Automoderated users, edit
1,837
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 38:
Line 38: + + +
→Plagiarism: Plagiarism is unacceptable.
== Problem with bias in cited material ==
== Problem with bias in cited material ==
The cited websites for this article have an unfair bias towards one side of this issue, i.e., the sources are written from a viewpoint that is not conducive for fair and even consideration of the overall topic of Abortion Facts. Specifically, I have a problem with the trend for these sources to adhere to a conservative, Christian viewpoint, one which has its own bias towards abortion in general. This skews the article's objectivity, and I think that this article should be re-written, or at the very least, re-cited to include sources which provide a more comprehensive, even view of abortion and any topics that deal with abortion. [[User:Reeperbahn|Reeperbahn]]
The cited websites for this article have an unfair bias towards one side of this issue, i.e., the sources are written from a viewpoint that is not conducive for fair and even consideration of the overall topic of Abortion Facts. Specifically, I have a problem with the trend for these sources to adhere to a conservative, Christian viewpoint, one which has its own bias towards abortion in general. This skews the article's objectivity, and I think that this article should be re-written, or at the very least, re-cited to include sources which provide a more comprehensive, even view of abortion and any topics that deal with abortion. [[User:Reeperbahn|Reeperbahn]]
==Plagiarism==
The entire section "Ten Arguments Against Abortion" has been copied, word-for-word, from another site, [http://womensissues.about.com/od/reproductiverights/a/AbortionArgumen.htm]. While there is a reference link, there is no indication that it is the entire section that has been copied (rather than the reference being a source for information in the 10th argument). Quoted material should be indicated as such, with quotation marks and in-text attribution. There is no in-text attribution. There's no indication that the author has given permission for such a large section of her work to be quoted here. There is no title given for the reference, no author, and no date of retrieval. AND, probably because it was copied word-for-word, there are no sources for any of the ten arguments. This section needs to be removed; Conservapedia editors should not represent others' work as their own. --[[User:Hsmom|Hsmom]] 21:30, 10 October 2008 (EDT)