were off-topic. I removed those references as well as a few statements that were off-topic or not supported by on-topic references.

There are a few questionable references that I have not (yet) removed.

• The ref to the Missouri amendment does not verify the statement that Reardon proposed or supported the amendment. I don't doubt that he did but we really should have a reference that directly supports the statement.
• The ref to The Missouri Coalition for Lifesaving Cures does not verify the statement that the Elliott Institute copied it. - I will remove that ref; the statement is supported by another ref.
• "Abortion foes seek vote in Missouri" says nothing about Reardon or Elliott.

Sbowers3 (talk) 03:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Majority View

Both Coleman and Wilmouth, along with Fogel and others indicate the "majority view" is not as Bazelon and Mooney describe--because these journalists are arguing a perspective, not reporting facts. Wilmoth, repeatedly deleted without cause...

In 1992, the Journal of Social Issues dedicated an entire issue to research relating to the psychological effects of elective abortion. In an overview of the contributors papers the editor, Dr. Gregory Wilmoth, concluded: "There is now virtually no disagreement among researchers that some women experience negative psychological reactions postabortion.^[5] Wilmoth goes on to describe four issues of interest: (1) identifying the prevalence of negative reactions, (2) identifying the severity of negative reactions, (3) defining what level of negative reactions constitutes a public health problem, and (4) classification of severe reactions.^[5]

The idea that "some women experience negative psychological reactions" is EXACTLY in conformity with the claims Reardon makes.

Also, the statement that "Brenda Major argues that the results of Reardon's studies are" inconsistent is wrong. She is writing about a single one of Reardon's studies, the CMAJ study. Ditto with Russo's argument. We should not expand the context of these criticisms outside of the particular studies being commented on by the authors. Nor should we continue to imply that the 1990 APA paper said anything at all about studies Reardon published ten years later!--Strider12 (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Remember, we aren't here to debate whether Reardon is right or wrong; we are here to report what Reardon wrote, and what others wrote about Reardon or his work. In your Wilmoth quote above, I don't see any mention of Reardon so it is off-topic.

I think you are correct about the Major and Russo studies: They criticized specific Reardon work, rather than all of his work. We should be careful to associate criticism with the specific target of that criticism. As for the APA, the current wording says that "Reardon's findings conflict with those of the American Psychological Association" rather than saying something like "The APA disputed Reardon's findings." I think the current wording is accurate, while the second wording would be incorrect. What we might do is add the date of the APA report to clarify that Reardon's studies were later than the APA report. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think adding the date of the APA report is a good idea, for clarity. MastCell ^Talk 22:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliography

Sbowers, what is your view about deleting or including Reardon's peer reviewed studies in his biblography. Ghostmonkey agreed with me that it should be included. IronAliceAngel and MastCell insist it should not be included.--Strider12 (talk) 04:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have mixed thoughts. There is a similarity between books and studies and perhaps even an argument that peer-reviewed studies have been better fact-checked than a typical book. It might be that Reardon has had more influence through his studies than through his books. (I don't have any information one way or the other.) On the other hand, as a matter of style, long lists are generally discouraged.

An idea I am toying with is to include his studies as prose within the article, and to include criticism with each individual work. We would report: This is what Reardon wrote; this is what other people wrote about his work. The current organization of the article does not connect criticism to a particular Reardon work. As I understand Academic work, researchers analyze specific work; they rarely if ever write about the researcher as a whole entity. In other words, they concentrate on data and methodology rather than on personalities. Their criticism is directed toward a particular study, not toward the person. So in our article, I think the criticisms should be identified with particular Reardon work. Sbowers3 (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that whatever influence he has, through his books or his articles, should be demonstrated using independent secondary sources. A laundry list of publications is out of line with how biographies are usually written and makes the article less readable, over and above the point that the edit is admittedly being backed by Strider12 to push a specific POV. It might be better to ask: why should David Reardon's article contain a PubMed search engine listing of his publications when few or no other comparable biographies do? I haven't heard a convincing answer to that question.

Specific articles which have been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources or criticism/rebuttal would be appropriate to mention in the body of the article, as Sbowers3 suggests. For example, Reardon's analysis of the NSLY data, published in the BMJ, was repeated by Schmiege and Russo using more precise coding - this was a direct attempt to confirm or reproduce a specific paper of Reardon's, and thus both papers deserve special mention. Not every paper has had this kind of impact or significance, though. MastCell ^Talk 22:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

As an aside can someone explain what "coding" means in this context? In software "coding" means "programming" but I suspect it means something different in this context. Sbowers3 (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

In this context, coding refers to the process of abstracting data from whatever patient records were in the database. It's a major issue in retrospective research which mines existing databases. As illustrated in this example, relatively obscure differences in how this data is abstracted from the database can lead to widely divergent conclusions. MastCell ^Talk 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have added an External link to a PubMed list of Reardon-authored studies. I think this is more appropriate than having all of the studies as a long list in the article.

While editing I noticed the EL to the Bazelon article, which already appears in the References. Should the same article be both a reference and an external link? As a rule, I normally delete ELs which are duplicates of refs but I thought I'd ask here first.

Question: Is anyone aware of book reviews of Reardon's books? If there are any (in RS) it would seem appropriate to include them in some way. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Another question: The PubMed list shows 25 papers that he authored or co-authored. The Biography section says that he is the author of 18 medical studies. Is there a reason for the apparent discrepency? Are some of the 25 papers not medical studies? Are co-authored studies not counted as authored? Or is it just that he has written more papers since the "18" sentence was added to the article? Bottom line: is there any reason we should not change the 18 to 25? Sbowers3 (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I like your solution to the bibliography issue - it addresses my concern, and still provides easy access to a (self-updating!) list of Reardon's publications. I'm on the fence about the Bazelon EL - I thought it useful to have the acutal secondary-source coverage in one place, since many of the cited sources are (were) Reardon's website - but often cited sources are not reproduced in the EL's, so I don't have strong feelings.

Book reviews from reasonably prominent venues would be useful if they exist. PubMed generally indexes many or most letters to the editor - the discrepancy between published articles and PubMed hits is probably related to the fact that Reardon writes a lot of letters-to-the-editor. It may also reflect the presence of another DC Reardon (though I think this is unlikely and we could verify that they're all his). If there's a good source for 18 papers, let's keep it. I actually prefer "a number of papers", because he will probably publish more at some point, and that way it won't keep getting out of date each time he publishes.

Did the coding explanation make sense? It looks a bit obscure, reading it over. MastCell ^Talk 06:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Book reviews

Earlier I asked if anyone was aware of book reviews of Reardon's books. Well, I've just done a quick search in Google books where four of his books appeared, and in Google for the fifth book. I'm afraid that I've opened a can of worms; I didn't want to introduce another source of controversy but it seems unavoidable.

This article is about Reardon, which means it's about his work. His books are part of his work so it seems appropriate to say something about them in this article - and we do say a little about some of them. (I know nothing about his books; is there any dispute that they are a sufficiently large part of his work that they deserve mention?)

I thought (and I suppose still think) that book reviews are the natural way to summarize what is in the books. I don't want to read them myself and try to summarize them (and it would be very hard to avoid OR if I did so) so I hoped that a book review would be a source of about a paragraph-long summary of each book.

The can of worms is that from a cursory glance of the reviews all of them appear in pro-life publications. I'm not worried about NPOV: "The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly." The topic at hand is his books and there don't appear to be multiple or conflicting perspectives about that topic apparently because opponents have chosen to ignore the books. If the topic were abortion in general then certainly there would be multiple perspectives to balance, but we're not here to write about abortion, only about Reardon and his work and I don't see conflicting perspectives so NPOV is not a problem.

The problem might be RS. Are other editors going to complain that the sources of these book reviews are not reliable? My goal is simply to get a short but accurate summary of what is in each book. I don't care what that summary says, only that it fairly represents what is in the book itself. If I go to the trouble to read through the book reviews and write one paragraph about each book, will other editors complain that I don't have a reliable source for the book summary? That may be hard to answer a priori but I would like to get some sense of whether I would be wasting my time to go ahead. Will you trust me to honestly try to write an accurate summary of what is in each book? And it shouldn't really matter whether you trust me; will you accept that the sources are sufficiently reliable as to result in a fair summary of each book?

Maybe I'll just go ahead with one of the books and take a stab and see what you think. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends to some extent on what kind of pro-life sources we're talking about. Reviews by major pro-life organizations may be notable, in the same way that a review by Planned Parenthood (for example) would be notable. In other words, we should make clear in the text of the article that the reviewer is affiliated with a pro-life advocacy group, but we can still consider including the review as it speaks to how his work is perceived within the pro-life community. Reviews by minor or fringe organizations are probably not so encyclopedic or worthy of inclusion. As to a summary, it would help to have specific wording to discuss (do you want to list the reviews here?) - I'm fine with anything that reads neutrally and doesn't present as fact something which is opinion or argumentation. MastCell ^Talk 06:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for reorg

I'd like to reorganize the article:

• I think the Press coverage section should be merged into the Biography. I can't think of any other biography that has a "Press coverage" section. The norm is for statements in the article to be footnoted to press sources.
• I propose a section on books or (non-technical) articles with subsections for individual books.
• I propose a section on peer-reviewed papers with subsections for selected papers.
• I would merge the criticism sections into the relevant subsections. In other words, the criticism would be associated directly with particular studies or articles.
• After the reorg, I'd add more book reviews and probably a few more peer-reviewed papers and critical commentary.

I have a very rough draft of the reorg at /Reorg. The words are 99% the same as today's article, just rearranged. Sbowers3 (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I like it, especially the first few sections. I'm strongly in favor of doing away with "criticism" and "press coverage" ghettos and integrating the press coverage and criticism into a single narrative, which you've done. I think it's OK to have a separate section on specific studies which provoked comment, rebuttal, mainstream press coverage, etc - which seems to be what you're going for. I'm a little more on the fence about the books - if we could find mainstream reviews (or even reviews from large pro-life groups), then we could break out the individual books, but I don't know how much we can say if there's no reliable outside coverage or discussion of one of his books. Probably focusing on selected books (those with the most related secondary sources available) would make the most sense. I've made a few edits (largely copyedits) to the draft - hope that's OK. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm very glad that you like the idea. The rough draft was a fairly quick copy and paste and needs a lot of work. Do you think we should move it into the article, then fix it up, or fix it up in the draft, then move it? (And when I say "move" I mean copy and paste - we don't want to replace the old edit history at all. This is just a big edit to the existing article.) Sbowers3 (talk) 23:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement over the existing article, so I'd be fine with moving it now or whenever. It's been mercifully quiet around here recently, but if anyone objects later on, the article can always be reverted back to its prior form. MastCell ^Talk 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Done. You've made a good start on copyedits to Biography section - much better than I could have done. I'll work on books and studies sections. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice reorg. Thank you.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reardon's Responses

I added Reardon's BMJ and CMAJ responses to the respective sections.

Overall, I think the reorganized article is much better. Thanks Sbowers for all the work you've done on it.--Strider12 (talk) 20:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that rather get into an endless back-and-forth, we should restrict any "debate" to presenting the article in question and other articles/editorials in the peer-reviewed literature which directly address them. If we get into letters to the editor, website posts, and BMJ E-letters (which are essentially lightly moderated blog feedback), then the article is going to lose focus and degenerate back into a battleground. I think Sbowers' approach was fine - he included Reardon's article on the NSLY and the subsequent article reanalyzing the same database. Similarly, including the CMAJ study and the corresponding editorial is appropriate, but getting into letters to the editor is lowering the bar more than would be healthy for the article. MastCell ^Talk 21:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

No one is suggesting and "endless back-and-forth." My snippets of Reardon's responses are published by the journals. BMJ's rapid response is more than a blog. It is reviewed. While I agree we don't want to get into every letter writer's opinions, it would be quite appropriate to cover both Reardon & Russo's give and take because both are recognized experts in the field and particularly Reardon is the subject of this article. Unless you are suggesting that someone else submitted the BMJ response pretending to be Reardon, it is a reliable source. (As you know, self-published material and even the blog of an expert is acceptable as reliable material if the person is indeed recognized as an expert.) Moreover, it is surely reasonable to show that Reardon has responded to these criticims and to point readers to his responses. Otherwise you are implying that these criticisms are "unanswerable" and have "stunned him to silence." In fact, Reardon's response to Schmiege and Russo is very important as it points out significant differences in the analyses and therefore the interpretation of both team's results. --Strider12 (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Rapid Responses are very lightly moderated blog commentary. They are not reviewed in any meaningful sense, and they are problematic as sources - for example, the BMJ's Rapid Response section was seized briefly by AIDS denialists in 2003 to disseminate their message with the imprimatur of the BMJ (see PMID 14628006). I'm interested in focusing on the point/counterpoint in the peer-reviewed journal. If we include what is essentially blog commentary, then we open the door to an endless round of back-and-forth; we have to set the bar somewhere. It is unclear to me why Reardon's blog commentary should be the "last word", given this lack of equivalence in sourcing, or why my edit implied that Reardon was "stunned into silence" while yours does not leave the same impression of Russo et al. It's very simple: let's stick to what's peer-reviewed - otherwise the article will end up a mess. Also, the paper was a brief report, as you yourself pointed out above, so I'm not clear why you've reverted this. MastCell ^Talk 16:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "blog comment." One letter is published in CMAJ the other is posted on the online letters and comments of BMJ. As noted above, even a blog of an expert is acceptable to Wikipedia if the person is recognized as an authority. Reardon, the subject of this article, is at least an authority of his own views. Also, it is customary in peer reviewed journals to allow authors of articles to respond to criticisms. You are arbitrarily deciding that readers should not be told of Reardon's responses. I do no necessarily say Reardon should have the last word. If you want to give Russo's response to Reardon, that's fine. Your complaint that allowing Reardon to respond to critics would make a "mess" of the article is unconvincing.--Strider12 (talk) 20:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)--

BMJ e-letters are lightly moderated, like the average blog comments section. If you want to talk about the CMAJ letters section, you might want to note that most of the letters therein are critical of Reardon's methodology and his biases. I don't want to include Russo's response to Reardon's response to Russo's response - that's exactly the point. One of the basic tenets of WP:NPOV is that disputes are characterized, not re-fought, on Wikipedia. Let's not re-fight it through proxies. MastCell ^Talk 22:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A request for small edits

This may seem a strange request from someone who made a major reorg, but I'd like ask editors to make small edits. If you're modifying several sections or several paragraphs, it would help if you made them in separate edits instead of all in one big edit. Alternatively (and this is what I did), propose your edit here or on a subpage, before inserting into the article. The reason for my request is to make it easier to see exactly what has changed, and to make it possible to revert part of an edit instead of the whole thing. We all know that some edits are going to be controversial but often parts of a large edit are not controversial. We shouldn't have to lose the good parts when reverting the not-so-good parts. Sbowers3 (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Reardon's BMJ study, the current descripiton is inaccurate and misleading because the scope of the investigation is very narrowly defined. I suggested:

Reardon coauthored a study published in 2003 in the British Medical Journal reporting his analysis of depression rates among women whose first pregnancy was unintended using the National Longitudinal Study of Youth (NLSY) database. After controlling for a pre-pregnancy measure of psychiatric state, the researchers found that an average of eight years after the pregnancy married women who carried their unintended pregnancy to term were significantly less likely to have depression than similar women who aborted the unintended pregnancy.^[6]

Regarding Reardon's response to Schmiege and Russo I added:

In response, Reardon wrote that Schiege and Russo's redefinition of coding variables did not contradict his findings and also introduced coding changes which tended "to muddy the data and increase the likelihood that any statistical comparisons will not detect significant results."^[7]

Similarly, I added a summary of his CMAJ response to Major & others.

In a response published in the same journal, Reardon noted that his methodology was identical to that of another record based study by one of Major's colleagues, Henry David, which was highly praised by the APA review team on which both Major and David served. Furthermore, if Major's "hypothesis that mentally disturbed women are more likely to choose abortion" is true "this argument merely strengthens our conclusion that a history of abortion is a marker for mental illness." He also noted that one of Major's own studies had demonstrated that "abortion can be the direct cause of post-traumatic stress disorder."^[8][9]

As noted in my conversation with MastCell, I believe his responses are clearly relevent and verifiable. His BMJ response is actually much more detailed, but I suggest this short summary is probably sufficient. Omission of these responses biases the article by depriving response to criticisms.--Strider12 (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

See above thread. MastCell ^Talk 22:15, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Peer-reviewed studies

I have expanded and trimmed this section. Because Reardon has 25 cites in PubMed I thought there should be more than two of his papers in his section. To decide which ones were more notable, I counted how many times each paper was cited elsewhere in PubMed. It turned out that the two most cited papers were already in our article. I added the next most cited article and I added his earliest paper, notable only for being his first paper.

I trimmed the summaries to just a few sentences, for the most part taken from the abstracts. I didn't want to get into a lot of details or a long back and forth. Abstracts should be a fair summary of what the author thinks most important, helps to avoid cherry-picking, and retains verifiability for readers who might not have access to the full papers. Sbowers3 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and reformatted some of the citations. The summaries look fine to me at a glance; I'm getting a bit of tunnel vision on these articles so I'm going to give it a few days and come back and look again more closely. MastCell ^Talk 17:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)