User:Strider12/temp

Introduction

Few areas are as contentious as abortion. Not only will every editor have a viewpoint, but nearly sources relied upon will reflect some POV. This underscores the importance of including material from many sources.

If possible, the issue of abortion and mental health is even more contentious. For the sake of abbreviation, DENIERS deny there are any signficant negative mental health effects associated with abortion. BELIEVERS believe in negative reactions.

I coin these new terms because this subissue is not cleangly split down pro-choice / pro-life lines. While many pro-choice experts are Deniers, many other experts with politically pro-choice beliefs are Believers. Not suprisingly, experts with pro-life political beliefs are also most likely to be Believers.

Much of the contention in this article is that a small group of editors have diligently worked to make the article reflect almost exclusively the Denier's point of view, and have asserted that two principle sources, APA-1990 article and a commentary by Stotland 1992, (obviously very dated sources) justify enshrining the Denier's view as the "majority" view which should govern the weight of the article.

The bias of the article has long been criticized.[1]

The loss of balance in the article most notably began to occur in August of 2007 User:131.216.41.16 and user:Saranghae_honey (aka mirageinred) agreed on "purging" over 20 references to articles and peer reviewed studies with either the Elliot Institute and David Reardon.[2] This "purging" took place without objection of MastCell or other active editors who have pro-choice or Denier leanings despite the fact that Reardon's studies are published in over a dozen major medical journals.[3]

User:IronAngelAlice

--131.216.41.16, mirageinred aka Saranghae_honey

Principles

• Peer reviewed articles are among the most reliable and best verified sources.[4]

• 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.[5] 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.[6]

• 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 [7]

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.[8] 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.

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.[9]

Corollaries

• There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.{[10] 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

Response

Evil Spartan on bias [11]

Material that should be included

Request to discuss proper weight

[12] 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.[13]

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[14] 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)

Proposals by User: Strider12

Proposed principles

Template

1) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of Proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Template

1) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Template

1) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Template

1) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposals by User:MastCell

Proposed principles

Purpose of Wikipedia

1) The goal of this project is to create a neutral encyclopedia. Use of the site for advocacy or furtherance of a specific agenda is disruptive and contrary to the project's goals.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Mostly from WP:SOAP, and the central issue here. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Single-purpose accounts

2) So-called single-purpose accounts are legitimate and valued members of the Wikipedia community. However, accounts whose narrow focus is coupled with strenuous advocacy for a specific agenda at the expense of Wikipedia's core policies are disruptive and hinder the goal of producing a serious and respected reference work.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

There's nothing wrong with SPA's per se, but "agenda accounts" are a problematic subset. MastCell ^Talk 22:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Principle

3) {text of proposed principle}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed findings of fact

Strider12

1) Strider12 (talk · contribs) has engaged in disruptive and tendentious editing designed to use Wikipedia as a platform to advocate for a specific agenda. This activity includes, but is not limited to, canvassing, edit-warring, agenda-driven and non-neutral editing, personal attacks, wikilawyering, attempting to game the system, and refusal to seek or abide by consensus.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

A summary. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed finding of fact}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

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.

Strider12 topic-banned for 6 months

1) Strider12 (talk · contribs) is banned from all pages relating to abortion, broadly construed, for a period of [6 months–1 year].

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

This would provide an opportunity to contribute to other areas of the encyclopedia and get away from WP:SOAP and WP:COI issues. I think it will also give the article a chance to grow, since there are a number of interested editors being stifled by the noxious atmosphere prevailing at present. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Strider12 placed on probation indefinitely

2) Strider12 (talk · contribs) is placed on probation indefinitely. Should she make any edits which are judged by an uninvolved administrator to be disruptive, personal attacks, inappropriate canvassing for support, or assumptions of bad faith, she may be blocked from editing for the periods of time specified in the enforcement section.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

I think that some sort of ongoing remedy will be necessary after the topic ban expires. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

3) {text of proposed remedy}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others:

Proposed enforcement

Enforcement by block or ban

1) Violation of the probation remedy will result in blocks of escalating length of 1 week or less. After the third block, subsequent blocks will be for 1 month or longer.

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

General suggestions? MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment by others:

Template

2) {text of proposed enforcement}

Comment by Arbitrators:

Comment by parties:

Comment by others: