4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + +
A comment regarding the lack of explanations for locking articles, plus a comment or two on the topic matter.
I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm not going to spend hours debating the logic and obvious evidence here. If necessary, this page will be locked and those who seek to deny this information to women (and thereby mislead them) will be blocked. Thank you.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 13:52, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
I'm new here, so please forgive if this comment is put in the wrong place on the page. I notice that a lot of "sensitive" articles on Conservapedia are locked - fine, they do that on other wikis as well. But, the reason for locking them should be clearly stated on the top of the article - as it is, they are just presented as "Here it is, take it or leave it.", with no comments or explanations at all, unless you dig around in the discussion pages to find them. In the case of this article on breast cancer, it would seem that the reason for locking it, is that the controversy over whether abortion is a contributory factor to breast cancer incidence, is considered by the person who did the locking, to be too important (perhaps for religious reasons connected to the abortion debate......) to permit both sides of the vigorous debate to be equally represented and detailed within the body of the article itself. At any rate, i do wish that the people who run this site would clearly and candidly explain exactly why each locked article is off-limits - it would be quite useful to the reader.[[User:Elrond|Elrond]] May 11, 2007. 10:47 AST.
Andrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 13:57 10 April 2007 (EDT)
Andrew - there is no concealment. However, there is a link to at least three authorities with no financial axe to grind who have looked at the evidence and come to a different conclusion than that reported in the abortion article. Are you going to deny this information to women who might be in quite unnecessary fear over their level of risk? This seems unkind. I will link the article to the abortion article, and then interested parties can go from one to the other and compare the quality of evidence. If the evidence is good enough, it needs no protection, surely? Perhaps you could approach each of the citations in support of assertions here and show where they are flawed. [[User:Britinme|Britinme]] 13:57 10 April 2007 (EDT)