| Line 27: |
Line 27: |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| − | == Wikipedia ''is'' helpful == | + | == Wikipedia ''is not'' helpful == |
| | | | |
| | Aschlafly said: ''Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.'' | | Aschlafly said: ''Instead, I know of no evidence that Wikipedia has helped a single student in any meaningful way.'' |
| Line 160: |
Line 160: |
| | | | |
| | :::::::I admit I'm not an expert on abortion, but I believe the statement "Patients who had undergone previous induced abortions have been shown to have a higher risk of preterm birth" is what you're looking for in the article on 'Preterm birth' that I followed through from that on abortion. Perhaps you don't feel it was placed prominently enough in the article or that it should be in the abortion article itself? Perhaps you should add this risk under the section 'Health Risks' on the Wikipedia article. I would be inclined to agree that it should be noted more prominently, but I'm not an expert on the relative dangers of this, and both Conservapedia and Wikipedia present conflicting citations. Clearly a discussion is needed and unbiased scientific studies should be done. I would note that the Conservapedia article is highly biased to other degree, with only arguments against abortion and little information about the process itself. Faced with these two articles, that from Wikipedia appears less biased to a neutral and has more useful information about the process. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 20:03, 13 December 2009 (MST) | | :::::::I admit I'm not an expert on abortion, but I believe the statement "Patients who had undergone previous induced abortions have been shown to have a higher risk of preterm birth" is what you're looking for in the article on 'Preterm birth' that I followed through from that on abortion. Perhaps you don't feel it was placed prominently enough in the article or that it should be in the abortion article itself? Perhaps you should add this risk under the section 'Health Risks' on the Wikipedia article. I would be inclined to agree that it should be noted more prominently, but I'm not an expert on the relative dangers of this, and both Conservapedia and Wikipedia present conflicting citations. Clearly a discussion is needed and unbiased scientific studies should be done. I would note that the Conservapedia article is highly biased to other degree, with only arguments against abortion and little information about the process itself. Faced with these two articles, that from Wikipedia appears less biased to a neutral and has more useful information about the process. [[User:nicknock|Nick]] 20:03, 13 December 2009 (MST) |
| | + | |
| | + | ::::::::Of course that should be in the abortion entry itself, not buried in an obscure other entry. Everyone knows that readership falls off sharply after the first page, and falls even further respect to links. In fact, how would ''anyone'' learning about abortion even think of looking at an entry on "preterm birth." The connection would not even occur to most people. |
| | + | |
| | + | ::::::::An abortion entry should explain the harm, and risk of harm, and let the reader assess that information. You essentially seem to oppose providing the information for the reader to decide, and instead want an entry to appear neutral rather than provide substantive information. Wikipedia is a good home for your approach. We emphasize information here, not a (false) appearance of neutrality.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:21, 13 December 2009 (EST) |
| | | | |
| | Second, to Insufficient. Why are you even here? All you have done is debate on this page, even though you've admitted that you don't read the Bible. It doesn't surprise me that your arguments are poorly formed and illogical, because you've never read the book which is the source of all logic and order. I suggest you open your mind, take some time to go read the Bible, read some articles here on Conservapedia to learn what your liberal professors don't want you to know, and then come back and we can have some intelligent discussion. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:44, 13 December 2009 (EST) | | Second, to Insufficient. Why are you even here? All you have done is debate on this page, even though you've admitted that you don't read the Bible. It doesn't surprise me that your arguments are poorly formed and illogical, because you've never read the book which is the source of all logic and order. I suggest you open your mind, take some time to go read the Bible, read some articles here on Conservapedia to learn what your liberal professors don't want you to know, and then come back and we can have some intelligent discussion. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 20:44, 13 December 2009 (EST) |