Talk:Priscilla K. Coleman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Biased, Off Topic Biography

This bio is currently very biased and ill focused. It appears as an extension of an effort to tar any person with an association with David Reardon with allegations of bias and sloppy research. Editors may want to approach it cautiously as the originator of this biography, IronAngelAlice aka 131.216.41.16 as revealed [1] successfully discussed and implemented and effort to "purge all references from the Elliot Institute and David Reardon"[2] from abortion and mental health even though Reardon's studies are peer reviewed and reliable[3] as are Coleman's many, many studies.[4] The pattern of this editor's contributions to Wikipedia can be seen in this count andthis count.

I advice editors to be alert to material in this biography that violates NPOV and relevance. For example, this article is about Coleman, not Reardon nor inferences about pro-life beliefs and relationships. Off topic material should be removed.--Strider12 (talk) 17:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Inferences Not Supported by Citations

Regarding IronAlice Angel's start for this biography,[5], there are many errors and inferences not supported by the sources cited.

For starters, the following statement is not supported by the source:

The statistical methods Coleman and her co-authors use have been criticized by the American Psychological Association (APA)[5] A panel convened by the APA has written that the studies by Coleman, and her co-authors have "inadequate or inappropriate" controls and don't adequately control "for women's mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion." [5]

The studies of Coleman were ALL written after the APA panel, which issued a report back in 1990. IAA seems to be assuming that if the panel had reviewed Coleman's studies they surely would have rejected their findings....an assumption, not a fact.

Nor should it be inferred from a claim that ONE of Reardon's studies published with Cougle in the BMJ (which Coleman was not a party in) did not adequately control for confounding factors and used inappropriate controls[6] that we can then apply that claim to a statment alleging or implying that Coleman engages in the use of "inadequate or inappropriate" methodologies. Moreover, examination of the studies published by Coleman will actually reveal that MANY of her studies actually do include controls for prior mental health. For example:[7][8][9] So again, one should be careful of overexaggerations.--Strider12 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Similarly, the statement identifying Cougle, Rue, and Reardon as "pro-life advocates" is unsupported and ill-defined and perjotive. And the claim that Reardon is guilty of "misrepresenting his academic credentials", much less his peer reviewed research methods, is not supported by the sources cited. More importantly, these accusations are irrelevent to a biogray about Coleman. (He is actually only accused of earning a Ph.D. from an unaccredited university...and there is no evidence he ever mirepresented that he had a doctorate from any other source.)

Anotehr error. The claim that she is the author of 12 studies is simply incorrect. Pubmed shows she is the author of far more.[10] IAA simply takes a reference in a transcript regarding about how many studies Coleman co-authored with Reardon and inserts this in the text with her own spin on what the number describes. Such a lack of care for pecision in describing what is actually reported (rather than what she infers from reports) and concern for checking details is a common problem.

The above list of biased inferences and errors in the article suggest great caution and investigation are required for all edits made by IronAngelAlice regarding the people and issues involved regarding abortion and mental health.--Strider12 (talk) 18:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)