Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion

2011-07-10T04:55:19Z

Whitefire: I'm not sure what to do with #2, so I'll let it be wrong for now because deleting it seems harsh.

This article lists examples of [[Bias in Wikipedia]], related to [[Abortion]]:
#Wikipedia has a large article detailing anti-abortion violence committed around the world,<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence</ref> but there is no article about pro-abortion violence. There is no article for "Pro-choice violence"<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-choice_violence</ref> and "Pro-abortion violence" bizarrely redirects to the "Abortion debate" article.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-abortion_violence</ref> Before being redirected, the "Pro-abortion violence" article was biased towards downplaying the reality of violence committed by supporters of abortion.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pro-abortion_violence&oldid=298226073</ref> For example, while the "Anti-abortion violence" article matter-of-factly begins: "Anti-abortion violence is violence committed against individuals and organizations that provide abortion." ...the "Pro-abortion violence" article dismissingly began: "Pro-abortion violence (or pro-choice violence) is a term used in the pro-life movement to characterize acts of violence committed by abortion practitioners or abortion advocates against those who oppose abortion or against pregnant women. The former is regarded as factual while the latter is just "a term used in the pro-life movement."
# [[Wikipedia]] changes the meaning of a key quote from an [[abortion]]-breast cancer article in the Lancet medical journal (Beral, ''et al.''), falsely stating that it "concluded that [[abortion]] does not increase a woman's risk of developing breast cancer."<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref> The Lancet article said no such thing about a woman's decision to have an abortion, which does increase the woman's risk of breast cancer. Rather, the Lancet article limited its assertion to a claim about the overall effect of a ''pregnancy'' that terminates early.<ref>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15051280</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]]'s entry on [[Benazir Bhutto]] has nearly 8,000 words on all aspects of her life, and yet not one word acknowledging that she led the movement against the [[United Nations]]' creating a new international right to [[abortion]].<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto</ref>
# [[Wikipedia]] claimed that [[conservatives]] opposed to [[abortion]] are described as "anti-baby" or "anti-family". [[Wikipedia]] removed this bias only after it was identified here.<ref>That statement remained on the article from [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=173316636&oldid=173314241 November 23] to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conservatism&diff=next&oldid=179870132 December 26, 2007]</ref>
# Wikipedia denies and omits the results of 16 out of 17 statistically significant studies showing increased risk of breast cancer from abortion.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/malec.pdf</ref> Wikipedia's entry also omits the evidence of abortion causing increased premature birth of subsequent children.<ref>http://www.jpands.org/vol8no2/rooney.pdf</ref> <ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis</ref>
# Wikipedia omits an entry on [[fetal pain]], and instead redirects visitors to a different entry that denies the obvious pain experienced by unborn children during an [[abortion]]. Nine peer-reviewed studies confirm that there is fetal pain beginning at 20 weeks, as presented during legislative hearings in 2010 on the Nebraska [[Abortion Pain Prevention Act]], but Wikipedia insists on [[liberal denial]] and citation to many implausible, pro-abortion claims.<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain</ref>
# As of 5 February 2010, there is an ongoing discussion on moving the ''Pro-life'' article to ''Anti-abortion''. [[Wikipedia]] even manipulates the term "pro-choice" by changing it to the even more biased term "Abortion-rights movement" rather than "pro-abortion".<ref>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-rights_movement</ref>
== References ==
{{reflist}}
{{Bias in wikipedia}}
[[Category: Wikipedia]]

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion

2011-07-10T04:37:31Z

Whitefire:

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.
# 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.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jim_Pouillon]
# "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)." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis#Beral] In addition, the apostrophes in the quote do not exist.
# 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."" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#Second_term_.281993-96.29]
# 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism]
# 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.
# Due to the number of articles, it should be considered more than a few. This point should change to "many implausible, pro-abortion claims."
# 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-rights_movement]
--[[User:Whitefire|Whitefire]] 00:36, 10 July 2011 (EDT)

Talk:Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Abortion

2011-07-10T04:36:15Z

Whitefire: Created page with "To strengthen the credibility of this wiki, I will show the factual inaccuracies because I'm too stupid to figure out how to edit the actual article to fix it myself, or the arti..."

To strengthen the credibility of this wiki, I will show the factual inaccuracies because I'm too stupid to figure out how to edit the actual article to fix it myself, or the article's locked... 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.
# 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.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Jim_Pouillon]
# "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)." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-breast_cancer_hypothesis#Beral] In addition, the apostrophes in the quote do not exist.
# 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."" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benazir_Bhutto#Second_term_.281993-96.29]
# 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_conservatism]
# 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.
# Due to the number of articles, it should be considered more than a few. This point should change to "many implausible, pro-abortion claims."
# 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. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion-rights_movement]
--[[User:Whitefire|Whitefire]] 00:36, 10 July 2011 (EDT)