| Revision as of 10:42, 16 November 2021 editSalClements (talk | contribs)106 edits ←Created page with '.' | Revision as of 16:03, 18 July 2023 edit undoRhododendrites (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Event coordinators, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers67,105 edits →Beginning of pregnancy controversy article: sorry, one more thingNext edit → | ||
| (3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| . | . | ||
| == Beginning of pregnancy controversy article == | |||
| People throw around a lot of acronyms and jargon around here that can be tough to parse sometimes. Just a note to explain a couple things. ] details Misplaced Pages's standards for sourcing biomedical content. National Review falls under ] (and perhaps some other areas, because its coverage of such topics is colored by politics -- not as much as some other publications, granted, and this is secondary to it simply being "popular press"). | |||
| Also, Misplaced Pages favors the status quo. The burden is on those who want to change the status quo to use the talk page (]) to find ] for a change once it's disputed. At this point, regardless of the content -- there may well be something to add along the lines of what you're included -- repeatedly adding it to the article will just result in getting blocked from editing (that's not a threat -- I'm not an admin and cannot block anyone -- just an FYI). | |||
| I'm confused by a couple of your comments claiming to have addressed the issue, which makes me wonder how much of this is unintentional. Regardless, you keep restoring the National Review. Here is the text, including markup, of what I just removed: | |||
| {{quote|<nowiki>However, | |||
| some methods might have a secondary effect of preventing implantation, thus allowing the ] to die.<ref name="LinacreQ2016">{{cite journal |last1=Peck |first1=Rebecca |author1=Rebecca Peck |author2=Walter Rella |author3=Julio Tudela |author4=Justo Aznar |author5=Bruno Mozzanega |title=Does levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive have a post-fertilization effect? A review of its mechanism of action |journal=Linacre Q |date=February 2016 |volume=83 |issue=1 |doi=10.1179/2050854915Y.0000000011 |pmid=27833181 |access-date=18 July 2023 |quote=Plan B is the most widely used emergency contraceptive available. It is important for patients and physicians to clearly understand the drug’s mechanism of action (MOA)... data suggest that when administered pre-ovulation, it may have a post-fertilization MOA.}}</ref> Those who define pregnancy from fertilization subsequently may conclude that the agents should be considered ]s.<ref>{{cite web |last1=DeSanctis |first1=Alexandra |title=Yes, Some Contraceptives Are Abortifacients |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/11/contraception-birth-control-abortion-abortifacients-ella-plan-b-iud-embryo-life/ |website=nationalreview.com |publisher=National Review |date=November 4, 2016}}</ref></nowiki>}} | |||
| Also swapping "equate" for "identify" (changing documentation of a perspective to pointing to Truth). The article talk page is a better place for these conversations than a user talk page, though. | |||
| I suggest using the talk page, which can be productive to better understand the objections and how to overcome them. — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 16:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 16:03, 18 July 2023
.
Beginning of pregnancy controversy article
People throw around a lot of acronyms and jargon around here that can be tough to parse sometimes. Just a note to explain a couple things. This page details Misplaced Pages's standards for sourcing biomedical content. National Review falls under WP:MEDPOP (and perhaps some other areas, because its coverage of such topics is colored by politics -- not as much as some other publications, granted, and this is secondary to it simply being "popular press").
Also, Misplaced Pages favors the status quo. The burden is on those who want to change the status quo to use the talk page (Talk:Beginning of pregnancy controversy) to find consensus for a change once it's disputed. At this point, regardless of the content -- there may well be something to add along the lines of what you're included -- repeatedly adding it to the article will just result in getting blocked from editing (that's not a threat -- I'm not an admin and cannot block anyone -- just an FYI).
I'm confused by a couple of your comments claiming to have addressed the issue, which makes me wonder how much of this is unintentional. Regardless, you keep restoring the National Review. Here is the text, including markup, of what I just removed:
However, some methods might have a secondary effect of preventing implantation, thus allowing the ] to die.<ref name="LinacreQ2016">{{cite journal |last1=Peck |first1=Rebecca |author1=Rebecca Peck |author2=Walter Rella |author3=Julio Tudela |author4=Justo Aznar |author5=Bruno Mozzanega |title=Does levonorgestrel emergency contraceptive have a post-fertilization effect? A review of its mechanism of action |journal=Linacre Q |date=February 2016 |volume=83 |issue=1 |doi=10.1179/2050854915Y.0000000011 |pmid=27833181 |access-date=18 July 2023 |quote=Plan B is the most widely used emergency contraceptive available. It is important for patients and physicians to clearly understand the drug’s mechanism of action (MOA)... data suggest that when administered pre-ovulation, it may have a post-fertilization MOA.}}</ref> Those who define pregnancy from fertilization subsequently may conclude that the agents should be considered ]s.<ref>{{cite web |last1=DeSanctis |first1=Alexandra |title=Yes, Some Contraceptives Are Abortifacients |url=https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/11/contraception-birth-control-abortion-abortifacients-ella-plan-b-iud-embryo-life/ |website=nationalreview.com |publisher=National Review |date=November 4, 2016}}</ref>
Also swapping "equate" for "identify" (changing documentation of a perspective to pointing to Truth). The article talk page is a better place for these conversations than a user talk page, though.
I suggest using the talk page, which can be productive to better understand the objections and how to overcome them. — Rhododendrites \\ 16:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC)