User:Strider12/Disruption

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Prep for MastCells Arbcom complaint

[edit] MastCell's Dated Evidence

Date Distribution for MastCell's Evidence
MastCell's Evidence Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
Edit-warring - 1 2 9 - -
Canvassing 7 - 3 - -
Complaints about past purge - 1 - 1 - -
Uncollaborative attitude 3 7 1 1 -
Misrepresentation of sources - 3 4 - - -
Possible conflict of interest - - - - - -
Rewriting Foundation-level policy - 1 - - -
Wikipedia as a battleground - 2 3 - -
Refusal to "get the point" 4 4 - - -
Wikilawyering - - 10 2 - -

[edit] Proposals by Strider12

[edit] Proposed principles

[edit] Peer Reviewed Articles Are Most Valued

1)Peer reviewed articles are among the most reliable and best verified sources.[1]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Peer Reviewed Articles Are Reliable Secondary Sources

2) Peer Reviewed articles are generally "secondary sources," at least in regard to any synthesis and analyses of "primary source" material (namely raw data and eyewitness accounts and the like) provided in the article.[2] As the methods and analyses of the author(s) have been subjected to peer review by experts in their fields, these peer reviewed articles are by definition reliable.[3]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
See lenghty thread Peer_Reviewed_Studies_as_Reliable_Secondary_Soruces and re: Primary Secondary Sources Also, comments from other editors regarding this issue in general:
  • Lab notebooks are clearly a primary source, as are preliminary notes put together on the subject. A report in Science Digest is clearly a secondary source. What about a peer-reviewed article by the researcher himself? I would say that it is closer to a secondary source than a primary, both in nature, and in its utility: it provides expert interpretation of the raw facts, and has gone through a fact-checking process that is not under the control of the author. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
  • To quote: "Secondary sources present a generalization, analysis, synthesis, interpretation, explanation or evaluation of information or data from other sources." I read that unequivocally to mean that a peer-reviewed paper is a secondary source derived from the lab results, which are the primary source. Robert A.West (Talk) 22:53, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Comment by others:

[edit] OR Restrictions Prohibit Second Guessing Peer Reviewers

3) It is disruptive for editors to exclude material from peer reviewed source based on the argument that the data, analyses, syntheses, or conclusions are inaccurate or conflicts with other sources. It is not the place of editors to delete verifiable sources offering peer reviewed analyses and synthesis simply because the editors believe the conclusions are invalid. Instead, if some editors find the fact (not truth) hard to swallow, those editors can contribute to the article by finding and presenting other reliable sources contradicting the first reliable source.WP:V

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Unless the source has been publicly disavowed by the publishers due to fraud, the fact that it is published in a peer reviewed journal establishes its reliablity and editors should generally refrain from deleting the material, and especially the citation. The material is otherwise subject to editing, of course.--Strider12 (talk)
Comment by others:

[edit] In Regard to Scientific Issues, Popular Press Articles are Tertiary Sources

4) Peer Reviewed articles are preferable secondary sources for interpreting materials related to scientific issues. Articles from the popular press are secondary sources when quoting an expert but are generally tertiary sources regarding scientific facts and in summarizing expert opinions.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Articles in the popular press should not be relied upon as sources of fact in preference to the peer reviewed studies themselves. This is especially true with regard to any controversial issue where the aticle has the slant of a advocacy.
While notable articles in the popular press should be allowed, if properly identified as such in the text (not just the footnotes), in order to document the controversies surrounding this issue, they should not be treated as reliable secondary sources in regard to synthesis of highly technical issues, which is what peer reviewed journals are for.
Part of the conflict with MastCell has been that she has relied on advocacy articles by Baezlon and Mooney to justify the exclusion of material from peer reviewed articles which disagree with the "majority view" reported by reporters.--Strider12 (talk)
Comment by others:


[edit] Concerns Regarding Undue Weight Apply to Representative Opinions, Not Facts

5) NPOV and WP:WEIGHT address proportionate representation of all viewpoints. It does not suggest that facts (such as factual research findings) should be presented only in proportion to the majority viewpoint. Facts should never be deleted simply because a reader may conclude they do not resonate with opinions of some, or even the majority, of experts.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
In many cases of reversion, I was not even trying to insert the opinions of experts from their peer reviewed papers, only their reported facts. Such material, however, was repeatedly deleted because it conflicted with what some editors insist is the "majority view," namely that "there is no evidence of post-abortion syndrome," a claim drawn from a 1992 commentary. Facts should not excluded simply because they fail to reinforce the conclusions of certain experts. While editors may select representative viewpoints and determine the balance of viewpoints, they should never delete scientific facts, such as citations to peer reviewed, statistically validated studies linking abortion to depression, or suicide, etc.--Strider12 (talk)
Comment by others:


[edit] WEIGHT and Popular Press

6) In regard to issues of science, popular press articles should not be relied upon for determining the weight of the majority opinion of experts in the field unless reporting on a statistically valid poll of experts. The quote of an expert in the press asserting that most experts agree with this or that position may be included in the article, but it should not be treated treated as an expert's opinion, not as a factual statement.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Science is about facts, not consensus statements, which is one reason why scientists issue few consensus statements.--Strider12 (talk)
Comment by others:


[edit] WEIGHT As the General Consensus of Experts

7) The claim that all or most scientists, psychologists, and/or physicians deny any mental health effects of abortion cannot and should not be decided based on the claims of a small number of experts.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Disruptive Removal of Statements

8) It is disruptive to remove statements that are sourced reliably, written in a neutral narrative, and pertain to the subject at hand.[4]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Complete Removal of Reliable Citations is Disruptive

9) The complete removal of citations to pertinent reliable sources (especially peer reviewed material) constitutes disruption. This is especially true in regard to (a)controversial issues and (b) scientific or technical matters. While it appropriate to condense repetitive material, even to the point of reducing an new entry to simply a secondary citation to the source attached to a previously identified fact, the COMPLETE deletion of a reliable source is uncivil and disruptive. It is uncivil because the source was added by an editor who identified as significant. GF suggests respect for that judgment and a deference to allow the reference to remain in the article for other editors to review and comment on it. Leaving the source in the body of the article, in at least a minimal way, is also a service to readers looking for sources and to active, occasional, and editors yet to come who may use, reuse, and reconfigure all the material is written or rewritten.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
This is one of my major complaints. As a tertiary source, Wikipeida should be a good launching pad for both readers and editors to research the topic through the cited secondary and primary sources. This listing of citations is especially valuable in a technical subject with much peer reviewed literature. Deleting citations in their entirity is not only disrespectful to the contributing editor, it also deprives readers and editors the opportunity to investigate source materials further.
This is especially disruptive when such deletions occur almost immediately, as has frequently happened in this dispute. I certainly agree that over time, as the number of sources expand and the article is reorganized, some sources may be reasonably deleted if they are considered to be outdated, repetitive, or less significant in comparision to more accurate, comprehensive or complete sources. But such deletions should be done carefully so as to avoid any bias.
The principle above may be condensed in some fashion, but it spells out a principle of both respect for editors and respect for the bibliographic value of a tertiary source such as Wikipedia to become a great source for finding citations to nearly all the relevent literature on any topic.
The complaint that "unlimited" citations to studies becomes unwieldly is easily handled by breaking an article into sub-articles dealing with narrow areas of the topic.--Strider12 (talk)
Comment by others:

[edit] Brevity is Not an Excuse for Deleting Reliable Material

10) Encyclopedic means comprehensive. As Wikipeidia articles are not limited by word count,[5] the preference should generally be toward inclusion of reliable material, particularly facts such as research findings and expert viewpoints which contribute to the completeness of the article and increase it's value as both a primer and a detailed, even systematic review of the literature.


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Ideally, Wikipedia will end up encompassing (or at least referencing) all human knowledge...it might even be the "all human knowledge" data base on the starship Enterprise!. While that is unlikely to occur, nonetheless it reminds us that every article should be open to becoming an ever updated systematic review of all the academic literature on a given subject. While again, editors may at some point wisely decide that not all sources are needed because some are too dated, duplicative, or whatever, but the trend should be toward inclusion rather than premature exclusion of sources, at least peer reviewed sources.
An argument raised by those opposed to including a listing of findings from key studies is that it would make the article overly long. However, to many readers, citations to key studies and a summary of key studies would be extremely valuable. Moreover, I don't believe every study deserves much discussion, or perhaps any discussion, though there is almost always a place where a study can be included as a relevent citation reinforcing other citations. Also, if the article becomes overly large (because it is becoming more comprehensive), it is a relatively simple process to break the article into different related articles dealing with more narrow issues is preferable to deleting reliable information. I'm fine with condensing the material, but I also believe it is important to (a) put all the material in (even if only by citation) so editors can see and work with it on an ongoing basis. This is especially helpful for new editors on the article as they would otherwise need to re-research the issue to find a deleted source or go back through all the past deletions or talk pages to catchup on what has been deleted because of a "consensus" which may no longer be valid.
Bottom line: the argument that we should exclude certain studies (especially those not favored by 'one side' for the sake of keeping the article brief, is a self-serving argument that weakens the value of the encyclopedia and is perhaps most often intended to simply bury inconvenient facts.-Strider12 (talk)
Comment by others:

[edit] Source Based Research Is Encouraged

11) "Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from primary and secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."[6]

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
MastCell's complaint that I am attempting to put too many peer reviewed sources into the article impedes development of a well researched source-based article.-Strider12 (talk)
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed findings of fact

[edit] Strider12's Contributions Have Been Valuable To the Project

1) At least in most instances, Strider12's contributions to articles have included (a) pertinent material, (b) drawn from reliable, peer reviewed sources of high quality, and (c) presented in good accord with NPOV principles, avoiding both synthesis and original research.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Strider12's Infractions of Incivility Were Newbie Mistakes

2) Entering into contentious articles when first joining the Wikipedia community Strider12 made early mistakes in accusing other editors of being POV-pushers, often in response to her being so accused. Strider12 is also guilty of sarcasm and other similar minor infractions against civility[7] which contributed to the uncollaborative spirit of all involved in the article. But Strider12's talk page contributions since January of 2008 display a reasonable effort to avoid any such uncivil behavior.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
And I apologize for any ways I've contributed to the contentious environment by not curbing my tongue (or fingers, in this case).-Strider12 (talk)
Comment by others:

[edit] A Disruptive Purge of Material Occured and Was Not Corrected

3) As the peer reviewed author of many studies, medical reviews, and books related to the associations between abortion and mental health[8], David Reardon is one of the most published experts in that field and a reliable source for articles related to that field. The August purge of at least 22 sources associated with Reardon, and the ongoing campaign to prevent material from this source being in the article is disruptive. While MastCell was not involved directly in the purge, neither did she condemn it or make any active efforts to correct it by replacing the deleted material. Instead, her edits and talk indicate general support for restricting inclusion of material from this and similar reliable sources.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] MastCell's Rapid & Complete Deletions Are Disruptive

4) MastCell's rapid and complete deletions of Strider12's contributions of reliable, pertinent material were disruptive.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
If MastCell had NPOV complaints, it would have been more productive for MastCell to fix my edits with modifications, additional material, or by posting inline fact check notes requesting more information, or by any number of means other than completely deleting the material in its entirity, including the citations, thereby depriving other editors the opportunity to see them in the text to work on and comment upon. -Strider12 (talk)
Comment by others:

[edit] MastCell's Example Was Negatively Infectious

5) MastCell's failure to reprimand deletions of Strider12's reliable and pertinent contributions by less experienced editors contributed to an atmosphere of "ganging up" against Strider's edits.

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] MastCell Engaged In Wikistalking

6) MastCell has engaged in wikistalking as seem here and (to be filled).

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed remedies

Note: All remedies that refer to a period of time, for example to a ban of X months or a revert parole of Y months, are to run concurrently unless otherwise stated.

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Proposed enforcement

[edit] Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Comment by others:

[edit] Original Dispute Response

[edit] Dispute Response

It is unclear why MastCell insists that I am at fault when it is she who has repeatedly deleted well sourced, verifiable material.[9][10][11][12][13][14] Her complaint is not that I delete well source material (even if I dislike it), because I never do. She only complains that I keep trying to insert material that she doesn't trust...even though it is reliably sourced to peer reviewed studies.

MastCell has refused to ever grant any good faith to my edits and instead has a history of inserting name calling characterizations against me, even in other forums. For example, when I tried to get outside opinions on policy with this postingScientific Studies As Reliable Secondary Sources in which I carefully avoided any mention of the subject matter or editors involved, MastCell, who was apparantly wikistalking me, showed up and the first word's out of her mouth included ad hominum attacks against me describing me as a "a single-purpose tendentious agenda account and designed to benefit her in a specific content dispute." Such name calling and characterizations, which appear in at least half of all her edits on these pages, do not contribute to collaboration. While I have become defensive in the face of such constant attacks, can anyone blame me?

I am a "single issue" account because (a) I prefer to edit in an area where my expertise gives me plenty of reliable and verifiable materials to contribute, and (b) because in the face of relentless deletion of reliable material it takes a long time to bring controversial articles into balance. I haven't had time to contribute to other articles! But my efforts to bring balance to these articles can be seen by comparing the differences between this version of abortion and mental health before I began to edit it and my latest edit here. I believe it is evident to any unbiased reader that the newer version is more balanced. But it has not been easy to get ANY balance into the article in the face of strident attempts of some editors to delete reliable material.

MastCell has been especially critical[15] of my attempts to point to ArbCom rulings reminding editors that deletion of NPOV stated reliable material is disruptive. She also consistently ignores my requests for evidence that the WEIGHT of the article should be so strongly tilted against the weight of studies and expert opinions that I have cited.[16]

This complaint was most recently triggered after I made a number of edits to several sections and inserted the quote of an expert, Fogel, cited in The Washington Post. MastCell reverted all the edits complaining about the Fogel quote which she had previously deleted without adequate cause. Only MastCell complained about the Fogel quote and I responded and gave strong reasons for it's inclusion as reliable material.[17] I waited a good long time for other editors to comment. As no other editor supported MastCell's complaint, it seemed evident that there was NO CONSENSUS supporting deletion of this reliable material, so I reinserted it and added additional clarifications in the hope they would satisfy MastCell's concerns about context. But within an hour of posting, MastCell had deleted it (and a bunch of other edits to other sections)accusing me of "making zero attempts to gain consensus." The talk page reveals I spent a great effort to explain the source, context, and relevence of the material.[18] This talk page shows ONLY MastCell objected to the Fogel...with very weak reasoning. But MastCell seems to believe that she, and she alone, represents the "consensus" whose support must be obtained before including reliably sourced, pertinent material.

To quote one editor:

Maybe I'm too new to all this to understand fully, but it does appear to me that any effort made by Strider 12 to add information is immediately reverted by one of a small group of editors. As for Strider being identified as 'one' editor 'on the other side', I'm sure that silence by editors who continue to watch this page, should not be interpreted as an indication of agreement to Strider's contributions being reverted. Cheers Fishiehelper2 (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Fishiehelper is right. Immediate deletions of material do not provide the basis for collaboration and the failure of other editors to chime in does not mean they approve of deleting reliable material.

Any article regarding abortion is contentious. Most editors generally lean one way or the other. It seems to me that I should not be "forbidden" from contribting reliable and verifiable information just because one or more editors who exclusively on "one side" of the issue complain that my contributions disrupt the WEIGHT of the article as they want to see it slanted. In the absence of some decision to be made that MastCell or some other single editor is the editor-in-chief, I have assumed that the lack of support for deleting reliably supported material regarding Fogel is sufficient reason to replace it.

The simple fact is that I have made repeated attempts to develop consensus around respecting established policy regarding respect for peer reviewed materials and for clarification of the fact that the presumed WEIGHT misrepresented a great number of sources and experts and have repeatedly asked (and never had answered) sources verifying the disproportionate WEIGHT of the article.

Despite all the hostility and name calling and characterizations of me as a "tendentious editor", I have tried to minimize returning in kind. (I was rather hostile in my response to continued blanking of my material during the first few months, but have been bending over backwards since the beginning of the year to avoid adding fuel to the fire.)

Finally I will note that MastCell has a history of trying to block editors who dare to bring forward issues with which she disagrees. See for example her complaint against Ferrylodge which was triggered by his bringing forth information about the Koop hearings on a talk page. Because it turned out to actually be quite valuable information, but undermined MastCell's arguments for maintaining a misattribution of a statement to the wrong party, she is now going after Ferrylodge for even daring to be involved in the talk page.

In short, it unfortunatley appears that both this and the Ferrylodge complaint are heavyhanded attempts to silence editors who bring forth reliable evidence that MastCell would like to keep out of these articles about which she appears to have deeply vested feelings and beliefs. Instead of working with me to be sure that ALL relevent material is included in the article, MastCell is going to an extreme length to block me from being able to contribute material from reliable, verifiable, peer reviewed sources in an effort to prevent a 1990 APA statement and a 1992 commentary (on which she bases her assessment of the WEIGHT of opinion) from looking as dated and out of touch with the facts as they really are.--Strider12 (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] EvidenceSummary

[edit] Two Sides

The issue of abortion and mental health is divisive. For abbreviation, DENIERS deny any significant negative mental health effects associated with abortion. BELIEVERS believe in negative reactions.

Deniers and Believers do NOT cleanly split down pro-choice / pro-life lines. While many pro-choice experts are Deniers,[19] many pro-choice experts are Believers.[20][21]

Many editors in the Denier's camp have expressed the extreme view that ALL studies supporting the Believer's position are "quackery" or "pseudoscience."[22][23] This article has been largely dominated by editors favoring the Denier's position. The resulting bias has long been criticized.[24] [25]

[edit] Unbalanced

Balance was completely tossed aside in August of 2007 when User:131.216.41.16 and user:Saranghae_honey (aka mirageinred and миражinred) agreed to "purge all references from the Elliot Institute and David Reardon."[26] Reardon's studies are peer reviewed and reliable[27], and still [excluded].

Other editors followed this lead[28] and even promoted excluding studies for simply citing Reardon.[29]

My first talk entry (November) argued that 'purging' violated policy.[30]

To avoid conflict in the article, I've focused on introducing material from pro-choice Believers who could not be accused of a pro-life bias[31] but discovered that nearly ANY material that did not support the Denier's thesis is unwelcome and subject to almost immediate deletion.

This 'closed system' has been noted by others[32] and driven them away.[33] Persistence in the face of such a non-collaborative spirit is difficult.[34]

As Denier's love citing Stotland, I imagined they could not oppose a quote from a subsequent paper in which she described treating a patient with post-abortion sequelae[35]. It was was immediately deleted [36]. I replaced it with other reliably sourced material, MastCell deleted all. [37]

[edit] Canvassing

After unproductive struggles, I became increasingly sarcastic. A mistake. I apologize. Am trying harder. Being the subject of much abuse, it's difficult not to snap back.

In December I made the newbie mistake of inviting seven experienced editors to weigh in to mentor me and the "blocking" editors on this contentious article. I sought editors who I expected would not be politically hostile to the Believer's viewpoint. Only one responded. While critical of my newbie mistakes, Evil Spartan agreed that the article was a "hatchet job" and made many good recommendations [38] most of which were reverted.

[edit] MastCell's Behavior

  • MastCell refuses to grant good faith to my edits and constantly characterizes me as a problem editor.
  • MastCell Wikistalked me here (where I had carefully avoided any mention of the subject matter or editors involved to discuss secondary sources) and launched an ad hominum attack.
  • Among my first edits in Novemver I added a link to an online copy of Koop's letter. As the text was difficult to find, I had used a PriestsForLife link to a copy of the text with minimal comment.[39] MastCell has repeatedly distorted this ONE use of a pro-life link to Koop's letter!! to imply that I am constantly using biased sources [40][41]. I would have no objection to her finding a different link, but blocking readers from reading the primary source served no purpose other than to prevent readers from judging whether the articles coverage of Koop was accurate. (It wasn't.)
  • MastCell never forgives newbie mistakes and draws most of her charges from my first 2-3 months.[42]
  • MastCell acts as if she is final arbiter of content decisions,[43]and often is because she can count on three other Deniers guarding the "slant" of the article to automatically agree with every block of my edits.
  • MastCell seldom corrects (much less reverts) the obviously biased edits of the most aggressive Denier editors. Her example and leadership encourages reckless reversions by others.[44][45][46][47][48]

[49][50][51][52][53][54] [55]

  • She and others complain when I mention the August "purge" but refuse to denounce it as a mistake.[56][57]
  • MastCell frequently misrepresents my statements and behavior and attributes bad motives.[58][59]

[edit] MastCell's Misrepresentation of Sources

As stated above, the Deniers position rests on just two dated sources. When I repeatedly ask for other sources upon which they base the claim that "most scientists and physicians" hold the Denier's viewpoint, the best they can offer are advocacy journalism articles in magazines[60][61] or newspapers[62]) which simply cite these same two sources. See Two Kinds of Evidence and[63]

In the absence of academic sources supporting her WEIGHT, MastCell repeatedly misrepresents[64][65] an article by David Grimes, a noted abortion provider and board member of National Abortion Federation[66], as a "recent" review of abortion and mental health which has examined and dismissed Reardon's findings. Examining Grime's full article: here irrefutably shows:

  • It is NOT a systematic review article of abortion and mental health issue. And even Grimes admits it is not[67]
  • It is a general overview of abortion with only one paragraph touching on mental health, citing only three sources, including both the overused 1990 APA review and Stotland 1992. It gives no updated perspective.
  • Grimes doesn't mention Reardon, much less dismiss his studies.
  • Grimes doesn't even claim a consensus of medical opinion.

Clearly, it is MastCell, not I, who is guilty of misrepresention. Similar misrepresenations of evidence, WEIGHT, and opinions of myself and others can also be found.

[edit] MastCell Disrupts

MastCell hates my pointing out that ArbCom has defined deletion of well sourced, neutrally stated, verifiable material as disruptive[68] because she frequently does just that.[69][70][71][72][73][74]

Her complaint is not that I DELETE her material (even if I dislike it), because I very rarely do, if only to avoid conflict. She only complains that I keep trying to insert material that she has vetoed. She resists letting facts speak for themselves.

[edit] Weight & Secondary Sources

  • For four months I was nearly the only editor trying to include material related to the Beliver's position. Edit warring on this article is caused by those working to reflect almost exclusively the viewpoint of only two key sources.[75]
  • MastCell insists her view of WEIGHT is correct and endorses excluding dozens of reliable sources which do because they do not support her view of WEIGHT.[76][77]
  • MastCell's arguments on secondary sources and weight turn Wikipedia policy upside down and would be harmful if generally applied.[78] [79][80][81][82]

[edit] Conclusion

I have constructively encoruaged respect for peer reviewed materials and identification of WEIGHT per established policy. [83][84][85][86][87][88]

My contributions to the balance of these articles can be seen by comparing this version with my edit. And this old with this [new.]

[edit] Break

[edit] Draft1

Few areas are as contentious as abortion. Not only will every editor have a viewpoint, but nearly every source cited will reflect at least some POV. Hence, the importance of many diverse sources.

The issue of abortion and mental health is also divisive. For the sake of abbreviation, DENIERS deny there are any significant negative mental health effects associated with abortion. BELIEVERS believe in negative reactions.

I coin these new terms because this sub-issue is not cleanly split down pro-choice / pro-life lines. While many pro-choice experts are Deniers, many other experts with politically pro-choice beliefs are Believers.[89] Not surprisingly, experts with pro-life political beliefs are also most likely to be Believers.

Most of the conflict in this article is caused by a small group of editors have diligently worked to make the article reflect almost exclusively the Denier's viewpoint of view. They assert this is justified by the WEIGHT of evidence as demonstrated by two principle sources, APA-1990 article and a commentary by Stotland 1992. (Obviously very dated sources). [90] Actually, on careful reading even Stotland's commentary states thatadmits some women have problems (at least 11%) and the APA 1990 review also acknowedges "some women experience severe distress or psychopathology after abortion." But as both give only passing reference to this fact and do emphasize the tone, if not the fact, of the Denier's position, the Denial camp is happy to hang their hat on these "undisputable" references.

Many editors in the Denier's camp have expressed the extreme view that all peer reviewed studies and claims regarding negative mental health effects of abortion are "quackery" or "pseudoscience."[91] Such labels reflect a hostility to even peer reviewed sources which conflict with an editor's preconcieved views. Given the edits that naturally flow from this narrow view, the bias of the article has long been criticized.[92] [93]

Notably, any semblance of balance was tossed aside in August of 2007 when User:131.216.41.16 and user:Saranghae_honey (aka mirageinred and миражinred) agreed to "purge all references from the Elliot Institute and David Reardon."[94] This "purging" of at least 22 references took place despite the fact that Reardon's studies are published in over a dozen major medical journals.[95] Clearly, editors who decide that they know better than peer reviewers are engaging in considerable OR and SYN.

Subsequent to this, other editors, such as user:IronAngelAlice sought to enforce this "rule"[96] and even began excluding studies for simply citing Reardon's studies as credible.[97] MastCell has similarly argued for the exclusion of material supporting the Believer's viewpoint.[98]

Around the same time one sided attacks on Reardon were occurring in the bio for David Reardon. I noticed the latter first and was inspired to create an account to correct the obvious biases and omissions. I had naively imagined that corrections and well sourced material would be welcome. Instead, I had to contest with absurd biases and stubbornly defended inferences[99] inserted to undermine the subject, including for example the absurd claim that the Elliot Institute is not a real "institute" because (an editor asserts) it "owns no buildings."[100] That particular inference led me to later suggest that some editors may be no more than high schoolers with an bone to pick. I admit the aggravation of being forced to repeatedly argue about the most obvious biased, unsourced, and badly infered claims led me to be more confrontational in the first two months than I should have been.

I made my first entry into the discussion on PAS in November to address the completed purging of Believer sources from the article.[101]

I subsequently tried to add material from reliable sources unrelated to the Elliot Institute (so as to avoid getting into deletions on that excuse) but quickly learned that nearly any material that did not support the Denier's thesis was immediately deleted by one of three or four editors, generally with no discussion unless I pushed the issue on the talk page.

Among my first substantive edits were a clarification of the Koop letter and adding a link of convenience to this primary source thinking readers should be given a link to see what it said. Both changes were reverted. As a copy of the text was difficult to find, I had used a link to PriestsForLife which had reproduced the letter with minimal comment. MastCell has repeatedly distorted this ONE use of a pro-life link, to Koop's letter!!, to imply that I am constantly using biased sources [102][103]. In my view, it would be find to replace the link with another, if it could be found, but any link to Koop's letter appears to serve no purpose other than to prevent readers from reading the actual letter and discovering how biased the section on Koop's letter really is.

Naively believing the Denier editors could not oppose a quote from one of their stars, Stotland, who subsequently acknowledged a significant post-abortion negative reaction I added this [104] which was immediately deleted [105]. When I replaced this and other reliably sourced material, MastCell deleted all. [106]

[edit] Reliable Secondary Sources

Mastcell argues against inclusion of peer reviewed studies. By contrast, she insists that a much criticized magazine article advancing a political view of the abortion mental health question should define the WEIGHT of the article.[107]

After unproductive struggles, I made the newbie mistake of looking for and inviting seven editors who I expected would have an anti-abortion bias and therefore not have political hostility to inclusion of studies supporting the Believer's viewpoint, but who would also be experienced in NPOV and could perhaps help mentor me and the other editors on the article. I asked seven to weigh in on the conflict over whether my peer reviewed sources were reliable. Only one responded. While critical of my newbie mistakes, Evil Spartan agreed that the article was a "hatchet job" and made many good recommendations [108] most of which were subsequently reverted.

As stated above, the Deniers position rests on two key sources, both old pre 1993. When I repeatedly asked editors to identify any other sources commentary upon which they base their claim that "most scientists and physicians" agree with the Denier's viewpoint, the best they can offer are later sources (often advocacy journalism articles in magazines or newspapers) which simply cite these two earlier sources as having settled the matter. See Two Kinds of Evidence and[109]

In the absence of supporting sources, MastCell has repeatedly cited[110][111] an article by David Grimes, a noted abortion provider and board member of National Abortion Federation[112], as a "recent" review of abortion and mental health which has examined and dismissed Reardon's findings. Examining Grime's full article: here. shows

  • It is NOT a review article on the abortion and mental health question, as pointed out by a letter to the editor archives Grimes own admission that it is not such a review in any meaningful sense.
  • It is a general review of abortion with only a one paragraph touching mental health, citing only three sources, including both the overused 1990 APA review and Stotland 1992. It give no updated perspective.
  • It doesn't even mention Reardon, much less dismiss his studies.
  • Nor does Grimes even claim that the Deniers view is the consensus view of most physicians.

Clearly, it is MastCell, not I, who is misrepresenting this one paragraph by Grimes, and other sources, to prop up a Denier's preconceived idea of what the WEIGHT of evidence should be.

Faced with reliable, peer reviewed, NPOV material that conflicts with the Denier's position, the pattern of these few editors has been (1) delete immediately, (2) demand the contributor present an argument for inclusion in talk (3) dismiss the argument in the face of the APA/Stoland WEIGHT argument (4) or insist that peer reviewed analyses are "not a secondary source" (meaning an online article from mainstream media MSM), (5) or veto material insisting inclusion of unwanted facts requires consensus (ie. approval of the "viligent"[113] Deniers).

[edit] Conclusion

I have made many efforts to focus discuss established policy regarding respect for peer reviewed materials and identification of WEIGHT. [114][115][116][117][118][119]

My efforts to bring balance to these articles can be seen by comparing the differences between this version my edit. And this old version of David Reardon and the [current version]


All editors have a POV. The goal of good editing is to minimize POV entries and to respect other editors efforts to minimize POV.

Demands for consensus should not be used as an excuse to block inclusion of reliable material--especially on controversial issues where "one side" may be tempted to "veto" material that undermines their POV.

"Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from primary and secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia."[120]

  • Lab notebooks are clearly a primary source, as are preliminary notes put together on the subject. A report in Science Digest is clearly a secondary source. What about a peer-reviewed article by the researcher himself? I would say that it is closer to a secondary source than a primary, both in nature, and in its utility: it provides expert interpretation of the raw facts, and has gone through a fact-checking process that is not under the control of the author.

You state that a source where an idea appears for the first time is primary. That is not the case. The letters between Lise Meitner and Otto Hahn are primary sources. The first paper to suggest that she was unfairly denied credit for the discovery of fission is a secondary source. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[121]

[edit] Principles

  • Peer reviewed articles are among the most reliable and best verified sources.[122]
  • Peer Reviewed articles are generally "secondary sources," at least in regard to any synthesis and analyses of "primary source" material (namely raw data and eyewitness accounts and the like) provided in the article.[123] As the methods and analyses of the author(s) have been subjected to peer review by experts in their fields, these peer reviewed articles are by definition reliable.[124]
  • Editors should not put their own judgment above that of peer reviewers. It is not the place of editors to delete verifiable sources offering peer reviewed analyses and synthesis simply because the editors believe the conclusions are invalid. Instead, editors should find and present other reliable sources contradicting the first reliable source.WP:V
  • Especially in regard to controversial issues, it is important to avoid implying that an opinion is an accepted fact. WP:SOURCESspecifically states that "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." Also [125]

Deleting Well Sourced Material is Disruptive. From WP:TEND "There is no rule on Wikipedia that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict WP:BOLD. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.[126] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information."

The constant refrain that the WEIGHT defined by a 1990 review article, and promoted by partisan pro-choice advocates, justifies exclusion of literally scores of other reliable and verifiable peer reviewed studies published since is simply ludicrous. MastCell and other in the "deniers camp" simply refuse to follow Wikipedia policy that DEFINES peer reviewed articles in academic journals as by definition RELIABLE and VERIFIABLE.

[edit] Common Sense Principles

WEIGHT should not be "dictated" by one or two editors, it should be allowed to be SHOWN by the INCLUSION of evidence and expert opinions, particularly from peer reviewed sources. Reliance on peer reviewed sources serves as an appropriate threshold against over inclusion of fringe views since, like "flat earth" .

Peer Reviewers identify and confirm the expertise of researchers. The judgment of editors is secondary to the judgment of peer reviewers. Simply because editors can find criticism of some experts does not justify the blanket exclusion of all facts and opinions drawn from articles associated with that expert.

Articles in the popular press should not be relied upon as sources of fact in preference to the peer reviewed studies themselves, especially when the article is not strictly news but has the slant of a advocacy.[127]



[edit] Corollaries

  • There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.{[128] Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.
  • When editors see an entry from a reliable source which they feel is "cherry picked" to present to promote a POV, the solution is NOT to immediately delete the contribution. Deletion of reliable material is disruptive, shows lack of GF, and is likely to provoke an edit war. The proper responses to percieved "cherry picking" include: (a) asking for more information, (b) adding additional material from the same source that brings it into balance, (c) editting or abridging the entry to make it more neutral or balanced, or (d) finding another reliable source that adds perspective missing in questioned entry.
  • Encyclopedic means comprehensive. As Wikipeidia articles are not limited by word count, the preference should generally be toward inclusion of reliable material, particularly if there is a reasonable view that the material provides facts or expert viewpoints which contribute to the completeness of the article. Periodic condensing of an article is important, but should be done with consensus. The desire for brevity should not be used as an excuse for blanking reliable material.
  • Consensus, especially on controversial articles, should favor inclusion rather than exclusion. The deletion of reliable, pertinent material is disruptive and harmful to the spirit of collaboration. Instead, of playing the "consensus" card to block inclusion of reliable, pertinent materal, consensus should be focused on determining how best to present the material.

>>>>>>>>> This is especially true in a controversial area where editors may be tempted to use unduly high demands for consensus as an excuse to prevent inclusion of verifiable facts and expert opinions. Instead, if a fact or expert opinion from

  • WEIGHT is composed of two elements: facts and expert opinion. From this it follows that facts should never be deleted because presentation of the fact undermines the opinions of experts cited in the article. Secondly, the opinions of a few experts should not be treated as the "Gospel of WEIGHT" for the purpose of excluding the opinion of experts who disagree. Nor should the claim of an expert that their view represents the majority view be treated as a fact rather than an opinion in the absence of polling data supporting that opinion.

Two Kinds of Evidence Define WEIGHT Two Balancing the WEIGHT of article is never

[edit] Response

Evil Spartan on bias [129]


Material that should be included

Request to discuss proper weight

[130] Wherein I provide fourteen sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion_and_mental_health/Archive_4#Proposed_Editing_Policy_to_Avoid_Edit_Warring Proposed Editing Policy to Avoid Edit Warring]


When I request MastCell provide any evidence other than her favored 1990 and 1992 sources that the majority view is as she claimsher response is to ignore or shun me.[131]

[edit] Evidence

More on Grimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Strider12#Weight_.26_Majority_View

FishieHelper on disruptive, immediate deletions of material by a few editors without true consensus[132] FishieHelper later stated giving up on the article because it was being "gaurded" to prevent addition of material.FishieHelper

NCDave on persisting in tring to contribute reliable material.

This article is currently a hatchet job on the possibility of the syndrome. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC) (His edits were largely reverted)


[edit] IAA ???

I tend to be more conservative in my edits, and err on the side of more information rather than less so that the reader can determine for him/herself what information is relevant or irrelevant. If we were to include 'only' PAS-specific research, that would necessarily exclude most academic and medical research done in the area because the medical establishment has concluded PAS does not exist. However, I am open to suggestions. But let me be clear: if we were to include only PAS-specific research, I will be very quick to delete any research sponsored by pro-life organizations. This includes research done by Reardon, Rue, et al (as discussed ad nauseum above). --IronAngelAlice 19:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disruption Log PAS

Well Documented Contributions

Photouploaded deletes verifiable material with only a claim of POV-pushing.

03:18, 29 January 2008 Saranghae honey disruptively removes a large number of reliable sources and verifiable content with false argument that there is a consensus to remove and replace (someday?) with "prose."

19:36, 4 February 2008 MastCell deleted Stotland quote.

22:27, 5 February 2008 IronAngelAlice Deletes Stotland's material and

23:27, 6 February 2008 MastCell Another deletion of two verifiable quotes from Stotland regarding Stotland's views.

22:38, 7 February 2008 IronAngelAlice Deletion of Stotland's balancing quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abortion_and_mental_health&diff=prev&oldid=191798310

05:18, 16 February 2008 Saranghae honey REmoves Koop's statements

05:26, 16 February 2008 Saranghae honey delete Soderberg material without discussion

05:22, 16 February 2008 Saranghae honey Removed APA balancing statement

[edit] Disruption Log Reardon

20:38, 28 January 2008 Added verifiable listing of bibliography

23:23, 28 January 2008 IronAngelAlice disrupts by blanking verifiable information.

22:28, 11 February 2008 MastCell deletes verifiable bibliography, move of unverifiable material to sction attributing opinion to source (Bazelon), and clarification of description of PWU to Mooney.

00:48, 15 February 2008 IronAngelAlice IAA reverts 8 contributions from reliable sources.