Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

To strengthen the credibility of this wiki, I will show the factual inaccuracies and fix them. I'm not sure and don't care if this is due to ignorance on Conservapedia's part or Wikipedia's frequent process known as "updating," but I hope these are fixed. Unfortunately, every single point had flaws.

  1. Wikipedia actually has a full article about the murder of Jim Pouillon, even if it doesn't say it was at all motivated by political reasons.[1]
  2. "concluded that abortion does 'not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer.'" refers to the consensus of the biased scientific community as a whole. Their Lancet analysis is actually "meta-analysis of 53 epidemiologic studies of 83,000 women with breast cancer undertaken in 16 countries did not find evidence of a relationship between induced abortion and breast cancer, with a relative risk of 0.93 (0.89 – 0.96)." [2] In addition, the apostrophes in the quote do not exist.
  3. This point is liberal deceit on behalf of the writer of this article, and the editor should be very disappointed in himself. "Bhutto was pro-life and spoke forcefully against abortion, most notably at the International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo, where she accused the West of "seeking to impose adultery, abortion, intercourse education and other such matters on individuals, societies and religions which have their own social ethos."" [3]
  4. Remember: Wikipedia is not based solely in America, and conservatism means completely different things throughout the world. They have an article about the conservative movement in America here. [4]
  5. The criticism of the style of an encyclopedia is irrelevant to the content and therefore irrelevant to bias, so the first sentence of #5 should not exist. Furthermore, the quote in the last sentence does not exist, making the quotation marks lies.
  6. Due to the number of articles, it should be considered more than a few. This point should change to "many implausible, pro-abortion claims."
  7. The "pro-choice" article does not exist. It is now "Abortion-rights movement" which, by many standards, is more biased. Pointing this out will get your point across much better. [5]

--Whitefire 00:36, 10 July 2011 (EDT)