Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

MEDDATE

Here's an approximate idea of what I'm thinking about MEDDATE issues.

The ideal maximum age for a source depends upon the subject

Subject	Example	Maximum recommended age
Major topics in a major, actively researched area	first-line treatments for hypertension	Review articles published within approximately the last five years
Minor topics in a major area	treatment of hypertension in a person with kidney cancer	Approximately five years or the three most recent review articles, whichever is longer
Major topics in a minor area	treatment of cystic fibrosis	Approximately five years or at least three reviews, whichever is longer
Minor topics in a minor area	treatment of hypertension in a person with cystic fibrosis	The several most recent review articles, and any primary sources published since the penultimate review article
Very rare diseases	most genetic disorders	The several most recent peer-reviewed articles, regardless of absolute age

Does this seem approximately like what you all would expect to find if you were looking for sources? (On the fourth line, it may help to know that hypertension does not seem to be a common complication of cystic fibrosis.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea of a table of different variants like this, but it's going to need some work. There are a couple of issues here:

 1. Ideal source are obviously always new up to date systematic reviews regardless of topic area

 2. Do we use number of reviews to determin which are major/minor topics and how do we know ehn a topic falls under any of these groups?

 3. How do we determine if reviews/articles have been published? You have WebOfScience and Scopus for this but very few editors have access. Pubmed doesn't really cut it.

 4. The wording "regardless of absolute age" is problematic because all you need to do is go back to a 1970s East German source and you can promote a wealth of alt-med diseases. I'd be more comfortable is we used something akin to Orphanet [1] to determine what rare diseases are - many old purported diseases are just that, and aren't considered real today.

 5. "any primary sources" is far to inclusive

 6. Best possible sources don't depend on subject but rather how much research has been performed - this means that even some very rare diseases have quite significant bodies of research.

CFCF 💌 📧 20:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it needs work; that's why I posted it.  ;-)

1: Ideal sources are not always systematic reviews. The ideal sources for treatment efficacy are systematic reviews – assuming any exist – but systematic reviews are not the ideal source for 90% of article content.

2 and 3: I think that the number of reviews available might be one reasonable metric for major/minor (and all the things in between). We can base this on PubMed and treat it as a rebuttable presumption: if I find nothing in PubMed, but you've got access to Scopus and find more, then you can share your information with me. By the way, here are some quick numbers:

• "Hypertension" is mentioned in 12,730 (tagged) reviews on PubMed in the last five years, and is present in the title of 3,162.
• "Breast cancer" is mentioned in 6,447 and in the title of 3,741.
• "Pneumonia" is mentioned in 2,808 and in the title of 695.
• "Cystic fibrosis" (a heavily researched rare disease) is mentioned in 1,543 and in the title of 692.
• "Preeclampsia" is mentioned in 779 (plus more under the hyphenated spelling "pre-eclampsia") and in the title of 279.
• "Down syndrome" is mentioned in 469 and in the title of 160.
• "Kidney cancer" is mentioned in 225 (plus 174 non-duplicates for "renal cancer") and in the title of just 64 (plus 51 for "renal cancer").
• "Wilson disease" is mentioned in 62 and in the title of 17 (plus more for "Wilson's disease").
• "Oculodental digital dysplasia" (incredibly rare disease) is mentioned in zero.

(These are all quoted-phrase searches on PubMed, merely for illustration rather than ideal searches for these subjects.)

As a quick rule of thumb, then maybe this would work: If there are more than 100 hits among reviews published on the subject in the last year, then you should probably be using the "major" criteria for the bulk of your sources. If there are less than 100, then that might not be possible (because "hits" ≠ "reviews actually about the subject"). Or we could build it based on in-title searches: Use good reviews if you've got more than a couple dozen, but when you've only got 20 (or fewer) to choose from, the fact is that the available sources might not cover all of the material that ought to be in the article. For example, there is exactly one review that has both "cystic fibrosis" and "hypertension" in the title during the last five years, and if you need to source a sentence about non-pulmonary hypertension (perhaps to mention the need to control hypertension in advance of getting a lung transplant), then there are zero recent reviews available on that exact subject.

However, I think that most experienced editors are going to have an easy time deciding where a subject falls on the scale. If I have no trouble discovering sources, then it's a major topic. If my searches come up empty, then it's not. You should be using the best of what you've got, unless and until someone demonstrates that better ones; conversely, when better ones don't exist, then you should not be hassled by people who care about the date on the paper more than they care about the content of the article.

4. Bad sources are bad sources. Age is not the sole, or even main, determinant of whether a source is bad.

5. Bad sources are bad sources. Primary vs secondary status is not the sole, or even main, determinant of whether a source is bad.

6. Best possible sources do depend on the subject, because the subject determines how much research has been published. I believe that you meant to say that the best possible sources don't depend upon disease prevalence.  ;-) Also, it's necessary to write these rules to work for non-disease subjects, such as drugs and surgical techniques. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate the thinking behind this proposal, I suspect that it will make things worse rather than better. As we all know, there is already a tendency – usually but not always editors who aren't familiar with how to read and use the published literature – to treat MEDRS as a series of yes/no checkboxes that must be met, rather than as a set of rules of thumb which a skilled editor might consider in evaluating a given source-assertion-context triple. (See also the related problem of editors who think that "reliability" is a magical inherent trait possessed by a source, without regard for how or where that source is being used. And editors who had WT:MED watchlisted earlier this year will be familiar with the individual who thought evaluate this article meant make a complete list of its citations older than 5 years and declare them not MEDRS-compliant, regardless of context.)

Creating a more-specific-looking set of criteria increases the tendency for slavish adherence to the letter of the rule rather than to the purpose of the rule. Saying that "most experienced editors are going to have an easy time deciding where a subject falls on the scale" misses the likely source of the problem— most experienced and competent editors already grasp the need for flexibility in applying MEDRS' guidelines. Where a question about a source arises under these new criteria, the discussion will be diverted from the central question of whether or not the source-assertion-context triple at hand is appropriate, and into bickering over whether a particular topic and area are major/major, major/minor, minor/major, or minor/minor. Once that binary categorization is achieved, there will be blind counting of number of reviews or blind adherence to the five-year criterion—which is the same problem we already encounter. And since the new criteria look more specific and 'scientific', then we're probably going to have more trouble dislodging individuals from their mistaken belief that these rules of thumb are etched in stone. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 11:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughtful comment.

Part of the problem is structural: We want to tell people to do X if they're looking for new sources/creating new material, but X plus Y if they're evaluating whether an existing statement is okay. As in: If you're writing a new article, then use the best sources you can possibly lay your hands on. But if you're trying to figure out whether Source X verifies Statement 1, then "the best sources" aren't required. You need one that is good enough, but it only has to be barely good enough.

What do you think about killing any mention of five years at all? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to the idea. The five-year rule of thumb (and its chronic misinterpretation as an iron-clad commandment) may be causing more problems than it solves, these days.

We generally prefer more recent sources, all other things being equal. But all other things are never exactly equal, and what qualifies as "more recent" varies a lot depending on the field, the content, and the context. I think we (Wikipedia editors) sometimes fall down when we over-prioritise recent publication dates over other measures of source quality and reliability. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we don't necessarily prefer more recent sources, because of WP:RECENTISM. We do tend to prefer the most recent reviews, of course, because they can consider the impact of more recent primary sources. The "five-year rule of thumb" came into being when it was suggested that in many fields a review cycle (the time between consecutive major reviews) took roughly that amount of time. It's obvious that there is considerable variance in the time before a particular major review becomes superseded by an equally important successor, and unless editors take the time to find the most recent high-quality review, the rule of thumb becomes counter-productive. We really need to be saying something like "In many topics a review conducted more than five to ten years ago will have been superseded by more up-to-date ones, and editors should try to find those", rather than suggesting we reject a perfectly good source solely on the grounds of its age. --RexxS (talk) 15:21, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Country of Origin

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should we change MEDRS, which currently reads:

Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.

to

Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions.

This proposal is to address only the addition of high-quality sources into the guideline. LesVegas (talk) 23:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

Support Wikipedia should never get into the business of discriminating against high quality sources because of where that research might have been conducted or published. However, this has happened before, where multiple Cochrane reviews were rejected while trying to replace an old source with them, partly on the basis that "all but one of its authors were Chinese," and therefore, they must be biased. This is not an isolated incident either, with some editors rejecting all sources published in China not on the basis of case by case analysis of the source's quality, but stating they're published in China and assume they must all be unreliable. Low quality sources that, for instance, are not peer-reviewed, should always be rejected. But MEDRS does not yet make it clear whether or not high-quality foreign sources should ever be rejected on the basis of country of origin, whether it be the authors of a publication or place where high quality research is published. And interestingly, MEDRS currently allows for industry funded research not to be rejected on the basis that it's industry-funded, while it says nothing about a particular country's research. And yet, despite whatever potential problems could exist, it is very clear that industry funded research can be very problematic to add into Wikipedia. Just recently, Coca Cola came under fire for funding scientific research showing that Coca Cola doesn’t cause obesity. And bad as that may be, MEDRS currently doesn’t allow us to prohibit such research. It states:

'Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.'

There are also many well-documented problems with industry-funded research in the way of psychiatric medications failure to warn about cancer risk with certain drugs, as well as showing a huge statistical increase in "positive findings" for various pharmaceuticals.

However, just because there is a documented problem with some industry funded research, that doesn’t mean there is a problem with ‘’’all’’’ industry funded research. And oftentimes, new drugs only have industry-funded research for sources. No other sources can be found. Reasons like that are why it's not permitted to reject high quality sources on the basis of them being industry-funded.

At the same time, some editors currently reject some sources on the basis of them being published in another country. One such example is with acupuncture where a 1998 research report showed that in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Russia/USSR, China and Japan higher reports of positive findings occurred when compared to England. In some ways findings like these could possibly mirror the problems in industry-funded research. And at the same time, as with industry-funded research, it’s difficult to discount all of it on the basis that there is a chance some of the more positive findings might possibly be due to publication bias. Further complicating the issue is that more positive findings might be due to cultural differences in scientific research between various countries, such as ethical dilemmas with using placebos where the Chinese have shown statistical deviations from non-Chinese trials, creating conditions where placebo alone is not ethically justified as a control. There are many other possible confounding factors similar to this which may explain differences for findings between various countries once found within this specific modality. Undoubtedly, this seems to cloud the issue. But making the issue more problematic, for us as editors, is that some of the research mentioned in the Vickers source might not even be of high quality, thus causing making any argument against high quality research moot.

Adding "country of origin" seems to put the wording more in line with Wikipedia’s project Countering Systemic Bias, as well as our WP:BIAS policy. By ensuring Wikipedia editor-level peer review doesn’t extend to country of origin, it also makes it consistent with our current stance on liberal allowance of sources no matter what types of funding may be received.

UPDATE For anyone who thinks this issue isn't happening at all or was just one isolated incident, let me show proof it is still happening. Within the past few days, an editor rejected research in a high quality journal, Medicine, because the "authors are Chinese." Like it or not, rejecting sources based on ethnic origin of authors is a real problem. We need to examine sources, rejecting or accepting them based on their own merits and nothing else. LesVegas (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

LesVegas (talk) 23:51, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose I see no reason why this proposal is needed. We could also add that we shouldn't oppose inclusion based on authors skin color–because racism is bad, but it isn't needed. Level and quality of evidence is far more important. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

There have been incidents where high quality sources were rejected for reasons that could've been prevented with amended language, such as this. I modified my first comment, adding in one example of such a rejection, although there have been others. Therefore, it appears it is needed. Let me know if you still think this way after reading the link. LesVegas (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Question What does "country of origin" in the proposal refer to? The country where the study was conducted, nationality of researchers or subjects, or country where the publishers of the journal or book are located? The first two are fine but perhaps unnecessary as CFCF says above (can LesVegas point to instances where such criterion was cited and prevailed?) If the last, I'll be opposed to the change since assessing the quality of journal and its publishers is crucial for assessing medical and other sources, and neither high-quality nor sham publishers are distributed uniformly across the globe, and we on wikipedia cannot solve this real world problem by simply turning a blind eye to it. Abecedare (talk) 01:04, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Good question. "Country of origin" is all-encompassing, meaning country of author, country where research was conducted and where it was published. Keep in mind, this RfC is asking about high-quality peer-reviewed publications that meet every other standard of quality in MEDRS. LesVegas (talk) 03:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This appears to be an attempt to allow Chinese studies about acupuncture published in Chinese journals to be used to support acupuncture. We need to use high quality journals with a reputation for reliability. So oppose the underlying attempt. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, there was an incident where an influential editor opposed the addition of a Cochrane Review because its authors were from China. DocJames, please limit your comments to high quality sources. This is what the discussion is pertaining. LesVegas (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

To which Cochrane review do you refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, several. One of them was a review on fibromyalgia which had several authors that were Chinese. High quality sources should never be rejected on such a basis, don't you think? By the way, upon re reading your comment, are you suggesting Chinese studies or Chinese journals are all inherently low-quality? I certainly hope that's not what you were saying. Tell me I read that wrong. LesVegas (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes that Cochrane review is a fine source to use. No I am not saying all Chinese journals are inherently low-quality. Many journals in many places however are low quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:29, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Agree with Doc James. I have seen zero examples of any attempt to reject high-quality foreign sources on the basis of simply being from another country. The Chinese studies about acupuncture published in Chinese journals were rejected not because they were published in China, but rather that they were not high quality journals with a reputation for reliability. There are plenty of fringe journals pushing pseudoscience in the US and UK, and plenty of good, peer-reviewed science gets published in China. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon , you might check out the diff below where an editor rejected one such source on this very basis. You can't get much higher quality than Cochrane Reviews, and you can't get much lower editing than to reject one all because "all but one of its authors are Chinese." It's sad we have seatbelt laws and equally as sad we have to tell editors not to reject high quality sources because of things like where they're published, but I'm afraid that's the case. It's exhausting to waste time on such silly matters and doesn't hurt anything to add it in because we're talking about high quality, peer reviewed sources here anyway. LesVegas (talk) 02:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I did check out the diff. As others have pointed out, it does not say what you claim it says. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, I've seen you around and know you're a good editor here. I know it's shocking to think another editor would ever argue such a thing, but I was in the middle of that one and I can tell you that's what was meant regarding a set of Cochrane Reviews used to replace old research. Kww argued it shouldn't be used to replace an outdated review per WP:MEDDATE for several reasons, one being that the Cochrane Reviews used Chinese authors. If you would like more details on that, I'm happy to provide them. Again, I know it's hard to believe editors would ever say or argue such a thing, but sadly they do. The other Guy constantly rejects sources because they're Chinese, and you can see for yourself how he stereotypes them as universally unreliable. No regard for peer review in statements like that, just outright rejection of sources because they are Chinese. We shouldn't even have to discuss such matters as ethnicity of authors or place of publication on talk pages, it's distracting and disruptive; editors need to be focusing on quality of individual journals and that's it. LesVegas (talk) 06:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Pending further info Is this change meant to address a non-hypothetical problem? Excluding a study based solely on country of origin is so strange that I'd be surprised to see that anyone had attempted it, let alone done it successfully, but has it happened? What were the circumstances? When I first saw this RfC, I thought "This looks like it's probably about something else" and DocJames' scenario seems consistent with this. Other comment: What counts as "personal"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Darkfrog24, you might want to check a diff out where an editor opposed updating an old source with a series of Cochrane Reviews because all but one of its authors were Chinese. Yes, rejection of high quality sources based on country of publication or origin of its authors is a real problem. As long as sources are high quality, issues like country of origin or ethnicity shouldn't matter. LesVegas (talk) 02:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Well this diff doesn't show someone saying, "Exclude these sources because they're Chinese." It's more like Kiwi saying, "I think this guy wants to exclude the sources because they're Chinese," but whatever. I'm changing my comment to mild support. The idea that we shouldn't exclude sources solely on country of origin is so obvious that we all should be doing it already and if a source really is unreliable, there should be other reasons to exclude it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

+support based on the diff linked above, where an editor simply assumed that a study was biased because other studies by other authors of the same nationality had been accused of bias. This is out of line. DES ^(talk) 03:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Darkfrog24 and DES what you see operating in the diff is WP:REDFLAG. The key word in the diff is "suspect"; which is very different from "excluded". Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The key phrase in the diff is "I also note that of the supposed refutations, all but one include Chinese researchers on the papers: we've discussed that bias problem extensively, and there's no reason to believe it doesn't apply here" This is drawing a conclusion that the mere presence of Chinese researchers equates to bias. This is not acceptable. DES ^(talk) 13:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

DES, thanks for replying. LesVegas and others have been pushing and pushing and pushing to include Chinese sources on acupuncture in our article - the issue has been discussed a zillion times but keeps coming up, and it gets frustrating, and people write things quickly that are easy to misconstrue when diffs are cherry-picked, as LesVegas has done with KWW's statement. Jytdog (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Jytdog, would a rule saying, "do not exclude based solely on country of origin" make it harder for you to exclude low-quality or otherwise problematic sources? I'm not familiar with this particular dispute, but it sounds like those sources are no good regardless, so this shouldn't make any difference. Would it help if another line were added elsewhere saying, "Sources that have not survived peer review may be excluded" or "sources from publications known to routine publish and fail to retract unreliable material may be excluded"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The background facts are:

a1) our article on Acupuncture has been highly contested for a long time and is subject to DS per Arbcom - the core dispute is between science-based editors and believers in acupuncture (as with many alt-med topics);

a2) some acupuncture believers actually try at some level to deal with the relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines (NPOV and particularly PSCI, FRINGE, MEDRS);

b1) Research (and reviews) produced in China about acupuncture (and other TCM) overwhelmingly come to positive conclusions about the efficacy of TCM for various diseases and conditions, and they come to positive conclusions way more often than research and reviews produced in the West.

b2) This discrepancy is explained by believers (in published sources) in various ways (e.g Westerners don't do TCM properly or there are special facts about TCM that make it impossible to conduct sound scientific research on it); scientists have explained this discrepancy in published sources by pointing to the immature level of development of Chinese scientific institutions.

c1) When you put a) and b) together, you get some acu-proponents pushing to use reviews originating from Chinese scientific institutions to support content in our article about the benefits of acupuncture (content that is not supportable with, or even contradicted by, other sources), and science-based editors tending to reject that content and its sourcing - especially when no other sources are brought (see the first bullet of WP:REDFLAG). This has been discussed extensively on this Talk page as well as on the article Talk page and the consensus has been to treat sources about TCM originating from China as "suspect" for the time being - not excluded, but not "green flagged" as high quality. This RfC was posted by an acu-proponent. You can see my response to it below. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, what is your opinion on rejecting Cochrane Reviews because its authors are Chinese? Are there no publications in China that are reliable? Do you have a source that all are unreliable and engage in publication bias? Do you think there could be other possibilities for differing results, such as ethical dilemmas with placebo controls in more instances? And since scientists have documented the same issues you complain about in Chinese research, as with industry-funded research, why do you hold a different standard for Chinese sources? LesVegas (talk) 15:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• oppose The framing of serious issues with Chinese research publications on acupuncture as "discrimination" is the worst kind of red-herring, bad-faith, manipulative argument imaginable, especially when Chinese scientists themselves point out the problems. This RfC is the pits. There are solid sources describing the problems:
  • Li J, et al The quality of reports of randomized clinical trials on traditional Chinese medicine treatments: a systematic review of articles indexed in the China National Knowledge Infrastructure database from 2005 to 2012. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2014 Sep 26;14:362. PMID 25256890
  • Vickers, Andrew (April 1, 1998), Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials., Control Clin Trials {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Ferguson, Cat (November 26, 2014), Publishing: The peer-review scam, Nature {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  • Qiu, Jane (January 12, 2010), Publish or perish in China, Nature {{citation}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

The quality will surely improve with time but LesVegas' effort to wave a magic wand and make the actual problems disappear under the banner of "discrimination" runs hard against everything we try to do at WP:MED with regard to using high quality sources. Jytdog (talk) 04:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, this RfC is about high-quality sources, not low quality ones which are clearly not allowed. But your inability to differentiate between these two categories and continue stereotyping all Chinese studies and Chinese authors the way you just did isn't surprising since you posted that scientific institutions in China aren't independent or mature, and therefore all of their journals are unreliable. Frankly, comments like that are why RfC's like this exist. But back to the discussion at hand. You never addressed high quality sources, which is what this RfC is pertaining to. You are opposing low quality ones, which we all should oppose on the basis of things like lack of peer-review and things of that nature. But opposing them simply because they are Chinese isn't acceptable, don't you think? LesVegas (talk) 04:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You continue to mischaracterize the situation and to employ circular reasoning. The systemic problems with Chinese research on acupuncture are well documented and so the assumption going in, is that they are not high quality; per Guy's diff they are "suspect." The burden is on the person bringing any such source to show that the specific source is high quality. Per WP:REDFLAG one way that could be done would be to show that sources that are high quality say the same thing. This is not racism, it is dealing with immature level of development of Chinese scientific institutions, just like it is not racist to say that the institutions of Chinese law in the fields of environment and intellectual property are not mature. The air quality in Chinese cities is often poor; copyright infringement is rampant in China; Chinese publications on acupuncture almost always have favorable outcomes. Those are simple statements of fact, reflecting a society in development. They are not essentialist, racist statements - they are existential statements of fact and will change over time, as the situation in China changes. So WP:DROPTHESTICK. And I suggest you be much more careful in deploying this tactic of cherry-picking diffs and trying to discredit editors as racist. Jytdog (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, just the other day you said "we do not perform peer review on sources and should never reject industry-funded sources that almost always have positive findings. But Chinese research? Nope, Chinese scientists aren't independent or mature. I'm not trying to characterize you as racist, but frankly by defending one standard for industry-funded studies, and enforcing another for Chinese research while stereotyping all Chinese research as unreliable, never to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, makes it difficult for me not to find a diff that characterizes you any other way. But let me allow you the opportunity to prove that you're not racist. Simple question: why should we allow one standard for industry funded research despite documented publication bias issues, and another standard for Chinese research, rejecting the notion that we should evaluate Chinese sources or Chinese authors on a case-by-case basis like we do everywhere else? LesVegas (talk) 15:01, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Your mischaracterization of what I wrote and of MEDRS is malicious, incompetent, or both. This is not about conducting peer review, which involves critiquing the quality and extent of the experiments that were done, the presentation of the resulting data, and the conclusions drawn from the data. This has nothing to do with research funding. And I said nothing about "Chinese scientists" - I addressed institutions. Jytdog (talk) 15:14, 6 September 2015 (UTC) (strike; should not have written that. my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC))

Oh but it is about conducting a peer review based on industry funding. Those have the same documented issues you complain about in Chinese research, although I would argue, worse, since there are more confounding factors between Eastern and Western cultures (like different scientific ethics) and those can explain reasons for discrepancies in results between East vs. West, not simply publication bias. Simple question: why should we not reject research on the basis that it's industry-funded, but we should reject research because it's Chinese, instead of evaluating it on a case by case basis? LesVegas (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand what happens during peer review of scientific papers; I explained that above. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, this is not about peer review in the publication process. I hope you aren't WP: IDHT'ing Yes, scientific papers are peer reviewed before being published in reputable journals. But the peer review we are talking about is that "Wikipedia editors should not perform peer review", specifically, in this instance, by rejecting high-quality sources on the basis of industry funding behind piece of published research. Again, please answer the question: why should we not reject research on the basis that it's industry-funded, but we should reject research because it's Chinese, instead of evaluating it on a case by case basis? I really hope you can answer it. LesVegas (talk) 16:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

We already do evaluate on a case-by-case basis, and since this hasn't been a problem we don't need a clause against it in our guidelines. In order that they be followed–guidelines need to be succinct. We can't indiscriminately add clauses in order to address hypothetical problems or noone will read them–making it far harder to police.-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 05:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

On the face of it, the OP appears to want to get his low quality pro-acupuncture sources into our Acupuncture article by claiming they are high quality. I don't think the community is quite that silly. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Previously uninvolved editor here: 1) Even if the sources were rightly excluded, "they're Chinese" should not be numbered among the reasons for this; their own failings should be enough. Question: Why would "don't exclude based on country" make any difference? 2) Aside from this acupuncture issue, is the argument of exclusion-based-on-country a common enough problem to merit explicitly banning it? Do the words "don't exclude based on country" earn their keep for the space they take up (in Wikipedia's already Byzantine rule structure). Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"They're Chinese" is a poor shorthand for a complex discussion and is not how the issue should be discussed nor should that phrase be used as a description of the stance of those opposed to this RfC or who treat sources about TCM produced by Chinese institutions as suspect. I am unaware of this issue arising outside the context of TCM. Jytdog (talk) 15:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I can be more succinct than JD. 1)No. 2)No (to my knowledge). 3)No. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 15:38, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose. While I agree that certain fringe journals are focused in particular countries, I don't think we should be determining reliability overall by country of origin. However, that can be a first red flag on certain topics for a deeper look. That's why I would oppose this language as I don't think it is needed. If a question on reliability comes up, there will be other qualities we look at for journals as well. There is also potential this language could be abused from a WP:BEANS approach (acupuncture does come to mind), so I think it's better that this is one thing left unsaid, but consensus in discussions on the idea that country or origin alone can't be used can always be linked if someone brings it up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Strong oppose The focus should remain on the quality of the research and the reliability of the source. Either the research is good, or it is not. Either the source is reliable, or it is not. In what possible way does "country of origin" factor into anything, except to imply that some countries are doing poor quality research and publishing in unreliable sources, and must therefore be held to a lesser standard? TechBear | Talk | Contributions 20:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that the focus should always be on the quality of the sources themselves. In MEDRS it states, "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions". We aren't supposed to reject sources purely on those merits, just simply focus on the quality of the source itself, and yet MEDRS has to be explicit because I can only assume in the past editors have rejected high quality sources because of things like references, inclusion criteria, etc. Given that editors have rejected clearly high quality sources on the basis of nationality of author or country of publication (as seen from the diffs I provided) why haven't we reached a point where we need to explicitly tell editors they need to be focusing only on source quality and nothing else, like country? LesVegas (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Support I have read most of this RFC and debated commenting. Most of the responses do not answer the question. The question is specifically about High quality sources. High quality sources should never be excluded based on the country of origin or nationality of the authors. Low quality sources will be rejected based on the fact they are low quality and this change will not allow them in regardless. I have looked at the diffs and there is a problem in some instances, though how wide spread is hard to say. AlbinoFerret 15:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

A blog post by Edzard Ernst, a leading academic in this area, reads in large part:

"In this case, you might perhaps believe Chinese researchers. In [this systematic review http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1089/acm.2014.5346.abstract], all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture published in Chinese journals were identified by a team of Chinese scientists. A total of 840 RCTs were found, including 727 RCTs comparing acupuncture with conventional treatment, 51 RCTs with no treatment controls, and 62 RCTs with sham-acupuncture controls. Among theses 840 RCTs, 838 studies (99.8%) reported positive results from primary outcomes and two trials (0.2%) reported negative results. The percentages of RCTs concealment of the information on withdraws or sample size calculations were 43.7%, 5.9%, 4.9%, 9.9%, and 1.7% respectively.

The authors concluded that publication bias might be major issue in RCTs on acupuncture published in Chinese journals reported, which is related to high risk of bias. We suggest that all trials should be prospectively registered in international trial registry in future.

I applaud the authors’ courageous efforts to conduct this analysis, but I do not agree with their conclusion. The question why all Chinese acupuncture trials are positive has puzzled me since many years, and I have quizzed numerous Chinese colleagues why this might be so. The answer I received was uniformly that it would be very offensive for Chinese researchers to conceive a study that does not confirm the views held by their peers. In other words, acupuncture research in China is conducted to confirm the prior assumption that this treatment is effective. It seems obvious that this is an abuse of science which must cause confusion.

Whatever the reasons for the phenomenon, and we can only speculate about them, the fact has been independently confirmed several times and is now quite undeniable: acupuncture trials from China – and these constitute the majority of the evidence-base in this area – cannot be trusted."

This gives us a convenient way of identifying a large section of the literature as pseudoscience sensu stricto, and not to be regarded as RS. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Richard, I am glad you are giving this more analysis than others have. I have asked myself the same question- why have variations been noted? While publication bias is one possibility, there are others. For instance, placebo controls are rarely done and for ethical reasons control groups receive actual treatment of some sort. Another possibility is that in China they are performing acupuncture differently. The first time I ever had acupuncture was when I was in China, and after an accident, and I can tell you it was a very different treatment than any of the acupuncture I have had since returning to the US. It is also very different from Japanese acupuncture, or Korean, all of which I have experienced. The Chinese acupuncture I experienced used thicker needles and they adjusted them in such a way that elicited very strong stimulation. It was also done in a hospital, by medical doctors, so I knew in the back of my mind this was legitimate and this gave a different experience overall. The thing is, there are many variables. But worst case scenario, statistics have shown a 24 percent increase in positive findings of Chinese research versus Western research regarding acupuncture. That's still lower than the stats on industry-funded drug trials when compared to independently-funded sources, and yet we have explicit language in MEDRS that we shouldn't reject high quality sources because of funding. So why shouldn't we be consistent? LesVegas (talk) 18:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• oppose it is an attempt to run around the essential purpose of MEDRES: that we only use the highest quality sources. where there is evidence that medical sources from a particular country do not measure up to the standards generally required we should NOT be using them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:05, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Adding country of origin to the policy/guideline is appropriate; nothing prevents anyone from applying a rigorous critique to the quality of a particular source. It is important not to mass-categorize entire groups of authors or publications simply by where they originate. It, for example, an academic journal from nation Foo publishes bad science, it can be assessed on its own merits or lack thereof, not the ethnicity of those producing it. Montanabw^(talk) 23:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Inclusion should not be arbitrated on account of the author's, nor the content's cultural origin. The opposition makes claims that the guideline amendment is unnecessary, as such is already generally accepted, however I do believe in a differentiation between the two. We need a reference-able guideline to control cultural prejudice, which serves no place on Wikipedia. There should be no question of interpretation, the guidelines should be definitive. ExParte ^{talk | contribs} 06:18, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose quote The framing of serious issues with Chinese research publications on acupuncture as "discrimination" is the worst kind of red-herring, bad-faith, manipulative argument imaginable, especially when Chinese scientists themselves point out the problems. This RfC is the pits. There is an awful lot of bad faith characterisation in this thread. Of course country, nationality etc. should not in itself be a criteria, but if the problem really did exist (which I'm not convinced of by the instances given), this wording would do nothing to solve it but simply distract from the central question of the quality of the source in a POINTY manner. Pincrete (talk) 19:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

There were several instances, one where Cochrane Reviews were being suppressed because of Chinese authorship as well as high quality journals such as Medicine where the same objections based on Chinese authorship were made. Since this RfC was on high quality sources only, can you please clarify: when we have obviously high quality sources, do you think country of origin should be an issue at all? LesVegas (talk) 22:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Re country of origin question. Obviously not in itself. I don't ordinarily edit in Med. areas, (summoned by bot), however it is simply an established fact that some sources are less reliable than others in all areas (US Govt. 'collateral damage' figures?). I don't see why 'country' would be identified any more than any other factor. If there is real evidence of rejecting sources solely, or principally, on grounds of ethnicity or provenance, this is not the way to solve it. I was not persuaded that there was such evidence. You (and others) are repeatedly saying these are high quality sources, AS A FACT, but is that not what is disputed? Pincrete (talk) 14:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have never seen anyone dispute, for instance, that Cochrane Reviews or publications from Medicine, are not high quality publications unless they have Chinese authors in the studies they publish (which has been disputed). In fact, MEDRS says they unequivocally are high quality sources. One aspect that has been disputed is that if they have authors who are Chinese, then that makes them unreliable. My position is that country of origin shouldn't ever be used as an argument to exclude high quality sources. What we instead should be focusing on as editors is if the source passes MEDRS's established high-barometer for reliability and that's it, never rejecting sources because of things like country of origin. Do you agree? LesVegas (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I was invited by a bot to make a comment, I am not either competent or willing to discuss the reliability of specific research. The comment I made is that the examples given do not persuade me that research is being rejected solely or primarily on the grounds of ethnicity or nationality, and that further, if it were, this would not be an effective means of remedying the problem. The provenance of any source, and its reputation for checking, is always a factor in assessing its reliability, whether we are discussing Russia Today, Fox News, Daily Mail, or a Govt. statement. I am in-expert on the protocols of medical trials, but even I know that allowing for 'placebo effect' is a cornerstone of such trials, yet you dismiss this factor above as 'Chinese doctors have an ethical objection'. Fine, then such trials have not been conducted according to long-established medical standards. IF the proof of 'racism' or irrational 'national prejudice' were as clear-cut as you appear to believe it to be, you should be taking this matter to a much higher 'court' in WP than this RfC. I am not persuaded that you are correct. Pincrete (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose There's no noted problem with this occurring. The objections to Chinese sources for acupuncture and Indian sources for ayurveda is due to noted and repeated bias problems, not due to some imaginary racist motivation.—Kww(talk) 16:05, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, one of the noted problems was with you, when you deemed a series of Cochrane Reviews suspect because they had Chinese authors. I just wanted to correct the record here. I'll also note you continue to defend this behavior even today. Nobody is saying there's racist motivations on your or anyone's part for doing this, btw, just a wrongful assumption where you believe that because some studies have at one time shown possible (not proven) bias, all are therefore unreliable, even extending to what we consider the highest quality sources like Cochrane. LesVegas (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You confuse "LesVegas is concerned about an issue" with "there actually is an issue".—Kww(talk) 20:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Where there is a proven bias, as in the case of Chinese studies of acupuncture, we should just ignore them. (Off topic, but I also believe we should treat industry-funded reviews with a high degree of skepticism, and should ignore them when good, independently funded reviews are available.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It's unnecessary to add that kind of language. We accept a source if it's published in reputable journals regardless of their origin. This proposal will only work for POV pushers as an avenue to weasel their not so reliable sources into articles, claiming regional bias. Darwinian Ape ^talk 08:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Call for close

This thread should be closed as POV pushing and trolling. When Jytdog wrote "When the institutions that support science in China become independent and mature, their journals will become valuable sources. They are not there yet"[2], only to have LesVegas characterize it as " Chinese scientists aren't independent or mature"[3] -- something Jytdog never wrote or implied -- it became clearly evident that LesVegas is more interested in winning the argument than seeking the truth. Demonizing Jytdog as a racist is trolling, and we should close down this discussion rather than rewarding such behavior with further attention. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:00, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose closeI find it a little odd that nobody seems to want to answer why we have one standard for industry funded sources (written into MEDRS), and an entire other standard for Chinese sources where we can reject them on the basis of being Chinese and not on their own merits. Nobody has dared answer that question, and here, less than 24 hrs after the RfC was filed, an attempt has been made to close it before anyone answers this obvious and frankly embarrasing inconsistency. How paradoxical to then accuse me of not trying to seek the truth. And please don't accuse me of demonizing Jytdog as racist. He accused me of accusing him of racism, which is not the same thing at all. He said I was finding diffs that made him look racist and I told him essentially that was his problem, not mine. As for institutions, are they faceless, humanless entities or are they made up of human beings? So I suppose the institutions can be immature or not independent, but the scientists and publishers composing the institutions are mature and independent? Really? Especially when Jytdog and other editors are on record rejecting sources because they're Chinese, and not because of, say, lack of peer-review or lack of Medline indexing. If you read Jytdog's many diffs in full context he makes it clear it is impossible for anything Chinese to ever be considered reliable. I have not once seen him state, even here, otherwise. And at the same time he defends the practice of not rejecting sources because of industry-funding that has been documented to skew results, but opposes all Chinese research on acupuncture for those same reasons. I have asked multiple times for an answer, and he ignores it. Please, somebody, can somebody answer it? If we can come to a consensus on how to reconcile that glaring issue, and we can come to a consensus that high quality sources shouldn't be rejected on the basis of ethnicity of author, nor should they be rejected purely because of where they're published, I'm fine with that. When editors reject friggin Cochrane Reviews because authors are Chinese, we have a serious problem. LesVegas (talk) 22:11, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm reminded of MastCell's WP:CGTW#8: Anyone who edits policy pages to favor their position in a specific dispute has no business editing policy pages. Corollary: these are the only people who edit policy pages. Yobol (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support close This RfC is an obvious attempt to win a content dispute by declaring that editors objecting to certain sources are racist. Johnuniq (talk) 23:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose close - I do not think it is appropriate that everyone is focusing on the editor instead of answering the basic question this thread is asking - some of those opposed to the policy edit proposed asked some version of "why would country of origin matter?" Well, exactly, it shouldn't matter. And yet sources are rejected because "they're Chinese" and that is wrong. If there were reliable ways of gauging the quality of the research, each review can evaluated on its own merit, as it should be. The fact that the authors are Chinese shouldn't even come up, but it frequently does. So, we have a problem.Herbxue (talk) 14:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Note to closer: Herbxue also has argued for using sources stemming from Chinese institutions in acupuncture articles and claimed discrimination with regard to applying REDFLAG to them Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually read that link again: I say "fine" to rejecting Chinese journals that do not have a reputation for quality, what I call "outrageous" is rejecting a review in a mainstream journal because the authors names are Chinese, and yes that actually occurred, and thus we have a true problem.Herbxue (talk) 15:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

You continue to conflate systematic problems with Chinese science on acupuncture with racism. This is not OK. Please provide me with any diff where you express an acknowledgement of the problem (there is not one in that diff btw - you acknowledge occasional problems, not institutional ones) I very much agree that the issue is not about individual Chinese scientists. Jytdog (talk) 15:59, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Focusing on individual editors is taking the focus away from the debate. I have acknowledged problems I saw with TCM research firsthand in China, but I do not generalize them, and I do not believe there is adequate evidence to claim there is a "systematic" problem with "Chinese research". For me the issue here is whether Chinese researchers are inherently unreliable, and I don't believe WP editors can say that they are without evidence showing individual journals or educational institutions to be unreliable. If a particular review appears to be of low quality, then that in itself is reason not to use it. But if it appears to have solid methodology, I don't think it should be rejected on the basis of being "Chinese". Herbxue (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support close Despite what our resident acupuncturist says, we should not use unreliable sources, (which is what they are) wherever they come from. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• This might have been an interesting RfC and it asks some very real questions in terms of sources. I would have been interested in pursuing the ideas presented here from all sides however, once again, discussion is shut down with name calling and personal accusations so that mature discussion is thrown out.(Littleolive oil (talk) 14:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC))

Note to closer: Littleolive oil also has argued for using sources stemming from Chinese institutions in acupuncture articles and per this agrees with Herbxue who commented above Jytdog (talk) 14:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for including a link which belies what you mean to be an accusation and attack and links to my cmts which you paraphrase inaccurately.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2015 (UTC))

• • I am becoming increasingly concerned with Jytdog's constant attacks and his inaccurate representations of editors and what they are saying and doing.(Littleolive oil (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC))

Naming you as an alt-med advocate is not a personal attack; it is a description that is easily supportable with diffs. And as I noted here, you are the one making blatant misreprentations here, as did LesVegas as noted in post opening this section. I don't know what you think this drama-mongering gains for you. Jytdog (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Just so you know, being an alt-med advocate and being an editor who wants to make sure alt-med is treated neutrally and fairly on Wikipedia are two completely different things. LesVegas (talk) 18:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog. No diif or diffs support overarching, sweeping generalizations regarding other people. Making false statements about people is a personal attack on those people and what they are and stand for. Wikipedia is not the real world, a place in which people are multifaceted and carry on their lives in complex ways. Do you realize that the use of exercise and the studies on its impact on health are relatively new. Is this alternative medicine and if so how many sensible people in the world today support this alternative medicine. If I use antibiotics but support exercise does this make me a supporter of alternative medicine. You are constantly making statements which attach motive and meaning to people and their actions. What do I get out of this. Nothing expect that I am tired of seeing false narratives created by editors which in the end are used and applied to sanction. It is possible to disagree with people and to even be aware that our own perspectives are based on our own point of view. Discussion which does not attack but attempts to understand and compromise can go along way towards creating good articles. You have once again made statements about me which are false with no proof whatsoever. You are creating a false narrative about another editor. You know nothing about what I support and do not support. This the third time. (Littleolive oil (talk) 17:25, 7 September 2015 (UTC))

Oppose close RFC's should run 30 days, this one is only 2 days old. Regardless if some are reading into the question something it doesnt say, it needs to run its course. AlbinoFerret 16:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Support close, this RfC is going nowhere and is sufficiently ill-framed that it stands minimal chance of producing anything useful. Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose close: RfC was simple, and straightforward concept; IDHT problem of editors reading more into it than exists notwithstanding. Montanabw^(talk) 23:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Close. This proposition brings up a valid point. Country of origin should not be, in general, a criteria for inclusion of a medicinal article. It doesn't matter what the purpose of presentation was, this should be a part of the guidelines. What's the issue with additional guidelines for inclusion arbitration? ExParte ^{talk | contribs} 05:34, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• Country of origin should not be a blanket basis for condemnation across all possible subjects, but it might be for specific countries in specific subjects. It would certainly be the case for the subject and country being discussed be on the evidence a reason for at least the greatest skepticism. The prosposed modification is too great. The cases will need to be discussed individually. DGG ( talk ) 20:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support close … This RfC is an obvious attempt to win a content dispute by declaring that editors objecting to certain sources are racist. and , this RfC is going nowhere and is sufficiently ill-framed that it stands minimal chance of producing anything useful. This seems like a lot of airing of bad feeling on the part of those who want different standards to apply to Alt Meds. Pincrete (talk) 19:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This problem is still occurring

I have seen comments suggesting editors here never rejected sources because their authors are Chinese, despite diffs, so allow me to provide one more. Just yesterday, an editor did just that, rejecting a high-quality source because it had Chinese authors, so clearly this is a serious and ongoing problem that must be dealt with. This editor rejected research in a high quality journal, Medicine, because the "authors are Chinese," and therefore assumed to be incapable of not being biased Like it or not, rejecting sources based on ethnic origin of authors is a real problem. Sources in low quality journals should be rejected based on their own lack of merits. Sources in high quality journals should be accepted on their own merits. But sources should never be excluded for embarrasing reasons like this and it is a shame that in 2015 we have to have to write explicit language into our guidelines to keep behavior like this from happening. LesVegas (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you're grossly oversimplifying a significant issue. It has been recognized for some time that research in certain countries tends to be uniformly positive about acupuncture, to the extent that it raises serious questions about publication bias. This line of thought is not—as you try to portray it—a form of racism among Wikipedia contributors. The relevance of national origin of research has been expounded both qualitatively and quantitatively in the reputable scholarly literature, going as far back as Vickers et al., 1998, who found that trials from China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were uniformly positive about acupuncture and urged caution in integrating these almost-certainly-biased results into systematic reviews or meta-analyses. More recently, a systematic review conducted by Chinese authors in 2014 found striking evidence of publication bias in studies on acupuncture reported in Chinese journals. I think it's worth having a serious discussion about this, but your post is pretty much the opposite of serious discussion. MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

MastCell, I'm all for having a serious discussion on this and hope you are too. For the record, I never claimed racism was a factor here, and my rather long-winded complex posts, if you read them, should show that I haven't oversimplified anything. In fact, we have written into MEDRS not to deny sources based on how they're funded, and yet we have extensive documentation of publication bias regarding industry funded research. No such bias has ever been proven with Chinese research, merely speculated as one of many possibilities for difference in findings. Why would we treat Chinese research different than industry funded research? A subject which, by the way, has much more extensive documentation of bias! That said, when editors reject Cochrane Reviews because they have Chinese authors, or reject obviously high quality Western-published journals because they have Chinese authors, maybe they're just belligerent POV pushers rather than racists. But they put their POV above all else and that's a problem. LesVegas (talk) 21:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

But this has never happened, your diffs don't support it. CFCF 💌 📧 00:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Ummm, there is a diff at the top of this very thread where an editor objected to a journal article in Medicine because its authors were Chinese. Did you not see that? LesVegas (talk) 00:22, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The diff doesn't say that, it speaks of 'a well documented bias' and expands later. Mis-quoting people doesn't strengthen your case. In other areas of WP should we not be allowed to say that govt X, TV station Y or news outlet Z, has 'a well documented bias' and should therefore be treated with extreme caution ? Pincrete (talk) 07:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Pincrete, I am sorry I forgot to show the actual source, but, anyway, here is the source that was removed. As you can see, it is a high quality journal that just so happens to have Chinese authors who did the meta-analysis. The diff in question was trying to apply the "well-documented bias" to this meta-analysis and systematic review. There is another one where the same thing happened regarding several Cochrane Reviews used to update an old claim. They just so happened to have Chinese authors and that's a problem. LesVegas (talk) 22:43, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

When you actually read the conclusions in that paper they say very little, and above all they comment on the lack of qualitative studies in the field. It states "Finally, the included RCTs were all conducted in China, so more studies are needed" and "Reporting biases could not be detected by funnelplot due to lack of adequate RCTs."
From the entire paper a single positive sentence was taken and copied verbatim into Wikipedia (amounting to copyright violation). Maybe the article has a role in the sources, but it did not properly support the statement it was used to support and the comment you linked reflects that. CFCF 💌 📧 23:12, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, I agree with most of what you said above. Yes, it was a copyright violation. And yes, the quote wasn't fully representative of the source. And by the way, I didn't add the quote or source, that was another editor. I had nothing to do with it beyond watch it get removed. But the reasons it was removed were wrong. Removing it or amending it for reasons you stated are perfectly fine. I have no problem with that. Editors shouldn't be supporting removal of sources because the authors are Chinese. I hate to belabor the point, but you said above that it never happened and my diffs don't support it, so I just have to clear my name here. LesVegas (talk) 02:27, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The article states it is a problem that their study has included so many chinese studies, so I find nothing wrong with the comment you've linked. CFCF 💌 📧 07:23, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

CFCF Do you have access to the full article? Would you mind posting what they say re Chinese studies? It was not in the free text they provided. LesVegas (talk) 20:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

LesVegas, I am not competent to assess the virtues or weaknesses of specific medical research, my opinion on that would be valueless. However, specific pieces of research are not the subject of this RfC, rather a general principle. Pincrete (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Question for Kww

User:Kww is mentioned repeatedly above, and it doesn't look to me like anyone has pinged him about this or given him a fair chance to explain his off-the-cuff comment that most of the "authors are Chinese" on a particular source. (Does that refer to their race? Their citizenship? Where they were trained? Where they're currently working? A quick guess based upon last names? It could mean almost anything.) IMO it would be fair to let him have his say if he's interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

The diff shows an edit by Guy (JzG). The history of Talk:Acupuncture says Kww hasn't posted there since July. Johnuniq (talk) 04:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes I'd love for him to explain himself because I and other editors could never get an explanation back when I confronted him about it. But as I understand it, he doesn't edit much anymore since his desysopping, correct? LesVegas (talk) 15:00, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually I just looked at his edit history and I see he occasionally and casually edits here and there still, so maybe we can finally get an explaination on the specifics. LesVegas (talk) 15:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't respond much unless pinged. The diff you are providing is JzG's, but I'll defend it. The bias of Chinese medical journals and Chinese studies submitted to Western medical journals is well-documented. For such sources to discover beneficial effects to acupuncture isn't particularly surprising, nor is it likely to indicate that acupuncture has any particular effect beyond placebo. There are similar problems with sources related to ayurveda. While I understand the slippery slope of racism, it's also important for us to note that associated with some of the rituals that are misrepresented as medicine there are one or two countries that have a vested interest in portraying that ritual as if it were effective. As for Les Vegas's proposal above, I don't think anyone is attempting to remove sources due to a personal objection to the country of origin: it's due to well-documented and objectively provable objections to the country of origin.—Kww(talk) 16:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Kevin; I appreciate it. Thanks also to John for pointing out that I had the wrong diff. I apologize for the sloppy post; I meant this diff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

As for the corrected quote, note that my primary objection was that even taken at face value, the sources didn't support the proposition Les Vegas was making: "not effective for a wide range of conditions" isn't contradicted (or even particularly weakened) by evidence of positive effect for a narrow range of conditions. I didn't get into a detailed analysis of the sources themselves. I will say, however, that it's a fair bet that Z Zheng, CCL Xue, J Shang, X Shen, J Xia, X Zhu, L He, and J Song being among the reported researchers in a small handful of reviews represents a reasonable foundation to suspect bias. If there was actually a meaningful claim being made, I'd scrutinize the sources more carefully.—Kww(talk) 16:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Kww's answer goes right to the heart of the matter. If authors have Chinese names, we should suspect bias even if it's in a Cochrane Review, as if Cochrane is incapable of vetting the material themselves, but we, the lowly Wikipedia editor are. Frankly, I'm really not surprised. LesVegas (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Nor should you be. What's surprising is that you would think that we should close our eyes to an indication of bias noted in reliable sources. Note that I did not reject the sources outright, but was arguing primarily on the basis that your conclusions didn't follow from their statements even if we presumed they were completely accurate.—Kww(talk) 20:54, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I recall very well. Your primary argument was that the Cochrane Reviews didn't support replacing a 6 year old claim with an update. Your secondary argument was that they might be unreliable anyway because they have Chinese authors. That's what is being disputed here. Please note that the wording of the MEDRS amendment in this RfC says "do not reject high quality sources because of x,y,z...or country of origin." It does not say do not reject high quality sources if they are being used to support a claim that isn't supported by those sources, or is more accurately supported by another source. Policies elsewhere already cover those objections. LesVegas (talk) 21:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

If you had found material that actually supported an update, I would listen. Once again, "not effective for a wide range of conditions" and "is effective for condition x, y, and z" are not contradictory. They are barely related. The original source surveyed the impact on over thirty conditions and you found a source that weakened the position on, at most, two of those conditions. As for your propensity for misinterpreting sources and using them to support claims they don't support, I hope this debate makes that problem more obvious to a wider variety of editors. Your motivation for requesting this change has been noted by numerous editors: you are upset that people want to see corroboration in other sources when you can only offer Chinese sources supporting a claim about acupuncture. Given the noted bias problems, that's a quite reasonable demand. If something is actually true, Western sources will eventually catch up.—Kww(talk) 22:08, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

You're back to omnisciently assuming my motivations again. Just for the record, my motives are simply to encourage editors to examine source quality and not reject them for paltry reasons like the last name of their authors. LesVegas (talk) 22:21, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Examination of source quality does require taking bias considerations into account. Your requested modification is basically a demand to ignore one potential source of bias. As for omniscience? No, pretty much any observer of your edits and discussions will come to a similar conclusion.—Kww(talk) 22:38, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

"Examination of source quality does require taking bias considerations into account" is just another way of saying high quality sources that we never question anywhere else for any other claims might not be high quality at all if we see it has Chinese authors, whom we ought to be suspicious of because they might be biased. Thank you for making your position clear, over and over again. LesVegas (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I support being suspicious of any biased source (including Coke-paid researchers on the effects of soda pop on obesity [on which I didn't comment, apparently], ayurvedists on the benefits of heavy metal poisoning, Christians on the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, among many other examples a quick search of my edit history will uncover).—Kww(talk) 23:58, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I'm glad to see you are consistent. I'm glad you brought up the Coke funding of obesity studies which is an example I have brought up here as well. MEDRS currently states that editors shouldn't reject high quality sources based on their source of funding. So that would mean Coke studies are perfectly ok to use, as are countless numbers of other industry funded research which has been shown to be far worse than Chinese studies on acupuncture. Why should we have one guideline where we don't reject industry funded studies, but we do reject sources because they originate in China or have Chinese authors? To me, I wouldn't even have raised this issue if I didn't see an inconsistency in our guideline where we allow carte blanche acceptance of industry funded, obviously tainted and conflicted research, but we reject Chinese sources because they might be tainted. I have never accused anyone here of being racist. I honestly believe editors here are good people, some just have blindspots and I know I do too. But frankly, if we continue to greenlight biased industry funded research but disallow Chinese sources, that is racist. If editors here want to consider Chinese sources suspect, while I deeply disagree with that, I can understand the point. But we had damn well amend MEDRS to treat industry funded sources the same way. We're not going to have two standards here. LesVegas (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You shouldn't attempt to fix the inconsistency in the wrong direction: two wrongs don't make a right and all that.—Kww(talk) 04:15, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The question of industry funding was discussed at length very recently on this very page. There, WP:DNFT was invoked and I think it now applies here too. Time to close. Alexbrn (talk) 04:24, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

You can ignore a problem or inconsistency, you can IDHT, but editors shouldn't be insulted for pointing out problems. And previously, that was invoked by an editor who much of the Wikipedia community has complained about for GMO advocacy and personal attacks and I have no reason to doubt that his invoking DNFT wasn't a great illustration of both his advocacy and insults. I can certainly see why a GMO advocate doesn't want to limit industry funded sources in any way. This same editor also believed Chinese sources should be limited rather inconsistently. But I expected much better from you, Alexbrn, than to ignore and insult and hope this embarrassing inconsistency just goes away. And as much as I deeply disagree with Kww on this issue, I at least have to respect and admire his consistency here. And we should be consistent, one way or another. While I think the best way with our policies is to allow high quality sources regardless of industry funding or country of origin (because it's too hard to say that because some have been bad, all are bad), we cannot have one set of guidelines for some sources and another set of guidelines for others. I know it's uncomfortable for some editors to admit this partisan application, but If we bury our heads in the sand and pretend it's not inconsistent, that won't magically make it consistent. LesVegas (talk)

You've illustrated the problem quite nicely: there's no particular correlation between the conflict of interest inherent in the Coca-Cola funded obesity research and the general agreement of all responsible researchers that GMO as currently practiced presents no health or public safety issues. While I abhor the inconsistency, I can understand why people would see a slippery-slope problem on the funding issues. After all, most good research is funded by people connnected with science, and science pretty much rules out the anti-vax, anti-GMO, pro-ayurveda, and pro-acupuncture camps, giving those people an incentive to object to nearly all research as being biased in one way or the other.—Kww(talk) 00:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I don't claim to be an expert on the latest in all things biotech, but I know Monsanto funds much biotech safety research and even when" purely independent research" is touted in the press it's often funded by The American Society for Nutrition whose own website says is funded by Monsanto. They fund the science all over the place. And this idea that industry-funded research was only a problem with Coke today and big tobacco in yesteryears is not accurate at all. What I do know is there is well documented issues with pharmaceutical industry funded research in the way of psychiatric medications and in failing to warn about cancer risk with certain drugs, as well as in showing a huge statistical increase in "positive findings" for various pharmaceuticals just to name a few. They were all connected with "science" yet clearly have shown worse issues than the Chinese because they're not explainable by a slew of confounding factors from an entirely different culture and a medicinal art many researchers have openly admitted is very difficult to study anyway. I see no argument for why we should treat Chinese studies differently than those paid for by Monsanto, Merck or the Marlboro Man. LesVegas (talk) 19:29, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

It's a balancing act: whether an individual drug does or does not create a cancer risk is something with gradations of bias that can range from damning (a study by the manufacturer that contradicts all other studies would need to be treated with great suspicion, for example) to minor (a study by a research group funded by multiple sources, including the manufacturer, which falls in line with similar studies by groups not involving the manufacturer). In the case of Chinese studies of acupuncture, we're dealing with a group that tends not to publish negative results, refuses to use standard placebo-based methodologies, and comes to conclusions that researchers using more rigorous research techniques cannot reproduce. There's no reason to suspect that the results are accurate, and every reason to suspect that the results are due to flawed research and reporting. There's nobody arguing to exclude all Chinese research, just to avoid relying on a known trouble spot: Chinese studies of treatments based on Chinese folk remedies and superstitions. Is there anyone objecting to Chinese studies of pharmaceutical treatment of tuberculosis or anything like that? I think not.—Kww(talk) 23:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, negative results in China weren't seen in 1998, they are now. But sure, in more recent times it's noted with different results seen in US studies. Some of that could be publication bias, some of that could be due to other factors. Fact is, we don't know. But industry funded pharmaceutical results are also seen to have much better results than independent research shows and those are comparing results within the same country. We have one variable to deal with there, not countless, so it makes publication bias much more likely a factor than is the case with the Chinese. I'm talking hard facts and statistics here, not your opinions of Chinese culture or your opinions of alternative medicine, but documented facts alone. And by the documented facts alone, even in the worst case-scenario with the lowest quality published research in China, Chinese studies on acupuncture have actually less possibility of publication bias than industry funded pharmaceutical studies do from the standpoint of variables. Any reasonable person examining facts alone and not swayed by opinions or POV must agree with this. And yet we specifically allow industry funded pharmaceutical studies on Wikipedia, and some of these same editors want to reject Chinese studies on acupuncture. LesVegas (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Do we all understand the outcome here?

So we have a bit of a procedural issue with RFCs, which is that one editor lists almost all the expired RFCs at WP:ANRFC, so that some busy WP:NAC can carefully add a colored box and a closing statement to each of them. I think this is an ongoing WP:NOTBURO problem, a waste of time for most RFCs, and sometimes even an insult to the participants' good sense and ability to understand their own conversations, but let me ask just to be sure:

Does anybody here need any outside help in figuring out whether or not this discussion shows support for the proposed addition of the words "country of origin" to that sentence in this guideline at this time?

If nobody actually needs any help with understanding the outcome, then perhaps we can prevent him from wasting someone's time with telling us what we all already know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:49, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Questions about RFC closure - Country of origin

We do reject sources because they are from a specific country because there are sources that are poor sources and there are bias sources. According to the close the country of origin is a legit consideration where RS have identified it as an issue. There have been hard data (as contrasted to stereotypes) that have identified a systematic problem that is normally identified with an affiliated country of origin. Therefore, this edit seems to contradict the close. QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The close that I wrote said no such thing. Besides, the suggestion that the edit that the close clearly and directly indicates is appropriate nonetheless contradicts the close by some extreme, odd interpretation is utterly nonsensical. Get the point. Discussion closed. --Elvey^(t•c) 03:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Elvey, perhaps you would come back and clarify a few things for us. For example, you wrote "We cannot override WP:V or WP:RS." In what way would rejecting some sources, on some subjects, from countries with a strong reputation for the low quality their sources, constitute "overriding" WP:V or WP:RS? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Reread Albino's comment. To what end do you seek clarification? --Elvey^(t•c) 03:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I am flummoxed as to why that single comment is singled out as of more weight than those of multiple other editors. This seems to me a very questionable closure. CFCF 💌 📧 12:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that would likely be because Albino's comment stated that multiple editors were ignoring the fact that we are talking about high quality sources and some editors opposed low quality sources, which wasn't the purpose of the RfC. LesVegas (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

This is not true. The statement in the guideline is about high-quality types (emphasis in the original) of sources, not about high-quality sources. A meta-analysis is a high-quality type of source, but it can be a low-quality source (e.g., if it's outdated, poorly done, or irrelevant). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are meta-analyses that are poor quality because of age, journal integrity, etc, but they are not poor quality simply on the basis of where they are published or the country of origin of its authors. That was the purpose of the RfC, and no, just as we cannot exclude sources because they receive industry funding, we also cannot exclude them because of country of publication. Not one single editor addressed why we don't reject industry funded sources on the basis of known bias, but we should ban sources based on speculative and unconfirmed publication bias due to country of origin. Not one editor. Note that Elvey mentioned as much in his close as well. There were multiple factors here really. LesVegas (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It still completely fails to address the actual need for the addition. No discussion has been shown about not including high quality sources based on country of origin, this is a red herring and a useless bloating addition. CFCF 💌 📧 10:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

This discussion centres around attempts by SPA editors to crowbar low quality sources supporting various degrees of efficacy not shown in high quality sources of ALT-Med articles, particularly Acupuncture. Other attempts have been made, to WP:MEDRS for example. Characterising mainstream editors as racially prejudiced by SPA's has been happening for a while now, and is a particularly nasty tactic. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 10:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

While I am surprised my comment was mentioned. I am not surprised with the close. My comment did point the problem with some of the responses. They were off topic. A problem that looks like its repeating down here. The RFC question specifically was about High quality sources. Low quality sources will be rejected regardless of what country they are from because they will not even pass WP:RS. AlbinoFerret 13:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Are there examples of editors rejecting high quality sources because of racial prejudice? -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 14:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

A couple were mentioned during the RFC. I did point out I was unsure if it was widespread, but even if it isnt very widespread its a bad thing that should be stopped. It hurts the project in rejecting even a few high quality sources and makes the project look bad focusing in the ethnic angle. I think those editors who are concerned this will allow low quality sources in shouldt worry, low quality will always be excluded. Just point out the problems with the source that make it low quality and dont point out where they came from. Doing that give those pushing them a reason to argue. AlbinoFerret 14:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this might work: "While country of origin per se is not a suitable reason to reject a source, it is appropriate to consider in cases where reliable sources have identified systematic problems in the medical literature associated with specific regions or countries."

QuackGuru (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

While that may be what you want in the section, it does not say what the closer said. Here is the section:

"This addition should NOT be read as a PC ban on any mention of country of origin (or founding source, etc.) when necessary to refer to studies with hard data (as contrasted to stereotypes) that have identified a systematic problem that is normally identified with an affiliated country of origin, as mentioned by Richard Keatinge. Likewise, this addition should NOT be read as a changing the longstanding policy that sources from publications known to routinely publish and fail to retract material proven unreliable may be excluded."

What it appears Elvey is saying , and Elvey can correct me if I am wrong, is this close is not a ban on discussing problems with sources in a discussion of a source that talks about them. It doesnt appear to be a loophole to insert arguments about a source, based on a country, just because other crappy sources have come from there. What might be better to say is "It is better to look at the quality of a source, if the source is of low quality it should be excluded." AlbinoFerret 20:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

CORRECT on both counts. (The comma in the last sentence should be a semicolon or period.) --Elvey^(t•c) 02:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Your proposal "It is better to look at the quality of a source, if the source is of low quality it should be excluded." is not about country of origin. QuackGuru (talk) 21:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

See the specific part of the close. See "when necessary to refer to studies with hard data (as contrasted to stereotypes) that have identified a systematic problem that is normally identified with an affiliated country of origin, as mentioned by Richard Keatinge." QuackGuru (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Thats because the RFC has already said that country of origin is not a valid exclusion. I assumed that country of origin is added to the list of other things that should not be considered. The whole purpose of that section appears to be to tell people to look for high quality sources, then some things that should not be considered. I propose adding a sentence at the bottom to direct editors to, instead of looking at the country or funding, to look at the quality. AlbinoFerret 21:07, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it says not to stop discussions about a topic that discusses low quality sources, not a loophole to allow discussions that we have already said should not take place like excluding a source based on ethnic origin. AlbinoFerret 21:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

You said "Thats because the RFC has already said that country of origin is not a valid exclusion." That what was written and that was what was added.

"While country of origin per se is not a suitable reason to reject a source, it is appropriate to consider in cases where reliable sources have identified systematic problems in the medical literature associated with specific regions or countries."[4] QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

My close is clear. It's not appropriate to --Elvey^(t•c) 02:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You are adding a loophole that I dont believe the closer added. Lets wait for them to chime in as I have pinged the closer in a few posts ago. AlbinoFerret 21:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Albino Ferret is right, in fact, it would violate the spirit of every single RfC done across wikipedia if we always added a reference tag and then just put whatever summary those opposed wanted. Adding in a summary of whatever you want to be read as a caveat is gaming an RfC outcome. Besides, the RfC wasn't about "should we say 'country of origin' and then have these caveats?" it was about the wording, "country of origin" specifically. And, to that, the answer was "yes," it needs to be added in. But since the consensus reading did mention other specifics and since some editors are persistent in wanting something else, I figured a link where readers could see the full consensus read/closing comments would be the best compromise. LesVegas (talk) 21:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The outcome of the RfC is not constrained to be binary. It's intended to gauge consensus, and the closer found consensus to include 'country of origin', but with the caveat that it might be a legitimate consideration where "hard data" demonstrate a concern about biased literature. MastCell ^Talk 22:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The point is that the addition is completely useless, and not supported by the RfC. QuackGuru – while I agree with the intent of your clarifications the fact is we are just introducing bloat. If any policy is to be taken seriously it needs to be succinct, and can't include hypothetical clauses that have never been proven to be needed. CFCF 💌 📧 22:48, 26 October 2015 (UTC) 

When the RfC is a question asking "should we add 'country of origin' to this list?", and the consensus reading says "Yes" removing it entirely is going against consensus. LesVegas (talk) 23:09, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

We're trying to get some clarification of some of the major issues with the close and a possible new clause, it isn't something we will do on a whim–we need to have a agree on what (if anything) to include. We should wait until clarification of what Elvey meant in the close summary. Currently the meaning of the text is very murky, and as such it may be challenged for not adequately summarizing the consensus. CFCF 💌 📧 23:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

(Late reply) Elvey, I'm trying to figure out what the relevance of your statement about "overriding WP:V and WP:RS" is. Imagine that you are trying to decide whether a source is reliable. Do you believe that considering the country of origin, e.g., to avoid citing the notoriously bad Soviet science, would somehow a constitute "overriding" WP:V? Could you point to any sentence in WP:V that would be violated or "overridden" by doing that?

Also, I have read Albino's comment, and you seem to have overlooked a critical difference between what the guideline says and what Albino wrote. The sentence in the guideline talks about high-quality types of sources (e.g., a meta-analysis is a high-quality type of source; a case study is a low-quality type of source). Albino talks about high-quality sources—a quality that takes far more into consideration than the type of the source. "High-quality types" and "high-quality sources" are not the same thing. It's possible to have a low-quality meta-analysis, and just like it's possible to have a top-quality case study. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it's possible to have a low-quality meta-analysis. What's clear is there was consensus that "country of origin", per se, is not a valid method to identify a low-quality meta-analysis. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

What does "overriding WP:V and WP:RS" is? It seems to mean that MEDRS is wrong and that MEDRS overrides WP:V and WP:RS to exclude sources that meet WP:V and WP:RS. Therefore, country of origin such as from China are good even if they are poor quality and bias. QuackGuru (talk) 21:51, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You didn't respond to my comment about your extreme, odd interpretation of what I said. I feel grossly misrepresented, and an apology would certainly have been welcome. "We cannot override WP:V or WP:RS" means just that. Surely none of you dispute that "We cannot override WP:V or WP:RS." There was consensus that "country of origin", per se, is not a valid reason to reject a source. I claim neither WP:V nor WP:RS contain any sentence consistent with allowing "country of origin", per se, as a valid reason to reject a source.

Again: You need to drop the stick. Insisting my close not clear by misrepresenting what I said with an extreme, odd interpretation is not going to fly, and you've just done that for the second time in this section, this time by claiming I've said MEDRS is wrong. STOP. It's disruptive and uncivil. I said no such thing. Not liking the close is not a valid reason to reopen it. I don't see any clarification request that hasn't been adequately addressed by AlbinoFerret or myself. Re-closing. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you haven't answered my question. There are two basic ways to approach this. Either your comment about overriding WP:V and WP:RS is:

• pointless blather, with just as much relevance as you saying "Don't kick puppies" or "Be nice to your neighbors" in the middle of this (in which case, you should just remove it), or
• you actually meant to communicate something relevant, that editors need to know and understand (in which case, you need to explain what you meant, because everybody's confused).

The obvious assumption is that you meant what you said. What you said seems to be that (when relevant/appropriate/etc.) editors should not take notice of published academic research that says (for example) Soviet psychiatric research is a bunch of garbage (and garbage because it came out of a country that had difficulties with the concept of apolitical science), because you believe that doing so would be based on "country of origin" and that discarding sources on the grounds of country of origin somehow override WP:V and WP:RS.

Is that what you meant? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Elvey meant, but I know some editors here have already exhausted this editor (a volunteer, as we all are) with complaints, so I'm willing to take a stab at it from my reading of Elvey's close. Documented issues with poor science conducted by a particular piece of research are a valid reason to exclude that individual piece of research because it doesn't meet the barometer of a high-quality source, per WP:V and WP:RS anyway. Excluding such research, however, because it is Russian or Soviet and they had scientific issues and therefore it all must be garbage science, is not an appropriate reason for rejecting it. In other words, what are the reasons that individual piece of research is invalid? And if it is documented invalid, it isn't high quality anyway. Funding sources have a well documented history of much worse; Elvey mentioned in their close that country of origin wasn't worse than funding, per consensus (since nobody seemed to tackle that question I raised.) LesVegas (talk) 19:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

This was the previous proposal: "While country of origin per se is not a suitable reason to reject a source, it is appropriate to consider in cases where reliable sources have identified systematic problems in the medical literature associated with specific regions or countries."

It is known that there is publication bias from Chinese journals. We cannot claim "country of origin" is not a problem given the evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That's a 2005 source, and it does illustrate publication bias in some fields. For those fields it notes, it may apply to Chinese sources published prior to 2005. LesVegas (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

LesVegas, your reply does not address my question at all. So far as I can tell, there is nothing in WP:V or WP:RS that requires us to accept sources that have characteristics which editors deem suspicious. However, it leads me to a question for you: Imagine that (it's 1985 and...) you are looking at a source produced by the well-documented mess that was Soviet psychiatry on the question of people with schizophrenia who claim to be political prisoners. Do you think that specific source could be excluded:

(a) because it was produced by the Soviet psychiatric system, which is an extraordinarily well-documented disaster (and therefore the odds are very high that it, too, is bad) or

(b) only if that individual source were called out, by name, in another reliable source, as an example of bad research?

Another way to put this: If a source was produced by a Soviet psychiatric institution, is it "tarred with the same brush" as the rest of the field, or "innocent until proven individually guilty" of politically manipulated science? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing, you're right in that WP:V and WP:RS don't require us to use sources from countries with issues, but they also don't require us to exclude them on that basis. These policies simply tell us what a high quality source is and what it is not. The way I read the close is based on the content of the RfC expressed over and over again, which is we have our rubrics for determining what a reliable source is. That's the WP:V and RS part. So we use WP:V and WP:RS to determine if it is a high quality source. These rubrics do not allow us to exclude sources that meet WP:RS standards because of their country of origin, much as they don't allow us to reject sources because of industry funding issues. And the way I see it, the issues with the Soviet disaster likely produced journals that wouldn't meet MEDRS standards anyway, certainly being called out by reliable sources. If this occurred today, you would undoubtedly find a slew of journals being slammed by academia for problems. Having occurred so long ago, I'm sure there's some, but the point is moot because those journals are so old they wouldn't be reliable sources anyway per WP:MEDDATE. LesVegas (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think your going to have to clarify your thought process here - I can't tell how your different statements are related. And neither RS nor MEDRS are about finding high quality sources, they're about finding acceptable quality sources for Wikipedia, with MEDRS focusing on medicine. CFCF 💌 📧 19:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS is WP:RS but specific to medical claims. We don't use low quality sources. What other statements do you not understand? LesVegas (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia most certainly does use low-quality sources—every hour of the day.

MEDRS in particular, but RS as well, has a structural problem with purpose. Is the purpose to show you the "minimum acceptable quality", so that you can find the line between barely good enough and not quite good enough, so you'll know when to tag or remove dubious contributions? Or is the purpose to show you how to find the best possible sources, so you'll be able to find great sources for writing new content?

MEDRS is largely written to show you how to find "best possible" sources. (As a result, we have a problem with people rejecting "good enough" contributions, because they aren't "best possible".) RS is split more evenly, but it still fails to tell editors when it's talking about "good enough" and when it's talking about "best possible", which causes unpleasant disputes, in which both sides believe themselves to be (and actually are) correct. We are not going to solve this problem this week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Elvey the clarification that I asked you about is from an earlier discussion, that some want to add a loophole to the "country of origin" by stating it still can be considered with language like this as a note "it is appropriate to consider in cases where reliable sources have identified systematic problems in the medical literature associated with specific regions or countries" saying that the last paragraph of your close says that. Is this what you wrote in that last paragraph of the close? AlbinoFerret 04:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Editors are waiting for clarification. Editors do not agree with this change. See "The outcome of the RfC is not constrained to be binary. It's intended to gauge consensus, and the closer found consensus to include 'country of origin', but with the caveat that it might be a legitimate consideration where "hard data" demonstrate a concern about biased literature."[5] QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Reread Albino's comment. To what end do you seek clarification, and of what? Clarification answers, AGAIN: "We cannot override WP:V or WP:RS" means just that. Surely none of you dispute that "We cannot override WP:V or WP:RS." There was consensus that "country of origin", per se, is not a valid reason to reject a source. I claim neither WP:V nor WP:RS contain any sentence consistent with allowing "country of origin", per se, as a valid reason to reject a source. No, I did not say that. There is no caveat in the close; just a clarification. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Elvey, I seek clarification about exactly which sentence in WP:V or WP:RS would allegedly be "overridden" by rejecting a source on the grounds that it came from a particular country, where said country's academic publications were very widely accused of bias and politically motivated writing. The exact sentence, please, in the form of a direct quotation. Handwaving about "There isn't any rule that says you may exclude Soviet psychiatry sources if it superficially appears to meet all the other standards, and therefore you mayn't exclude Soviet psychiatry sources merely because the whole field is known to be crap." I want to know exactly which sentence this overrides.

NB that you cannot actually override rules that do not exist. If, as you say now, no such rule actually exists, then you should strike that sentence from your closing statement, because it is (at best) irrelevant. And if the main reason for your conslution is that dumping sources from disreputable countries actually would contradict this non-existent rule, then you should reverse the entire closing statement, because you were reasoning from false premises. (And in that case, I'd suggest letting someone else re-close it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me clarify: Even if you can show that reliable sources A thru D all say the whole field of X in country Y is known to be crap, then you still must not reject the the whole field of X in country Y on the basis that it's from country Y; rather you may (and should) reject the the whole field of X in country Y on the basis that reliable sources A thru D all say the whole field of X in country Y is known to be crap. The fact is, you do not seek clarification; rather you simply reject the clarification given. I claim neither WP:V nor WP:RS contain any sentence consistent with allowing "country of origin", per se, as a valid reason to reject a source. It's on you to find a sentence that allows "country of origin", per se, as a valid reason to reject a source. One cannot prove a negative. The two policies provide detailed guidance on what makes content verifiable via a reliable source. None of that guidance says anything to suggest that "country of origin", per se, is a valid reason to reject a source. Your straw man attack doesn't fly. Even if you can show that reliable sources A thru D all say the whole field of X in country Y is known to be crap, then you still must not reject the the whole field of X in country Y on the basis that it's from country Y; rather you may (and should) reject the the whole field of X in country Y on the basis that reliable sources A thru D all say the whole field of X in country Y is known to be crap. QuackGuru says "We do reject sources because they are from a specific country " per se. We must not do that. That is the consensus. --Elvey^(t•c) 22:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Elvey, what's the practical difference between "We reject all sources from China about acupuncture because Chinese publications on acupuncture are unreliable" and "We reject all sources from China about acupuncture because Sources A through D say that Chinese publications on acupuncture are unreliable"? I'm seeing zero practical difference myself.

User:LesVegas, was it clear to you from Elvey's closing statement that sources about acupuncture from China would still end up being rejected, only with a slightly longer excuse? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

User: WhatamIdoing I don't understand for the life of me what Elvey meant above, but I'm afraid your deciphering of Elf speak is just not the case at all. After all, Elvey stated that, "I was, rather, simply clarifying that mention of country of origin is not barred, even though it would now be explicit that decision making on the basis of country of origin, per se is not OK." That just means we can't bar or reject sources because of country of origin, much as we cannot reject them if they're industry funded, but that there is no PC ban on mentioning country of origin or anything else about or in sources, for that matter. LesVegas (talk) 17:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Elvey has repeated that country of origin per se is not a reason to reject a source. I have finally figured out that Elvey is signalling that country of origin per quod is a valid reason to reject a source—i.e., because Soviet psychiatric sources are widely discredited. So you can't reject a source "because it's from the USSR" (country of origin per se); instead, you reject that source "because it's from the USSR and Soviet psychiatry has been widely discredited" (country or origin per quod). The end result is the same, but the excuse is wordier (and more accurate).

The application to Chinese acupuncture and the multiple denunciations of the publication bias and methodology issues should be obvious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing, I do agree that if methodology is specifically and widely criticized by the scientific community, and a piece of research uses that methodology, that's reason enough to reject. What should never happen (and this, I believe, is also what the close says) is for editors to assume all research originating from one country uses that very methodology. What is and should be allowed is for editors to say on talk, "hey, according to X source, a lot of environmental research from Sweden is flawed and needs to be examined to see if it adopts the same methods which have been widely discredited" and then reject those sources on that basis. But what we cannot do is reject all environmental research from Sweden because research from Sweden has been criticized for adopting a method that an individual piece of research from Sweden never used. That's what is meant by it, but if you disagree with what in saying and feel your interpretation is correct, I can always ask Elvey on his talk page if you want. LesVegas (talk) 13:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

So, you're back to saying that for a source to be discredited we need express mention of flaws in that source?CFCF 💌 📧 14:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, honestly I believe that's fair. Yet as the wording stands, it currently also prohibits editors from conducting a second peer review because of methods. While editors shouldn't be doing that because of their personal opinions on methodology, I think if the scientific community at large has criticized specific methods and a particular piece of research adopts those methods, we shouldn't be using that research. So under those specific grounds, I agree with you that we need further clarity for the RfC. So, I would be willing to compromise with you in this way: let's restore "country of origin" for now into MEDRS, per the previous RfC close, for now. As it stands, that is the way things are supposed to be. You and I can work together to re formulate this second RfC to make it clearer and contain genuine questions we both agree to disagree on, and that we hope to seek the community's opinion on because, even though we may disagree on exactly how to phrase it, I honestly do agree with you that we need some further clarification even with "country of origin" added into the sentence and I would like to see an RfC that brings clarity here to gain traction. Does that sound like a deal? LesVegas (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm glad that we have agreed that some further clarification is necessary.

I don't think that we can restrict this solely to using a discredited methodology. The problem with Soviet psychiatry wasn't the reported "method": it was the political system that refused to publish research that disagreed with the party line. That's a problem that isn't reported in the methodology section of the paper itself. That's why so many sources said that nothing at all from Soviet psychiatry could be trusted, because it was impossible to know which results were tampered with or suppressed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Phrasing

We're having significant issues implementing the result of the RfC, in part because it was ill-formed, and in part because it had a very unclear close. I think the situation demands more discussion in order to sort out the proper phrasing. Before staring a new RfC or anything similar I think we should tally our suggestions:

This is the last suggestion:

Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin or conclusions.

References

I think the major issue with this is bloat – we're basically wasting time explaining the obvious here. Is it needed at all, and why not forgo it entirely? Since country of origin pew say has never been proposed to be a reason to exclude sources, why should we waste valuable space when it's going to need such a lengthy explanation that the clause really it doesn't mean anything at all? CFCF 💌 📧 01:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The wording is ambiguous. It does not improve or clarify anything. QuackGuru (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

All this talk about country of origin is misguided because it does not matter what this guideline says—if there is a reason to consider country of origin when assessing the reliabity of a particular source for verification of particular text, the country will be considered. A guideline cannot prohibit common sense. Naturally anyone saying "that source has to be rejected because it came from China" can be ignored, but there may well be reason to be cautious about some types of research which a guideline cannot rule out. Johnuniq (talk) 02:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I support the proposal above. For now, I have added in "country of origin" to the article since that much was clear from the consensus read. The remainder, in my opinion, should link to the full wording of the close since a summarized version will never be agreed upon. The above version, in linking to full wording, does just that. I also like the footnote for conclusions as well, and think it serves a valuable purpose here. LesVegas (talk) 16:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Archival

This is insane. I asked what clarification question was given no answer, but got no reply. Archiving. --Elvey^(t•c) 02:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Elvey - your archiving of this discussion was a major side-step and not in line with Wikipedia's consensus-building. If we are unable to discuss this properly as to elucidate what wording is most appropriate - the only alternative will be to throw out the consensus-reading and start anew. For starters we had a 4 Support v 11 Oppose close in favor of the minority position - this seems completely bizarre when you look at it. Either we start a new RfC or we send it to the appropriate venue for a close dispute. CFCF 💌 📧 11:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus reads are not simple vote tallies. The majority of those opposed were talking about low quality sources which are not allowed per WP:V or WP:RS anyway, hence the reading. LesVegas (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

This was a flawed close. There is no consensus - by any definition of the term - in favour of the "yes" position, yet Elyey finds consensus. Elvey says we can't overturn WP:V and WP:RS. Excluding acupuncture studies published in China would be following those policies. We're expected to use the best sources and there is a cloud over those studies. Relying on them would be doing a serious disservice to our readers. (As I said above, we need to reconsider the weight we give to industry-funded psychopharmacology studies, too, but that's probably for another discussion - but maybe not. Maybe now is the right time for that, since both controversies hinge on publication bias/cherry picking/salami slicing.)

I see Elvey has tried to close this discussion. That's inappropriate.

Is it appropriate for Elvey to be making non-admin closures while they are under editing sanctions? I'm not sure of the details, but Elvey mentioned them on Jimmy's talk page. [6] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's a rule about NACs while under sanctions, but I'd consider it a bad idea myself due to the necessary level of community trust. In this case there are actually connections with the RfC - Elvey's topic ban followed some highly acrimonious interactions with User:Jytdog (one of the editors !voting Oppose), and the t-ban was supported by several other editors who also !voted Oppose here. I read the close as likely being an attempted supervote, especially after their subsequent actions - joining the edit warring over the RfC result, telling editors questioning the close to "drop the stick" and other less complimentary things, and ultimately trying to archive this discussion. But either way, the close unfortunately perpetuated the dispute rather than resolving it. Sunrise (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The close was incompetent and nonsensical. Given the closer's history, that may be the best gloss on it. Alexbrn (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Elvey removed the above comments on the basis they were personal attacks. These are not personal attacks, but focus on the fault of the close. Elvey , your actions are very possibly a violation of your COI-topic ban. The discussion regarding Chinese sources covered conflict of interest on the part of the researchers, you should not be involving yourself in discussions surrounding COI at all. CFCF 💌 📧 23:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

RfC Appropriate version for the new clause

Possible phrasings required to support the inclusion of a clause surrounding country of origin are multiple and we have so far no consensus on what to use. For this reason I have listed the following versions as possible:

(Note: other wording is also possible, feel free to add o the end of this list)

1. Clarification
   Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin or conclusions except when they explicitly impact the quality of the source.
2. Omission of the addition
   Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.
3. Link to extended discussion
   Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin or conclusions.
4. Alternate clarification
   Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, country of origin, or conclusions. However, you should consider these factors if reliable sources have specifically linked them to systematic problems in the medical literature.
5. Another alternate clarification
   Where reliable sources have identified systematic problems in the medical literature associated with specific regions or countries it may impact the quality of the source. (Without including <ref></ref> tags.)

References

• Support 1 or 2 - Oppose 3 Adding the link will result in noone reading the content and the entire sentence losing its meaning with new time-consuming debates blossoming. My reading, and I think the only sensible one is that the RfC overwhelmingly supported not including the statement on the basis that is was a hypothetical situation that had never occurred. CFCF 💌 📧 11:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Also considering the difficulty of understanding the close as it is we can count on that the addition of a link will only confuse future readers. CFCF 💌 📧 12:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This seeks, in less than a month, to undo a RFC by removing the consensus of the last RFC. AlbinoFerret 13:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • No, it does not. There are multiple alternatives and including the majority supported position expressed in the previous RfC is only proportionate. CFCF 💌 📧 14:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC) 
  • If I'd been asked, I would have recommended waiting a few weeks, so that this page isn't quite so busy with other discussions. But there is no actual rule against starting a second RFC the day after the first expires, or even before then.
    Actually, if I'd remembered that the proximate cause of Elvey's topic ban was a dispute with multiple participants (Jytdog, Doc James, and Alexbrn were all mentioned in the original AN complaint, and all opposed this change) and involved articles about drugs and medical devices, then I might have suggested following the directions at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging other closures to have the original close formally overturned and the discussion re-closed by someone else (ideally, an admin. NACs are discouraged from taking on contentious closes like this one). It rarely looks good when you close an RFC about a guideline in favor of a position held by only ~30% of participants; when you are also closing it against multiple people who were involved in getting you topic-banned, then it's even worse. The "smell test" matters for closers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes the smell test may matter. But part of a closers job is to discount off topic comments. It is reasonable to discount comments about low quality sorces in a discussion that from the start was about high quality sources. AlbinoFerret 17:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment This RfC isn't valid and goes against proper procedure. It was generated by an editor who disrespects both consensus and policy and has started an illegitimate RfC to justify edit warring and disruption. LesVegas (talk) 17:42, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

We've been through multiple iterations trying to apply the result of the close, none of which has been stable or consensus-driven. An RfC could settle this matter, and this one also includes the ability to add other potential wordings. The only reason you would dislike this RfC is if you feared that it would undue the previous close reading, which really shouldn't be a problem if you have real consensus. The other venue available is of course a close review, and seeing as there is little visibility for this RfC that may be more appropriate. CFCF 💌 📧 18:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you've been through multiple iterations. The previous RfC settled it on wording suggested in that RfC. I advised you that if you had a problem with it you could formally challenge it. Edit warring and starting another RfC isn't the way to go about this, and looks especially bad for you since there's an open ANI case over this very behavior. LesVegas (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

In all the examples that you gave in support of the previous RfC, concern about the country of origin was clearly justified. Hence you have not established why the change of language was necessary in the first place. Furthermore the close of the previous RfC was questionable as it used a circular argument for its justification. In a nutshell, it stated that the RfC only applied to high quality sources, but country of origin can be a legitimate consideration in determining whether the source is high quality. Finally the closure did not specify the exact language that should be implemented. This RfC simply tries to establish what language should be used. Boghog (talk) 06:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support 1 and Oppose 3 As pointed out during the previous RfC, there are well documented cases of culture specific bias in biomedical publications and taking into account the source's country of origin in these cases is clearly justified. The problem with the current language is that it can be misused to argue that these biases should not be taken into account. The clarification wording removes the potential for abuse. Boghog (talk) 19:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - One thing that seems to be missing in all the options presented so far is the issue context. Reliability often depends on context... when we examine a source, we always need to examine the exact wording of the information being supported by that source. Is the source being used to verify a fact? Is it being used to verify an opinion? A source that is unreliable in one context might be quite reliable in another context. If we apply this to the issue of "country of origin", it will mean that sources from a particular country may well be unreliable in one context (for example, when stating something as a blunt medical fact)... and yet quite reliable in another context (such as explaining a cultural opinion on something medically related). Blueboar (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that the whole sentence is being taken out of context. ;-)  This is in a section on assessing evidence quality (e.g., a meta-analysis of multiple randomized controlled trials is better evidence than one randomized controlled trial; one randomized controlled trial is better evidence than a case study). A few years ago, we had a problem with some editors "assessing evidence quality" by personally scrutinizing the methods, and then rejecting any source that included things they disapproved of. So we would end up with editors refusing to use (or to permit others to use) apparently excellent meta-analyses, and demanding that primary sources be preferred to secondary sources, because they "assessed the evidence quality" and decided that the meta-analysis was "low-quality evidence" and that the primary source was "high-quality evidence", because the meta-analysis used studies with the wrong inclusion criteria, or because the primary source was funded by an activist group instead of an industry group, or whatever their hobby horse was. So it's not actually meant to discuss article content at all; it's meant to help you screen sources so that you can write a better (i.e., more representative of biomedical reality) article. It's really about helping you find what's WP:DUE instead of what's WP:V. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The context of the original RFC is quite clear: LesVegas wants to include questionable sources that misrepresent the effectiveness of acupuncture, and wishes to rewrite policies and guidelines to help him justify doing so.—Kww(talk) 17:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support 5: Where reliable sources have identified systematic problems in the medical literature associated with specific regions or countries it may impact the quality of the source is positive guidance that addresses the issue at hand.—Kww(talk) 17:16, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The best evidence

This is about this attempted clarification. I usually begin with the assumption that User:CFCF is right, so I went to see what I could learn about the subject.

Here's the list of circulatory-related Cochrane reviews—all 591 of them. There are two about diagnosis, two labeled as "overview", and 587 are interventions (treatment or prevention). Both overviews are about treatments; an "overview" is essentially a systematic review that leans heavily on previous Cochrane reviews. That's 99.66% about treatments.

Here's the list of pregnancy-related Cochrane reviews. There are 553. One is an overview of interventions. One is about prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome. For that subject, 99.64% of systematic reviews are about treatments.

I picked cardiology because I don't know much about subject, and pregnancy because it was the least disease-like condition in the list. I got very similar results from both. I haven't checked any others, but I suspect that they will be very similar. And basically my results are: with a truly minuscule number of exceptions, systematic reviews are about treatments.

Therefore I think that it's fair to say, as a first approximation, that if you want good evidence about treatments, then you should look for meta analyses and systematic reviews, but if you want anything else, you probably need to look for something else. "The best evidence" is never a source that doesn't exist.

Here's the problem that we need to solve: We have editors quoting WP:MEDRS#Best evidence as a requirement for everything in an article. A couple of weeks ago, one of them quoted this sentence to complain about a ==Further reading== list! I know we have a tendency to shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh, well, people are going to quote things out of context", but the fact is that well-written guidelines should make that as difficult as possible. That's how I've written WP:External links over the years, for example, and abuse of that guideline is quite minimal now. I think that narrowing the scope of that sentence, to explicitly acknowledge what we were thinking about back in the day, will help editors to use the advice correctly, and to stop using it inappropriately.

Also, I know that I gave silly examples in the edit summary, but there are serious ones: For example, PubMed has exactly zero systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the reliability of Pregnancy tests in humans during the last 10 years. Zero. There are US$1.68 Billion in sales each year,[7], representing more than 100 million tests, and there are zero meta-analyses or systematic reviews on the subject. Why don't such papers exist? Because they'd be pointless. It's not an area of research. Real experts use reference works, not review articles, to source information about that subject. But if we don't find ways to make it hard to quote that line inappropriately, then we'll continue to have editors misunderstanding the limited scope of that sentence and therefore we'll continue to have creating disputes over whether the best sources in existence are "MEDRS-compliant".

I am, as always, open to other solutions. But I think we need to be clearer that meta-analyses and systematic reviews are only appropriate for some parts of an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Just as one point of clarification, Cochrane reviews focus on treatments because it's part of their mission statement: "to help you make informed choices about treatment," "[for] using high-quality information to make health decisions," etc. Other review series might have only a minority of treatment-related articles, e.g. many of the medically relevant Annual Reviews journals. Sunrise (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing - I've previously not seen the need to specify in this sense, because I've feared that anyone who is confused enough to go looking for meta-analysis for the boundaries of the scapula should be kept away from WP, but then again we have few tools to make sure they do.
The point I've been trying to make is that systematic reviews and meta-analysis are just as important to epidemiology and certain diagnostic procedures, and that treatments are not unique in this fashion. I guess you can argue that getting those right could be considered a part of getting the treatment right, but I don't thing we should be to restrictive in saying only treatments are like this.
Maybe a compromise could be akin to changing:

The best evidence is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)

     to

For most topics the best evidence comes from meta-analyses or systematic reviews. For treatment and diagnosis the best sources are meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while for epidemiology the best sources may be (...). For topics such as anatomy or physiology such sources will likely not be relevant and up-to-date textbooks or literature reviews will be better.

I think we could do well to source such a paragraph - I'm going to add it to my to-do list. CFCF 💌 📧 16:48, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Something along those lines would be great. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

For each

Here's the list of topics we might cover on a disease article, with a list of what I think the go-to sources are (for some hypothetical median disease):

• Classification: Narrative reviews and textbooks
• Signs and symptoms: Narrative reviews and textbooks
• Causes: Narrative reviews and textbooks for most things ("AIDS is caused by HIV infection"), plus meta-analyses and systematic reviews for risk factors that aren't widely known or accepted.
• Mechanism: Narrative reviews and textbooks
• Diagnosis: Position statements, narrative reviews and textbooks for most diagnostic information (e.g., "To diagnose HIV infection, use an HIV test"), plus meta-analyses and systematic reviews if you are discussing whether a diagnostic method works (e.g., "Is a screening mammogram worth it?").
• Prevention or Screening: Narrative reviews and textbooks for most things ("Measles can be prevented by getting the vaccine"), plus meta-analyses and systematic reviews in the unlikely case that you are discussing something disputed ("Alcohol consumption causes one-sixth of breast cancer cases in the UK").
• Treatment: Y Meta-analyses and systematic reviews for efficacy/what ought to be done. Position statements, narrative reviews and textbooks for what's actually done.
• Outcomes or Prognosis: Narrative reviews and textbooks
• Epidemiology: Narrative reviews, textbooks, reference works (e.g., a WHO report on disease prevalence), meta-analyses and systematic reviews.
• History: Non-medical sources (e.g., books on the history of medicine).
• Society and culture: Non-medical sources (e.g., plain old books, especially if it's written by a sociologist).
• Research directions: Narrative reviews, statements from interested groups, even op-eds (with INTEXT attribution).
• Special populations, such as Geriatrics or Pregnancy or Pediatrics: All of the above, depending on what you're saying about the population.
• Other animals: All of the above, depending on what you're saying about animals.

I don't know if your list would be the same, but it looks like I'd make a meta-analysis or a systematic review my first choice for only one section, and I'd choose one as supplemental material for about a third of the sections—or, to put it another way, not "for most topics". In particular, my approach appears to be to prefer a meta-analysis or a systematic review only when I'm citing its conclusions, rather than its background section. The background section of a systematic review or a meta-analysis is not automatically better than the background section of any other paper.

Anyway, I tried this out as an exercise, and learned something about my thinking. Perhaps it would be an interesting exercise for other people, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Like it, will respond. Please remind me if I haven't said anything in a week. ;) CFCF 💌 📧 10:11, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

For "Classification" sections we normally accept ICD-10 by default, though further sources are often needed to clarify. Textbooks are satisfactory because classification moves slowly. If the article differs markedly from ICD-10, we should probably require multiple secondary sources per wp:REDFLAG. Reliance on DSM-V without other classification references may be more controversial, but at least it is regarded as one notable source.
For the "Epidemiology" sections of disease articles, papers such as PMID 26063472 by the Global Burden of Disease Study collaboration are practically indispensable.
For the "History" sections, specialized journals such as J Hist Med Allied Sci, Bull Hist Med or Ann Med Hist are often useful.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:01, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Publication bias

There is publication bias from Chinese journals. QuackGuru (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

While you guys are arguing about this, there are gazillions of bad sources still littering medical articles. When I ask for help here I am routinely ignored. Abductive (reasoning) 05:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Post at WT:MED, not WT:MEDRS–this is the wrong forum to ask for help. Also as far as I can recall you've gotten support each and every time you posted there. CFCF 💌 📧 10:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC) 

Clarifying "biomedical"

Opinions are needed on these matters: In July, Minor4th and GregJackP (who is currently retired) argued that WP:MEDRS does not apply to domestic violence (or rather domestic violence against men), based on their definition of "biomedical." WP:Med editors argued that WP:MEDRS does apply to domestic violence, and Jytdog and I argued that WP:MEDRS does not only concern biomedical content. I stated, either way, domestic violence concerns biomedical content since it involves physical and mental harm. I was also clear that various high-quality medical sources list or cite domestic violence as a medical topic. You can see all of that in this section and when scrolling down to other sections. Guy Macon also showed up to give his view of what biomedical means and that WP:MEDRS didn't apply in the case of domestic violence. BoboMeowCat soon showed up to support the view that WP:MEDRS applies to domestic violence (whether against women or men). Although GregJackP came around to acknowledging that WP:MEDRS applies to some aspects of domestic violence, Minor4th still seems to believe it doesn't apply at all, as is clear in the current Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Domestic Violence article discussion. A WP:Permalink for it is here. The latest editor to state that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to domestic violence is Ryk72, as seen here; I replied to Ryk72 here, stating, in part, "Domestic violence is not simply a cultural topic, nor simply a legal topic. It is a medical, legal and cultural topic. If the content is legally or culturally-based, then WP:MEDRS is not likely to apply. If the content is health-based, then WP:MEDRS does apply."

In August, as seen here and here, WhatamIdoing emphasized "biomedical" over "medical." I then linked "biomedical", stating, "If we are going to stress 'biomedical,' then we should link to it, since, as seen at Talk:Domestic violence against men, editors commonly do not understand what biomedical entails." Jytdog later linked the Wikipedia:Biomedical information essay, as seen here. The main dispute for whether "biomedical" applies to domestic violence is the epidemiology material. I've stated that epidemiology material should be WP:MEDRS-compliant; this view is also currently supported by the "What is biomedical information?" and "The best type of source" sections at the Wikipedia:Biomedical information essay. Domestic violence is very much a part of medical literature, as FloNight can also attest to, and we have Template:Reliable sources for medical articles at the top of the Domestic violence article talk page. So, yes, some commentary from editors of the WP:MEDRS guideline/talk page would be helpful to clear up these matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's an incorrect statement of my view. MEDRS applies to medical information - not to sociology issues. Simple as that. I mean, think about the actual purpose of having a more restricted MEDRS guideline for reliable sources - it's so we get the science of medical issues right. We might need MEDRS for describing the medical aspects of post-traumatic stress disorder, but we don't need MEDRS to describe underreporting or crime statistics or public perception, etc. Minor4th 12:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th, looking at the discussions at Talk:Domestic violence against men, you make it seem like you believe that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to domestic violence at all. As for your comment here in this section, statistics in this case fall under epidemiology, which is not simply a sociology issue. It's not much different than statistics for suicide, which require WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. So we disagree about WP:MEDRS not applying to statistics. And like I just stated at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, "[E]ither way, with the exception of GregJackP (mentioned [above]), the only editors so far to claim that domestic violence doesn't require WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing have been men's rights editors and those involved with the Gamergate controversy article; I doubt that's a coincidence. It's common for such editors to want us to forgo high-quality medical sources for obvious POV-pushing reasons." I see no valid reason not to use a high-quality or good-quality textbook or review article for domestic violence rates, which are WP:MEDRS-compliant, as opposed to a primary source or a single study that is not representative of what the medical literature generally reports on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I am completely uninvolved in the article topic in question, and i'm aware of the content and spirit of WP:MEDRS. I believe that MEDRS applies via the term "biomedical" to such things as etiology and epidemiology of disease in the human organism. This would include such things as psychiatry, including such things as perhaps statements about what psychiatric conditions might lead to or result from domestic violence, but would not apply to claims about sociological dynamics around domestic violence. Those would be sourced by regular WP:RS. That is my reckoning, as an editor not involved in the article's topic and very familiar with the meaning and purpose of MEDRS in Wikipedia. SageRad (talk) 13:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

SageRad, like I noted above, statistics are not simply "sociological." Nor are they simply "sociological dynamics." Why would WP:MEDRS-compliant sources be needed for rates of suicide/suicide attempts, but not for rates of domestic violence, especially since both cause harm to the human body and are reported on by medical sources? What type of sources do you think are fine for reporting on these matters? If you think news sources are fine, why do you feel that way, given that, as noted at Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Popular press, news sources are often wrong on medical and other scientific topics? And when Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Breaking news also notes how news sources can be wrong? Why shouldn't we be going with a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for these matters, especially if the rates concern harm or death to the human body? Also see the Wikipedia:Biomedical information essay for what biomedical can apply to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I've stated my reckoning, as a person uninvolved in the particular conflict, but familiar with WP:MEDRS. At some point, things do become a judgment call, but in my essential reckoning, the underlying purpose of WP:MEDRS is to hold information about human health to a higher standard, as it may be used by readers in doing their own diagnosis and treatment, and Wikipedia must be as reliable as possible in regard to reported information. In my reckoning, sociological observations on either suicide or domestic violence should be as well sourced as possible, but do not fall under the WP:MEDRS guidelines, except aspects specifically about physical and psychiatric dynamics involved. Basic statistics on rates in society, as well as correlations and causal explanations about them, do not seem to me to fall under the requirements of WP:MEDRS. That said, i would always prefer to see secondary sources used to support claims, to be as reliable and safe as possible, because accuracy does matter. SageRad (talk) 14:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 This will have to be my last response to you on this issue because I'm afraid you're arguing in circles. 1. I stated my view above, so dont try to characterize it differently; 2. I am not a "men's rights editor" and I've never had anything at all to do with gamergate - and I am female, by the way; 3. I am not POV pushing, and you have made several sweeping assumptions of bad faith about me - please stop; 4. I never said MEDRS can never apply to any statistics - I said we don't need MEDRS for crime statistics, public perception and underreporting; 5. We also don't need MEDRS for content about research directions or any sociological or cultural content.

You seem to be suggesting that if an article has any health implications at all, then every bit of content must be MEDRS compliant, and that is clearly not the case. Minor4th 13:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th, I already replied to you with quotes indicating that you thought WP:MEDRS didn't apply to domestic violence at all. I also noted in that reply that I'll leave your claim that you are not a men's rights editor at that. And nowhere did I state or imply that I believe that "if an article has any health implications at all, then every bit of content must be MEDRS compliant." If I believed that, I would not have noted/linked to Wikipedia:Biomedical information. I am well-aware of what WP:MEDRS states, and its exceptions, including its WP:MEDDATE exceptions. Also see what I stated above to SageRad. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no wish to get deeply involved in this topic area, but looking over the Talk page at domestic violence there are some very curious concepts in play:

• The concept of a "MEDRS article" – MEDRS applies to in-scope content anywhere and is not a binary "on" or "off" constraint for an entire article.
• Relatedly, the idea that MEDRS does not and cannot apply at all to this article – surely some aspects of this topic (around injury e.g.) are indisputably biomedical in nature.
• The idea that primary sources, because they are not prohibited, are just fine and dandy to use will-nilly. For all topics we should be dealing in accepted knowledge and for anything contentious, sources need to be solid - which in practice means quality secondary sources.

If these things can't be agreed on, then we do have a problem. Alexbrn (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Alexbrn, I never meant to imply that the Domestic violence article is solely a medical topic. I certainly never stated that. As noted above, I've stated, "It is a medical, legal and cultural topic." If you or others haven't already seen, this and this are the texts that set off this latest "Does WP:MEDRS apply?" debate. Well, more so the latter edit. With regard to the first, I simply started a WP:RfC about that source, since it contrasts the widely supported medical literature that domestic violence disproportionately affects women; the latter content is also at odds with that widely supported medical literature, but I noted to the editor who started the aforementioned WP:Reliable source noticeboard discussion that "WP:MEDRS is not preventing the content in question from being added to the Domestic violence article. I've been clear that I took issue with how you added the content and where." WP:Due weight and what is WP:Lead material were my main concerns for that latter content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If indeed widely supported medical literature shows that that domestic violence disproportionately affects women (I have never examined the evidence for/against that claim but it sounds reasonable) then our standard rules for referencing science articles should be perfectly adequate with no need to pretend that a non-biomedical topic is a biomedical topic. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As noted below, I've already replied to you on your narrow definition of biomedical. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] I just looked at your links.[8][9] If it is your hope to exclude those references by invoking WP:MEDRS, you are doomed to failure, and I advise giving up now. An argument based upon WP:WEIGHT may be successful (I haven't studied this enough to predict whether it will succeed). --Guy Macon (talk) 15:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, going by the aforementioned WP:RfC, the medical sources listed in it, and what medical editors have stated on these matters, I'm nowhere close to "doomed to failure." on these issues. But your assertion that domestic violence, a topic that concerns physical and mental harm, and which has a buttload of biomedical content in the Wikipedia article about it, doesn't concern WP:MEDRS certainly fails. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

---

"Biomedical" does not need defining. It is well-defined already in standard dictionaries.

Biomedicine is defined by the Oxford Dictionary of Biomedicine[10] as "the study of molecular bioscience relating to disease" with related fields defined as "anatomy, genetics, molecular bioscience, pathology, pharmacology, and clinical medicine". Bioscience is also well-defined already in standard dictionaries.

WP:MEDRS specifically applies to "biomedical information in all types of articles". Domestic violence (against anyone) is not biomedical information. It is sociology, not biology.

Note that if a specific claim touches on biomedical information (a drug that is purported to increase or decrease domestic violence, for example, or a study that links testosterone levels with increased or decreased domestic violence), then WP:MEDRS does apply to that specific claim. Otherwise, all references in any article about the human behavior called "domestic violence" are subject to the normal rules we use in other science articles, not the special ruled we use in medical articles.

I would also note that the normal rules we use in other science articles are perfectly fine, and if followed result in accurate, properly referenced articles.

I don't believe that this has anything at all to do with men's rights other than as a WP:COATRACK for one side or the other. It should be a science topic about one particular human behavior. The related political issues should be in a separate article about domestic violence laws, possibly split by country if there is enough material. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Note: I replied to Guy Macon, as seen with this link, in full at Talk:Domestic violence against men, and don't at all agree with the narrow, dictionary-definition way he is defining "biomedical." He should also look at the WP:Biomedical information essay. As you can see, Alexbrn, in contrast to what you've stated above, Guy Macon is under the assumption that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to domestic violence at all, which is quite an odd assumption, given the content covered in the Domestic violence article. And the Domestic violence article very much has to do with men's rights editors, which is exactly why its talk page is tagged with Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

We are all aware that you do not agree with my definition of biomedicine, which came from the Oxford Dictionary of Biomedicine. You don't have to keep repeating the fact that you don't agree with it. Everybody understand that you disagree, and why.

An article being under men's rights movement article probation does not imply that the topic of the article is part of the men's rights topic. That particular probation is also applied when editors try to WP:COATRACK men's rights into articles where it does not belong. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

In the same way that I don't have to keep repeating that I disagree with your definition, you don't need to keep repeating that definition. Your definition of "biomedical" is odd because you've taken a dictionary definition (when, by the way, dictionary definitions are commonly not enough for many Wikipedia topics because of their narrow and/or outdated viewpoints) and applied it as to be strict with regard to what biomedical means. "Biomedical" certainly concerns harm done to the body, including the causes and effects of that harm. And even though domestic violence concerns physical and mental harm issues, which are biomedical, you assert that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to domestic violence unless it's for something like "a drug that is purported to increase or decrease domestic violence, for example, or a study that links testosterone levels with increased or decreased domestic violence," which, to me, is a silly view to have. And as for "An article being under men's rights movement article probation does not imply that the topic of the article is part of the men's rights topic.", I never stated that it did. I pointed out that men's rights editors are concerned with the Domestic violence article and have POV-pushed at it in ways that have required sanctions. They would love to reject WP:MEDRS-compliant sources at that article for POV-pushing reasons, and they have done so. You know that, whether you want to acknowledge it or not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The fact that, in your opinion, we need to redefine a Wikipedia policy to make it easier for you to fight POV-pushing is not a sufficient reason to change the policy.

As for your attempt to redefine the word "biomedical", it hinders communication if we don't use the standard English definitions for the words we use. Yes, you can decide to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you are incorrect...on all accounts. Feel free to debate other medical editors in this discussion who disagree with you. Also, WP:MEDRS is a guideline, not a policy, and I treat policies and guidelines with common sense; certain others clearly do not. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Guy Macon, it does not need defining. This seems to be a uncessary discussion aimed at allowing questionable content into Domestic violence against men CFCF 💌 📧 15:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, Guy Macon's "biomedical" views are at odds with yours and mine; whereas you and I recognize that domestic violence requires WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing in a number of ways, he is asserting that domestic violence generally does not require such sourcing. His opinion is that domestic violence is generally a social topic; the vast majority of content and sourcing in the Domestic violence article indicate otherwise. And as for the questionable content, certain editors want it added to both the Domestic violence article and the Domestic violence against men article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, as someone against "allowing questionable content into Domestic violence against men," that was surely far from my intention for this discussion. My intention is what I initially stated above in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I realize my comment may have been premature, and the large swath of text produced only in the past few hours lead me to glance over it quickly. What should be clear from the guideline, and expressed continuously across this page is that biomedical is anything health related, and while sociological studies may be relevant to that article they do not trump the need of complying with MEDRS when giving statements about epidemiology and health effects. Biomedical here is intended to include biology (when related to human health), medicine as well as health in general. This may have been more clear in previous iterations of this guideline, and I have now added the text biomedical and health to the lead for anyone who is unwilling to take the leap and look at how we define biomedical in the linked article. CFCF 💌 📧 16:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree that MEDRS does not cover social issues, but it may if any medical information is presented in the article. Say about a drug for treatment or biological medical reasons for the cause of the social issue. But for the most part WP:RS controls. AlbinoFerret 16:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• While I agree that the definition of biomedicine is well defined, I don't see how that could lead to the conclusion that domestic violence is not a medical topic that needs MEDRS quality research to inform the content. In my area of expertise, OB/GYN, domestic violence is a common area of medical research, and guidelines exist about clinical decision making for physician, nurse midwives, and registered nurses. ACOG recommendation that every women should be screen for domestic violence in general, and more specifically intimate partner violence. A recent Cochrane Review does not show evidence for screening of all women in every healthcare setting. So, we need to have careful review of the medical research in order to write good content about domestic violence. This article is a recent review of Intimate Partner Violence and Pregnancy: A Systematic Review of Interventions.

• Of course, broader areas of research exist beyond pregnancy. Intimate partner violence is a public health issue and widely researched. [11]. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with FloNight. In general, domestic violence is considered a health issue and is covered in most textbooks in OB/GYN and Emergency Medicine. Physicians and other healthcare providers receive training in recognizing domestic violence, and many states have laws requiring healthcare providers to report suspicions of domestic violence. It is very difficult to see how this is not a health-related issue. If the quibble is over the term "biomedical" vs. "health-related", well, that's a silly quibble.

As always, though, my bigger question is why this? Where is the resistance to applying WP:MEDRS coming from? After all, WP:MEDRS is basically an extension of WP:RS which promotes higher-quality sources and more scrupulous use of them. I haven't looked at this dispute, but often when people are trying to get out of applying WP:MEDRS, it's because they want to cite a particular study that supports their viewpoint, without acknowledging the overall weight of evidence on a topic. A strict box-checker would say that any paper published in a reputable journal is a "reliable source". WP:MEDRS goes a bit further, recognizing how easy it is to cherry-pick the "reliable", peer-reviewed health-science literature, and insists that such papers be presented in context. I think we should spend less time arguing semantics, and more time understanding why some editors find that requirement burdensome. MastCell ^Talk 17:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Like a lot of topics, there are medical issues, and non medical issues. I agree that some high quality medical sources exist. But some medical sources go into areas that are not specifically medical, but social. There are important questions that medical personnel should ask because it has direct connection to the health of the person they are talking to. If the article strays into the health consequences of being a victim, its deffinatly a medical issue. If its talking about how often it happens and locations it happens not so much. But to say its a pure medical issue is wrong imho. When higher quality sources are available, there is good reason to use them, but should not be a requirement. AlbinoFerret 17:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I'm going to have to disagree with you there, because how often and where it happens as well as other risk-factors fall under the field of epidemiology, which is very much a medical field. As such that type of information also needs medical sources. Other things such as economic effects may not need MEDRS-compliance in the same manner. CFCF 💌 📧 17:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If your talking about a health issue, yes. If your talking about someone getting hit, not so much. The health issue is secondary. Thats not to say its not important. But statistics are not medical all the time. An example is car crashes, is someone hurt? yes, if the stictic is someone in a crash needs medical attention, MEDRS. If its talking about how often someone hits a tree and walks away, not so much.AlbinoFerret 17:31, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that would clearly fall under epidemiology, as a lack of health effect is just as much health information as severe effects are. CFCF 💌 📧 17:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thats a stretch, and if you really believe that better head over to articles about car crashes and make sure they are applying MEDRS. AlbinoFerret 17:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it really isn't. And sure if they're citing primary epidemiology sources or making any judgements concerning that it should be changed, but to be frank I don't have the time. CFCF 💌 📧 17:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously the general answer to everything is "it depends". That is simultaneously true and useless. Reliability of sources is always in context, as many people have noted already. Nobody is saying that domestic violence has no medical implications. But it is not only a matter of medicine. There are also sociological, psychological aspects etc. Let's make it concrete, instead of talking in vague generalities which don't lead anywhere. See the discussion here, which prompted this discussion. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:15, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Psychological aspects also falls under MEDRS, at least when relating to the individual or to health policy. CFCF 💌 📧 17:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This doesn't really answer my question, though: why is it so important that WP:MEDRS not apply here? At bottom, we're simply talking about a set of guidelines designed to ensure that high-quality sources are used and presented in context, rather than cherry-picked. It seems a bit duplicitous to cite a paper from the psychology literature but then insist that the MEDRS guidelines (which codify best practices for citing such literature) should not apply. MastCell ^Talk 17:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that pretty much hits the nail on its head: the point of not applying MEDRS here is specifically to allow cherry-picking of sources. CFCF 💌 📧 17:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@MastCell: I am assuming the comment was directed at me. The point of not using WP:MEDRS here is that WP:RS is enough here. Bringing in WP:MEDRS only confuses matters for no benefit whatsoever. The Archer source is a meta-analysis of various other sources. It is cited all over the place, and is a very respectable source in the field - which is not medicine as such, but psychology. Finally, the interesting question is whether the source is reliable or not. See the comments by Rhoark just below mine which makes the same point. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems we are diving into a very convoluted issue here, but if it is a large scale meta-analysis, why is there a dispute over whether it is acceptable under the terms of MEDRS? CFCF 💌 📧 17:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

MastCell, your comment touches on what I stated above about men's rights editors; the domestic violence articles, and similarly related sex/gender medical articles (such as reproductive coercion), have been burdened by these editors wanting to forgo higher-quality sources so that they can push a particular POV (in the case of the domestic violence material, it's usually the POV that men are affected by domestic violence as much as women are or more so, or that there are just as many women who commit domestic violence as there men who do so). A lot of editors are drained because of this, and many have walked away from these articles because of this. We have Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation, but that isn't always enough, especially considering that these editors commonly pop back up with new registered accounts and/or coordinate off-Wiki to gang up on Wikipedia editors.

And, Kingsindian, see above; whereas I and other WP:Med editors recognize that domestic violence requires WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing in a number of ways, Guy Macon is asserting that domestic violence generally does not require such sourcing. His opinion is that domestic violence is generally a social topic; the vast majority of content and sourcing in the Domestic violence article indicate otherwise. There is also clearly disagreement about whether or not WP:MEDRS applies to epidemiology/rates of domestic violence in general. Furthermore, as CFCF noted to you above, psychology is also a part of the medical field. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It beyond domestic violence having medical implications. Domestic violence is a serious public health issue and has been seen that way for decades. Part of defining it as a public health issue is promoting doing medical research on the topic. Medical sociologist are involved with medical research, and reflect the role behavioral science in the topic. There is not a bright line between the disciplines.

Agree that other disciplines doing research about people need to be held to the highest standards, and not included unless it meets standards for MEDRS. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 17:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

"Plain RS" prefers scholarly sources. It seems to me that there should be very little difference between the best of what MEDRS recommends and the best of what plain RS recommends. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a case where there is a difference, though. "Plain RS" would probably say that a meta-analysis from 2000 is a reliable source, and leave it there. MEDRS goes a bit further: why are people pushing a paper from 2000 when there are innumerable equally high-quality sources that have been published since? (WP:MEDDATE applies; The CDC alone has produced a wealth of up-to-date work on the subject). Also, the meta-analysis in question seems to have been highly controversial at the time it was published, and doesn't appear to represent a mainstream view on the topic—essential context which MEDRS demands, but where "plain RS" is pretty much silent. MastCell ^Talk 22:42, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No one is pushing the paper, and it doesn't take MEDRS to prefer higher quality sources to lower. In these case, a better or newer source has not been presented. (Flyer22 has presented a list of sources they prefer, but I do not see that they address the matter of the gender ratio in committing IPV. The fact that women are more severely affected is related, but different.) Rhoark (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I did indeed list sources that comment on the gender ratio, and they state things like "[...] Although there are cases in which men are the victims of domestic violence, nevertheless 'the available research suggests that domestic violence is overwhelmingly directed by men against women [...] In addition, violence used by men against female partners tends to be much more severe than that used by women against men. Mullender and Morley state that 'Domestic violence against women is the most common form of family violence worldwide.'", and so on. They very much contrast with the Scientific American source and with the Archer source. Gender symmetry is highly controversial and highly doubted. Listing the sources I did, which state that women are disproportionately affected by domestic violence/intimate partner violence and that the act of domestic violence/intimate partner violence is more commonly committed by men against women, is not about what I prefer, but rather about good-quality or higher-quality sources and WP:Due weight being preferred. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@MastCell: Zerothly, I should state that I have no involvement, and little interest in the topic, and only know about this because WP:RSN is on my watchlist. Firstly, what is the relevance of WP:MEDRS here in using an old study? The dispute is not about using a new or older study, but using the study at all. Nobody is preventing anyone from updating the study with newer ones. Secondly, on what basis did you reach the conclusion that the meta-analysis is controversial, and does not appear to represent a mainstream view? It is very highly cited, and like all highly cited papers, many people may disagree with it - though the few I have checked, all cite it with little or not criticism. And why do we need WP:MEDRS for such a banal observation? Obviously sources differ, everyone knows that. Thirdly, as I already mentioned on the WP:RSN page, there is the issue of weight, which can only be discussed seriously on the talk page, not the WP:RSN page. Is there any argument that the source is not reliable for the statement made? Kingsindian ♝♚ 00:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

MastCell, the CDC's data sources all look like primary sources to me (at a very brief glance). I've linked the two relevant reviews that I found on PubMed below (both from 2008). This may be one of those cases in which plenty of primary sources are available, but few researchers bother writing review articles on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian and WhatamIdoing, gender symmetry is highly controversial and highly doubted. MastCell is correct that the meta-analysis is controversial, and does not represent the mainstream view. See the sources I pointed to a little above when replying to Rhoark. If Archer's study were not controversial, the Domestic violence against men article (Gender symmetry article) would not be so much about the gender symmetry debate. Bertaut would not have stated, "You're fighting a losing battle here Prefixcaz. As someone who has conducted a great deal of research into gender symmetry in several western countries (USA, UK, Ireland, Spain, Italy, Portugal and Germany), to say it's accepted as fact in the western world is simply inaccurate. Perhaps it's accepted as fact in Scandanavia, but certainly not elsewhere. That's why, when I was writing the gender symmetry section of this article, I was very careful to a) make sure to acknowledge the controversial nature of the topic, b) include sources providing empirical data for both sides of the argument, and c) make sure to point out that even researchers who argue for gender symmetry (such as Straus and Archer for example) acknowledge that violence against women is a more serious and immediate problem. If you don't believe me, or if you are unwilling to accept the argument that gender symmetry is controversial, go ahead and email Murray A. Straus. Just Google him, and you'll get his email address. He's very happy to talk to people researching the subject. As regards your CDC source, you're correct in saying it reveals men experienced more IPV in 2010 than women. But it also says women experience considerably more IPV over their lifetimes, something which would need to be acknowledged if the data from the survey is to be included (and Jytdog is correct about not including it in the lede)."

Kaldari would not have stated, "The paper is a reliable source, but 'is biased toward young dating samples in the United States' (quote from abstract), thus it should not be used to make sweeping claims about domestic violence in general, especially when such claims are contradicted by most other reliable sources." FloNight would not have stated, "I've looked into this body of research during the past year, and know that the claim to be equal is not valid from better research and other places where statistics are collected." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I will not get into a discussion on the details, which do not interest me in the slightest. Firstly, I am well aware of SPAs which try to insert such stuff: I primarily work in WP:ARBPIA, where I see a dozen like these every week. Secondly, most of your comment is talking about something totally different: weight, not reliability. A source can be reliable, but not worth including because of weight concerns. See WP:ONUS, which is a basic policy, and has nothing to do with WP:MEDRS. Thirdly, as I stated on the WP:RSN page itself, the material should be discussed first in the text of the body before being inserted into the lead, again a weight issue, not WP:RS issue. Fourthly, there has been no argument over the reliability of the source itself, among all that verbiage. Fifthly, anyone is free to give updated studies demonstrating otherwise. Statements such as FloNight's leave me unimpressed. They may or may not be correct, but I do not go by the feelings of wikipedia editors: if they have updated studies, they should provide them. Lastly, you have more than 100k edits, but god! that RfC is very poor. May I kindly ask you to read Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Request_comment_on_articles.2C_policies.2C_or_other_non-user_issues, point 3. In what universe is that RfC statement brief and neutral? Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:06, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Kingsindian, nowhere have I stated that the Archer source cannot be added to the article. I made clear that my objection was how it was added to the article; I cited WP:Due weight and WP:Lead. You asked MastCell, "Secondly, on what basis did you reach the conclusion that the meta-analysis is controversial, and does not appear to represent a mainstream view?" You also stated, "It is very highly cited, and like all highly cited papers, many people may disagree with it - though the few I have checked, all cite it with little or not criticism." I answered. It's not mainstream in the least. And Archer's gender symmetry claims are highly contested. As for the WP:RfC, I've already given my opinion on it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: I fail to understand all this verbiage then. What on Earth does WP:MEDRS have to do with weight? If you accept that the study can be used in the article why are we here? Kingsindian ♝♚ 09:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You and I have different definitions of verbiage. Furthermore, I am not the only one here making such "verbiage" posts. Either way, we are here per what I stated at the beginning of this section; my "06:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)" post above. That post clearly shows that I did not make this discussion about the Archer source. The editor who took the matter to the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard wanted clarification on WP:MEDRS since I rejected some of that editor's edits on a WP:MEDRS basis. The WP:Reliable sources noticeboard discussion became about the WP:MEDRS/biomedical debate; because of that debate (which involved people noting there that what is WP:MEDRS-compliant or biomedical should be discussed elsewhere), and since this debate has occurred before at the Domestic violence talk page and at Talk:Domestic violence against men, it was time to bring the matter here to the WP:MEDRS talk page to clarify these issues once and for all. As is indicated by this discussion, there are editors who think that WP:MEDRS should not apply to the Domestic violence article, especially as far as epidemiology/rates of domestic violence go, and others think otherwise. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

As for "What on Earth does WP:MEDRS have to do with weight?", I don't usually connect the two. But WP:Due weight states, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." When it comes to health topics, WP:MEDRS is commonly the standard of sourcing we should be looking to (the exceptions are noted at Wikipedia:Biomedical information). How the medical literature generally treats a health topic factors into WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:01, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

RS/N

This whole section appears to be forum shopping, there was already a section on the RSN Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Domestic_Violence_article AlbinoFerret 17:52, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The issue is very simple, and sweeping general statements only confuse the issue. We can cut through all of this by asking Flyer22 Reborn whether they think Archer is a reliable source for the statement quoted or not. Speaking for myself, I decided that it is reliable without recourse to WP:MEDRS. I simply applied WP:RS in a commonsense manner, others may use their own thought process. Nobody at all denies that Archer is a meta-analysis of the highest quality, which is cited all over the place. Why so much verbiage for no reason at all? Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:55, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Right, so the source at issue is the (MEDLINE-indexed, PUBMED-included) PMID 10989615 ? Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Well then the clarification that MEDRS applies is due Kingsindian. That source is pretty old, and I'd be very surprised if there aren't newer sources available. CFCF 💌 📧 18:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

AlbinoFerret, this is not WP:Forum shopping violation. The content at the aforementioned noticeboard was never supposed to be specifically about WP:MEDRS or the "biomedical" debate. Like stated there, that discussion got off track. Once it became about the WP:MEDRS/biomedical debate, it was time for the discussion to go elsewhere; others also noted that there. The WP:MEDRS talk page is obviously the ideal place for discussions about what WP:MEDRS applies to/what is biomedical content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

A link to the already ongoing discussion would have been better than having two going on the same topic. You also did not notify the ongoing discussion of your going here. AlbinoFerret 18:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Per what I stated above in this subsection you've started, your forum shopping complaint is not valid. And I most assuredly did alert members of that discussion to this discussion. I also WP:Pinged a few above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:29, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Didnt see that, struck. I did not start this section. AlbinoFerret 18:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You made the forum-shopping comment. CFCF made your comment into a subsection. To comment more on the forum-shopping aspect: I felt that the WP:MEDRS/biomedical debate required a discussion here; I've already been clear about why above. It did not need to be debated any further at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, in a discussion that was already bogged down by different matters. I also know from experience that WP:Too long; didn't read is real and that WP:Med editors were unlikely to join in on that turbulent discussion, which is supposed to be about the reliability of the source, not a WP:MEDRS/biomedical debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Re-iterating my comments at RSN, MEDRS is a multi-pronged policy. It makes some good recommendations about weighting primary or non peer-reviewed sources that are potentially applicable to any topic. It also makes much stronger prohibitions against certain source uses when a biomedical claim is involved - standards which would be onerous for general use. Domestic violence almost entirely fails to qualify as biomedical by the dictionary definition, but I don't think that's the most appropriate operative definition. Neither is pointing to injury as a potential health outcome sufficient, or else most spheres of human endeavor would become ensnared. The guiding light should be the spirit of the policy - avoiding dangerous outcomes if individuals use Wikipedia to inform their personal medical decisions. What the article says about domestic violence in connection with depression, alcohol, or HIV could conceivably be used in such a way, so these should be subject to MEDRS considerations. It is not reasonable to expect anyone will refer to the article when deciding on their own gender or their preferred gender for romantic partners, so the genders of perpetrators should not be regarded as biomedical. Rhoark (talk) 18:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This guideline has always included health information under biomedical, and has more expressly stated so before. The reason it no longer has done so is because it was thought to be implied. The guideline takes the most general application of biomedical possible, which includes anything health related. Whether a reader takes the information into account upon making decisions is entirely irrelevant to whether it is covered my MEDRS. CFCF 💌 📧 18:24, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF: The fact that some consensus existed at some point in time does not bear weight in the face of the obvious present lack of consensus right here. It's not appropriate to try to rush and lock in your preferred resolution. I ask that you self-revert and wait for the conversation to evolve. Rhoark (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

That isn't a proper reading of the situation. It is pretty clear that such a change is supported, and that this situation has arisen only because some editors who are not familiar with the way MEDRS is applied have misunderstood aspects of it. CFCF 💌 📧 18:40, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Re-examining your edits, their implications are not as strong as I first interpreted them. I'm sorry for jumping to conclusions. Rhoark (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF: I jumped the gun before, but now you are editing precisely in the area of dispute.[12][13] Please self-revert. Rhoark (talk) 00:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No one is claiming that MEDRS does not apply to human health and medical information. No one ever claimed that. No one ever claimed that "domestic violence" does not have human health and medical implications in some respects. It should also be logical and obvious that information that might involve some kind of human injury does not necessarily invoke the MEDRS guideline for every bit of content - for example I'm sure we have an article on Murder, which I have not looked at but would be willing to bet is not exclusively MEDRS sourced just because it has human health implications. Likewise, not every statistical study is epidemiological of human disease or health condition -- statistics about the prevalence of male/female domestic violence is not epidemiological of a biological condition and does not need to be sourced to MEDRS. Medical experts are not the ones conducting all of those studies and analyses. Minor4th 21:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Also consider gun control, abortion, and athletics. The spirit of MEDRS as pertaining to influencing decisions may not be perfect, but as a definition of biomedical it doesn't have such obvious deficiencies as either the dictionary definition, all health-related information, or the manual of style elements on the page. Rhoark (talk) 22:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

No one ever claimed that? Guy Macon's comments above indicate otherwise. And your comments at Talk:Domestic violence against men certainly read that way to me and to others; but, yes, I know that you've stated I misinterpreted you. As for the topic of murder, I don't view the murder comparison as a strong argument since murder is not as entrenched with the medical literature as domestic violence is; FloNight's comments above are a reflection of the difference. Murder is much more of a legal topic. There is clearly a sharp distinction when comparing the Domestic violence and Suicide articles, and the literature for them, to the Murder article and the literature for it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention the WP:MEDMOS setup of the Domestic violence and Suicide articles, as compared to the setup of the Murder article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

You are stuffing words in my mouth, claiming that I said things that I never said. Please stop it.

No one (including me) ever claimed that domestic violence does not have human health and medical implications in some respects.

Many things do. In fact bicycles have human health and medical implications. So do wars. And dogs. And shotguns. Yet somehow we don't feel the need to apply MEDRS to our articles about bicycles, wars, dogs, or shotguns. Nor should we apply it to domestic violence. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's easy enough to see what you stated above; you stated, for example, "Domestic violence (against anyone) is not biomedical information. It is sociology, not biology." You also stated, "Note that if a specific claim touches on biomedical information (a drug that is purported to increase or decrease domestic violence, for example, or a study that links testosterone levels with increased or decreased domestic violence), then WP:MEDRS does apply to that specific claim." Those are odd views, considering the abundance of material in the Domestic violence article that is medical/biomedical. And your comparisons are weak. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

And let's not forget that you just stated "Nor should we apply [WP:MEDRS] to domestic violence." You have repeatedly expressed the viewpoint that WP:MEDRS shouldn't or doesn't apply to domestic violence even though it clearly should and does for a lot of its content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

When you paraphrase me, your paraphrases do not resemble what I wrote. When you directly quote me, you surround the quotes with comments that make me believe that your are reading my words differently than the way a normal person would. Could you please just say what you want to say instead of continually botching the job of describing what I said? People can read my words in context and do not need your "help" interpreting them. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of what Flyer wrote the fact remains that you did write these things, and that the quotes show that you suggested it was not an MEDRS topic, which is clearly wrong. CFCF 💌 📧 15:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There are a bunch of editors who agree that MEDRS does not apply where you say is does. Put up or shut up. Post an RfC. If your interpretation is correct, the community will agree with you. If you want to continue discussing Guy Macon instead of the issue at hand, I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

From what I see, I've paraphrased you quite well, Guy Macon. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You are hardly in a position to judge your own competence. See Dunning–Kruger effect, or simply refer to the book of Proverbs, which says "Every way of a man is right in his own eyes". Just stop talking about me and stick to the issue at hand, OK? Your behavior is becoming disruptive. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If I am hardly in a position to judge my own competence (which is a statement I disagree with), you are hardly in a position to judge yours. If you want me to stop talking about you, then stop talking about me and/or replying to me. You've mainly replied to me; I, however, have not mainly replied to you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And as for WP:Disruptive behavior, feel free to report me at WP:ANI; something tells me that your report will fail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Newer sources?

User:CFCF, I looked for newer sources. PMID 18624096 and PMID 18936281 were the only reviews that seem (from their titles) to cover the same basic territory. They're both from 2008. Have you found anything else? It is possible that the Archer source is getting used so widely because there really isn't anything better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Like I noted above, Archer is on one side of the gender symmetry debate; he specifically studies gender symmetry (or rather goes looking for it). The idea of gender symmetry is hotly contested. Archer's view and his gender symmetry studies conflict with the mainstream view and studies on domestic violence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:35, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to get into details here, but the first source above is a decent one, and by no means contradicts the statement for which Archer is used. It states among other things (from the abstract): "(a) women's violence usually occurs in the context of violence against them by their male partners; (b) in general, women and men perpetrate equivalent levels of physical and psychological aggression but evidence suggests that men perpetrate sexual abuse, coercive control, and stalking more frequently than women and that women also are much more frequently injured during domestic violence incidents". In all studies of this type, there are all sorts of caveats which should be entered before it can be included in a Wikipedia article. Someone with more interest in the topic than me should work on the phrasing. A bare statement like the one proposed in the lead is obviously not acceptable to me. I will reiterate my belief that the whole discussion about WP:MEDRS is a waste of time. Others are free to waste their time if they wish though. I am done here. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, we disagree about the discussion of WP:MEDRS then; I've already been clear (followup statement here) that this discussion was never meant to be about Archer, but rather about the ongoing dispute between editors insisting that WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to topics such as domestic violence. Wanting clarification/a WP:Consensus formed so that this WP:MEDRS/biomedical dispute stops, since it will otherwise continue, is not a waste of time. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Post an RfC and see if the community agrees with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Agrees with me on what? On the WP:MEDRS/biomedical dispute? WP:MEDRS, like WP:Reliable sources, is a guideline. The community is already clear on it. It's just that certain people don't want to follow it, for reasons already noted in this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that your preferred sources[14][15] that you have quoted from are from the early '90s and not apparently peer reviewed? Under the MEDRS rubric these sources should be avoided, and absolutely not used to question a source like Archer. The absolute gall of throwing around accusations of POV pushing in the meantime is incredible. And I'll once again raise the issue that if those who think MEDRS is misapplied here are the ones unwilling to heed guidelines, why does a pro-MEDRS editor feel the need to edit the guideline to match their position? Rhoark (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Dobash & Dobash have apparently published a lot, so that may not be the one you meant, but it should also be noted that Archer discusses their work in his review. His conclusion was that they suffered sample selection biases by using data sources that only captured domestic violence that resulted in severe injuries. Gender asymmetry in injuries is not really disputed by sources or editors. Rhoark (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Are you aware that what you call my preferred sources include systematic reviews and academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from respected publishers accurately reflecting the current knowledge of domestic violence, including the gender ratios? That, my lovely Rhoark, makes these sources WP:MEDRS-compliant. To state that I have simply been quoting from the early 90s or that this consensus is simply consensus from the early 90s is incorrect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I know exactly what they are, because I told you. One is a non-peer reviewed systematic review published by a police department. The other is a non-peer reviewed book from a general press whose claim has been found to suffer from sample selection bias. These are what you want to use to contest a widely-cited meta-analysis in a psychological journal. Rhoark (talk) 01:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You need to reexamine all of the sources I listed in that WP:RfC, and take note that WP:MEDRS states at the top of the guideline, "Ideal sources for such content include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." Those are indeed the type of sources I support on this topic, not sources advocating the minority gender symmetry viewpoint. Unless you can provide reliable sources (ones that are not pushing the gender symmetry viewpoint) proving that any of the sources I listed "suffer from sample selection bias," it's best that you do not state that, especially since it's already been pointed out that Archer is on one side of the gender symmetry debate, and that his meta-analysis suffers from selection bias. You wanting us to defer to Archer, who specifically studies (goes looking for) gender symmetry, when the idea of gender symmetry is hotly contested, is a problem. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I examined the two you chose to highlight as countering Archer, and they are wanting. If there's something better in your list, why waste my time? You figure out what it is. If you have anything stronger than your personal opinion that criticizes Archer, that would be a place to start. Rhoark (talk) 02:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What two sources are you referring to? And that Archer is not a neutral source (falls under WP:BIASED SOURCES) and that his meta-analysis suffers from selection bias is not simply an opinion. You know very well that his research is disputed, and not just by feminists. And yet you think we should be presenting that source in the way that Charlotte135 did, or close to how Charlotte135 did, as though it is the mainstream view or is an ideal source for this information? Disagree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

To summarize what otherwise is off-topic to this discussion page, the article in question Archer should be replaced with newer sources, especially so as they do not seem to make the same conclusions. MEDRS makes it very clear than when there are newer sources they are to be used instead. Please do not bring any more content dispute issues here, we've already established that MEDRS applies to that article. CFCF 💌 📧 15:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF: Assessments of Archer are not off topic because they are part of evaluating how MEDRS does or doesn't apply to domestic violence. That is a nuanced question on which consensus has not emerged - so I ask you again, please reverse your changes to the guideline page. Rhoark (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, newer sources are not automatically preferred, even assuming WP:MEDRS applies. See WP:MEDDATE, in particular points 2 and 3. Like all guidelines, WP:MEDRS is to be interpreted with common sense and nuance. There is no automatic method to select sources. Kingsindian ♝♚ 16:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree 100% with Rhoark and Kingsindian. I would also add that CFCF's claim (in bold, as if that strengthens the argument somehow) that "we've already established that MEDRS applies to that article." gets our policy completely wrong. MEDRS applies to "medical content in any article" (bold is in the original policy) and specifically says that "sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources." In a nutshell, MEDRS applies to content, not articles. Of course some articles are 100% medical content and others are 0% medical content, but MEDRS applies to content, not articles.--Guy Macon (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Can we all at least now agree that MEDRS applies to human health and medical content? I think there is some misunderstanding about what is meant by MEDRS applies to that article (Domestic violence). Yes, MEDRS will be invoked for some of the content-- namely, that which is related to medical information, but it does not mean that every bit of content in the article must be sourced to MEDRS guidelines. This is not a binary situation in which MEDRS either applies to the entire article's content OR MEDRS does not apply to any of the article's content. It applies to some content and not to other content. Minor4th 17:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

No. We cannot agree that "MEDRS applies to human health and medical content". "Human health" is far too broad, especially the way Flyer22 keeps attempting to use it. There is very little on Wikipedia that cannot in some way be related to human health. We already have clear guidance as to where MEDRS applies:

"Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical and health information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge."

"Ideal sources for such content include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials."

"This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any article, including those on alternative medicine. Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources." -- WP:MEDRS

MEDRS applies to medical content in any article, with the specific purpose of insuring that when someone looks something up on Wikipedia that they intend to use when making personal medical/health decisions, that specific information is sourced to the higher MEDRS standard. Nobody is going to go to Wikipedia, look up whether men beat on women more than woman beat on men, and use that to make a health decision. That content needs to be sourced to the (already high) standards we use for any other scientific but not specifically medical claims.

Again, multiple editors disagree with Flyer22's interpretation on where MEDRS applies. Flyer22 (or someone who agrees with him) should post an RfC to clarify what the consensus of the Wikipedia community is. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Guy Macon's last comment, almost to a word. WP:MEDRS exists so that people who look up medicine on Wikipedia don't accidentally harm themselves. The guidelines are sensible, and can be extended to many areas, but for example, WP:HISTRS is only an essay, not a guideline. I oppose any attempts to impose a guideline in areas where they are not applicable. Common sense in applying WP:RS, WP:DUE, WP:ONUS etc. is enough. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

It is very clear that Flyer22reborn's subjective interpretation as to where MEDRS applies, as Guy Macon points out above, is quite different to most other experienced and neutral editors, both at this discussion and other places. After a great deal of discussion and debate, we are right back where we started, with no real guide moving forward? If Flyer22 is so confident, perhaps they may take Guy Macon's advice and post an RfC to clarify what the consensus of the Wikipedia community is? Otherwise without any consensus Flyer22's subjective opinion on the issue is completely irrelevant as so many others clearly disagree so strongly with them.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with these interpretations as well. Minor4th 23:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The multiple editors who disagree with my interpretation of the WP:MEDRS guideline are not WP:Med or WP:MEDRS editors; most of them have a particular POV that they want to push on the domestic violence articles, as is clear from their editing and statements. Note that most of the WP:Med and WP:MEDRS editors have agreed with me (both at Talk:Domestic violence against men and here at this talk page); so Charlotte135's claim that "It is very clear that Flyer22reborn's subjective interpretation as to where MEDRS applies, as Guy Macon points out above, is quite different to most other experienced and neutral editors" is false. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Evidence please. Other than disagreeing with your interpretation of MEDRS, I challenge you to point out a single place where I have expressed any opinion on domestic violence. Please do not resort to violating WP:AGF and WP:NPA just because you are losing an argument. Post an RfC, watch as it goes down in flames (or not; I could be wrong) and we are done. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Read WP:Winning; Wikipedia is not about losing or winning. Not that I see that I am losing this argument anyway. And that you are not a neutral party has already been made very clear. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And as for CFCF's changes, he was simply restoring the guideline back to the WP:STATUSQUO. Above, at the beginning of #Clarifying "biomedical", I linked to how the guideline was before some recent changes were made to it by one editor; there was no consensus for that change. And it has furthered non-WP:Med editors' misunderstanding of "biomedical." Perhaps I should list WP:Reliable sources defining what biomedical means, and I don't mean dictionary sources and my interpretation of them (I'm clearly not Guy Macon). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are becoming a bit obsessed with me. Please, just stop making personal comments and stick to logical arguments. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you mainly reply to me in this discussion, and I'm a bit obsessed with you? Do reflect on your behavior. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Flyer22reborn. You really do need to stop deflecting and also please stop the obvious sarcasm and personal attacks toward every editor which disagrees with you, in an effort to discredit their valid opinions and input. Your sarcasm in your last post is caustic, by saying... "I don't mean dictionary sources and my interpretation of them (I'm clearly not Guy Macon)." I'm sure Guy Macon would not appreciate this type of comment from you, Unfortunately, for some reason, it has become very obvious and very tedious to read your personalized attacks, interwoven among the mountains of text you have posted on this topic. I for one have no POV on this or any other topic for that matter. I also don't think the other 3 editors directly above have a POV either, or the many others who have disagreed with your subjective opinion. I mean do you have another POV relating to feminism and domestic violence and domestic violence being a "gender issue" as you have stated? Just a rhetorical reflection back to you, no need to answer, but hope you (and others) instead might ponder that for a moment? I am also struggling to find even one single editor that agrees with you entirely. Doc James doesn't agree with you, for one, (as another editor pointed out to you) and Doc James is a Medical Editor and actual Doctor it looks like. Flyer22 will you please take Guy Macon's sound advice and post an RfC to clarify what the consensus of the Wikipedia community is? Otherwise without any consensus your subjective opinion on the issue is completely irrelevant to editing as I correctly said? Without a neutral RfC we are right back to square one. There is clearly no current consensus.Charlotte135 (talk) 00:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied to you below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't care whether anyone here is a WP:MEDder. This guideline belongs to the whole community. Also, I sometimes disagree with your expansive application of MEDRS, and there are few people on Wikipedia who have a stronger claim to be a regular contributor to and supporter of this guideline than I do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, when you emphasized "biomedical" in the guideline a little after the dispute at Talk:Domestic violence against men, and created the biomedical essay before that, which I pointed out needed fixing with regard to how it applies, it was clear to me that we are not entirely in agreement. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:Biomedical information is definitely a work in progress. I'm very interested in seeing what we work out for different situations. So far, we've been a bit too focused on "Treatments for diseases" in it, and we need to expand to improve its description of subjects like toxicology and medical ethics. Everyone is welcome to contribute to it. The worst that can happen is that I'll revert you.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Let's reboot for a minute. What is the goal here? If the goal is to provide accurate and up-to-date information on the incidence and gender breakdown of domestic violence, then we have pretty good recent sources available (for instance, reports from the CDC and Bureau of Justice Statistics). I fail to understand how a 2000 meta-analysis is superior to these sources—again, assuming the goal is to provide accurate and up-to-date information. (As an aside, it would probably be helpful if all of the people who've imported this dispute from whatever "men's-rights" article could quiet down a bit—I think you've all expressed yourselves more than adequately, and presumably the goal is to get actual outside input rather than find another venue in which to argue with each other). MastCell ^Talk 00:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• @Mastcell, this is not about a particular source or a particular article or issue. It is about what MEDRS means, and I think we all agree on that - other than Flyer22 Minor4th 00:48, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Replied to you below (my "01:22, 30 October 2015" post). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• • I think we've got two questions going:
    1. Should this guideline restrict what can be sourced (and therefore what can be said) about "health"? The reason we've been moving to be clearer that the target is "biomedical information" is because some people's idea of Health is so expansive that statements like "Sugar is the main ingredient in sugar candy" or "Refrigeration slows the rate at which food rots" or "Racial discrimination increases poverty" are "health statements". This guideline isn't meant to cover that kind of content. It's hard enough to get a sensible definition of WP:Biomedical information; a definition of Health is much, much harder, especially with groups like WHO declaring that there has never been a single healthy human on the planet.
    2. How should the story of gender in domestic violence be told? For example, should it be pointed out that when two people engage in a fistfight, that both of them are fighting? Or should you only count the one who threw the first punch, or the one who caused more injuries, or what? If you say "Overall, a lot more men hit women than the other way around", then PMID 18624096 disagrees with you (and appears to agree with Archer in PMID 10989615). But if you say "The chance that a person has ever slapped an intimate partner has nothing to do with whether the person is male or female", then you're omitting important context, e.g., that men (on average) cause more injuries, that men are more likely to perpetrate sexual violence (which isn't "slapped", and which Archer doesn't cover), and that in the more extreme cases, it's mostly male perpetrators against female victims. This seems to be the crux of the gender symmetry question: women are clearly more "affected by" domestic violence, but that doesn't actually mean that they are less likely to be guilty of mildly slapping their boyfriends or throwing a drink in his face. I'm not sure why all of this information couldn't be included (note that sources like PMID 10989618 have complained about clarifying this distinction as a political risk), but that's basically a content dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: - I think you have stated the controversy exactly right, on both counts. You have also correctly summarized the discussion about gender symmetry - and yes, all of that information should be able to be included in the article and presented in context. But for some time, Flyer22 has been a guardian over the articles and has strongly, passionately and with unending energy and verbosity refused to allow any edits that discuss domestic violence directed at men by women. Minor4th 02:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th, the first discussion where you made your POV known and the discussions following that show what the problems are. Your "02:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)" assertion about me is false. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22reborn, if you choose not to take this sound and reasoned advice then please, please don't then still go around telling people your subjective thoughts on or policy interpretation and demand they listen to it, when so clearly, your internal thoughts and beliefs on the matter are not backed by consensus, and are simply your own thoughts. Bite the bullet and see what the community think Flyer22reborn, or consider keeping your subjective thoughts and reflections to your self, only. Please.Charlotte135 (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Charlotte135, your POV is clear. It was made very clear at Talk:Domestic violence. There is no deflection from me, and everything you state about me has been a mischaracterization of me or an outright falsehood. So it shouldn't be surprising that I'd rather not engage in discussion with you; you inflame everything with your unhealthy focus on me. I have also been clear that I do not identify as a feminist. When it comes to the Sexism and domestic violence articles, the only editors who cry "You're a feminist" to me and to others are men's rights editors looking to push a specific POV; your claim that you are not a men's rights editor is highly dubious. And as for Doc James disagreeing me, where did he disagree with me in that discussion? He did not. He simply acknowledged that the article is not entirely a med article; I also acknowledged that. I have never stated that domestic violence is purely a medical topic; in fact, I've been clear about that above on this talk page. And your claim of many editors disagreeing with me is still false. We obviously have different definitions of "many." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Many = lots of other editors!Charlotte135 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Why is it also that every other editor which disagrees with your own internal thoughts and beliefs, are from mens rights or are pushing a POV? And I did not accuse you of being a feminist by the way. I said, given you have explicitly stated that your personal subjective belief is that domestic violence is a gendered issue or "gender issue" that your strong unwavering opinion indicates a possible POV in your editing behavior? You see, trying to make domestic violence a "gender issue" here at Wikipedia contravenes neutrality IMO. Your personal subjective POV that domestic violence is a "women's issue" only, or "gender issue" may be shrouding your ability to edit these types of related articles on Wikipedia, in a neutral and balanced way? Editors should not hold such strong personal convictions as you obviously do that domestic violence is a women’s issue when much empirical evidence I have read indicates that it affects men, women and children. If I, or any other editor, believed it to be a "children’s issue" or "men’s issue" only, that may be a problem also and may affect their ability to edit in a neutral, objective fashion.Charlotte135 (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not see "lots of other editors!" disagreeing with me; I see the same few editors from Talk:Domestic violence against men, one editor whose editing of the Gamergate controversy article (which is also the concern of men's rights editors) has been heavily scrutinized, and one editor from the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard who states that he is uninvolved. And again "everything you state about me has been a mischaracterization of me or an outright falsehood. So it shouldn't be surprising that I'd rather not engage in discussion with you." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think any editor could see lots, but anyway. Given your explicit, subjective, personal belief that domestic violence is a women's issue only, or in other words a "gender issue" I am concerned your personal opinion may be preventing you from editing in a neutral manner. Have you any comment on that specifically?Charlotte135 (talk) 02:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Your "02:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)" and "02:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)" commentary are full of falsehoods, which is exactly what I mean by you inflaming things or trying to inflame things. One such falsehood is the notion that I only see domestic violence as a women's issue, when I have instead been very clear that domestic violence disproportionately affects women and in more severe ways than it affects men. I was clear to you about that on my talk page, where you incorrectly asserted that domestic violence is not a gender issue; you are incorrect on that because high-quality and/or otherwise good-quality sources state otherwise. In fact, that is the mainstream view. I was very clear that I never stated that domestic violence doesn't affect men. I've been clear at the Domestic violence talk page that it affects men, women and children. But you have continued with your absurd POV-pushing that men and women are equally, or close to equally, affected by domestic violence. And you continue to try to paint me as some hardcore feminist who has no sense of reason. All of this, and the fact that your definition of "lots" is attributed to a few editors who share your POV, is why I would rather not discuss anything with you. I've dealt with your type times over, including at the Sexism article/talk page. You do not know how to follow WP:Due weight, and this edit is a prime example of that. You are so concerned with trying to present domestic violence as not being gendered that you do not see reason. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

My concern and I won't state it again is that your belief that domestic violence is a "gender/women's" issue. I just want to present both sides Flyer22. Balanced. Neutral. What's wrong with that? I just don't see domestic violence as a "gender issue" as you do and am not looking at this through a political lens. I agree with WhatamIdoing, when they asked "I'm not sure why all of this information couldn't be included" That's all I am saying. I don't see why you are so desperate to not include other reliable sources, that albeit may conflict with your own strong and personal political stance, on the matter of domestic violence being a gender/women's issue only. Some secondary sources (eg lit reviews) indicate higher male rates on certain variables. Other secondary sources, (eg lit reviews) state women are higher on a particular variable. Your insistence that domestic violence is gendered and a gender / women's issue is my concern. Enough said though.Charlotte135 (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Your concern/beliefs about what I think are incorrect; I just told you so in my "03:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)" comment above. And now you've gone and stated that I have a political stance on this, when I am not even a political person. My discussing anything with you helps nothing; so stop replying to me. Stop incorrectly characterizing me in ways that make me obligated to reply to you. I do not want to talk with you. You are the only person on this entire talk page that I would rather not discuss anything with, because of your gross mischaracterization of me. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th, your "other than Flyer22" claim is contradicted by my "10:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)" comment above in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it is your position that statistics and studies about the prevalence and rates of domestic violence are "epidemiological" and must be sourced by MEDRS guidelines. As far as I can tell, no one else interprets MEDRS so expansively - and I think you misunderstand what "epidemiological" means for purposes of this discussion. Minor4th 01:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Others do indeed support WP:MEDRS applying to epidemiological information. That is clear in the first discussion where you made your POV known, discussions following that at that talk page, and this recent discussion. For example, BoboMeowCat stated, "Data regarding sub-populations at greatest risk for domestic violence is a significant public health issue. To suggest such content be exempted from WP:MEDRS does not seem reasonable." If you think "epidemiological" doesn't include "prevalence and rates of domestic violence," our understanding of epidemiological is clearly different; but I already knew that. That stated, I have never stated that rates of domestic violence are purely medical. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Post an RfC and see how much support you have. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

MastCell, in addition to the CDC source you noted, which, as expected, primarily focuses on women, there are sources like this 2012 Understanding and addressing violence against women World Health Organization (WHO) source that I listed at the Domestic violence article talk page. It states, "The overwhelming global burden of IPV is borne by women. Although women can be violent in relationships with men, often in self-defence, and violence sometimes occurs in same-sex partnerships, the most common perpetrators of violence against women are male intimate partners or ex-partners (1). By contrast, men are far more likely to experience violent acts by strangers or acquaintances than by someone close to them (2). How common is intimate partner violence? A growing number of population-based surveys have measured the prevalence of IPV, most notably the WHO multi-country study on women’s health and domestic violence against women, which collected data on IPV from more than 24000 women in 10 countries, 1 representing diverse cultural, geographical and urban/rural settings (3) The study confirmed that IPV is widespread in all countries studied (Figure 1). In addition, a comparative analysis of Demographic and Health Survey (DHS) data from nine countries found that the percentage of ever-partnered women who reported ever experiencing any physical or sexual violence by their current or most recent husband or cohabiting partner ranged from 18% in Cambodia to 48% in Zambia for physical violence, and 4% to 17% for sexual violence (4). In a 10-country analysis of DHS data, physical or sexual IPV ever reported by currently married women ranged from 17% in the Dominican Republic to 75% in Bangladesh (5). Similar ranges have been reported from other multi-country studies (6)."

You are looking for sources like the CDC and WHO and/or other secondary sources commenting on the gender gap concerning domestic violence, correct? Especially ones that comment on the global aspect? I look for global commentary more so in this case, since it is more applicable than rates relating solely to the United States or another country. But if you look at the domestic violence articles on Wikipedia concerning different countries, including Domestic violence in Iran, Islam and domestic violence, Domestic violence in Pakistan, Domestic violence in India, Human rights in Somalia, Domestic violence in Chile, Domestic violence in Guyana, and Domestic violence in Ecuador, you will see that these articles mostly focus on women. Not because of any political bias, but because sources like the WHO, etc. are clear that domestic violence disproportionately affects women and in more severe ways than it affects men. I can also list sources commenting on the gender symmetry debate, if you want. But you can find such sources in the Domestic violence against men article, and by searching the matter here, here and here for what I mean about it being debated and who the main proponents of gender symmetry are. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, it appears that the facts line up (very approximately) like this:

1. Overall, IPV hurts women more than men.
2. Women are much more likely to be victims of sexual IPV. Men are much more likely to perpetrate sexual IPV.
3. Women are much more likely to be victims of severe physical IPV. Men are much more likely to perpetrate severe physical IPV.
4. Men and women are approximately equally likely to engage in, and to be victims of, mild physical altercations.
5. Men and women are approximately equally likely to engage in, and to be victims of, emotional IPV. (Or is the balance off on this one? I've forgotten the details from this wall of text).

The underlying source of the dispute seems to be some editors saying, "Let's include 1, 2, and 3, but leave out 4 and 5"—even though many of the same sources also support the claims in 4 and 5. And other editors are saying, "Hey, why are you censoring 4 and 5? Why can't we say that some mild behaviors are seen in women, too?"

So here's my question for you: Can you find a way to acknowledge the fact that women engage in some milder forms of physical fighting? And my question for everyone you're "fighting" with is: Can you accept that as a compromise? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, my thing is that even the last two aspects you listed are quite debated among scholars; this is because of disagreements with how the conflict tactics scale works, and different definitions of "violence." For example, some people, including some people surveyed, don't think of a push as domestic violence. Furthermore, many scholars think that women generally (obviously not always) engage in hitting their intimate partner only as a means of self-defense. I acknowledge that women engage in domestic violence; that isn't the issue. The issue is whether they engage in physical domestic violence as much as men do, and whether they engage in emotional/verbal domestic violence as much as men do. The gender symmetry debate has caused fighting and bitterness even among scholars. For what I mean about all of this, see this 2010 A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence source, from UPNE, page 108, where Michael P. Johnson (one of the scholars who disputes the notion of gender symmetry) calls gender symmetry a myth and continues to elaborate on why he feels that way.

In this 2009 Langhinrichsen-Rolling’s Confirmation of the Feminist Analysis of Intimate Partner Violence: Comment on Controversies Involving Gender and Intimate Partner Violence in the United States source, he states, "In the studies that find so-called gender symmetry, what 'symmetry' means is that roughly the same number of men and women acknowledge that at least once in some specified time period they have engaged in at least one of the violent behaviors listed in whatever survey instrument is used. It is clear, however, that even in these general sample, so-called gender-symmetric studies, men’s violence produces more physical injuries, more negative psychological consequences, and more fear (Archer 2000; Kimmel 2002). The alleged gender symmetry of intimate partner violence, even in its situational couple violence form, is a myth created in the service of political ends that include attacks on the funding of shelters and batterer intervention programs (Dragiewicz and Lindgren 2009) [...] My reading of Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rolling’s paper leads me to the following broad conclusions. First, the evidence is clear that there is more than one type of intimate partner violence and more than one type of violent partner. Second, the feminists are right. Gender is central to the analysis of intimate partner violence, and the coercive controlling violence that most people associate with the term 'domestic violence' is indeed perpetrated primarily by men against their female partners. Third, the different types of intimate partner violence have different causes, different developmental trajectories, and different consequences. They require different models to understand them. Finally, we need more qualitative research, especially that focused on the least understood types of intimate partner violence: violent resistance and situational couple violence."

This 2008 Domestic Violence: A Multi-Professional Approach for Health Professionals source, from McGraw-Hill Education (UK), pages 22-32, addresses the gender symmetry debate, including problems with Archer's metanalysis and the conflict tactics scale. This 2011 Research Methods in Forensic Psychology source, from John Wiley & Sons, page 455 onward, also addresses the gender symmetry dispute. And, of course, there are more recent sources that do. So while I am open to the latter two aspects you listed being included in the article, I definitely think that we should provide the counterarguments for them. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

When there's disagreement in the literature, its especially important to ensure all important perspectives are covered. Langhinrichsen-Rolling seems to the source people have been asking for to substantiate the claim that Archer does not represent the best in the field. Research Methods in Forensic Psychology also looks useful for sketching the lay of the land in the controversy. Rhoark (talk) 15:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As long as we are clear on "important perspectives," I agree. My concern is WP:Due weight in this case. I don't like it when editors give equal weight to things that are not on equal grounds according to the preponderance of reliable sources. WP:Due weight (including its subsections) is clear that not every claim (disagreement with the mainstream view) needs to be presented alongside the mainstream view. The general literature on domestic violence is very clear that the mainstream view is that domestic violence disproportionately affects women; this disproportionate rate is highlighted by WhatamIdoing's "03:58, 1 November 2015 (UTC)" post above, except that physical violence is not the only way women disproportionately suffer in the case of domestic violence; the "more negative psychological consequences, and more fear" aspects noted above are emotional aspects, and are also a part of the disproportionate rate. Again, I've never denied that women commit domestic violence; I've stated that they do. At Talk:Domestic violence against men, I even included a personal note detailing one of my brother's who endured domestic violence from one of his female intimate partners (the mother of his child). No matter what the topic is, I adhere to the WP:Due weight policy, as my previous user page (as "Flyer22") used to acknowledge. Since the gender symmetry debate is already thoroughly addressed in the Domestic violence against men article, though, I don't think we should include a lot on the gender symmetry debate in the Domestic violence article; I think it should be just enough to get across the point, and that that we should leave it up to readers to click on the Domestic violence against men article for more information. The question is where to include such material in the Gender aspects section, since the Violence against women subsection addresses women being disproportionately affected, and the Violence against men subsection addresses gender symmetry without currently calling it gender symmetry. If we place it in the General section, I don't want it too redundant to those two sections. I think, if we include more on the gender symmetry aspect in the Domestic violence article, it should go in the Violence against men section where it's already addressed. But I can be okay with a due weight version of it the General section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My concern is that taking a study that makes claims for or against symmetry between both genders and filing it under a men's section or a women's section creates WP:POVFUNNELs. The impetus to do so presupposes that the men's information is mainly an advocacy canard. It can become that in the wrong hands, but not by sticking to the source on Langhinrichsen-Rolling. With respect to the mainstream view, it should take a back seat to academic consensus, and I think you're seeing CTT through the lens of what you want to see. CTT based studies are discredited insofar as they've been misused for advocacy, but methodologically it is perfectly valid when used to ask the right kinds of questions. As the top of the WP:SUMMARY pyramid, Domestic violence should simply use the right sources in the right way. Their misuses and criticism of misuses can be pushed down to Domestic violence against men. Rhoark (talk) 20:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

When I speak of the mainstream view, I am speaking of the academic consensus; I certainly am not speaking of any political consensus. Gender symmetry is highly debated/disputed on nearly all fronts, as sources I pointed to above state or indicate (including the ones seen in the Google links I provided). That women are disproportionately affected by physical and emotional domestic violence is not nearly as debated; I'm sure you know that. WP:Due weight is policy, and it should be adhered to. We clearly disagree about which lens we are looking through. For example, you state that "methodologically [the conflict tactics scale] is perfectly valid," despite the widespread criticism of its methodology. It's the conflict tactics scale's methodology that has been criticized more than any advocacy of it. And whenever gender symmetry is found, the results have almost always been based on the flawed methodology of that scale. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Metrics used in studies

Metric	Result
Having ever hit a partner, even in self-defense	Men and women about equal
Having been sexually abused by a partner	Women worse off
Having been severely injured by a partner	Women worse off
(etc.)

I'd like to second Flyer22's comment about "just enough to get across the point". Just enough, but not any less than that.

I want the reader of the plain Domestic violence to walk away with the knowledge that if you count X and only X, then you get "symmetry", and if you count everything else, then you get "women worse than men". A table that summarizes several measurements and their results, like this one, might make the point clear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• On the addition of the over broad term 'health'. I was concerned about the term when I commented at RSN on the Archer (2000) question [16]. I would have had the same opinion on that specific matter, whichever version, of the guideline I read but, since I read it while "health" was there it took any 'judgement call' away from my opinion. It would have also vastly changed my interpretation of the applicability of MEDRS on some other potential issue. There is no question that the insertion of "health" during a dispute has an effect on un-involved editors and is a low tactic. It should be left out until a consensus forms about both its addition. Jbh^Talk 20:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Like I noted in the #Clarifying "biomedical" section above, "health" had already been at various parts of the guideline; this was only recently changed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing at MEDRS

Per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing at MEDRS I am considering WP:BOLDLY restoring a stable version from before the edit war, as I did here. I would like some advice as to what version would be best to restore to, and if any noncontroversial changes since that version should be rolled back in.

Although those who have been involved in the underlying content dispute that led to the edit warring on this page are free to comment, I am free to ignore them and I advise others here to do the same. I am mostly interested in the opinion of those long-term editors who have been watching over this page for a while and who are not involved in any recent disputes on the pages where there is a question about where MEDRS applies. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: What claims are governed by WP:MEDRS?

When should reliable sourcing for a claim be governed by WP:MEDRS (as opposed to WP:SCIRS or simply WP:IRS)? (Proposed definitions are not necessarily mutually exclusive, so more than one may apply.)

1. Any claim at all related to human health
2. Any claim at all related to human health or psychology
3. Claims that are biomedical as according to the Merriam-Webster definition of biomedical: pertaining to "medicine based on the application of the principles of the natural sciences and especially biology and biochemistry"
4. Claims fitting categories delineated by the essay Wikipedia:Biomedical information#What is biomedical information?
5. Information that could reasonably be expected to influence an article reader's decisions about their personal healthcare
6. Any biological phenomenon that has been studied using methods of epidemiology
7. Anything that has been studied using methods of epidemiology (including non-biological phenomena such as crime or memes)
8. Claims about causes, risk factors, incidence, prognosis, or treatment of any physical or mental illness
9. Claims about causes, risk factors, incidence, prognosis, or treatment of anything that causes physical or mental harm
10. Any claims on pages that have been written to conform with MOS:MED

Please note that WP:MEDRS has itself been recently edited by participants in this dispute. Rhoark (talk) 03:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This WP:RfC seems like it was formatted to confuse participants. It should have focused solely on whether "biomedical" and WP:MEDRS apply to epidemiology material, including the prevalence aspect. To outsiders, see the #Clarifying "biomedical" discussion above. To quote BoboMeowCat again, "Data regarding sub-populations at greatest risk for domestic violence is a significant public health issue. To suggest such content be exempted from WP:MEDRS does not seem reasonable." I agree with that. I also alerted WP:Med editors to this WP:RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And I reiterate that I have never stated that rates of domestic violence are purely medical. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The RFC is deliberately scoped to the total applicability of the guideline, not only to its application in your disputes. Rhoark (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The WP:RfC is poorly formatted, with all of its questions (including common sense questions such as "Claims about causes, risk factors, incidence, prognosis, or treatment of any physical or mental illness"), as if most participants are actually going to answer all of that. Since what spurred on this WP:RfC is the biomedical/WP:MEDRS application with regard to epidemiology dispute, which is clearly not solely my dispute, that is what the WP:RfC should have focused on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to call another RfC about domestic violence, you're free to do that, but we're here because your badly leading RfC still didn't produce the results you wanted and you went policy shopping. Now the matter is one with project-wide implications. Rhoark (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The aforementioned WP:RfC I started at the Domestic violence talk page is determining that the Scientific American source is a poor source for what it is used for and that it shouldn't be there, which is exactly what I argued, so how you figure that my supposedly "badly leading RfC still didn't produce the results [I] wanted" is beyond me. And I certainly didn't engage in a WP:Forum shopping violation. Your WP:RfC won't accomplish anything but more bickering; it's obviously already doing that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment The purpose and discussion that lead to this RfC is an attempt to omit epidemiology from MEDRS. Please see relevant comments about Bicycles by the RfC drafter at: Wikipedia_talk:Biomedical_information#Bicycles which is an attempted red herring argument that suggests how all information pertaining to Bicycles must be covered by MEDRS. This was struck down pretty quickly by Sunrise, but may prove to be enlightening.

The misunderstanding at the root of this is that MEDRS never covers entire articles, and we could avoid confusing MEDRS to apply to all information about Bicycles if only editors chose to read the guideline.

For these reasons I find it very unlikely that this RfC will provide us with any actionable result, and running it through will only result in a massive waste of time. I suggest a procedural close and a discussion over what we actually want to accomplish if we are to run an RfC at all. CFCF 💌 📧 08:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of the RfC is to determine the scope of MEDRS, no more, no less. I have impartially represented all the interpretations that have been presented in the discussion - including the one you linked, which is not mine. Given the diverse range of interpretations, it would not be neutrally presented or the most productive to get comment on only one or two of them. Rhoark (talk) 11:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - while I appreciate the good faith effort to expand the discussion for community input, I too agree that the particular RfC is malformed and will not yield usuable conclusions. I would support a procedural close/withdrawal and further discussion narrowing the issue we're trying to address. My initial thought is that a proper RfC would explore the limits of MEDRS' application to "human health" issues that are not medical issues or are not purely medical issues. In the context of the underlying content issues, the MEDRS argument is being used to exclude a great deal of relevant information -- this is because there are not many recent review level scholarly articles that discuss the relative prevalence of domestic violence against men and women. There are plenty of OLD review articles about domestic violence of women because that was a hot research topic 15-20 years ago when public awareness of the issue was just blossoming. Most of the more recent scholarly studies have focused more on domestic violence against men -- probably because this issue is more recently making its way into public awareness. But certain editors will not allow this information to be presented coherently in the articles, and IMO they are incorrectly using portions of the MEDRS guideline as a rationale. Minor4th 11:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Most of the more recent scholarly studies have focused more on domestic violence against men." That is incorrect, unless you simply mean that more research is being given to male victims of domestic violence than was given to them in the past. Domestic violence research still mostly focuses on women. Editors are free to see here, here and here that gender symmetry is hotly contested. Various scholars do not believe in gender symmetry and/or state that it is flawed because of flaws with the conflict tactics scale. This is why WP:Due weight comes into this matter. No editor has stated that domestic violence against men material cannot be included in the Domestic violence article; editors, including me, are cautious of pushing gender symmetry as some well-established fact when it isn't. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Possible reformulation: Several editors have expressed dissatisfaction with the formulation of this RfC. The most persuasive has been User:AlbinoFerret's concern on my talk page that the number of options reduces the chances of closing with consensus. Less persuasive are editors on both sides of a dispute about domestic violence wishing the RfC to focus more on the matter of domestic violence. Please comment on whether the RfC should be withdrawn and reissued as a binary question, and how that question could be worded neutrally. After at least 24 hours from this post, I will make a decision whether to withdraw the current RfC. Rhoark (talk) 15:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I did not state or imply that this WP:RfC should focus on domestic violence; above, I was clear about what it should focus on. And I have experience with successful WP:RfCs, despite the few editors who have criticized the format of the one I started at the Domestic violence talk page. That one is also a successful WP:RfC. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Following the promised 24 hours for comment and deliberation, I have concluded that a large number of options is indeed an impediment to a successful close, and one or two binary questions would have been preferable. Unfortunately, CFCF chose to pre-empt a careful selection with a question that is equally ill-formed. The tangential matters of the definition of epidemiology are a distraction reducing the likelihood of a successful close, but the essential questions on the scope and purpose of MEDRS are being discussed also. Outside commentators have become involved, and some useful discussion has occurred, so procedurally the matter seems gridlocked. Withdrawing or any further reformulation would be a form of wheel-warring and unlikely to improve matters. I think it best at this point to allow the RfC to proceed for the standard 30 days. Rhoark (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• When should reliable sourcing for a claim be governed by WP:MEDRS (as opposed to WP:SCIRS or simply WP:IRS)? The answer is 'always'. The constraints specifically emphasised by MEDRS (strong emphasis on secondary sourcing and recent reviews/position statements) are exactly what IRS should have in any field where there is a large amount of contemporary research, published and reviewed by high quality scholarly organisations. These sort of principles are just as pertinent in fields such as physics, where they are taken for granted. The only reason why we need MEDRS to spell out those principles is that there is too much money involved in pushing poor quality medical products and procedures and too many SPAs trying to gain recognition for their own pet area in the largest encyclopedia ever created. Without the bulwark provided by insisting on only the highest possible quality of sources, our encyclopedia would be swamped by snake-oil salespersons and big pharma. The first thing that any SPA wants is to stop MEDRS from applying to their edits. We should not be trying to make life easier for them. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Does MEDRS apply to Epidemiology?

As the above question was unclear with a myriad of possible answers, some of which were ill-defined and difficult to understand I have chosen to continue this RfC with a more clear-cut question.

In an edit in July a well-meaning editor sought to clarify the bounds of MEDRS through this edit [17]. This was also followed by adding a link in the guideline lede to the essay (WP:Biomedical information). That essay expressely includes and excludes a number of points:

Included:

• Attributes of a disease or condition
• Attributes of a treatment or drug
• Medical decisions
• Health effects
• Population data
• Biomedical research

Excluded:

• Commercial or business information
• Economics
• Beliefs
• History
• Society and culture
• Legal issues
• Notable cases
• Popular culture
• Etymology and definitions
• Training
• Regulatory status
• Medical ethics

One discussion which recently arose here was whether the new definition of ’’’biomedical content’’’ (as opposed to the older medical term, which has since been restored) applies to statistics relating to a major health topic. One of the fields was in favor of dis-including epidemiology under the biomedical definition.

This vote is intended to answer and clarify the recently posed question of whether ’’’epidemiology’’’ should be covered by MEDRS or not.

To makes things easy for any editor choosing to comment here I have chosen and included the following quote from the Wikipedia article (and a workable definition for this RfC) of Epidemiology:

Epidemiology is the study of the patterns, causes, and effects of health and disease conditions in defined populations. It is the cornerstone of public health, and shapes policy decisions and evidence-based practice by identifying risk factors for disease and targets for preventive healthcare.

Once consensus around this question has been achieved the next step may be to discuss how this can be formulated and integrated into MEDRS. Also note that this RfC does not consider whether information is actionable, which is unrelated to the theme of the current guideline.

• Support as proposer Epidemiology is a major health topic, and also one where it is very easy to cherry-pick sources. Strict adherence to high quality sources is advisable, which is made easier by application of MEDRS. CFCF 💌 📧 15:46, 30 October 2015 (UTC) 

I just noted here that CFCF proposed this. Wikipedia's formatting can make this unclear, even though it did look like CFCF was the proposer I wanted to make sure. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• In the interest of having a serious discussion, I would prefer that we wait until the current dispute is resolved and until the "men's-rights" types have returned to their backwater. It's generally not very productive to discuss changes to a guideline in the midst of an active content dispute, and the current atmosphere here isn't conducive to a serious discussion of how best to cover medical and health-related material. For the record, yes, epidemiological material should fall under these sourcing guidelines, but I would prefer we table this discussion and revisit it once the active content dispute is resolved. MastCell ^Talk 15:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support: I understand where MastCell is coming from, since it's not productive to have this WP:RfC skewed. I will go ahead and state, though, that of course WP:MEDRS applies to epidemiology. This is also covered in the "Included" aspect of the WP:Biomedical information essay, under the listing Population data. That stated, this doesn't mean that we need to be overly strict with regard to WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing for epidemiological material. Some epidemiological material requires a higher level of sourcing than other epidemiological material. And WP:MEDDATE is clear that we can make exceptions in areas "where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Procedurally inappropriate. "epidemiology" is a field, not a claim. Many claims in the field of epidemiology should be held to MEDRS standards, but not all - for example, claims about the epidemiology of memes should probably not be. This attempted redefinition of the RfC is both procedurally inappropriate and outside the locus of dispute. Rhoark (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, claims can be epidemiological in nature, just as the contested ones were. Your concept of "epidemiology of memes" isn't a real phenomena, not falling under any standard definition of epidemiology. It only has 17 hits on google [18], and seems to have been made up for the purpose of this discussion.

Anyway, this is the exact locus of dispute, and in accordance with how the previous question was seen as incapable of producing actionable results I chose to continue the RfC with a more distinct question. I concede that it may seem unnecessary, and could be rescinded, but not for being beside the point. CFCF 💌 📧 16:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Your Google-fu is weak https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=meme+epidemiology Rhoark (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That still gets you only 54 hits [19], with the main one being a product by SRI International and even they state it uses "principles and quantitative frameworks from the field of epidemiology", never that it is epidemiology. CFCF 💌 📧 17:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The two concepts are combined with many possible phrasings, producing 117,000 hits when not enclosed in quotation. It is a subject of both general and academic interest, using the methods of epidemiology. We can call an RfC on what the meaning of "is" is, but it would be better to simply recognize that within epidemiology there are claims that are medical and claims that are not medical. A more comprehensive rubric is required. Elucidating its properties is the purpose of this RfC. Rhoark (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That is completely wrong, and I would challenge you to find a single real epidemiological claim that isn't medicine-related. All your search says is that there are 117,000 pages with the two terms somewhere on the page – they don't necessarily need to be at all related. Frankly, you have completely misunderstood what epidemiology is, and it was even expressely clarified that we would use the linked definition, so there is no way that anything like this could be included. CFCF 💌 📧 17:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No true Scotsman Rhoark (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment As long as the topic is about health and disease its appropriate for MEDRS to cover it. The problem is stretching MEDRS to cover things it never should. In the discussion that preceded this RFC it was pointed out that even car crashes where someone hit a tree and walked away should be covered by MEDRS because its epidemiology.[20] This is stretching the application to near the point of breaking, if not past it. Using this logic few statistics that have to do with any human activity would be excluded. This would in turn put a burden on editors where none is needed. AlbinoFerret 17:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Asking editors to use high-quality sources and avoid cherry-picking individual studies isn't really imposing a "burden". At least it shouldn't be. More to the point: violence, motor vehicle accidents, and other causes of premature injury and death are public-health issues. They're tracked by the CDC in the US, and by the WHO and other major public-health bodies globally. This isn't a case of Wikipedia's "medical editors" over-reaching; these issues are already considered public-health issues, and thus under the broad umbrella of medicine, by the relevant expert bodies. It's now a matter of bringing Wikipedians along to understand that. MastCell ^Talk 17:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, and I stand by my previous statement. Car crashes are known to in general result in some form of injury, as such any statistic of when the occupant is able to walk away unmaimed is a medical statistic. Anything else would be to infer that stating ( 1 – proportion of a population with disease) is not a medical statistic because "they aren't sick". Such a statement is analogous to saying how asymptomatic pyuria results in no health effects and is common among women, and is nonetheless a medical statement. CFCF 💌 📧 18:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC) 

Thank you both for proving my point that almost any human activity can be stretched to be covered by MEDRS. But the point of the burden is one that is interesting to me, to say that the higher standard, that sometimes MEDRS sources requires an outlay of cash to access the sources isnt a burden is quite amazing in how wrong it is. Let alone the time of editors involved in searching for those sources which are free. When it is much easier to find statistics on reliable secondary sources that are available and WP:RS compliant. AlbinoFerret 18:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are health effects of pretty much every human activity, and to say anything conclusive about these on Wikipedia you will have to apply MEDRS. Also, MEDRS gives a number of perfectly good alternative ways to access journal articles, and you are more than welcome to drop a message at WT:MED or WP:RX (I have used both those venues multiple times when my access hasn't been sufficient, and my name is on the contact list at WP:RX). We have time and time again concluded that lacking access to sources is not a reason to lower our standards – we aren't going to provide shoddy information because it's easier to access than the best information is. Wikipedia's goal isn't the "sum of all knowledge that is free to access", even if some people might want it that way. CFCF 💌 📧 18:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a difference between shoddy sources and reliable sources covered by WP:RS. Regardless of the cost, the time and aggravation is also a burden when the alternative is good enough for claims that are not directly health related. Applying MEDRS to areas outside of medical areas is WP:CREEP. AlbinoFerret 18:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That has never been the purpose of this guideline, and certainly not the purpose of applying it to epidemiology. When it comes to medicine WP:RS does allow a whole lot of shoddy sources, and MEDRS rectifies just that. It isn't perfect, but it gets rid of much of the cherry-picking problem we otherwise see. Rarely has the issue been that editors have trouble finding a decent source, and the time-expenditure of accessing a source is negligible compared to what reading and understanding it takes. CFCF 💌 📧 18:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

To add to that, editors from the Medicine WikiProject are generally very helpful in finding high-quality sources. A number of them (us) have access to paywalled journals through our university affiliations, and can often provide free copies for limited educational use. If cost, time, or aggravation are standing in the way of your ability to find good health-related sources, other editors can help. MastCell ^Talk 18:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem isnt health related, its adding things because they can be considered health related by applying the 2nd or 3rd degree of separation. Like car crashes, gun ownership, and domestic violence as Guy Macon points out below. AlbinoFerret 19:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is that some editors want to add their own article content based on shoddy sources. Do you support their attempts or condemn them? --RexxS (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Shoddy sources should not be used for anything. But WP:RS can deal with shoddy sources, and so can consensus on the quality of a specific source for a specific use. There is no problem if someone wants to use a source for something that also happens to be MEDRS compliant. But there are a wide range of sources available for some statistics and requiring MEDRS sources for non biomedical claims is unnecessary. AlbinoFerret 22:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There are indeed a wide range of sources available for some statistics: shoddy ones, badly-researched ones, unreliable ones, outdated ones, misquoted ones, and MEDRS-compliant ones. Why are you arguing for using the non-MEDRS sources? --RexxS (talk) 22:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not against using MEDRS sources. If an editor finds one and it happens to be MEDRS compliant and wants to use it. More power to them. What I am against is requiring MEDRS in places other than biomedical topics or areas in articles that deal with biomedical information. There is one type of source you forgot to mention, reliable non MEDRS sources, they exist for statistics. AlbinoFerret 23:15, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a classic use of the fallacy of the excluded middle. By assuming that there are only two kinds of sources (shoddy sources and MEDRS-compliant sources), the person engaging in this fallacy tries to make you choose between the two. As AlbinoFerret correctly points out, the excluded middle option includes high-quality reliable sources that don't comply with MEDRS. Of course this all started when an editor with a POV to push wanted to exclude a high-quality reliable source that didn't say what he wanted it to say. The right thing to do in that case is to try to find an even better source, not to wikilawyer away the source you don't agree with. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't agree with Guy Macon any more. And I will note that this creep towards total subservience to government agencies for our information is not encyclopedic, and ignores the fact of "revolving doors" and corruption (as a former CDC scientist claims does happen). If there is corruption afoot, it's non-government sources we should be relying upon. petrarchan47คุก 01:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Forgetting the purpose. The purpose of MEDRS is to deal with the fact that "Wikipedia's articles ... are a widely used source of health information". Nobody is going to go to Wikipedia and use one of our articles to decide whether to get into a car crash, whether to beat up their spouse, etc. Some here are missing the purpose of this page. The purpose is to make sure that when someone looks something up on Wikipedia that can be used to make a medical decision (thinks like "will Vitamin C prevent colds?" "Will aspirin prevent strokes?" "Should I consider lap-band surgery?") The information they get is sourced to the higher MEDRS standard. So no, MEDRS does not apply to the epidemiology of car crashes, domestic violence, or gun ownership. It does, however, apply to the epidemiology of influenza, smoking, and anything else that directly relates to making a personal medical decision. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, that was never the purpose of MEDRS. As I mentioned in the original question here, actionability does not count into it. It's about how easy it is to cherry-pick awful sources.

MEDRS is purposed to make sure that health information "accurately reflects current knowledge". Noone is going to decide to get colorectal cancer, but diagnosis and risk-factors need to be reliably sourced anyway.CFCF 💌 📧 19:30, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Another poorly formed RfC- Yes, of course MEDRS applies to epidemiology of disease and biological conditions. The problem is there are at least two editors who are arguing that "epidemiology" covers patterns, causes and effects of non-medical, sociological issues - like statistics relating to the commission of domestic violence. MEDRS applies to medical information and does not apply to non-medical information. It's really that simple. Minor4th 19:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Both the WHO [21] and US-CDC [22] consider domestic violence a major public health and epidemiological issue. We actually have an article on Epidemiology of domestic violence. CFCF 💌 📧 19:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

But "domestic violence" is not a health condition or disease condition. "Public health" issue is not the same as "medical issue." And epidemiology has meanings beyond medical applications. Epidemiology of domestic violence is a social, legal and cultural issue, but it is not a medical issue. Minor4th 19:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It most assuredly is a medical issue as it has severe health implications, and public health is a field of medicine. Domestic violence is a social, legal, cultural, and medical issue. CFCF 💌 📧 19:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Bicycles have severe health implications. Half of Wikipedia has severe health implications. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

And if there were large numbers of studies (and reviews of those) on the health implications of bicycles, then there is surely no reason why MEDRS should not apply to them. Are you really suggesting we should allow primary studies and case reports to determine our content even when there are good quality reviews and systematic analysis available? --RexxS (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not necessary to have MEDRS in order to prefer high quality sources to low quality sources. The question is whether Wikipedia should pass in silence over hundreds of pages where sourcing is only as good as say, the New York Times. The faction in favor of broad MEDRS is looking for an advantage in a content dispute, while the faction in favor of narrow interpretation wants a sane precedent. Rhoark (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That's completely wrong in every point. On some articles, it is absolutely necessary to have MEDRS to ensure high quality sources are preferred over low quality ones. The editors in favor of broad MEDRS are looking to maintain the highest quality sourcing for our content, while the faction in favor of narrow interpretation wants to push their own biased POV by cherry-picking from poor sources. --RexxS (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That is an extreme ABF statement. AlbinoFerret 23:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No it isn't, it's causality. Some advocates were trying to wedge in low quality/old sources into a disputed article. That discussion made its way here, and now attempts are being made to reinterpret MEDRS to allow for these sources. CFCF 💌 📧 12:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Yes Whenever we have suitable conditions - plenty of on-going research, reviews and systematic analyses by reputable publishers - we should be finding our sources in the way that MEDRS outlines. I am not persuaded that epidemiology is so lacking in research, reviews, analyses and publishers that it should be exempt from MEDRS. --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Of course, epidemiology, public health issues, and related topics are a core part of WikiProject Medicine. We need to remember that medical research is often done by teams of people from a range of disciplines that include sociologist, anthropologist, communication. And MEDRS would apply to these topics the same as any other. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: There has been discussion about the scope of epidemiology and a challenge laid down on whether there could be a serious epidemiological study which is "not medicine-related". I accept that challenge. My exhibit: The Lancet studies on the violence in the Iraq war. It concerns "population data", which is "included" according to the reformulation of the RfC. It was definitely not "medicine-related". The main authors and many of the supporters and critics were epidemiologists. There are 26,000 hits on Google for "epidemiology lancet iraq war". There are other studies for instance this in the journal "Conflict and Health" which has systematic reviews of mortality studies in the Iraq war. I echo the comments of Rhoark who states correctly, that epidemiology is a field, not a claim. The statistical methods can be used to analyze disease, it can be used to analyze other things. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  On Wikipedia, is material related to the Lancet studies on the violence in the Iraq war subject to the special sourcing requirements of MEDRS, or to the (already high) sourcing standards used on all Wikipedia pages? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the answer is self-evident. It would be absurd to suggest that the intent of WP:MEDRS was to cover the Lancet Iraq War studies. This is a typical example of WP:CREEP. One should not confuse quality of evidence with a doctrinaire application of WP:MEDRS. Kingsindian ♝♚ 22:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't. First of all, those studies do not fall under the standard definition of epidemiology even though the apply epidemiological methods. Those are not the same thing. War is not considered a public health issue in the same way that domestic violence is. At the same time the sources bring up different health-related risk-factors that may affect likelyhood of death in war, and these should be sourced to a high standard, and not to the popular press, and MEDRS applies to such statements. CFCF 💌 📧 11:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF: You laid down a straightforward challenge. I met it. The main author of the study, Les_Roberts_ is an epidemiologist who did work at the CDC and worked at the Johns Hopkins University. By your own criteria for the RfC, "population data" is "included" in the definition of epidemiology. There is even a wiki page for Conflict epidemiology. If you want to move the goalposts, fine. Kingsindian ♝♚ 12:28, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article you linked does cover a number of important health related risk-factors and as such those results definitely fall under MEDRS. To reiterate BoboMeowCat's response below: A simple count of how many people died in a war is not epidemiology. Neither is a simple count of how many people died via car accidents. Anyone unfamiliar with the field might find the articles: incidence (epidemiology) as well as the general epidemiology article helpful. CFCF 💌 📧 11:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• support epidemiology is a important topic, strict observance to MEDRS is best--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:26, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
• support: Epidemiology should absolutely be covered by MEDRS. CFCF's arguments above are quite compelling and to add, this is not an example of over-reaching via MEDRS. For example, this doesn’t mean that all text in the Domestic Violence article should be covered by MEDRS, only text regarding epidemiological findings, such as sub-populations at greatest risk for domestic violence. Think about it, can we allow Wikipedia to rely on the popular press for such content? The popular press may make all sorts of wild or contradictory claims regarding sub-populations at elevated risk of domestic violence, because they do not apply sound research methodology and/or statistical analysis. Also, even when using medical sources, if we don’t require MEDRS, you could end up with POV pushers coming in with one or two obscure or non-repeatable findings and then trying to give them equal weight (or greater weight) to multiple reviews studies.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 03:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment, NO support This issue is quite out of proportion; it has lost itself in compulsive pursuit of formal unanswerability. Only one day old, and already over six pages long!!! The concerns are largely irrelevant. Every topic in every article must meet reasonable reliability criteria, and by the time that one's level of experience is appropriate to participation in RFCs, we generally have a pretty good idea of the relative merits of tabloids and up-to-date journals of medicine. Whether to assess the epidemiology of bicycles similarly to that of Ebola or domestic violence is a matter that can more practically be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, and in practice cases that present difficulty are in the minority. I agree with Kingsindian in saying that one should not confuse quality of evidence with a doctrinaire application of WP:MEDRS. JonRichfield (talk) 04:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There really isn't such a thing as "epidemiology of bicycles". I think there may be some confusion regarding how and where epidemiology applies and maybe even what epidemiology is. Epidemiology is the basic science of public health. For bicycles, a public health issue would be cycling fatalities. If we were to include text regarding rates of cycling fatalities or risk factors for cycling fatalities, it seems it should be MEDRS compliant. From a epidemiology/biostatistics standpoint, fatalities from cycling are studied in the same manner as fatalities from Ebola. I honestly don't even understand why this is controversial.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Because some editors think that, as an example, statistics of people who fall off of bicycles and dont get hurt, or walk away from car crashes epidemiological[23] and suggest those types of claims should be covered by MEDRS. The heading of this question, written by CFCF, is rather the opposite of that which was said earlier. The original discussion above [24] was about applying MEDRS to statistics for domestic violence. But the header here says to exclude social issues. If it were simply about biomedical information, I doubt anyone would disagree. AlbinoFerret 05:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Risk factors for cycling injuries are epidemiological. Such risk factors could include age, gender, helmet wearing compliance, etc. Risk factors for injury severity are as well. Factors that, on a population level, are shown to statistically protect against cycling injury (such as helmet wearing) are studied the exact same manor as factors that protect against skin cancer, measles, AIDS etc. This really seems to be MEDRS territory. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Do statistics of people who are in car crashes but walk away ok require MEDRS sources? AlbinoFerret 06:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm inclined to say yes. This seems like something that should be referenced to a peer reviewed reputable journal, to assure proper epidemiological/statistical methods utilized to measure factors which make one more likely "to walk away from a car accident". Also, if WP is going to publish factors which protect one in a car accident, seems secondary sourcing would be preferable, otherwise WP may be presenting to the readers that such and such is protective, when it isn't a repeatable research finding. If the text in question is regarding a statistical/public health aspect of topic, it's epidemiological and should be covered by MEDRS. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 06:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat, I'm sure you'll be surprised, but there actually is an "epidemiology of cycling". There are sources like PMID 24125909 and PMID 26349472 on the subject. It covers things like the demographics of people using bicycles, effects of policy decisions (do helmet laws stop enough brain injuries to offset the number of people who get less exercise because they don't like wearing helmets?), environmental effects, and other classical epidemiological subjects.

And it's worth remembering that "MEDRS-compliant source" is often defined not as a peer-reviewed article in a reputable journal, but as specifically requiring a review article that is less than five years old in a reputable journal (or a university-level textbook). And the question you need to think about is: When you are writing about the number of bike wrecks each year in the USA, why would a journal article better than the authoritative data from the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Editors should use judgment. There is no reason why we need medical sources to determine how many people died in a war or how many people are killed in car accidents. We can have articles about the Great Plague and can mention that water purification plants are designed to remove harmful impurities, without ever using a medical textbook. TFD (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

That's essentially a tautology, especially as it isn't what MEDRS-compliance implies. Neither has anyone suggested that deaths in wars, or historical maladies be covered. But even those cases have some strong health associations, for example Gulf War syndrome, which was a direct result of exposure (potentially to Pyridostigmine). CFCF 💌 📧 11:54, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::A simple count of how many people died in a war is not epidemiology. Neither is a simple count of how many people died via car accidents. Anyone unfamiliar with the field might find the articles: incidence (epidemiology) as well as the general epidemiology article helpful.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The definition above defines this "simple count of how many people died in a war" as being epidemiology. It includes (all) "causes" of health effects, and "cause of death = war" is therefore epidemiology. Perhaps CFCF doesn't intend for this sort of thing to be included, but a plain reading of the definition he gave actually does include it (and, of course, every researcher whose career is in conflict epidemiology will agree that it's really epidemiology). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

TFD is right - judgment is what is needed, not dogmatic application of a rule. Here's the issue that brought this whole discussion to a head: there was a Scientific American article in which Martin Fiebert commented on some DV studies and clarified that while a strict tally of assaultive incidents between partners in intimate relationship might be roughly equivalent by gender, women are disproportionarely affected by DV because of factors that can't be quantified in such a purely statistical study. The studies that Fiebert was commenting about are actually sourced and cited in our article, including Fiebert's own studies. SA was excluded from the article on the MEDRS grounds, with the argument that this is "epidemiology" and therefore cant be sourced to SA. I dont think thats a proper use of MEDRS to exclude an expert's commentary on studies we already have included in our article. Minor4th 14:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th, while the discussion about the Scientific American source can be considered to be what started this dispute, arguing that the source should be excluded was not based solely on WP:MEDRS grounds, and the term epidemiology was not invoked. Why I objected to that source is documented in that discussion; see, for example, my "03:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)" and "04:29, 22 October 2015 (UTC)" posts. I was mainly concerned with the text, placement of it, and that the source was not the best type of source recommended by WP:MEDRS; I noted WP:Due weight and pointed to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Popular press, like I did a year before when stating that I would keep the source since Scientific American has a little WP:MEDRS support. After almost a year of having originally stated that I would wait for better sourcing for that content, that text/sourcing is still in the article...in a way that is unchallenged. Yes, the Violence against women section a little below it contrasts its statement, but we shouldn't have that statement in the General subsection of the Gender aspects section as though gender symmetry is not something that is highly disputed. What truly started this latest WP:MEDRS/epidemiology debate is the discussion from the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard, which became focused on whether or not WP:MEDRS applies to the Archer source and similar statistical data. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Flyer, I think in a broad sense we are all saying approximately the same thing, and most of this can be chalked up to a failure in communication. As a practical matter, I don't think anyone is going to dispute that statistical research studies (on any topic) should be sourced to secondary peer-reviewed journals, and outdated sources should be replaced with more recent studies and reviews, when they exist, and primary sources should be used with great caution and should not be overstated. That probably covers this discussion about "epidemiology." I just ask that MEDRS not be invoked in a dogmatic and legalistic way for content that can reasonably and reliably be sourced to something like Scientific American or other sources that are reliable for content such as interviews, public perception, etc. I agree that in the underlying articles that led to these discussions, there has been some agenda editing and push back - it's happened on both "sides". You and I have both probably contributed to that by making erroneous assumptions about each others' motivations. I hope that can change going forward. Minor4th 02:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Minor4th. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

BoboMeowCat, I do not understand how my comments represent a tautology. If they did there could be no argument against them, since the premise and the conclusion would be the same. In my experience some editors use MEDRS to exclude information they do not like. For example, sources in agricultural science had found that levels of some nutrients are higher in organic farming. The objection is that this is a medical claim as nutritional needs is a medical issue, and the additional nutrients may have no value. My view is that as long as no medical advice is implied that there is no reason not to mention this. TFD (talk) 15:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Short reason is I would like to see better sourcing everywhere. Longer answer is that those topics which are subject to rigorous epidemiological study should only be represented by those some high quality sources. There is no reason to use low quality sources to call into question high quality sources. That said the stated definition of epidemiology needs to be included as a common reference point to prevent gaming and over reach because someone at some time is bound to try. Jbh^Talk 22:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• I have more questions than answers right now. The issue is "the study of the patterns, causes, and effects of health..." It's not clear where "health" stops and something else begins, or where health becomes less important than some other factor. There's no definition of "health". For example, is the "pattern" of which villages in a developing country have toilets, and which don't, a "health" issue? If I want to write in an article about a county in developing Ruritania that the county installed indoor toilets and septic tanks at 80% of the village schools (and the 20% of villages who didn't get the new plumbing voted against the county head in the last election), do I really need a review article published in a reputable medical journal, or is it good enough to have a decent, but non-medical, source for that statement? Is a medical journal actually "ideal" for a statement about a government agency installing plumbing? More specifically, if that health-related information is covered in reputable newspapers or NGO reports, but not in medical journals, must it be omitted entirely from Wikipedia? It's "health-related" and "epidemiology", but the medical press didn't publish it. We certainly have editors who interpret MEDRS as requiring the omission of any information that isn't immediately supported by an "ideal" source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a health issue if you wish to tie it together with "the increase from a xx% coverage to xx% lead to a decrease of cholera outbreaks by xx%, and that should be pretty clear. MEDRS doesn't require review articles in cases where it is unlikely enough research has been done. Also we allow for many types of NGO report already as well as a multitude of sources that aren't medical journals. What is an ideal source doesn't necessarily mean it is the only acceptable source, and that there are editors who misinterpret MEDRS is a different question entirely (it might need clarification somewhere, but it sure isn't by decreasing the scope). The actual issue leading to this RfC was how editors were trying to wedge old sources into a field with a high degree of research available.CFCF 💌 📧 11:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It's not unreasonable to believe that sanitation is "health-related" even if no explicit connection to a disease is made. Also, while you keep telling me that MEDRS is over-zealously and under-mindfully enforced, I keep telling you that we have to write this to minimize abuse (in both directions). Wikipedia isn't a statutory legal system. The real policy is what established editors actually do, not what's written on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Then the problem is probably one of educating editors, not decreasing the scope of MEDRS. I can think of at least on editor with a name pretty close to a well known rock-star that could do with this. CFCF 💌 📧 18:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC) 

• MEDRS should apply to medical claims, no matter where in the encyclopaedia they appear, even if the topic is not a medical one. It should not apply to non-medical claims, no matter where in the encyclopaedia they appear. A "medical claim" is something about which a physician or surgeon would be the primary expert. So, to take two illustrative examples:- (1) in cardiac surgery it says The earliest operations on the pericardium (the sac that surrounds the heart) took place in the 19th century and were performed by Francisco Romero. This is not a medical claim. The primary expert would be a historian. So even though the topic is clearly medical, this particular sentence is out of scope. But equally, (2), in maggot it says There are three midgut lysozymes of P. sericata that have been confirmed to show antibacterial effects in maggot debridement therapy. This is a medical claim. Even though the topic is clearly non-medical, this particular sentence is in scope.—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

S Marshall, I'm wondering if this a widely supported assumption you have outlined regarding "medical claims" and "primary experts" and how MEDRS should be applied. Who would be the "primary expert" in domestic violence for instance? Is it the medical doctors, psychologists, sociologists, social workers or academics? Does anyone know the answer to this question?Charlotte135 (talk) 22:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• As I said, it depends on the specific claim. In the UK where I live, DV is primarily a matter for social workers, police, and lawyers, and many parts of domestic violence are clearly not medical. Doctors are not experts in, for example, forced marriage. But, for a counterexample, the subsection on HIV/AIDS does contain a number of claims that are within scope.—S Marshall T/C 22:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose application of MEDRS to humanities MEDRS should typically not be used to pass judgement on the quality of sources for epidemiology. More broadly, MEDRS should not govern information with the subject matter of health but which relates to medicine as a humanity or social science rather than professional practice or hard science.

In figure 1 of the recent NEJM article "The Future of Public Health", there is a pyramid giving a model of what things affect health. It is significant that the base of good health is socioeconomic factors then social interventions and infrastructure to guide good choices. Medical needs and practice are determined by society, and are not absolute. There is a place for the humanities in health articles and MEDRS sources usually do not cover social determinants of health as effectively as sources in the humanities. When MEDRS sources are available, concepts like epidemiology cannot even be discussed or measured with the rigor of biological testing.

I think that there is little precedent in WikiProject Medicine to move into epidemiology. Most Wikipedia health articles do not cover epidemiology well and hardly cover social issues at all, because of confusion about who governs what part of the articles. I prefer that WikiProject medicine oversee health claims, and to have fewer restrictions on what is in medical articles outside the scope of medical practice or giving context to the kinds of statements that a physician might make. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Epidemiology is not humanities. MEDRS does under no circumstance only cover biological phenomena, as that would remove the entire field of psychiatry from the banner of MEDRS, as treatment is not based upon theories of biological processes. WikiProject medicine does not govern MEDRS, and MEDRS's purpose is to make sure that such information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge, not only governing treatment. It is not meant to restrict itself to medical practice, but to claims that give express information on health effects. Epidemiology is a major public health issue and subject to very easy cherry-picking of sources. If we don't apply MEDRS to epidemiology we suddenly allow for claims such as banana's help prevent cancer or working your abs at the end of your workout is best for burning abdominal fat

References

(Proper sources by WP:RS standards).

Bluerasberry I know your intent is good, but I urge you to reconsider your vote as the effect of it would be very damaging and allow for very questionable claims concerning non-treatment related health effects. CFCF 💌 📧 15:45, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

CFCF - I dont think anyone is disagreeing that MEDRS applies to the epidemiology of health conditions and disease conditions. I believe what a multitude of editors are expressing is that "epidemiology" is a term that is used for statistical and demographical studies unrelated to medical conditions (i.e. health conditions and disease conditions), and therefore a guideline that states "MEDRS applies to epidemiology" is overly broad. Does that make sense? Minor4th 16:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No, not at all. Please read the definition that I've included at the start of this RfC and you will see that epidemiology only covers health related topics. So all of epidemiology should be covered by MEDRS, because all of it pertains to health effects of different practices etc. CFCF 💌 📧 19:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

CFCF I am not sure. I think the better answer might be that epidemiology may or may not be based in either or both science or humanities. I am not even sure what is most common. For the examples you gave, of course I do not want those used to make health claims. As an example of a non-MEDRS source which I think should be good for something, consider http://everybodywalk.org/. This is a popular United States health campaign to encourage people to walk more, maybe 30 minutes a day. It is designed by insurance companies and backed by regional governments especially in places with high obesity rates. It promises health benefits and is backed by a range of government officials including the US surgeon general, who is a top health official. I think this campaign might not be backed by science, because it promises the health benefits of exercise with minimal activity which probably should not be called exercise. Even though I would not like Wikipedia to promise benefits at the individual level for walking therapy, messages like this might be helpful at the population level. I want more people comfortable adding information to Wikipedia from popular health media like this, even if I am not quite sure what they should say.

There are a lot of popular articles on regional topics and these might give good information. It is unlikely that MEDRS sources will ever exist to give local coverage of things like obesity at the level of individual cities.

Another example is at Talk:Autism#Education right now. A student in a class is doing correct and incorrect things, but among the correct things, they are adding cultural information about a medical condition but getting in my opinion too much pushback on all their contributions only because of problems they are having with the medical content. No one in WP:MED is doing wrong here, but I think it would be nice to have a way to better differentiate when users are making health claims and when they are working in the humanities.

When epidemiology is presented as a science then MEDRS sources should be required. In softer examinations I see no reason to have a high bar, especially when no health claims are made. I will think more about the issue but I am not ready to remove all my opposition. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:46, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• The MEDRS guideline currently states: This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any article, including those on alternative medicine. Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources.. I think that is clear and answers the question as to whether a particular epidemiological study would invoke the MEDRS criteria. Please do not go edit this part of the guideline to make it fit a particular argument being made in this discussion. Minor4th 16:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it includes epidemiology, and if that isn't clear because someone has an odd definition of medicine we can clarify it by express inclusion. CFCF 💌 📧 19:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Advertising

• Note: Guy Macon alerted the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

And, so far, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this place as well. So, whatever the result of this WP:RfC, we definitely can't validly state that this WP:RfC wasn't advertised enough. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Things to amuse you

On the theory that at least some of the editors here aren't bots  ;-) , here's a list of different types of epidemiology that might amuse you:

• Epidemiology of television viewing
• Epidemiology of bicycling
• Epidemiology of war
• Epidemiology of the Internet
• Epidemiology of aging
• Epidemiology of Electromagnetic Fields
• Epidemiology of mobile phone use
• Epidemiology of dog walking
• Epidemiology of self-deprecation
• Epidemiology of self-esteem
• Epidemiology of ideas
• Epidemiology of an internet business

Some of these easily fall into CFCF's definition, but all of them claim to be "epidemiology". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I wonder what they study in epidemiology of dog walking. Perhaps they study poo pickup on a walk? Kingsindian ♝♚ 06:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Just because something claims to be epidemiology doesn't mean it really is. This board isn't the first to misunderstand the concept, which is why I expressely added a "workable definition".

Some of theses such as your link to Epidemiology of cycling for exercise, recreation or sport in Australia and its contribution to health-enhancing physical activity. most assuredly is a health topic and so is The epidemiology of dog walking: an unmet need for human and canine health. which discusses health impacts of that practice. Epidemiology of an internet business is a blog link, and a pretty silly one at that. I don't see how this is going to move the discussion forward? CFCF 💌 📧 11:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The implication that the above links supports the notion that epidemiology is not a study of public health, shows a failure to even read the abstracts associated with these titles. The "epidemiology of television" is an article examining the public health effects of increased tv viewing (i.e. obesity). The "epidemiology of bicycles" is examining cycling as a public health benefit (factors that lead to increased exercise/cycling). Basically, epidemiology is the study of health in populations, to understand the causes and patterns of health and illness. Yes, causes and patterns of health and illness can be related to television viewing, or bikes, or just about anything. This doesn't mean all content on television needs MEDRS sourcing, but text making public health claims regarding tv should require MEDRS sourcing, such as stating that excessive television viewing is associated with obesity. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a joke section, in case you haven't read the title of the section. Kingsindian ♝♚ 02:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

epidemiology of zombies Rhoark (talk) 04:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Previously on Talking Med

This has encompassed a lot of words spanning several pages, so a recap is in order for those just arriving from new advertisements. I see some general themes forming, but people are also talking past one another to an extent. Speak out if you disagree with this breakdown.

in favor of broad MEDRS	in favor of narrow MEDRS
Epidemiology is obviously medical by definition.	There exist claims which are epidemiological but not medical.
The purpose of MEDRS is to ensure articles provide the best possible information.	The purpose of MEDRS is to avoid people making personal health decisions based on misleading information.
High quality sources should be preferred to low quality sources when available.	High quality sources should be preferred to low quality sources when available.
The availability of high quality medical sources makes a topic medical.	The nature of the claims makes a topic medical.
It's best for the encyclopedia to apply MEDRS whenever possible. OR Slippery slope is an unfounded concern that won't be a problem in practice.	Definitions of MEDRS that capture topics like War or Bicycles are unworkable.
Narrow MEDRS is pushed by POV warriors who want to use poor sources to support their view.	Broad MEDRS is pushed by POV warriors who want to exclude reliable sources that oppose their view, or cover subtopics that don't interest them.

Since a lot of rationale seem to be coming from a concern with consequences rather than definitions I think as a next step it could be helpful to examine exactly what the consequences of MEDRS application are, especially as distinguished from WP:SCIRS which is similar in many ways. Rhoark (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I've expanded the last one slightly. One of the "MEDRS everywhere" effects is shorter articles that only cover information that can be found in certain types of sources. For example, it will cover treatment for a medical condition, but not how having this diagnosis affects patients' social lives or their ability to keep a job. Or it will include a well-sourced statement that there is no evidence that ____ is an effective treatment, while omitting the fact that it is still prescribed to many millions of patients each year, or that the annual sales are US $8B for drug manufacturers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That is just not true. Both those statements will find a multitude of reliable sources in the literature with or without adhering to MEDRS. MEDRS helps weed out the poor sources, abut you can be sure that high quality sources can still be found. It sounds like you believe the affects of disease on quality of life or prescription rates are fringe topics that don't see sufficient research, but they are not. CFCF 💌 📧 11:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The last row is needlessly broad, though I don't doubt that many of the people on either side are sincerely concerned about POV warriors using this discussion to support their side. Speaking for myself, I am against legislating stuff which shouldn't be legislated, which is an enormous waste of time, as this discussion has showed. WP:MEDRS is neither necessary nor sufficient to get high quality sources for any claim. The fear that barbarians are at the gates and not using WP:MEDRS will be disastrous is unfounded both in theory and practice. Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There is no way adhering to a high quality of evidence could result in pushing any point of view, except the evidence based, widespread view. On the contrary MEDRS has time and time again proven necessary to keep crap-sources away. For anyone who actually works on medical articles on a day to day basis this is exceptionally clear. What you refer to as a fear is rather express knowledge that any weakening of MEDRS will result in poorer sourcing choices, often to push a certain POV. This discussion arose as a result of such an issue with a 15 year old article used to trump newer articles because some editors "liked" its results more. CFCF 💌 📧 14:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC) 

That entirely misrepresents the history of the content dispute. It arose because of editors disputing an article on the basis of its conclusions (against MEDRS) and because they preferred even older non-peer-reviewed publications (contrary to MEDRS). Now in the "newer sources" section higher on the page, Flyer22 has provided a newer review article that is actually preferable under MEDRS, so maybe that will break the logjam. Rhoark (talk) 16:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) CFCF, I know that you believe this. I also know that I've seen articles gutted when certain editors decide to "improve" them by removing any reference to information that isn't supported by ideal sources. As an example, Common cold once had 40% of its content removed, including any reference to codeine and the use of antibiotics to treat secondary infections. Things that are merely interesting to casual readers (but useless to medical professionals), like the epidemiology of the common cold at Tristan da Cunha, don't stand a chance.

I (as you know) don't have a problem with the "POV" that evidence-based medicine is preferable to other forms of medicine. The problematic POV isn't the belief that good evidence is better than garbage; the problematic POV is the belief that an article is complete and well-written when it contains only a summary of the current state of the evidence. The problematic POV is the removal of entire topics for which the hierarchies of evidence are largely irrelevant. That kind of overmedicalization is actually happening in our articles, and MEDRS is actually being cited as the justification for this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Waid and I have long seen this "overmedicalization" as related to the fact that we have so few women editors. It really is very much a feminist issue IMO. Women have made great strides in all areas of modern society, while Wikipedia keeps moving farther back into a male-dominated world viewpoint when it comes to health issues. Gandydancer (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I have a very hard time believing those statements, and I think adhering to a high level of evidence is unlikely to produce lower quality content. I am supportive of expanding the guideline with clearer information on what the best sources for different topics in medicine are, but nothing good can come from decreasing the scope. Also, I went over the edits at Common cold from December 2011 and have to say I agree with them, not only on the basis of better evidence, but that articles are going to need a trim from time to time. We have such an excess of information that it can't all be presented in articles, much of it is very interesting, but it detracts from the amount of people who are able to read the article and get something out of it. CFCF 💌 📧 18:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC) 

WP:RS is not broken, and does not need "fixing". There is no need to expand MEDRS to cover what RS already handles just fine. And nobody here wants to decrease the scope of MEDRS. It just seems that way to you because you are misinterpreting it in such a way that you think the scope is a lot larger than it actually is, which is biomedical issues, not sociological issues. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

No, but it's insufficient for a whole lot of topics. MEDRS has never been meant to only cover biomedical issues, and as you may see in the beginning of this RfC that change was clearly not supported. Neither does the current status of MEDRS support your interpretation that it only covers biomedical content. CFCF 💌 📧 23:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with many of the changes that you looked at in Common cold, but I somewhat disagree with the overall result. We ended up with a "summary of scientific evidence" rather than an "encyclopedia article"—and an incomplete summary of evidence, since there's good evidence about some relevant information that was ignored.

But MEDRS-as-commonly-applied isn't going to make that article interesting to read. FA's out of reach when you are writing a summary of evidence instead of an encyclopedia article that describes the subject from both scientific and also non-scientific perspectives. By-the-evidence writing is not going to include things like the common cold in isolated populations, which is (a) fun for readers and (b) important for understanding the (im)possibility of eradicating the common cold, but not (c) discussed in a meta-analysis. MEDRS-as-commonly-applied is even going complain that the FA on St Kilda, Scotland refers to "boat cough" (the common cold) by citing a 19th century primary source and a book from the 1970s, rather than a review article written in the last five years and published in a reputable medical journal article—even though the island was abandoned almost a hundred years ago, which severely limits the ability to do any experimental work. That's our reality right now: evidence über alles, and no room for non-medical sub-topics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Great summary chart, Rhoark (at least I presume from the lack of complaints it didn't badly misrepresent anyone). I think using the MEDRS standard for all health-related articles and claims, including epidemiology articles and claims, sounds like a good idea. I also think it's a bit silly to say domestic violence isn't health-related, since by definition it causes injuries and it has to be treated with therapy. (Or does somebody here think mental health should get a blanket exemption from MEDRS?) I'm willing to consider changing my mind if anyone can point to an example where Wikipedia would be harmed by requiring MEDRS be applied to an article or claim; I don't consider the study on domestic violence to count, since it seems there are newer studies with better protocols such that including one older, flawed study wasn't going to counter those sources anyway... but even if I'm wrong about that, the fact that it's part of the reason this RfC was even brought into being means that opponents ought to be able to come up with at least one other example. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 01:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks Rhoark. This is helpful. I feel like I am on the "narrow" side, and I expected that most of WP:MED was also, but I see varying perspectives here. This chart is great. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

*Comment: I would go one step further and add 1)linguistic aspects ( quality of language) and 2)accessibility of sources to the chart. IMO medical / biomedical pages are among the worst written pages when it comes to language: Contorted sentences, redundance, repetition of ever same terms, heaps of nominalizations connected with a wimpy passive verb. A torture to read, it can look like whoever wrote it didnt understand what they were writing. I have at times embraced and added well explained versions by scientific writers of the big newspapers which ignorant MEDRS soldiers have immediately (!) reverted, because they didnt even see what i was doing. this is galling, a doctrine without a brain, without understanding, the know all attitude that sees ..nothing, arrogant and inappropriate, sick, a perversion of purpose (transfer of knowledge). add to that the sources by subscription only and the avergae reader is floored. Rhoark I' d add on the left side broad MEDRS expansion of poorly phrased text, sources behind paywalls, authoritarian control on the right: limit medical language and inaccessible sources to a minimum. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Poor writing happens regardless of source type, but there is a correlation between needless obfuscation and academic credentials. You might be interested in this recent article on the subject. The French POV described there ("academics shouldn’t write to express, they should write to impress") seems to describe some otherwise valuable editors in multiple subjects on Wikipedia, for both writing and for choice of sources.

We've talked before about using accessible sources for basic information. I think it's a good idea, but it's hard to write a guideline to support that, without opening the floodgates to poor sources used for contentious information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Propose closing this improperly formatted and published RfC

• The rules for creating an RfC are here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment. According to the rules there, I'm not even sure the bot will be able to properly process this. It's also clear from the complex nature of the RfC, that there is no simple answer. An RfC should have an extremely narrow focus. This RfC should be closed and the proposer try to develop a very narrow aspect which can be answered in so simple a manner as yes or no. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 05:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• The bot will be fine. It's mindless and doesn't care about any of this (it will only show the first question, unless someone adds a second RFC tag). RFCs don't need to have a yes or no answer. It's true that you're more likely to get an actionable result with a yes or no answer, but it's not actually a requirement. Sometimes what people want from an RFC is to hear different POVs on the subject. In that case, a yes-or-no question is less desirable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• The problem is when someone gets different POVs on the subject but really wants a yes or no answer so that they can win a particular content dispute. This often ends up with them doing an excellent Procrustes imitation. ----Guy Macon (talk) 06:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)‎

• BullRangifer, your and others' opposition to the format of the original WP:RfC above is why CFCF took a stab at narrowing the focus with a differently worded version. As you can see, CFCF's version is getting more attention for exactly the reasons you highlighted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• Flyer22 Reborn (glad you're reborn!), as long as this isn't another attempt to dismantle MEDRS so lunatic charlatans can misuse Wikipedia to promote their views without strong evidence, maybe some good will come from the discussions. It looks pretty confusing to me and shouldn't be called an RfC, because it clearly violates the rules for an RfC. As such, final decisions are not actionable, and must be made the subject of a proper RfC first. Many editors will pay more attention to a proper RfC than something like this.
• On the one hand, we frequently have fringe POV pushers who openly declare that WP:FRINGE and MEDRS are damaging to Wikipedia, so they sneakily try to weaken and dismantle them, and OTOH, we have those who try to apply MEDRS too broadly, for example by applying it to all the content in a medical article. Well, that's BS too. It applies to all falsifiable medical claims in any article which has such content, but only to that content, and not to the rest of the article. The rest is governed by RS. Period.
• Extraordinary claims demand extraordinarily strong evidence/sources. I tend to apply the same principles to falsifiable scientific claims. Non-falsifiable claims aren't governed by MEDRS, but, like all opinions, by RS, and if they are fringey, by FRINGE and parity of sources. MEDRS must neither be weakened nor applied too broadly.
• When this wraps up, I hope someone will sum up the salient points learned from this exercise. Maybe it will produce some good. If there are any good actionable points, they should be made the subject of a proper RfC before changing any PAG. Then I'll pay attention. As it is, I have no idea which part of what I just said could be used as my !vote above. Tell me. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 14:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• I too have seen a long string of fringe POV pushers trying to weaken MEDRS, but in this particular case Flyer22 and CFCF want to expand MEDRS so that they can use it to exclude reliable sources that support the claim that the rate of domestic violence is roughly equal between women and men. I don't support such a claim (it sounds wrong to me and appears to be incompatable with the well-documented fact that men commit more violent crimes in general) but I take exception to attempting to exclude the sources -- sources wich pass our WP:RS standards -- by applying MEDRS to them under the theory that "anything that has any effect on human health in any way is under MEDRS". --Guy Macon (talk) 19:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

• No, that is a total misinterpretation of fact! I have made no comments whatsoever about that claim beyond that we should strive to use the best possible sourcing. I was completely uninvolved before I was made aware of the blatant misreading of MEDRS here. We're talking about excluding a single 15 year old study when there are a multitude of newer and higher quality studies. Please don't fabricate my intentions. CFCF 💌 📧 19:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC) 

• Correction: We're talking about attempting to exclude a single 15 year old study when there are a multitude of newer and higher quality studies by invoking MEDRS and then attempting to edit MEDRS so that is supports your interpretation after multiple editors opposed your attempt to invoke MEDRS. WP:RS is not broken, and is perfectly sufficient for the purpose of excluding a single 15 year old study when there are a multitude of newer and higher quality studies. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Reproduced from the top of the section since most probably missed it: Following the promised 24 hours for comment and deliberation, I have concluded that a large number of options is indeed an impediment to a successful close, and one or two binary questions would have been preferable. Unfortunately, CFCF chose to pre-empt a careful selection with a question that is equally ill-formed. The tangential matters of the definition of epidemiology are a distraction reducing the likelihood of a successful close, but the essential questions on the scope and purpose of MEDRS are being discussed also. Outside commentators have become involved, and some useful discussion has occurred, so procedurally the matter seems gridlocked. Withdrawing or any further reformulation would be a form of wheel-warring and unlikely to improve matters. I think it best at this point to allow the RfC to proceed for the standard 30 days. Rhoark (talk) 16:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• Rhoark, may I suggest you read my comment immediately above yours (there was an edit conflict)? I think this discussion should continue, but that it cease to be an official RfC. (At least that got a lot of editors' attention.) Its conclusions should only be binding, for use to make any changes to any PAG, if salient points are simplified and made a part of a new RfC. Let's see what percolates out of this discussion. Some clumps of gold may appear! -- {{u|BullRangifer}} {Talk} 15:05, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Support de-RfCing and keeping discussion open. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Tsk, tsk. After, in the #Clarifying "biomedical" section above, Guy Macon wanted me to stop referencing him because he feels that I've been misrepresenting his views, he decides to completely misrepresent me with his "19:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC)" post above. Further still, he acts like it's only me and CFCF disagreeing with his "WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to epidemiology" view, even though commentary from others above shows that isn't the case. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

A closely related RfC has been opened below, so I formally withdraw this one in order to concentrate discussion. Rhoark (talk) 01:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Dance and health

please review the article and its sources. before it was ugly. but recently I noticed that it became a target of student assignment of IMO a nonmedical person, with consequences. i did some surgery on it, but i cannot reasonably judge the essence of remains. - üser:Altenmann >t 04:25, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the first sentence needs a source. QuackGuru (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Stable Version

• Version from 1 October 2015: "any biomedical information in articles"[25]
• Version from 2 September 2015 (as edited by CFCF!): "any biomedical information in articles"[26]
• Version from 7 July 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[27]
• Version from 13 January 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[28]
• Version from 4 January 2014: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[29]
• Version from 26 January 2013: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[30]
• Version from 24 January 2012: "the biomedical information in articles"[31]
• Version from 1 January 2011: "the biomedical information in articles"[32]

CFCF edits changing "biomedical information" to "biomedical and health information": [33], [34], [35], [36], [37]

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing on Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) by CFCF --Guy Macon (talk) 05:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon neglects to mention the other stable version I pointed to in the #Clarifying "biomedical" section above. You know, the stable version preceding this and this edit? I don't see Guy Macon supporting that stable version, but he sure is supporting the one he thinks fits his "WP:MEDRS doesn't apply to epidemiology" view. Further, even though there is already a thread about CFCF at WP:ANI (that's a WP:Permalink), Guy Macon has created another one there about him. Tsk, tsk. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. I simply picked the first edit made in January of 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014, and 2015, the first edit in July (mid year) of 2015, and the first edit made on the first day of the last three months. I correctly identified the consensus version that was stable for at least five years. CFCF announced[38] that he was changing the guideline to support his position in an ongoing discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Flyer22, in the two diffs you cite, the lead paragraph of the article said

"Wikipedia's articles are not intended to provide medical advice, but are important and widely used as a source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that any biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current knowledge."

both before and after the edit, and you yourself had no problem with "the biomedical information in all types of articles".[39]

So how do a couple of diffs that don't change the lead paragraph in any way show evidence that the lead paragraph was anything other than the version that I have clearly shown to be stable for at least the last five years? --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I just stated this in the thread you started on CFCF: No nonsense. I showed that "health" was already at various parts of the guideline, and that this was also a stable part of the guideline. You, however, clearly do not support that stable version. And I am female, by the way (in case you didn't know). And I indeed had an issue with the "biomedical" change, which is why I stated, "If we are going to stress 'biomedical, then we should link to it, since, as seen at Talk:Domestic violence against men, editors commonly do not understand what biomedical entails." You were clearly one of the editors I was referring to. That change in text is also why I started this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you reverted too far back here it. QuackGuru (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Reverting to a point before a discussion is the right thing to do. Changing a guideline during discussion has a great possibility of skewing the discussion. The first thing an editor commenting in the discussion should and most likely does is check the guideline, they may not always check the history, but probably should. If they find the guideline matches the preferred outcome it was changed to they will agree with that preferred outcome. AlbinoFerret 19:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

---

QuackGuru, as I have told you multiple times, if you believe that my edits violated any Wikipedia policy or guideline, report me at WP:ANI and receive your boomerang. Your recent behavior -- making accusations on various article talk pages where they are completely off-topic -- is becoming disruptive. Please stop. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Biomedical information includes all health information. This edit was just clarifying the definition [40] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, you cannot simply declare that the wording that has been in place for the last five years is wrong and that we should simply accept the new wording as "just clarifying the definition" when the question of which wording to use is being actively discussed with veteran editors on both sides of the issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree that the wording change is significant enough and/or vague enough to warrant a full discussion. This is not just an issue of clarification.Dialectric (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, biomedical is quite clear, "clarifying" by adding 'health' is not useful. It is possible to endlessly argue what is or is not 'health information' or even worse 'health related information'. Biomedical is already quite clear both to specialists and laymen, at least those laymen who should be editing the type of articles this is intended to relate to. Jbh^Talk 21:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, the issue is that the guideline has always been interpreted like this, but it wasn't until recently that some editors with ulterior motives started questioned the standard definition of biomedical that had been used here for a long time. As I pointed out it links to WP:BIOMEDICAL which definition to the lay-man includes health, epidemiology etc. There is no expansion of scope with this wording, it is only a clarification. With the link in the lede that defines biomedical we are actually not in a different position, except that readers and editors will be expected to go to an additional article to see the definition invoked by MEDRS. CFCF 💌 📧 22:04, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I am having trouble reconciling your claim that "the guideline has always been interpreted like this" with the multiple editors who are telling you on this very page that the guideline has never been interpreted the way you interpret it. Why not just post a simple RfC presenting the two alternative wordings to the community and see how much support you really have? If the consensus is what you say it is the RfC will show it. I'm just saying. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Looking at the diff Doc James provided I notice that the words "treatment efficacy" have also been removed. This alone is reason enough to call an RfC because "treatment efficacy" indicates that the original scope of this was very limited. Going from "treatment efficacy" to "health" seems to be a huge broadening of the scope unless I am missing something, which is entirely possible considering the flux of this page. Jbh^Talk 22:00, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

  "Treatment efficacy" is a new thing. You should ignore it for the time being. When this page gets back to normal, then I'd be happy to see your thoughts on it. In the meantime, if you want more information about it, then you can read the section #The best evidence above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: OK. Thank you for clearing that up. Jbh^Talk 13:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

With great respect, it is difficult to conceive that topics such as "health economics", "health logistics", effective placement & staffing of hospitals & clinics, public health communications & awareness campaign methods fall within the realm of biomedical information; or that it is necessary or productive of a quality encyclopedia to include them in the scope of WP:MEDRS. I believe that "health" is too broad a category for the application of this guideline. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 21:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BIOMEDICAL information by definition includes "health" information. User:Jbhunley, your edit made the definition ambiguous. User:Anthonyhcole's edit was correct. It is not broadening the definition. QuackGuru (talk) 22:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:BIOMEDICAL is an essay and cannot reasonably be used to reword policy or guidelines without thorough discussion. Dialectric (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge." We are linking to the essay. QuackGuru (talk) 22:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @QuackGuru: You say my edit made it ambiguous. Would you please say how it is ambiguous and what is ambiguous? What is something that you feel is covered under one version but ambiguous under the other? Claiming ambiguity without illustrating it does nothing to help me understand your position. Jbh^Talk 22:19, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"Biomedical information" is a subset of "health information", not the other way around. User:Doc James, you got this one backwards. "Patient reports wearing a seat belt every time she drives a car" is "health information" (that primary care physicians in the US are encouraged to document), but there is nothing "biomedical" about wearing a seat belt. The "biomedical" bit starts when there's a car wreck, not when I put on my seatbelt before moving my car to the other side of an empty driveway (because it feels weird to be in the car and not be strapped in). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

How something affects your health is definitely in the realm of "biomedical information". Heck, even the CDC has a fact sheet about seatbelts [41], and such is a valid MEDRS source for the effects of seatbelt use on your health. Regardless, requiring strict standards on the sourcing of such health claims seems to be in the spirit of MEDRS given use of the term "health information" in the preamble. Adrian^[232] 21:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: IMO, no additional wording here is "only a clarification." Every definitional word in MEDRS is significant, and will at some point be cited in a content dispute. Health is a broad term, wide open to interpretation, and without a doubt will in practice increase the scope of (attempted) MEDRS application. Changes to MEDRS should be made only with the widest scrutiny and consensus, to discourage dispute, confusion, and undermining of core verifiability and sourcing guidance. --Tsavage (talk) 22:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

What does MEDRS cover?

In the lead should we use "biomedical and health information" or "biomedical information"?

Biomedical and health

• Support MEDRS's goal is that "information is accurate and reflects current knowledge". Biomedical covers health, and this clarifies for the reader. CFCF 💌 📧 22:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Health content is a subsection of biomedical content. Using biomedical and health simply simplifies and clarifies our text without changing its meaning. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• support biomedical content includes health content, without question--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The way I see it, Wikipedia sets particularly high standards for content that can affect the well-being of our readers. We do not want poorly sourced content that might lead a reader into being harmed. Content that bears on our readers' health clearly falls within the proper area of this concern. Obviously, this encompasses biomedical topics, but I do not want editors to try to use a loophole to argue that some sort of fringe "health" subject gets to be held to a lower standard. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:10, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "Biomedical" is reasonably defined through the link, while "health" is undefined and open to the broadest of interpretations - practically anything can be viewed as health-related. This is unsuitably imprecise for official guidance, let alone for a summary of same. --Tsavage (talk) 23:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• OpposeConditional support If the addition is linked as biomedical and health to avoid ambiguity and gaming. Health is an over broad term and is subject to ambiguity and gaming. I am also concerned with the removal of the phrase "treatment information" in the edit that has been being cited in this discussion [42]. That term seems to clearly constrain the areas this guideline was intended to deal with removing it seems to greatly expand the scope from 'biomedical... treatment information' to 'biomedical and health... information. Which seems far outside the intended scope. Jbh^Talk 23:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Modified !vote Jbh^Talk 23:50, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Struck concern about removal of "treatment efficacy". It was pointed out this is another issue under discussion and not related to this change. Jbh^Talk 13:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As said above, this is over broad and allows it to be applied to areas it should not. This would allow application to almost any human activity. This addition would not be clear and concise, both requirements of WP:GUIDELINE. AlbinoFerret 23:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Agree with CFCF. Cloudjpk (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support agree with nominator. We have always understood MEDRS to apply to health-related information. "Biomedical and health" makes this easier to understand for lay readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support this is the intent. Zad68 03:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as over-broad; see WhatamIdoing's excellent analysis in the discussion section. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per DocJames, Tryptofish & others. BMK (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This attempted expansion of MEDRS has already been used to suppress citations to the National Advisory Council on Violence Against Women and the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5[43], the Los Angeles Times[44], and the scientific journal Psychological Reports (because the paper was published in 2004 -- before the MEDRS 5-year limit)[45]. And that's just one editor on one page. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "health" is not clearly defined, and those proposing this idea seem to be pushing a non-neutral point of view. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support health is medicine. needs to be broad to avoid lawyering around the edges. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose because "health" is too broad and too ambiguous and MEDRS was not intended to be that broad. See discussion. Minor4th 18:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - as in the discussion below "health" encompasses a range of topics covered poorly or not at all by peer reviewed medical literature. Health is neither synonymous with nor a subset of 'biomedical topics', though there is certainly overlap. Dialectric (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. There is a huge overlap between (bio)medical/health and this wording covers all. JFW | T@lk 20:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Obvious. Those opposing this seem to be anti-GMO WP:ACTIVISTs. jps (talk)
• Oppose expansion of MEDRS beyond "biomedical". petrarchan47คุก 04:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose if health is automagically biomedical, then there is no need for this wording. If on the other hand there are aspects of health that isn't biomedical, and which is treated better within other sciences, as several editors have pointed out, then this wording is too encompassing. There are moral and philosophical aspects of health that is/are better treated within sociology, philosophy etc. The need for airbags is a health issue, but the implications and discussions of this aspect encompasses several other sciences, and thus shouldn't be limited to medrs sourcing, but instead rely on WP:RS and the best available sources in general. --Kim D. Petersen 09:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I am not sure that I know the difference between health information, biomedical information, and medical information. I prefer using either "medical" or "health" which are simple words then clarifying the limits elsewhere. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Support My preferred choice is not listed, which would be to say "health" only. Still, of the options presented, this is the one I support. This conversation is hardly about the term "biomedical" at all anyway, and this is about whether to use the term "health". Yes, use "health". "Biomedical" is the term I oppose, but that is not even being discussed here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:06, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose of course "health" sounds good but, supporters, think about it, dont gloss over this, face it: it is not clearly defined. WhatamIdoing's examples above of driving the car w/wo seatbelt illustrates the point exactly: biomed is narrower, health could be the universe and back.--Wuerzele (talk) 04:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per DocJames, Tryptofish & others. RDBrown (talk) 05:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. We should use only the fery best sources where human health is concermed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Biomedical includes claims of effects on health, and clarifying that health claims must be supported by reliable medical sources will help prevent edit warring over fringe health issues. Adrian^[232] (talk) 19:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose As many other editors have wisely stated, the terms "health" and "health-related" are far too broad to be confined to MEDRS. Inclusion of such ambiguous terminology may be Wikipedia:Opening up a can of worms, IMHO. Keep things simple......Charlotte135 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Biomedical

• Support. Note that this wording has been in the the guideline for at least the last five years. Expanding this to include health will allow editors with a POV to push to reject high-quality sources that they disagree with. For example, car crashes and motorcycle have a huge impact on health and information about how often they occur is generally considered to be public health information. The US government department of transportation publishes statistics on how many crashes and injuries cars and motorcycles have per mile traveled. If we expand this guideline to apply to health, a motorcycle fan could use it to suppress the statistics about motorcycle crashes because they were not published in a peer-reviewed rigorous scientific journal in the last five years. WP:MEDRS is not broken, and it doesn't need to be fixed. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose We want to have a simpler wording and adding health simplifies it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Biomedical is clear. Adding health is open to gaming and/or disruptive POINT making. Jbh^Talk 23:22, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Well, if we really need to have opposes... I'll say this: I think that a good case can be made for "health" by itself, and omitting "biomedical" (not that I'm actually proposing that, which I am not). "Health" defines the subject matter where we do not want poorly-sourced information to cause harm to our readers. If a reader is misled about something biomedical, that might not be any more harmful than if it were something about physics or math (assuming that it is basic biomedical science, and not implying that misinforming readers about any matter of fact is a good thing). Just as we have a serious responsibility not to mess up biographies of living persons, we have a serious responsibility not to mislead readers on matters of their health. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Tryptofish, but to expand: Wikipedia doesn't only cater to private individuals. Writers of health policy, lawmakers, public health professionals and the like also use us as a source of information, and we owe it to Wikipedia to make sure our information is the best we can get. MEDRS aims to make sure just that, because it is far to easy to cherry-pick poor sources when it comes to health.CFCF 💌 📧 23:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support A more refined option and less open to being applied to just about anything related to human activity. This follows the clear and concise requirements of WP:GUIDELINE. AlbinoFerret 23:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• oppose --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose Agree with Doc James and CFCF Cloudjpk (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support WP:IRS and WP:SCIRS are sufficient guidelines to prefer high quality sources to low quality sources. The purpose of having MEDRS in addition is to guard against dangerously misleading information that could influence readers' personal health decisions. Going beyond that is WP:CREEP. Rhoark (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: I agree with many people above. Biomedical is clear, and adding health is unnecessary and indeed more confusing, in contrast to people stating that this makes the guideline clearer. See for instance this article, which I gave above in response to an explicit challenge by CFCF, in the journal Conflict and Health. Is anyone really contending that the intent of WP:MEDRS was to cover this sort of stuff? Secondly, the sentence is ambiguous, "biomedical and health" can be interpreted as both "biomedical" AND "health" (logical and), or as "either biomedical or health" (logical or) - it is clear that many people are actually reading the sentence like the latter. Why people want to use a misleading and ambiguous formulation is beyond me. Btw, I do not see why there are two sections, it is really confusing. Clearly, there are two options, and people who support both cancel out. Kingsindian ♝♚ 03:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - Simpler. BMK (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support keeping it the way it is now will cause less disruptive editing to Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - avoid wikilawyering at edges. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support per the observations that "Expanding this to include health will allow editors with a POV to push to reject high-quality sources that they disagree with" and "Adding health is open to gaming and/or disruptive POINT making." I have no doubt at all that this change would result in refusing information that is included in some of the articles that I work on, information that is important to the articles and informs our readers. Gandydancer (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as per several others above. Biomedical is clear to me. SageRad (talk) 14:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support for reasons I stated in the discussion. "Health" is too broad and subject to misuse and confusion. Minor4th 18:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. "Biomedical" alone implies only the investigational aspects of medicine, and does not appear to include clinical healthcare, health promotion, and the social aspects of medicine. I would not associate the word "biomedical" with clinical practice, but more with its laboratory aspects. JFW | T@lk 20:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Above is beter. Supporters appear to be mainly anti-GMO WP:ACTIVISTs. jps (talk) 02:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support "Biomedical" works perfectly; MEDRS does not need expansion. petrarchan47คุก 04:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support biomedical works, albeit not without caveats - but these can be sorted out within the context of individual articles and topics. --Kim D. Petersen 09:15, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "Biomedical" is not a clear term and I would prefer to avoid it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support even though i too would prefer a simpler term -as User:Doc James said- and dislike the insider "biomedical" which i agree may not be clear per User:Bluerasberry, and pointed out by User:Jfdwolff, but then lets define it more precisely. Adding health to biomedical does neither make anything clearer, nor simpler. Agree with Gandydancer's and User:Jbhunley's observations of gaming and pointiness, Minor4th, Guy Macon and AlbinoFerret's concern that MEDRS may be applied to just about anything related to human activity, Rhoark's creep argument, Petrarchan47 that MEDRS does not need expansion, Graeme Bartlett that its less disruptive, and Kingsindian's remark about the odd duplication of vote making things more diffuse than needed...--Wuerzele (talk) 03:20, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Leaving out other aspects of human health is irresponsible. Close this loophole. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Language isn't clear enough. Leaving out claims on health effects could be confusing to newcomers or others not familiar with MEDRS. Adrian^[232] (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support - making the topic area more precise and medical information is specifically what is provided in the medical journals this directs one to. It seems a reasonable objection that health is too broad and it also seems pointless to direct folks to JAMA for material that isn't there. Markbassett (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Biomedical is quite specifically defined with clear parameters and appears to have been in the the MEDRS guideline for at least the last 5 years. Why change it now? Including such a broad and ambiguous word as "health" makes no sense but has the potential to create much unnecessary confusion.Charlotte135 (talk) 11:02, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Those aspects of health that are covered by "biomedical" are included; any other aspects aren't. Maproom (talk) 08:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

For the longest time MEDRS has governed which sources we use on health related topics. The recent discussion called into question this by trying to redefine "biomedical" to not include matters of public health or epidemiology. This is becoming a gradually larger problem and something that needs to be addressed. Being exposed to the term continuously I take it for granted that biomedical includes basically anything that is associated with medicine, including epidemiology and health. If we do not adhere to this definition we are excluding psychiatry (as a science not based upon the application of biological models) as well as epidemiology, which would allow for claims such as:
Banana's help prevent cancer
     or
Working your abs at the end of your workout is best for burning abdominal fat

References

(Proper sources by WP:RS standards).

One should also note that MEDRS has never aimed only to cover treatment, and that is actually absurd as I hope my above comments show. CFCF 💌 📧 23:15, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Adding more language is not likely to stem a rising tide, if that's indeed the situation, it will just increase the number of additional disputes made possible by new words to play with. Going straight to the examples, "medical claims" would seem to work better - is there a reason why it is not used more prominently in MEDRS? It addresses both bananas and abs, while not offering as obvious a scope-broadening potential as "health," "health-related," "health claims." --Tsavage (talk) 23:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Medical claims and health claims are synonymous. Thus MEDRS already covers this scope. This is just clarifying it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I would opt instead to use health claims, but I see where you are coming from. CFCF 💌 📧 23:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I would have no objection to the wording proposed if its intention/meaning were constrained by linking it biomedical and health vice biomedical and health. Jbh^Talk 23:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have no opposition to, in fact strong support for, MEDRS applying to epidemiology and psychiatry. Where my concern is is how for the unmodified term 'health' can be stretched. To use an example we are both familiar with under the proposed wording MEDRS would apply to the illustration and representation of 'health' issues ie to pictures used to represent mental disorders. Based on your arguments in that case you would resist MEDRS requirements there. It is the potential for ambiguity in situations like that and other knock on issues which give me pause. Jbh^Talk 23:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Re:CFCF, let us clarify that MEDRS has been in place since mid-2008 rather than time immemorial, and that it has never been accepted as policy. As such, it suggests, rather than governs, which sourcing should be used.Dialectric (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Comment: As I've pointed out more than once now, "health" and/or "medical" was in place of "biomedical" at various parts of the guideline. The guideline had been stable in that respect. This was changed in August, as seen with this and this edit. So I don't view re-adding "health" as some big change; "health" and "biomedical" is how it was. And reverting the guideline to the WP:STATUSQUO version while editors debate if "health" should have been removed is more appropriate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This RfC isn't about those other sections it is about changing the lead. It is an established fact that the lead has been stable at "biomedical" for many years. You are free to edit6 those other sections to your liking and follow the normal consensus policy if anyone disagrees. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Having it in the lead is probably the best way to ensure proper visibility. The point is that readers will not go through the entire guideline, and if we can point to the lede instead of wasting time pointing to sections and subsections it will be beneficial for everyone. The scope isn't changing, only how clear it is. CFCF 💌 📧 09:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, that you keep missing the fact that those two diff-links show changes to the lead, and that "health" had been in the guideline for years, makes me think you are purposely acting blind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion question

• I have a question, and it's not simply a rhetorical one, for the editors who oppose "health". Can you tell me an example of a topic that would be described as "health", where it would be OK with you if information were sourced in such a way as to risk misleading our readers? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is there is no way of determining what is a health claim. How are things handled when, for instance, someone claims cell phone tower or power line siting is a health issue? It is possible to say there are no health effects fro cell tower radiation but it is harder to say there is no 'health effect' from these things because you can argue that they cause fear and anxiety which has a determent to health therefore a 'heath effect'. It is that kind of absurdity, second order knock on claims, I am worried about. Jbh^Talk 00:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that's helpful. The way I see it, there is no need for MEDRS to apply automatically to pages about power lines (obviously). But, as soon as an editor wants to add content about whether or not there are health effects associated with power lines, then that content should, as a guideline, be sourced according to MEDRS. That's because we don't want a statement about those putative health effects to be sourced to some-nutcase-blog-about-fringe-theories, in case it might mislead a reader into not getting the health care that the reader needs. It might seem absurd at first to say what I just said about a topic like power lines, that is far-removed from medical topics, but I would argue that it is not at all absurd when one looks at it from the perspective that our readers, from the general public, look to us for information that they can trust, and that information can affect choices that they make about their own health. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I share the concern about not being able to find the boundaries. People have really widely different understandings of "health".

But I want to add that your question is really odd. When is it ever "OK with you if information were sourced in such a way as to risk misleading our readers", anywhere on Wikipedia, in any subject? We don't accept misleading material on articles about television shows, horse racing, algebra, insects, or anything else. Why would we accept that for non-biomedical health-related information?

This guideline describes a set of ideal sources for <whatever the scope is>, and it strongly encourages editors to use those. That's great. You know I'm a fan of MEDRS, and have been from the beginning. But there needs to be a match between "the ideal sources" and "the stuff being supported by the sources". We have basically declared that the ideal source for <whatever the scope is> is a review article published in a reputable medical (NB: not nursing! not physics! not chemistry! not history! not statistics! not economics! not gender studies! not sociology! not law! not education! only medical!) journal during the last five years, or (if you really have to) a medical school textbook.

Problem: There are "health" things that are actually not ideally sourced to medical journals and medical school textbooks. These examples come from all sorts of domains, but let me give you some very everyday examples:

• Patients respond differently to providers based on the providers' race and gender. A woman may prefer giving birth unassisted to allowing a male midwife to help her. This is a big "health" issue, but telling a man that he's not allowed to look under her dress is not a "biomedical" issue. According to MEDRS, you should not cite a gender studies or religious studies article about this. The "ideal" source—and therefore the only acceptable POV—is the one that the medical providers themselves publish about their encounters with patients, in a medical journal.
• Providers treat blue-collar patients differently than white-collar ones. This is a big "health" issue, but it's not "biomedical". Providers give less pain medication to blue collar workers because of their bias, not because of their biology. According to MEDRS, you shouldn't cite a sociology book for information about this sociological phenomenon. According to MEDRS, the "ideal" is for you to only include information that you can cite to a reputable medical journal. Criticism of medicine by non-medical sources must be rejected.
• Patients have a different POV than providers. Patients care about prognosis and everyday life more than providers. But don't let Wikipedia include how cancer patients are affected emotionally by pink ribbon culture unless it's been published in a medical journal! MEDRS's "ideal" source for the health-related information about how alienated some patients feel when 60-year-old breast cancer patients are given children's toys—or how alienated other cancer patients feel when breast cancer patients get special treats just because it's Breast Cancer Awareness Month—is still a medical journal, not a book written by patients or researched by sociologists.
• Trans people often do not consider themselves to have a medical condition at all (especially if they are not seeking specific treatments). When they do, it's often therapy for distress over the way that society treats them, e.g., by misgendering them on their official documents. But according to MEDRS, the "ideal" source is to ignore almost every source written by trans people, in favor of only sources published by medical journals. The only POV you can find in "ideal sources" is the one that says it's a psychiatric condition with as-yet unknown differences in neurology and that needs to be treated (very expensively) by a bunch of doctors. The one in which a trans person says that society just frankly shouldn't care that much about shoving people into boxes labeled "boy" or "girl" isn't one that you'll find much in medical journals. But the "ideal" source about how to report gender on drivers' licenses and passports is still a medical journal, if MEDRS applies there.
• The WHO defines "health" as requiring "a complete state of physical, mental and social well-being". If you are unemployed and worried about whether you will be able to pay your bills this month, or if your neighbors dislike you, or if you are racially disadvantaged, or if a loved one died recently, then the WHO says you are not healthy. But does anyone really think that "a review article from a medical journal" is the "ideal" source for articles on unemployment, rudeness, discrimination, or normal grief?

I could go on, but you've probably read the examples given elsewhere on this page, too, so I'll stop. The problem, then, is this: We're recommending an "ideal" source. This is good. Sources are only "ideal" is they're appropriate to the content. Therefore, the scope of MEDRS must be whatever the "ideal source" is actually "ideal" for. MEDRS's "ideal source" is truly ideal for biomedical information. The recommended ideal source type is not so ideal for socio-medical information, especially if you're trying to include non-medical POVs, and it's lousy for non-medical information (e.g., annual sales figures—which MEDRS itself says to use plain RS for, rather than MEDRS' "ideal").

If you want to think this through, then you might look at the section #For each, above. Then think about the sections and the content we might want to include across the wide variety of health-focused articles. Is there anything that (a) you would probably include in an FA-class article about a medical condition, a treatment, or medicine as a profession, but (b) the best sources for that content is not solely review articles from a medical journal or textbooks used in medical schools?

If your "ideal" source is anything else, then that type of information is probably outside the scope of MEDRS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

First, I have to express amazement at the amount of TL;DR on this talk page in the short period of time since I was last logged in. I normally don't watchlist this page, and I'll probably take it off my watchlist again pretty soon. Wow! OK, that said, now I want to reply to WhatamIdoing's very thoughtful comment. What you pointed out to me, as well as what I think I see in the talk section immediately below this one, is making me suspect that editors (including me) are sort of talking past one another, because we sincerely misunderstand each other, with some editors assuming things that other editors do not assume, and that that is getting in the way of consensus. I realize that I have been assuming something that I should not assume, that it is self-evident (which it isn't) when something on a page such as power lines (that is, a page topic that is not obviously health-related) is or is not related to how readers might make decisions about their own health. I'll take each of your examples, to try to explain that:

1. About gender and birth issues: You are right that the topic of how women might feel about the birth process with respect to gender and autonomy is something that is, simultaneously, related to health and also something where there is, very properly, gender studies sourcing that should also be cited. It comes down to what the source is cited for. If a gender studies or religious source says things like: there are societal arguments for doing childbirth in certain ways and not in others, or there is evidence that certain childbirth practices result in women not getting the health care that they need, etc., then I'm fine with using those sources for that. But if a gender studies or religious source says that children or mothers are healthier or less healthy after certain childbirth procedures, then no, I want a MEDRS source for that.
2. Economic discrimination in health care is another encyclopedic topic where non-MEDRS sources are valid to cite. It is valid to cite them for evidence of such discrimination, and criticism of such discrimination. But it is necessary to cite MEDRS sources if you want to talk about what dose of an analgesic is suitable for a given amount of pain.
3. How cancer patients feel about how they are treated is health-related, but there is encyclopedic content about each of the issues that you described that can properly be discussed in terms of non-MEDRS sources. You don't need a MEDRS source to cite how a patients' group is protesting treating older patients like they are children. But you do need a MEDRS source to cite which health care treatments are or are not effective against breast cancer.
4. How transgender people feel about how they are treated by the medical establishment should be sourced to sources that reliably reflect how those people feel. How the medical establishment currently defines and describes transgender should be sourced to MEDRS sources.
5. One of your WHO examples is when a loved one has died recently, so, in the interest of brevity, I'll use that as an example. Stuff like a person losing their employment because the employer does not provide adequate paid leave following such a loss (or after having a child, for that matter) should be cited to non-MEDRS sources. But the clinical diagnosis and treatment of what that person is going through belongs with MEDRS.

What I'm trying to illustrate there is that it matters what specific kind of content is being sourced. Simply because a topic is related to health (as the WHO example illustrates very well) does not mean that MEDRS applies to anything and everything within that topic. On the other hand, when the content pertains to what kind of health care will be good or bad for the person then MEDRS sources are, as a guideline, the preferred sources. We need to come up with wording that communicates this distinction better than the wording that we use now. There should be some sort of shorthand test, along the lines of "does it have the potential to influence how our readers make choices about their own health?"

Please note that this distinction is not about "health" versus "biomedical". It won't go away if we just say "biomedical" and leave out "health". And I recognize that there always have been, and probably always will be, times when the mainstream medical establishment lags what is really right, but Wikipedia cannot go beyond what the preponderance of reliable sources tell us. I can see how some editors would be concerned about, for example, reliable sources from trans people about how they feel being set aside in favor of MEDRS sources. That is a misuse of MEDRS. But I have to say, what I see around the Wiki is mostly the other side of that problem. The overwhelming amount of the time, it isn't some big bad cabal from WP:MED being mean to nice editors. It's POV-pushers who want to use non-MEDRS sources to say that [cannabis, e-cigarettes, homeopathy] is great for you, or that [GMO foods, conventional psychiatry] is the work of the devil, and they have a great website source to back it up, and are pissed as hell at those mean medical editors who insist on MEDRS. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we agree entirely. The problem isn't what to call it; the problem is where to draw the line. You and I seem to draw it in the same place, but I believe that not everyone agrees with us. Once we have a good shared understanding of where the line is, then we can sort out what words to use for it. IMO "biomedical" is less wrong than "health", but it is not exactly right, either. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS allows for a number of sources that aren't included in the first "ideal" definition. The fact is that if you're going to make health claims it is very easy to cherry-pick sources and WP:RS fall extremely short. If we were to use the standard professional definition of biomedical like you do, there would be no problem. But as you can clearly see in this discussion editors aren't. All of those examples are notable, but they really won't fall under the definition "biomedical and health information" which is about health claims. Also any high quality socio-medical doesn't need to be from a medical journal as you should be aware, but it should be a high quality review. CFCF 💌 📧 06:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• MEDRS defines the ideal, and that ideal helps us understand the scope of the guideline.
• It's very easy to cherry-pick sources for almost all subjects. History is no different from health in that regard.
• I'm willing to write the standard professional definition of "biomedical" directly into the guideline, if that would address your concerns adequately. I would strongly prefer that to writing "MEDRS applies to all health information".
• "High-quality source" is not synonymous with "high-quality review". Some academic fields actually prefer a publication format called a "book".  ;-)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:27, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

History is very different from health. Per a comment by RexxS:

The only reason why we need MEDRS to spell out those principles is that there is too much money involved in pushing poor quality medical products and procedures and too many SPAs trying to gain recognition for their own pet area in the largest encyclopedia ever created. Without the bulwark provided by insisting on only the highest possible quality of sources, our encyclopedia would be swamped by snake-oil salespersons and big pharma. The first thing that any SPA wants is to stop MEDRS from applying to their edits. We should not be trying to make life easier for them.

Book or review doesn't matter really, as long as the book is written as a review of the literature. Books are published extensively in medicine as well, but a dissertation doesn't hold more weight than a primary source, because that's what it is.CFCF 💌 📧 07:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

History doesn't have a bunch of POV pushers trying to gain recognition for their pet thing? Maybe you should spend a month at the articles related to the Palestinian–Israeli conflict.

Your focus on "as long as the book is written as a review of the literature" is still showing your bias towards your own field's preferences. Literature reviews don't have the same status in non-STEM fields. Some fields actually expect their members to already know what was previously published; lit reviews are what you create for students and other newbies, rather than the pinnacle of reliability. A high-quality history source is a source that is considered high-quality by historians, not by scientists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No, not in the same way. There are far from the same monetary interests that produce shoddy primary sources, and not the same amount of paid advocates. The Palestinian–Israeli conflict is a modern conflict and is also under extended protection I may remind you, most of the dispute isn't exactly summed up as history.

And you completely misunderstand the point about being written as a review of the literature. History is not rebuilt every time it is written, but books depend on other books and constantly back-reference. While different standards exist, a book with only original research is not going to carry any weight. CFCF 💌 📧 08:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion break 01

• Comment- This RfC and the others above are not going to solve the underlying problem of the guideline being misused by some editors trying to exclude content they disagree with by an overly broad application of MEDRS and other editors trying to include inadequately sourced content that really should be sourced with the higher MEDRS standard. Those are issues of POV and non-neutrality. For reasonable editors, who are actually neutral on the content of articles they are editing, this is not going to be a problem. There are many topics that include medical, sociological, legal and cultural implications - and there's no reason we shouldn't be able to use the best quality sources from any or all of those disciplines where they apply. As I have seen above from CFCF primarily, the argument is being made that if a topic has any potential implication on human health, then the sourcing must meet the higher MEDRS standards - so, "health" information would include information about power lines, bicycles, plumbing and war and must be sourced to MEDRS because they all have an impact on human health. I do not believe that MEDRS was ever meant to be that broad. Minor4th 02:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Minor4th's excellent analysis. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 03:35, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes if you wish to claim that power lines cause cancer you need a good source. This keeps us from turning into a promoter of conspiracy theories. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That's obvious, and no one is disputing that. We need good sources for everything - we're talking about the bounds of MEDRS though, and it's much more restrictive than our general sourcing policy. But let's turn back to the topic of Domestic violence -- I think we can all agree that we would need MEDRS sources for medical content about PTSD caused by repeated exposure to DV. But can we also agree that the success rates of court-mandated participation in batterer's intervention programs might be properly sourced with a peer reviewed law journal or academic journal in sociology? There are some here who would argue that only medical review articles can be used as sources for such information, and in that manner MEDRS is being selectively cited to exclude content that is reliably sourced to something other than a medical review article less than 5 years old. Minor4th 03:47, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Noone here is arguing that you need a medical soruce for "success rates of court-mandated participation in batterer's intervention programs". MEDRS is needed when you're making health claims, such as that women's health is more impacted by DV because that is a claim made in epidemiology. Epidemiology doesn't cover legal claims. CFCF 💌 📧 22:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure about that, CFCF? What if the batterer's intervention program uses cognitive behavioral therapy? Wouldn't CBT be "health" and "clinical psychology", and even "medicine"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That comment is not succinct, and misses to point out that what brought this discussion to the fray were attempts to use old out-of-date articles for epidemiology in Domestic violence against men. Adhering to a higher standard for evidence will never result in any biased point of view, except the majority-accepted evidence-based point of view. This is Wikipedia's express goal!
It is far too simple to cherry-pick poor low quality sources to use them to promote fringe ideas. CFCF 💌 📧 06:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Regrettably, "majority-accepted" and "evidence-based" are not always the same POV in medicine. Anyone who's been told not to drink even so much as a small cup of water for 8 or more hours before surgery has been treated with the "majority-accepted" but "evidence-ignored" POV. There are more examples of this—and that's assuming that the medical POV is the appropriate POV in the first place, which is disputable for some subjects.

Also, while it's true that the relatively famous Archer source is 15 years old, there are more recent ones that say the same thing. They really have a DUE problem at that article, not an evidence problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

When there is a well represented second opinion in the literature we of course present it with due weight. Then again if the only sources promoting that drinking water is okay are newspapers then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. If on the other hand the American Surgical Association writes a paper about it then we need to constrast this with the guidelines. This is actually a strength of MEDRS, and it isn't a problem. CFCF 💌 📧 07:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, some perspectives have been marginalized within the academy and are not necessarily represented in mainstream literature (see, e.g., the example about trans people above). This exclusion contributes to the perpetuation of Confirmation biases; this is why we should not continue to marginalize these perspectives through our citation standards at Wikipedia. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Notecardforfree - Wikipedia isn't here to WP:Rightgreatwrongs, and the point is to represent the mainstream literature. There are issues with science, but we aren't here to correct them, if that is your cause may I suggest writing a review article for a peer-reviewed paper? CFCF 💌 📧 07:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly. The point is to represent the mainstream POV as being the mainstream POV and significant minority POVs as being minority POVs. This is WP:YESPOV. We don't have a WP:MAINSTREAMONLYPOV or WP:SCIENCEONLYPOV policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, actually because the mainstream literature includes any significant minority positions, and MEDRS goes so far as to explain:

Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, such views must be presented in the context of their acceptance by experts in the field. Additionally, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported.

If something is so unaccepted that it isn't present in the mainstream literature even as an opposing view it should probably not be included. This is expanded upon elsewhere in MEDRS. CFCF 💌 📧 08:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, the quotation selected above highlights one key equivocation in your larger argument. You can be an "expert", even if you don't publish review articles. In fact, there are many expert perspectives outside the universe of review articles. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 08:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Very true. You can also be an "expert" and never publish in a medical journal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I have never expressed anything else. I don't really see the point here?

WP:RS clearly states:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Reliable sourcse for medical or health claims are different, but the same idea applies here. Newspapers don't cut it, and a vast multitude of other sources don't. For example see the comments I made above about bananas fighting cancer. CFCF 💌 📧 08:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

References

• In the above comments, WhatamIdoing hit the nail on the head. I encourage everyone to read the comment, even if it it a bit longer than most. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I second that suggestion. WhatamIdoing is on-point here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Third. And I note that after some refactoring WhatamIdoing's comments are now in a different section - I believe it's the section immediately above this one. Minor4th 19:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No, because MEDRS hasn't applied to that from the start. MEDRS has always included health information, but doesn't require those things off sources anyway. In fact it's a miss understood comment. CFCF 💌 📧 06:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, Is it possible a broadly defined MEDRS can be misapplied and used to block sources? AlbinoFerret 07:08, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No, it can't. MEDRS allows for a large number of different sources, with the exception of primary research literature and newspapers etc. CFCF 💌 📧 07:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS has already been used to in an attempt to suppress citations to the National Advisory Council on Violence Against Women and the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5[46], the Los Angeles Times[47], and the scientific journal Psychological Reports (because the paper was published in 2004 -- before the MEDRS 5-year limit)[48]. And that's just one editor on one page. I could give you dozens of other examples. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That isn't called suppressing citations, that is called sticking to high quality sources. Of course we aren't going to use the LA-times for the article on Domestic violence, and as for the others, when there are more up-to-date and higher quality sources of course we use them. This is the express purpose of MEDRS!CFCF 💌 📧 08:14, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, you have a misunderstanding of the guideline; you are applying the five-year standard as though it is gospel. Like I stated in this WP:ANI thread, MEDRS is not hindering these types of articles. "For example, WP:MEDDATE states, 'These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published.' It is also clear that newer is not necessarily better. If the older source is better, then we go with that, as medical editors commonly do at the Circumcision article." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:20, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that MEDRS isn't intended to cover that kind of health information. But it's still health information, and if we now say "Oh, by the way, MEDRS applies to all health information, not just the biomedical subset of health information", then we actually would be saying that MEDRS applies to "that kind" of health information. If we don't intend for MEDRS to define the ideal source for 100% of non-biomedical health information, then we really shouldn't say that MEDRS applies to (non-biomedical) health information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But MEDRS applies to health claims, and pretty much all of the above examples if they have health implications to a patient, individual or community. WhatamIdoing don't let perfect be the enemy of good, and I am very supportive of more accurate language about what ideal sources are for a number of different topics, but this can be done once the major issue cools down. We want high quality sources for all of your examples, and no they aren't going to be meta-analysis, but neither should they be RS-newspaper articles. CFCF 💌 📧 07:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to any harm to Wikipedia that has come in the five years that the lead paragraph of the article didn't have the change you are proposing? It seems to me that the person proposing a major change to a major Wikipedia guideline needs to demonstrate the the change is needed. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

No, but as Flyer22 Reborn accurately points out in an above comment what you're saying isn't true. First of all the lede has included a different definition of just "medical", as well as up until August of this year the entire guideline had health and medicine in it at several points. This was all removed in one go by one editor without talk-page interaction. This is seriously problematic, and for example having MEDRS not apply to epidemiology in Domestic violence is harm, quite significantly so. CFCF 💌 📧 07:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Now you are just making things up. Flyer22 Reborn listed no changes to the lead. Here is what has been in the lead for years:

• Version from 1 October 2015: "any biomedical information in articles"[49]
• Version from 2 September 2015 (as edited by CFCF!): "any biomedical information in articles"[50]
• Version from 7 July 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[51]
• Version from 13 January 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[52]
• Version from 4 January 2014: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[53]
• Version from 26 January 2013: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"[54]
• Version from 24 January 2012: "the biomedical information in articles"[55]
• Version from 1 January 2011: "the biomedical information in articles"[56]

Changes to other parts of the guideline do not equal a consensus to change the lead. Do your homework, list when those other changes were made, and the community will consider them. This RfC is about the lead paragraph. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What is as edited by CFCF! supposed to mean, that I missed the change in July because it seemed self-evident that biomedical included health? We aren't talking about the exact wording of the lede, but that MEDRS has had health within its scope for the longest time.CFCF 💌 📧 07:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that you "missed the change in July" because it happened in August.  ;-) You may recall reading recently the reason I posted for the change: Editors were quite reasonably (mis)understanding MEDRS as covering "any content that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health", which is IMO far too broad. We didn't write the guideline to cover that broad a territory.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, if I listed no changes made to the lead, then what do you call this and this edit? Those are changes to the lead. "Health" was there in the guideline for years, no matter how you much deny it or ignore it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, it is a very new addition that health is so underrepresented in the guideline. There are numerous diffs of editors removing health, and I think the reason it all went so under the radar was because "biomedical" was interpreted as including the vast majority of health topics. CFCF 💌 📧 10:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

---

In both of the edits you just linked to. the lead paragraph (which, I will remind you, is the paragraph that CFCF changed in the middle of the discussion, the paragraph CFCF edit warred over and was reported to ANI twice over, and the paragraph that this RfC is about changing) were exactly identical before and after your edit.

In the first case the lead paragraph was...

"Wikipedia's articles are not intended to provide medical advice, but are important and widely used as a source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that any biomedical information in articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current knowledge"

...before and after your edit, and in the second case the lead paragraph was...

"Wikipedia's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information.[1] Therefore, it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

...before and after your edit. The lead paragraph (the specific paragraph we are talking about changing) has been essentially the same for five years. You and CFCF are proposing a major change to the lead paragraph. That is an easily-verified fact. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

But not as easy as it is to falsify - it just isn't true. It was changed to the present version in August this year [57]. It is not at all as stable as you suggest. CFCF 💌 📧 22:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon, so now you are only focusing on the first lead paragraph, not the other parts of the lead that were changed in August? As for what you stated in this edit summary, I have not been advocating to add "health" to the lead; I haven't even yet voted on whether or not "health" should be re-added; this is because I do have concerns that it might be used too broadly. "Health" is still in the lead paragraph, though. By the way, since this guideline is not an article in the strict sense, I don't like calling its introduction a lead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon you have not explained which article you are referring to. It seems fully accurate that we don't cite the LA-times when it comes to Domestic violence, and over 10 year old sources in a topic with significant research should be replaced! That isn't an expansion of the scope, and is fully according to the intention of MEDRS! CFCF 💌 📧 07:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why shouldn't we use a newspaper or magazine article to support claims about trans people wanting to change laws about how their genders are reported on official documents? Does that kind of information really need the endorsement of an official academic journal?

Also, sometimes a news source provides a clean summary of a complex health-related subject, like this one on the non-biological, non-evidence-based, conventional medical practice of denying food and water to patients who are scheduled for surgery the next morning. It's accurate, understandable, concise, and accessible. Why not use it (appropriately), e.g., to say that "NPO after midnight" became popular in the 1960s but never had an evidence behind it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please, that is never what I said, and not the implication of covering health. These types of statements were never subject to MEDRS when it previously included health and medicine throughout. For the example on surgery we shouldn't use it because the New York times is not a credible source for this type of information, as any health professional will tell you. Sure, that source can be used to give the background history that it was promoted during the 1960's, but you are going to need a better source to claim there was no evidence. And actually there was quite a bit of evidence, albeit flawed, but it isn't a baseless claim like the NY-times makes it out to be. You can actually see that if you go to the review they link, which is the one we should use for any such claims. CFCF 💌 📧 07:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It might interest you to know that over the last few years, the guideline has slowly shifted from using the word health about 25 times to using the word health, well, about 25 times. The main change has been an increase in the use of the word bio-, from about 20 to about 25. Medical dwarfs them both, with about 60 and 80 uses over the same time period (the guideline has gotten longer, which accounts for most of the increases). WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

What matters isn't only how many times it's mentioned, but where also matters. The guideline was previously very clear throughout (albeit did use the word biomedical in the lede) that health effects was what mattered, not purely "bio"-medical topics. CFCF 💌 📧 08:23, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

"Health effects" is not a synonym for "health information". You are proposing that "health information", not "health effects", be added to the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing - I don't make that clear distinction, and I'm under the impression several others here consider them synonymous. But to be clear, would you be more supportive of health effects or health claims instead of what is currently proposed? CFCF 💌 📧 09:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes.

I can elaborate on the difference between an effect and a fact (or "information"), but I think you'll figure it out if you think about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Discussion break 02

• Keeping in mind that MEDRS applies to sources, not articles, could someone explain how Tawny Kitaen beating on Chuck Finley as documented at http://web.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/latimes.htm and http://www.cbc.ca/sports/baseball/wife-accepts-chuck-finley-plea-bargain-1.330984 is allowed on our Tawny Kitaen page but is (supposedly) forbidden by MEDRS on our domestic violence page, as CFCF claims?[58] (I am not interested in whether it would be a good addition to that article, just whether MEDRS forbids its inclusion unless a recent peer-reviewed medical journal starts covering celebrity divorces.) --Guy Macon (talk) 08:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This is not the best photograph to show what a helicopter is nor what the Sydney Opera House looks like.

Without looking into the situation WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If it is as you make it out to be, no of course it shouldn't be allowed. Wikipedia unfortunately suffers because we don't have infinite time to patrol every page, if you see misuse of sources for medical claims on that page, go ahead and rectify it. CFCF 💌 📧 09:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

P.S. MEDRS allows for sources other than peer-reviewed medical journals, this has been mentioned repeatedly. I'm not seeing any real health claims here. Also getting rid of those celebrities from the article on Domestic violence probably has nothing to do with MEDRS, but is an issue of WP:DUE WEIGHT. CFCF 💌 📧 09:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

So are you retracting your claim that the LA Times cannot be used as a source for domestic violence because MEDRS forbids it?[59] (Again, I don't care about any other reasons for excluding it). Or are you saying that because of MEDRS the LA Times cannot be used as a source for Tawny Kitaen committing domestic violence against Chuck Finley on the Tawny Kitaen page as well as on the domestic violence page? --Guy Macon (talk) 09:26, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said, I haven't looked into the situation. My claim is that the LA-times is not a decent source for health information. You seem to be mistaken that it is MEDRS that was invoked to get rid of this, it just isn't due weight for an encyclopedic article on domestic violence.CFCF 💌 📧 09:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess the "deleted la times citation per wp:medrs" in the edit comment[60] fooled me into thinking that that particular editor deleted the LA Times citation per WP:MEDRS. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That diff is a health claim, and not a specific claim about those celebrities, and as such MEDRS applies there. Furthermore the editor is claiming a case of WP:Verifiability-violation, where the source doesn't support the statement. To me it seems pretty odd that we would use an article about a celebrity couple and their problems to support "broad consensus", especially as it is a 13-year old snippet? CFCF 💌 📧 10:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That's the problem, all right. You think that "there is broad consensus that women are more often subjected to severe forms of abuse and are more likely to be injured by an abusive partner" is a health claim subject to WP:MEDRS while pretty much everyone else thinks that it is a sociological claim subject to WP:RS. The question is whether you are going to be allowed to modify the lead paragraph of MEDRS so that it agrees with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The above RfC has made it extremely clear that epidemiology is covered under medrs, and its actually ridiculous that you are pushing for a 13 year old unrelated snippet article for an article which covers public health.CFCF 💌 📧 07:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon - MEDRS doesn't apply to sources in that sense, but to sources of specific statements. What is a horrible source for one statement may be a fully adequate source for another. I think the example from Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images is a damn good analogy:
To clarify, when I first glanced over the diff you linked I thought it mentioned the celebrity pair in the article on domestic violence (WP:UNDUE), I now see that it was actually used to support a medical/health claim, and the user who deleted it is fully correct in citing MEDRS. CFCF 💌 📧 10:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon I also see you saying the changes have "already" been used to remove proper sources, but your diffs are from 2014! You're not making a very strong case here. CFCF 💌 📧 10:47, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please list the exact attributes of what kind of example you are willing to accept without resorting to WP:IDHT, and I will list multiple examples that meet your specific conditions for what you are willing to accept. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Who put the breaks in the page? They break up the discussion in odd places. AlbinoFerret 09:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but I tried removing them and WhatamIdoing restored them because they decrease the amount of edit-conflicts. CFCF 💌 📧 10:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I added some, but not all of them. Breaking up discussions in odd places has the unintentional side effect of not emphasizing certain points. My usual practice is to split a long discussion approximately in the middle, usually just above someone {{outdent}}ing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• @CFCF: Throughout this discussion I notice you are saying other editors comments are "misunderstandings" or what is "health" or how it would be applied etc. What you seem to be missing is if the editors discussing the issue here can misunderstand what your change means then the body of Wikipedia editors as a group are even more likely to "misunderstand" the new wording. Your response to counter-arguments are in fact showing the weakness of this proposal. You should consider addressing the matters raised rather than dismissing them. Jbh^Talk 13:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Addressing which matters exactly? Several of the arguments against the proposal are reductio in absurdum where editors are trying to defuse the argument by taking it to its extreme. MEDRS is intended to help with health and medical claims, and I have responded to any such claims with the fact that it applies. If you're touching upon the example just above here I think I made it very clear (despite the best efforts of certain parties to misrepresent, not misunderstand, the situation). CFCF 💌 📧 14:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please WP:AGF. Your accusing other editors of things like deliberately misrepresenting the situation are becoming disruptive, and they do not strengthen your argument. Quite the opposite, actually. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This entire discussion is a result of pushing poor sources on Domestic violence against men. It is not assuming bad faith when there is clear evidence of bad faith. Editors came here with the express wish to decrease the scope and power of MEDRS in order to promote old, fringe, or otherwise poor sources on controversial topics. Our policies, including WP:AGF are WP:not a suicide pact. CFCF 💌 📧 21:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

That is not the issue or the article that brought this discussion here. What brought this here was the 2000 Archer review - that would meet MEDRS in any event when used in context. We have now moved on to a discussion about how broadly MEDRS can be interpreted to exclude otherwise reliable sources for content related to "health information" (since you have edit-warred that ambiguity into the actual policy. Minor4th 22:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is the exact issue. That review is old and does not meet MEDRS when used in a field that has seen several more recent and more inclusive reviews. MEDRS makes sure that what we include is the best and most up-to-date sources, and the reason this source is excluded is beceause it isn't considered reliable. This is in accordance with the first few sentences in WP:RS:

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

Domestic violence is a field which has moved massively the past 15 years, and using a very old review will skew the article considerably. This isn't a freak occurance either, editors push for old sources that are more conductive to their point of view all the time, finding something in a field that was published 15-30 years ago and claiming that it is the only authorative voice on the subject.

As for edit-warring there is actually no ambiguity, just misinterpretation of what biomedical means in a professional context. The edits were strongly supported, as you can see from the vote, and were also a restoration closer to the pre-August version where health was specifically mentioned in the lede. This has been linked multiple times arleady, but not once has this been responded to. This discussion is going in circles, and only one side is actually meeting arguements, the other is simply repeating them. CFCF 💌 📧 15:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

And the issues related to the Archer study have long been resolved, since the same information was found to be published in more current sources. The problem was - MEDRS was being used to exclude studies that found any kind of gender symmetry based on MEDRS, while older and more out-of-date and primary sources had been used throughout the article for studies that found no gender symmetry or that didn't discuss the issue at all. When MEDRS is being applies inconsistently like that, it has the appearance that MEDRS is being used to promote a certain POV and to exclude other POVs. And besides, MEDRS doesn't say that content has to be excluded if it is not ideally sourced - it is a guideline about how to improve medical content.

Given the breadth of this discussion and the differing opinions, I think it's clear that the addition of "health" is not a clear improvement or a simple clarification of what has always been understood. Minor4th 22:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Minor4th, WP:MEDRS is not why I rejected the Archer text. I've been clear about that on this talk page. And the #Newer sources? section above is clear that there are quality sources that do not agree that "women [are] slightly more likely than men to use one or more act of physical aggression and to use such acts more frequently"; what secondary sources, reviews or otherwise, exactly support Archer on that claim? Archer's study includes content that is supported by secondary sources, but it's not like most of his domestic violence studies and claims are supported without debate. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, there is broad agreement among scholars that males engage in physical aggression far more than females do, and that this is the case across the animal kingdom. Of course...there are other types of aggression. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we're getting a bit off topic for this discussion but maybe it's helpful to use a real example. As you know, there are quality sources that say men and women commit roughly equal levels of physical abuse (just tallying number of incidents); there are quality sources that discuss domestic violence as a women's issue and don't even address domestic violence against men; there are quality sources that say that men commit domestic violence much more than women do; and all of the studies that discuss the issue as far as I'm aware say that women are much more impacted by domestic violence than men for a variety of reasons (more severe injury, levels of fear, economic reasons, etc), irrespective of whether the number of incidents by men and women are roughly equal or not. Sorry to do this but I have to run to a meeting so I will have to finish this comment when I return. Minor4th 23:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Editor Whatamidoing looked for newer sources to Archer's 2000 review and found that PMID 18624096 and PMID 18936281 were the only 2 reviews that cover the same basic territory as the 2000 Archer source. They're both from 2008. They both agree largely with findings from Archer's review. They all comply with MEDRS. I think that Whatamidoing summed things up particularly succinctly by stating "It is possible that the Archer source is getting used so widely because there really isn't anything better." Minor4th is correct also in their logical and coherent summation above.Charlotte135 (talk) 23:56, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Given the different interpretations, and/or selective quoting, of what was stated or shown in some sections on this talk page with regard to the current biomedical/health/WP:MEDRS dispute, I advise editors to read such sections instead of going solely on what one editor states about them, whether it's all of what WhatamIdoing stated in the Newer sources? section above or something else. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Responses to votes

Because we have a discussion section it seems advisable to keep responses out of the vote section. I have moved the following: CFCF 💌 📧 10:15, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Response to Doc James' vote: No, you've got it backwards. Socio-medical information is health information, too, but it's not biomedical information. There's nothing "biomedical" about a woman refusing consent for an intimate exam by a male provider, but there's a lot of "health" in that decision. "Biomedical" is smaller than "health". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Response to Ozzie10aaaa's vote: Perhaps you should rethink that "without question", seeing as how you have managed to reverse what is contained within what. Health content is far larger than and includes biomedical content, not the other way around. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Response to Casliber's vote: I am puzzled by your comment. You say "health is medicine". Are you saying that they are synonymous? Or that heath is a subset of medicine? Is exercising medicine? Or that medicine is a subset of health, in which case, why isn't just putting medicine enough to avoid wikilawyering? Wikilawyering can work both ways - arguing that a narrow category doesn't apply, or arguing that a broad category applies. Since WP:MEDRS is a guideline which restricts sources (in principle), the latter event is more pernicious - arguing that a source doesn't fulfill WP:MEDRS simply excludes it from discussion. The former can still be handled with WP:DUE, WP:NPOV etc. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Please stop refactoring comments. Minor4th 22:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Use good grammar, please, and employ the subjunctive mood. It should read "any biomedical information be based...accurately reflect..." or be changed as necessary for the replacement wording. 76.181.192.61 (talk) 04:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Additional proposal

Comment: I believe that there is an excluded middle which would potentially be covered by "medical information", as opposed to "biomedical information". If there are no objections, I will add this as a third option. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Your comment was lost, I have moved it here to increase the likelyhood of being seen. I think introducing a third option is only likely to muddy the waters without really improving the discussion. It may be better to wait and see how the RfC pans out before we do this. If we have an unclear result we can opt to add this question. CFCF 💌 📧 10:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Ryk72, I believe that you're correct: "medical" includes socio-medical issues, like people refusing providers for reasons of race, sex, etc. It is also open to some (but not as much) of the vagueness and expansiveness that plagues "health information". We have a significant problem with different people having different conceptions of what's "medical".

But I don't think that adding any more options is going to be useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, Firstly thanks for taking the time to respond & provide your thoughts. The example provided is illustrative; as I would not have included this in my understanding of "medical", but appreciate that other editors may (and do). I would have included it in my understanding of "health", and would also suggest that it is not the type of information that should be covered by WP:MEDRS. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Logical inconsistency in this RfC discussion

1. A good deal of the argument for including the word "health" maintains that it is has been in the guideline all along, is synonymous with "medical," is already included in "biomedical," and so forth - in short, that it is only a routine clarifying update that doesn't substantially change anything or add anything that wasn't already there.

2. At the same time, the reason for including "health" in the summary is argued as a way to address a perceived growing problem where editors are abusing the current term by arguing against its scope - therefore, it would seem "health" is expected to have a significant, substantial effect on how MEDRS is argued, by increasing, at the least, the perception of, its scope.

3. A good deal of the argument against adding "health" to the summary is that it will change how MEDRS is argued, and will, in fact and/or in perception, broaden its scope.

It seems that 1 and 2 are inconsistent with each other - what is proposed as a small, routine wording update cannot reasonably be expected to have a wide effect. Meanwhile, 2 and 3 seem entirely consistent, in saying that "health" is expected to have a significant, wide effect on how MEDRS is argued.

Given that common sense tells us that "health" is likely to be interpreted in an extremely broad way - for example, ask random people in the the street (potential Wikipedia editors, all), "How does 'health' relate to all the things in your day-to-day routine?" - and that using it is likely to have a significant effect on how the guideline is interpreted, we should be looking for more precise wording than "health," wording that is less likely to provide fuel for wikilawyering, and less likely to increase general confusion over the scope of MEDRS. --Tsavage (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Complains that MEDRS is too vague and confusing are nothing new. You're right, broadening its scope to all things "health"-related would only exacerbate this (unaddressed) problem. petrarchan47คุก 04:14, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

But this is where you are completely wrong, it's about clarifying scope, not expanding it. This avoids long-winded discussion of whether MEDRS should apply to lots of health topics it clearly does apply to, for example health effects of GMO-products! CFCF 💌 📧 15:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Tsavage and Petrarchan47 completely. the issue is that the wikiproject medicine has instrumentalized MEDRS to thwart article expansion arguing illegitimate addition of sources, particularly in areas that are orphan subjects, or not traditional medicine, including toxicology and environmental health, which most docs know little about, and which are more at home in public health.

I am an academic mainstream physician with a masters in epi. I know for sure, that many in the project arent physicians, but PhD's, these may be good at microbiology or virology, but dont know about the med business, patient care. some are MD's and most of them have little if any clue about environmental health and know public health in passing. some are med students acting as professors. many are arrogantly dismissive of scope and results, intolerant of the need to be flexible, to adequately inform. MEDRS is the mantra of wikiproject medicine. the primary source whip is cracked at those who dare to think outside the wikiproject medicine clique's box or question the boss. in this authoritarian manner articles are straightjacketed made worse than they need to be. worst is the double standard of allowing primary sources when it fits the project's POV.

I'd draw the line where it was: Medicine in the narrowest, traditional term. Not biotechnology, not health, not public health. yes, reviews are often better. But reviews in some topics may not be written up for years, for example, so exceptions of GOOD sources from peer reviewed journals should be allowed. I am against MEDRS to grow like kudzu covering all of wikipedia, because in my experience it has been used negatively.--Wuerzele (talk) 21:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Wuerzele - The issues you outline are with MEDRS, and several of them are legitimate. The problem is that MEDRS is the best we've got, and I am the first to admit it isn't perfect, and could do with a bunch of improvement, but the one thing it doesn't need is a weakening of scope. MEDRS expressly allowed for other sources than the "ideal" when it comes to situations where review don't exist, and we are all here open to expanding the guideline with more express examples of when this happens. The problem we had here was editors who added questionable content to Domestic violence against men and then came here trying to promote the use of poor sources on anything they deemed not to be specifically "biomedical", which by their definition did not include epidemiology. I see it as a far larger problem than "students acting as professors" that advocates for a cause push their cause by using poor sources. What we count here isn't the title, but the weight of the argument, especially well sourced arguments. The benefit a professor will have on Wikipedia isn't his/her title, but the mere fact that he/she will know so much more and will have a much easier time expressing this in text. CFCF 💌 📧 22:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Why did a simple argument over sources regarding domestic violence against men become a multi-RfC event? petrarchan47คุก 22:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

It didn't. That's a straw man. The underlying issues in the DV articles have long since been resolved, but CFCF has refused to acknowledge that and keeps bringing it up as if it's an ongoing controversy. The community and this RfC have quite clearly moved on to clarifying the scope of MEDRS in its community-wide application. Minor4th 23:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Because the guideline was attacked for using the term biomedical when it prior to August had used both "medical" and "health-related" in its place. Biomedical while very clear for many was being defined in such a way that it did not include epidemiology. This discussion has brought with it a fair share of advocates who would have nothing rather than a complete break-down of MEDRS. CFCF 💌 📧 23:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That is not true. The lead paragraph (the one you changed. the one you edit warred over and the one you posted this RfC about) did not have "medical" or "health-related" in the place of "biomedical" prior to August. Please stop saying that it did. Repeating the same easily-checked falsehood over and over isn't fooling anyone. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"...fair share of advocates who would have nothing rather than a complete break-down of MEDRS" - CFCF, would you show me an example of exactly what you are referring to in this statement? petrarchan47คุก 08:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I would love to see what solution the community could come up with if the top 3 or so commenters on this issue would take a step back rather than flooding these threads with the same stuff over and over and over again. It is far from necessary for only a couple of people from each side to reply to almost every comment from the other side. It cuts off opportunities for new perspectives and created a TL;DR thread which will resolve nothing because few people want to plow through all of the text. I guarantee that everyone is well aware of the primary 'participants' views on this issue - the purpose of an RfC is to get other editors' opinions. Just say'n. Jbh^Talk 00:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

A different question

To some extent, what I'm about to say is a different variation on the idea of a logical flaw in the RfC than what is in the talk section just above. It looks pretty obvious to me that this RfC is already destined to end in "no consensus". And the discussion between me and WhatamIdoing in #Discussion question, above, got me thinking that the real problem is not going to be solved by whether we do, or don't, add the word "health" to the guideline. The issue is that there needs to be a better delineation of where MEDRS does, and does not, apply. The disagreements between editors arise when one editor believes that a particular bit of content does not fall within the scope of MEDRS, and another editor believes that it does. No amount of wordsmithing between "health" and "biomedical" is going to fix that. Please see #Discussion question for examples of content topics where one part of the topic probably should be sourced according to MEDRS and another part of the topic probably should not. In that section above, I suggested that MEDRS applies where the content is going to influence how our readers make decisions about their health, but it doesn't have to apply more widely than that. Instead of battling over the issues that editors are battling over in this RfC, I'd much rather that editors brainstorm on how, exactly, MEDRS should express where it applies, and where it does not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Tryp, see the RfC above this one and the withdrawn one above that one. Maybe it's time for some actual alternative proposals so participants can get a better sense of how the guideline can be used (and misused) based on the specificity or ambiguity of the language in the guideline. I agree that the enclusion or exclusion of "health" will not resolve anything because we dont have a common understanding of what "health information" comprises. Same issue with the prior RfC because different editirs had different understandings of the word "epidemiology" and its scope. I have tried to suggest some common ground for understanding but it has gone nowhere. Maybe you will have more success. Minor4th 22:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a definitive answer. But I can see two general ways to approach it. I just looked again at the wording now on the page, and I see how it links to Wikipedia:Biomedical information – and that page actually makes exactly the kind of distinction that I think we need. So, in one possible approach, the problem resides in editors incorrectly applying Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and there needs to be some codification here that MEDRS does not deviate from that other page. The other possible approach is to better define where it says: "For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on...", by indicating more specifically and narrowly what that blue link actually links to. An example of the latter would be something along the lines of: "For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information that could affect how readers make health care decisions is based on...". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There is actually a problem with that definition in that some editors have suggested that it doesn't include a number of epidemiological concerns where the lay-reader is not likely to make a health choice based upon the information, even when other professional groups may. The issue might be that we are trying to hard to be concise with a one-size-fit-all definition (I don't agree).

For a constructive approach it may be better to instead include part of that essay as a subheader of MEDRS, titled "Topics covered" (or something to that effect). CFCF 💌 📧 23:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps that could work. For example, this page could have a section titled something like "What is and is not biomedical information". That would be based upon the two corresponding sections of the essay page. And then "biomedical information" in the lead would be blue-linked to that page section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This common-sense approach does seem to be supported by the first paragraph of WP:MEDRS and it is also how i understood the rationale and spirit of the guideline:

Wikipedia's articles are not medical advice, but are a widely used source of health information. For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge.

I think that health-related biomedical content in articles is special because it is indeed used by readers to make decisions about their health, both for prevention as well as diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, anything relating to etiology of disease or health, anything relating to direct explanation of human physiology, and anything relating to epidemiology of disease or health falls under this category. I would hope that all other content is also sourced as well as possible, but the stricter requirements for such content makes sense in this light. SageRad (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, that's right, I think. Looking at Wikipedia:Biomedical information#What is biomedical information?, the following specific examples are listed as topics that potentially should be sourced according to MEDRS: attributes of a disease or condition, attributes of a treatment or drug, medical decisions, health effects, population data, and biomedical research. And, from Wikipedia:Biomedical information#What is not biomedical information?, these are listed as potentially not subject to MEDRS: commercial or business information, economics, beliefs, history, society and culture, legal issues, notable cases, popular culture, etymology and definitions, training, regulatory status, and medical ethics. Currently, the lead here links to that, and I think it does a reasonably good job of delineating the boundaries. On the other hand, it's just an essay, and there is no reason why the two lists cannot be revised here. Maybe an improved version of those two lists could be made into a new section of this page, MEDRS, and maybe that would be a way of clarifying the issues where editors keep disagreeing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem here appears to be that I, SageRad. and Tryptofish all appear to want to apply MEDRS to health-related biomedical content -- otherwise known as "content used by readers to make decisions about their health" while CFCF and Flyer22 Reborn want MEDRS to also apply to things like the rate of male-female vs. female-male domestic violence. The latter is an important scientific, statistical and sociological topic, and it can be argued to be "population data", but nobody is going to use the information to make decisions about their health. On the other hand, as Tryptofish has correctly pointed out several times, the number of editors who want to expand MEDRS so that it can be used to exclude sources that meet our WP:RS standard is small and the number of editors who want to weaken MEDRS so that they can sell their snake oil, fat burning pills and penis/breast enlarging products is quite large and very persistent. Of the two alternatives we are discussing here, I strongly prefer the wording of the lead paragraph that has served us well for at least five years, but I also think that we can come up with something that is better than either. Alas, to do that we need to somehow stop the discussion from being derailed by those who want MEDRS to apply to anything health-related (as interpreted by whoever is trying to apply MEDRS). :( --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You've probably oversimplified who I agree and who I disagree with, and I really would rather we move away from grouping editors into opposing camps. Instead, I would rather we focus more on what I just asked about above: what are the topics that should be listed as within MEDRS, and what are the topics that should be listed as not within MEDRS? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Good comment, Guy Macon. Thank you for boiling it down. I would like to be clear that defining WP:MEDRS to apply to biomedical claims relating to human health does require MEDRS sourcing for the claims that you call snake oil, like fat-burning pills and the like. Those would have to produce good, solid secondary sources to support any claim as to their efficacy. It would simply exclude topics like the sociology of domestic abuse, which is what i think we want. I think we're all seeing that agenda pushing like trying to exclude knowledge about domestic abuse patterns in society is not good, and neither is snake oil pushing like advocating fat-burning pills that don't really work. I think the simple interpretation of MEDRS based on its true spirit is the solution. I think that this is all spelled out, albeit in subdued language, in the third paragraph:

This guideline supports the general sourcing policy with specific attention to what is appropriate for medical content in any article, including those on alternative medicine. Sourcing for all other types of content – including non-medical information in medicine-articles – is covered by the general guideline on identifying reliable sources.

"Alternative medicine" could be construed to include any possible snake oil, and "non-medical information in medicine-articles" could be construed to mean that content which a stubborn few try to exclude from articles by demanding MEDRS sourcing for sociological claims. SageRad (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish about Guy Macon representing people in inaccurate ways. He's done that all over this talk page as far as CFCF and I are concerned, and he refuses to stop, despite telling me to stop supposedly misrepresenting him. And he continues to act like CFCF and I are the only ones who feel that WP:MEDRS applies to epidemiology or, more specifically, to rates of male-female vs. female-male domestic violence, despite various other editors on this talk page agreeing with me and CFCF. Arguing that reports on the physical and/or psychological harm of domestic violence are not biomedical, whether about the rates of those aspects or not, and/or that this does not fall within WP:MEDRS, makes not a bit of sense to me. I made my feelings well known in the #Clarifying "biomedical" section above. And in the #Does MEDRS apply to Epidemiology? section above, I commented, "[...] I will go ahead and state, though, that of course WP:MEDRS applies to epidemiology. This is also covered in the 'Included' aspect of the WP:Biomedical information essay, under the listing Population data. That stated, this doesn't mean that we need to be overly strict with regard to WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing for epidemiological material. Some epidemiological material requires a higher level of sourcing than other epidemiological material. And WP:MEDDATE is clear that we can make exceptions in areas 'where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published'." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why editors are acting like WP:MEDRS is so strict. Like I told Guy Macon, "[Y]ou have a misunderstanding of the guideline; you are applying the five-year standard as though it is gospel. [...] [WP:MEDDATE] is also clear that newer is not necessarily better. If the older source is better, then we go with that, as medical editors commonly do at the Circumcision article." Furthermore, reviews are not the only sources that WP:MEDRS recommends. For example, a good book source is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

And I again point out that even though I have not been advocating that "health" be added to the guideline, this link shows that not only was it already in the introduction of the guideline, it was also lower in the guideline; CFCF adding it to the guideline does not make its appearance there a new aspect of the guideline, no matter how many times Guy Macon or others state or indicate that it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That is not true. The lead (first) paragraph was the paragraph that CFCF changed. The lead (first) paragraph was the paragraph that CFCF posted this RfC to get permission to change after multiple editors opposed his change to the lead (first) paragraph. Your diff shows zero changes to the lead (first) paragraph. "CFCF adding it to the [lead (first) paragraph of the] guideline does not make its appearance there a new aspect of the guideline" is a blatant falsehood. people are tired of you saying something that isn't true, and people are tired of me correcting your false claim. Just stop. Anything other than "any biomedical information in articles" in the lead (first) paragraph is a major change, and is not supported by any previous version that anyone has found. Please stop doing this. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It is true. This is why I questioned if you are acting blind. I already told you, "so now you are only focusing on the first lead paragraph, not the other parts of the lead that were changed in August? As for what you stated in this edit summary, I have not been advocating to add 'health' to the lead; I haven't even yet voted on whether or not 'health' should be re-added; this is because I do have concerns that it might be used too broadly. 'Health' is still in the lead paragraph, though." Do you think you can confuse editors here by focusing only on the first paragraph of the introduction and acting like "health" was never in that introduction, that it was only there because CFCF added it? You can't. So stop it. Stating that "people are tired of [me] saying something that isn't true, and people are tired of [you] correcting [my] false claim." is clearly something you have backwards. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

More stated here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I did not say (either) that Guy Macon is representing people in inaccurate ways. This entire back-and-forth has gotten off track from what I started this discussion section about: what are the topics that should be listed as within MEDRS, and what are the topics that should be listed as not within MEDRS? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

My wording was off and I considered tweaking that, but I was clearly referring to your comment that "You've probably oversimplified who I agree and who I disagree with, and I really would rather we move away from grouping editors into opposing camps." He does that over and over again, with different editors, and he's very much misrepresented me and CFCF. I'm tired of it. Just as much as he claims to be tired of me supposedly misrepresenting him. Thing is...I barely focus on him, but he repeatedly focuses on me, even though I have not been as active in these discussions as certain others. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, I notice how some editors used snake oil as an example. I actually think that everyone here agrees that we should not use non-MEDRS sources to claim that snake oil is a cure-all. Wikipedia is pretty good at dealing with users who come here to peddle obviously bogus products. The problem, instead, comes when editors have genuinely conflicting opinions about a topic. Editors do not have the same consensus about, for example, GMO foods that we have about, for example, phrenology. I'm also starting to notice that a lot of the needless drama here arises because editors define topics differently. Epidemiology is a good example of that. I think that editors would actually all agree that the epidemiology of which human populations have an elevated risk of type-two diabetes is something that properly falls within MEDRS – and that the epidemiology of people whose employers do not provide them with adequate health insurance is not something for MEDRS. Right? Those things ought to be no-brainers. So when editors argue about whether or not epidemiology is subject to MEDRS, the answer ends up depending on how a given editor defines it, how narrowly or broadly that editor applies the term. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed +1 Minor4th 21:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail on the head as to why there is disagreement. The trick is finding language that satisfies both groups. AlbinoFerret 01:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I'm thinking about the question: Will people use this to make decisions about their health? I don't think it's broad enough. As pointed out above, we also want to capture policy makers making decisions about other people's health. And we probably also want to cover things that aren't at all decision-related, but are hard science. Nobody is really going to make a "health decision" related to physiology or the number of atoms in a given drug molecule, but we still want to get it right. Following MEDRS and/or SCIRS (whichever is more relevant to the immediate subject) for hard science increases the likelihood that we'll get it right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much everyone! Yes, WhatamIdoing, how to figure out that question is the real task at hand, and it's surprisingly difficult. I've been thinking hard about it, and not getting very far. As you say, "decisions about their health" comes close, but does not quite suffice. I hope that many editors here will think about it and try to come up with new ideas. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

This is insanity!

• Comment Look folks, when I first responded to the RFC it was too big to assimilate in any reasonable time. Now I find myself called a second time and on my screen it now is fifteen pages of spaghetti! Never mind my poor decaying attention span; doesn't that suggest, sight unseen, that there is something very, very badly wrong with the whole discussion? Skimming the text in ricochet mode it seems to me that there are several sane voices being drowned out, but trying to sort out a topic for a vote in this mess just won't work! I propose closing the RFC forthwith, but keeping it up for reference or for masochism, while we start another RFC or topic, as preferred, in which we put up just alternative proposals for vote or acclaim. Each alternative to have an appended justification not more than say 300 words (200? pick a number, but whatever it is must fit easily onto one page...)
  

Any discussion NOT to be in the same section.
Example:

• Proposal 1 that every article adheres at a minimum to Wikipedia's citation rules, irrespective of the topic or context, subject to reasonable challenges as always; that in technical matters in particular disciplines, higher or more specialised standards of citation may be required in particular contexts -- for example, in an article concerning mosquitoes, a section on medical or epidemiological aspects of malaria might contain claims that need citations according to MEDRS standards, but it does not follow that every citation in such a section falls under MEDRS direction, let alone the whole article.
  
• Proposal 2 that every article adheres at a minimum to Wikipedia's MEDRS citation rules throughout in case there should....
  

etc. What we need here is a bit of sense, sense of what readers need, what editors need if they are to meet those needs, and what will make WP look like the kind of encyclopaedia that people can trust to contain what is needed and to exclude what cannot be trusted, without insulting readers' intelligence, whether they happen to be professionals or schoolchildren. JonRichfield (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. A hundred pages of discussion ensures that only people who obsessively track this page are up to date with all nuances. This is no way to have a discussion. By the way "I told you so", that this discussion is going to be an enormous waste of time. Unfortunately I failed to take my own advice. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well. I especially like John R's refreshing common sense, in particular his final statement. petrarchan47คุก 09:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If all of this has been a waste of time, then it's only because editors didn't stick to clarifying what biomedical is supposed to cover; clarification is why I started the #Clarifying "biomedical" section above, after all. The above WP:RfCs are not what I had in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

CFCF's WP:RfC placed under another WP:RfC (#Does MEDRS apply to Epidemiology?) is the WP:RfC that stays most on track, since it's essentially asking if epidemiology falls under "biomedical." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

← Thanks; I agree that this is insane, and there is not really any hope of reasonable voices being heard in this setting (which, frankly, is the case with most RfCs; they're intended to solicit outside input, but they usually just devolve into another platform for the original combatants to hold forth). The oddest thing, for me, is listening to people expound their ideas about why WP:MEDRS exists. I'm repeatedly hearing that MEDRS exists to keep people from making poor health decisions on the basis of bad information (the implication being that, since our domestic-violence coverage doesn't directly influence people's medical decisions, there's no need to apply MEDRS).

Well, not really. I mean, yes, one of the most important justifications for the sourcing standards set forth in MEDRS is to prevent the real-life harm that could result from providing inaccurate or misleading medical information. But the purpose of MEDRS is broader than that (I feel justified to speak here, as one of the people closely involved in this guideline's creation). The overarching purpose of MEDRS is to ensure that our coverage of medical and health-related issues is the best it can possibly be. The guideline is a summary of standards that ensure article quality and accuracy, derived from the collective experience of editors who have written tons of high-quality medical and health-related content. MastCell ^Talk 17:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• This particular inmate at the asylum would like to make a suggestion. At #A different question, above, there is an idea about a different approach, and more eyes there could be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• I don't know about you, but I'm hearing reasonable voices and even reasonable ideas from a couple of less-than-reasonable voices. Tryptofish's question in particular is producing some useful comments right now. Now if you'd just let me banish everyone from the page for a month or two, we could get back to work...  ;-)
  Also, I think I'm going to have to start drafting WP:MEDDUE. I'd hoped to put it off until I'd finally finished dealing with the long-overdue merger of INDY and 3PARTY, but perhaps it can't wait any longer. Most of our serious disputes are due to people using MEDRS as a substitute for DUE ("Don't exclude Archer because his POV is a very small minority; instead, exclude him because it 'fails' MEDDATE!"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good to me WhatamIdoing and jolly good luck to you! I assume that the outcome will include dealing with doubts about when a guideline applies to only part of an article. I get the impression that some voices urge that the presence of any passing remark on matters that could be of medical concern in an article, implies that the whole article is subject to MEDRS or related guidelines. There already have been remarks about epidemiology of bicycles, and I would point out that many biological articles such as mosquito or spider include sections of medical relevance, whereas the rest of the content of the article could only be degraded by such irrelevant constraints. In short, common sense should trump doctrinaire authoritarianism. May the force .... and all that! JonRichfield (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

The second sentence of this guideline

Reads: ... it is vital that any biomedical information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge.

There are at least three problematical terms in that: reliable, secondary and knowledge.

"Reliable" is kind of categorical. Something either is or isn't reliable - at least in the way we're using it there. We could, instead, use "most reliable". Actually, I'd prefer "most trustworthy" because that says it more straightforwardly in my opinion. Whatever. Using "reliable" categorically is a mistake.

"Secondary" is wrong. Some of our best medical content is based on tertiary sources such as textbooks, and there is, rarely, a place for primary sources.

"Knowledge" is a very imprecise term. What most of us are trying to convey is the current expert consensus (or lack thereof). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:31, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Just addressing "Reliable" I believe this word is in there because WP:MEDRS is a refinement of WP:RS. It directs the readers that the sources should be reliable, which is a good thing. One point of the position to add health is that its needed to address snake oil advocates. One of the main tacits I have seen is using unreliable sources to insert claims. Reliable is needed to stop unreliable sources, I dont think any of the responders want unreliable sources used in WP. Adding most reliable or trustworthy would add complexity, and end up in countless arguments over what is the most reliable or trustworthy source AlbinoFerret 16:52, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agree with AlbinoFerret that adding "health" would certainly help to have clearly applicable scope of MEDRS when working on homeopathy, AYUSH, acupuncture, and all the other forms of faith healing. I doubt, however, that the collective will of the community is up to doing that. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am against adding the word health, but I can see why some would want it. AlbinoFerret 18:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• "Most reliable" is not acceptable. The goal is good content, not an impressive list of sources. If a source is reliable for a statement, then that's good enough, even if it would be possible to replace it with a gold-plated source that supports exactly the same good content. The most basic requirement of a guideline on sourcing is to identify the line between "barely good enough" and "not quite good enough". The purpose is not to encourage editors to make the perfect be the enemy of the good and then blank anything that's "reliable" but not "the most reliable" source possible.
• The type of textbooks that MEDRS prefers are secondary sources. I agree with you that reputable tertiary sources and important primary sources should be used (appropriately), and even preferred in some cases. A tertiary source such as a lower-level textbook or lay-accessible reference work is IMO ideal for gross anatomy and for basic descriptions of common diseases.
• That many editors are trying to convey only current expert consensus, rather than a complete encyclopedic description of a subject, sounds like a problem statement to me, rather than a point to brag about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the feedback. I've got a busy weekend, but will give the above serious thought. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Related discussion about Research and Medical articles

Hi all, just wanted to share a discussion started by The Wikipedia Library at the Wikiproject Medicine talk page about a pilot exposing the WP:Research help page more in medical article reference sections. Please share feedback/thoughts. Thanks, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)