User:Strider12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has been banned from editing Wikipedia for a period of one year by the Arbitration Committee. Please review the banning policy before commenting or unblocking. (see: block log • contributions • current autoblocks • Arbitration decision)

Our work in progress for an unpurged version of the article on "Post-Abortion Syndrome" is here.

[edit] Why I Joined Wikipedia

I joined Wikipedia when I discovered gross inaccuracies in articles related to post-abortion syndrome and in regard to a Wikipedia biography of one of the key investigators in the field of post-abortion researchDavid Reardon. I was most troubled to see that the post-abortion syndrome page had evolved over the course of a year, when I last looked at it, from a rudimentary piece into an all out denial of what hundreds of thousands of women have experienced.

When I looked at the discussion page, I further discovered editors openly advocating the purging of material from peer reviewed journals simply because abortion proponents have accused Reardon of bias. Other editors who complained about the article's bias and this purging of material were regularly dismissed or overrun or pushed out by aggressive deletions of material.

As just one example, to quote from Proposed clarification on who uses term PAS

...director of the Elliot Institute (David Reardon) is the author of a majority of the "studies" referenced in the wiki article. The question we should probably answer is - should we purge all references from the Elliot Institute and David Reardon?--131.216.41.16 00:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes why not? We can only use reliable, neutral sources here. Of course it might be different when we specifically say "pro-life organizations" or "proponents of PAS" claim that so and so are the symptoms. mirageinred 04:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. Though, I think we will have to be vigilant against Reardon studies sneaking back into the article. --131.216.41.16 18:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe these editors have mangled this article be purging the bulk of research published since 2000 and by turning it into a prolonged argument against PAS rather than allowing both sides to present peer reviewed evidence in a neutral forum.

As a peer reviewer for a number of medical journals, I consider this open effort to viligently purge information from a well-established expert in this field outrageous. It imposes a "politically correct" filter on scientists that academics rightly object to in many other fields, such as global warming, research on homosexuality, PTSD among Iraq vets, etc.

Such purging of disfavored experts also violates Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia policy on reliable sources states that

Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context. Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text.

From this it follows that all of the studies published in peer reviewed journals should be treated as reliable sources and should be included in any "weighting of viewpoints." Editors in the purging campaign who have decided to eliminate peer reviewed articles simply because they are associated with Reardon are simply not justified in treating these works as unreliable.

[edit] My Background

While Wikipedia gives no priorty to experts, this is a subject about which I firmly believe I know far more than most (or all) of the editors who are "contributing" to these articles.

In fact, I have been a peer reviewer several top medical journals on studies related to abortion and mental health, including some cited in post-abortion syndrome that have been published in top medical journals, including some cited in the and am very familiar with the literature. I have heard many or most of the primary people on this subject speak at APA conferences. And I am familiar with most of David Reardon's works, and have been recently am getting more familiar with them as I have been forced by edit warring to provide justification for every little correction of attackes and distortions leveled against him by attackers. I have also heard Reardon speak and agree with an editor (otherwise hostile to Reardon) that he is truly compassionate, truly cares about women, and is worth listening to. (See other editor's comments here >12 Audio of Reardon Reardon has done much to listen to women and to validate that their own experiences and beliefs about how abortion has affected their lives have meaning and deserve to heard. For many post-abortive women, he is a hero.

As an accepted peer reviewer with experience in this field I can attest to the fact that Reardon is accepted as an expert in this field. That does not mean I believe everything he says on the topic is "gospel." Also, I recognize that there is also politics in science and there are clearly others in this field who don't like the direction his research (and that of others) is leading. The simple truth is that even scientists have their own personal views on abortion and some see it as a "sacred cow", the blessing of which should not be questioned. Virtually all the scientists on both sides of this issue are very good at reporting the facts, sometimes we have to worry that they are only selectively reporting facts, but what they do report is factual. But on both sides, their discussion and intepretation of the facts may be colored by their personal views. But this is why we are all supposed to apply critical thinking in reading the literature to sort out fact from opinion...even well informed opinions.

The same method should apply to the writing of Wikipedia articles. Opinions should not be presented as facts. Facts should be verifiable and opinions should always be described, in the text, to the authorities expressing them.

Also in my many years of professional work, I have participated in counseling sessions with women who have suffered great emotional pain and mental ills related to their abortions...in many cases unwanted abortions which were pushed on them by others.

Both my personal experience and the literature show that there is no disputing the fact that SOME women suffer emotional troubles from their abortions. The only dispute is whether abortion causes "mental illness" rather than just emotional upsets (sadness, grief, guilt or other symptoms that do not rise to the level of the definitions for "mental illness"). Also, there is no question that can abortion may aggravate existing mental problems. The question is whether abortion can cause mental illness when none was previously there.

The causal question is a valid one, but a bit of a red herring. The research clearly shows that abortion is a "marker" for more mental health problems and therefore a history of abortion may be important in evaluating patients and exploring issues that may impact their mental health. But more on this some other day.Strider12 16:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is Sandbox