Talk:Mammography/Archives/2018
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Balance?
This article gives excessive weight to criticisms of the use of mammography in routine screening. This is not a widely accepted view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.188.125 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
- Could you give some specific examples of material reflecting the widely accepted view we could use? Or some specific suggestions of text that could be changed? Thanks. Bondegezou (talk) 08:55, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- The article is highly biased against mammography. It could be easily seen in the opening passages, where the supporting organisations are just mentioned by name while the fewer opposing organisations are given lengthy quotes to strengthen their position. And the bias goes on to the rest of the article that reads like a manifest against mammography. Jarreeeid (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- There are ongoing and heated debates about the value of screening mammography, or whether it could be tweaked to be better. As per WP:BALANCE, we should reflect both sides of that debate. I don't think the article is "highly biased", but I agree it could be improved.
- The key paragraph in the lede starts with the pro-screening literature and then covers the more critical literature. Pro-screening gets described first, but there is a bit more text for the critical side, with a long quote from the classic Gøtzsche review. That said, that long quote isn't saying screening is good or bad: it's saying it has pros and cons, and everyone agrees it has pros and cons, albeit Gøtzsche's numbers are debated. It's only the final two sentences that are fully against screening. So, I'm comfortable with that balance. Some for, some critical but not entirely anti, a bit anti.
- However, when we move to the bulk of the article, the first section, "Risks and Benefits", does seem to focus more on risks than benefits. I think that section could benefit from more pro-screening literature given that it remains a recommended procedure in much of the world. I would support edits doing that. If I have time, I will see if I can add some. Bondegezou (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- The article is highly biased against mammography. It could be easily seen in the opening passages, where the supporting organisations are just mentioned by name while the fewer opposing organisations are given lengthy quotes to strengthen their position. And the bias goes on to the rest of the article that reads like a manifest against mammography. Jarreeeid (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2018 (UTC)