 | Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page Abortion–breast cancer hypothesis. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion. |
Q1: Why does the article state unequivocally that the hypothesis is not supported? Science can never definitively prove a negative. What about the neutrality policy?
A1: The policy that articles be presented from a neutral point of view requires that the article text adhere most closely to the most reliable sources. In this case, major medical organizations state that the evidence does not support a connection, so the article must do so as well. It is true that science cannot prove a negative, but the article must follow the sources in portraying the possibility that the current evidence will be overthrown as unlikely.
Q2: What about paper 'X'? Why was my referenced text deleted?
A2: Individual sources are accorded weight according to how they are treated by other reliable sources. In particular, an individual study should not be used to rebut a large review.
Q3: What about this expert? Why are their views not described in detail or given any weight?
A3: Individual experts can have a large impact on the political and cultural controversies, but scientifically we must defer to the major medical organizations that have commented on the hypothesis.
Q4: The major medical organizations are in the thrall of the abortion industry!
A4: Wikipedia relies on independent reliable sources and is not an appropriate venue for promoting various conspiracy theories.
Q5: Why not just describe all the relevant papers and let the reader decide?
A5: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a historical literature review. The doctors and scientists who study such things have already done the work of synthesizing the primary literature. As an encyclopedia, we summarize this analysis.
Q6: Why does the article use the term "anti-abortion" rather than "pro-life"?
A6: The Neutral point of view policy requires that we avoid biased and loaded terms. This stylistic choice follows that of major newspapers.
Q7: Why are partisan sources being cited?
A7: Partisan sources are reliable for their own opinions and may be important for explaining the cultural and political controversy. Use should be minimized or avoided in other contexts.
Q8: Why is this idea described as a "hypothesis" instead of a "theory" or "myth" or as the "ABC link"?
A8: "Theory" or "link" would imply a degree of acceptance by the medical community that is not evident. "Myth" would imply that there was never any reason to pose the question.