Jump to content

Talk:Science-Based Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Should be a stand-alone article

[edit]

I think there is enough to write a stand-alone article, and redirecting to David Gorski seems a bit odd. He is the managing editor, but Steven Novella is the founding and executive editor, so why not him? Here are some refs to work with:

There are probably more, but I don't have time to pull them up. Medicalreporter (talk) 18:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on this a bit in my Sandbox. I'm not sure there has been enough coverage. Delta13C (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

The addition of a notability hat note has been reverted four times by two editors, and only restored by one, the editor who initially added it.

WP:GNG makes it clear that the sources need not be directly about the subject, nonetheless I provided a source about this subject written by one of the directors, but published by Skeptical Inquirer.

As for mediabiasfactcheck.com; I checked the list a few days ago and it was absent. It's there now, and the inclusion checks out. I was still not able to find a discussion concluding it was unreliable at RSN, however. If anyone has a link, I'd appreciate it. I seem to recall questioning it's conclusions myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have one request for you.
Demonstrate that the the subject passes WP:GNG or another standard. You need to do that *before* removing a notability tag BTW, you intended to do that right? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back You should read WP:BRD, which shows how incorrect you are about the process here. WP:EW might be a good read, too. If you think an article isn't notable, and you get reverted for tagging it, you're supposed to either accept that you're in the minority, or try your hand at WP:AFD. Also, I noted your first version of this comment, so you can stay the hell off my talk page and justify your tagging to someone else. I'm done with you, unless I need to report you at WP:ANEW. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
MPants at workAre you sure you’re not just embarrassed because I caught you in a lie? Because it doesn’t appear that the magic version of RSN you saw a few days ago which doesn’t feature MB/FC exists. If it does I can’t find it and you haven’t provided it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back, Yes, you've caught me. I'm so embarrassed that I... admitted that I was wrong? That makes sense to you? Seriously, fuck off. Don't ping me, either. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You didn’t admit you were wrong, you blamed a RSP anomaly which I genuinely can’t find. “I checked the list a few days ago and it was absent.” "yes, the site is there now, despite being absent when I last checked a few days ago” " I checked both, and I was thorough (exhausting all returned results for "mediabiasfactcheck.com") at RSN. It was also definitely absent from the perennial list at the time I checked it, though I can see that it's present now, after an IP editor had removed several entries from the list and was reverted.” What IP editor within the last few days are we talking about? I only see [1], [2], and [3] which as far as I can tell, and I’ve looked a dozen times at this point, don’t involve MB/FC. If I’m wrong I owe you a massive apology, but you aren’t exactly helping your case by going nuclear instead of providing a single diff... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Science-Based Medicine is notable. There are 19 sources linked in the article, and notability is not dependent on there being an exclusive news feature. Nevertheless, Science-Based Medicine has been featured in the Washington Post and therefore meets even Horse Eye's Back's high standards for notability. A Newsbank search for (sciencebasedmedicine OR "science-based medicine") AND (gorski OR novella OR "harriet hall" OR crislip) returns 162 results. The same search on Proquest returns 338 results. A Google scholar search for sciencebasedmedicine.org presently returns 959 results. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to check the Washington Post article again... The subject is the notable David Gorski with the only passing mention of Science-Based Medicine being "David Gorski, professor of surgery at Wayne State University and managing editor of Science-Based Medicine,” Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it ironic? Wouldn’t that require my explanation [4] not to check out? Perhaps I’m mistaken, irony is such a tricky concept to nail down. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:TALK#REPLIED please don’t edit comments which have already been responded to without noting it as you did here [5]. I also think I flew off the handle because I thought you were not telling the truth about why you failed you to find the name on the list (I still do) not because you failed to find a name on a list, accurately recounting what happened matters. Again if I’m wrong I’m very very sorry but I can’t find the version of the page you’ve repeatedly claimed to have accessed and you haven’t provided a diff of that version. I WP:AGF and went out of my way to look for the version you said existed, I didn’t find it. The very least you can do is post the diff. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back, Again if I’m wrong I’m very very sorry You are very wrong. Does that make this an apology for your reaction here? If so, then I think I might be willing to explain myself a bit more. You might even find said explanation compelling.
But I'm not in the business of explaining myself to people who fly off the handle at me and hurl accusations at the drop of a hat. So if you want to keep insisting on this, I'll be happy to save my explanation as to why I didn't find that list entry for the eventual ANI thread. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:17, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You already provided a full explanation "I checked both, and I was thorough (exhausting all returned results for "mediabiasfactcheck.com") at RSN. It was also definitely absent from the perennial list at the time I checked it, though I can see that it's present now, after an IP editor had removed several entries from the list and was reverted.” etc. Its that explanation thats been called into question. I’m willing to put a section on my own talk page saying “I was an asshole to ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants and should have trusted them instead of getting bogged down in the details. I said things I regret and that were terribly unfair to ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants. I wholeheartedly and unreservedly retract those accusations. This has been a learning experience for me and even if I had been right it would be a good reminder never to go full asshole." if you can provide the one diff I’ve asked for and it fits your story. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, I (in the UK) have experienced some weird behaviour from the Wikipedia servers in the last few days, with pages only part-loading, or loading in chunks slowly. Ctrl-F Searches then will not find text in the unloaded portion of a page. Something like this might have happened? Whatever, WP:AGF is not only a good idea, but part of the WP:PAGs. Alexbrn (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back, That's more than what is necessary. I would never ask anyone to do such a thing.
For the record, Alexbrn's comment might well be the root cause of my experience. If not that, then it was likely a technical issue with my browser (entirely possible as I use Chrome when I'm at work for various non-stability-related reasons). I searched the list of perennial sources for "media bias" and got only Ad Fonte's entry (literally "1/1 results"), I also searched for "mediabiasfactcheck.com" and "media bias / fact check" and got no hits. You'll note that neither of the latter can be matched on the page, even now.
I also reverted you and posted a message to the talk page. I can't help but notice neither of those edits got saved.
I got many hits for "mediabiasfactcheck.com" on RSN, but the few discussions about the site's reliability (most were citing it in discussing other site's reliability) were all short and unclosed, hence why I asked above for a link if anyone was aware of one. I rarely search RSN for the full names of websites, because I rarely get hits that way, whereas the domain names almost always return results, so I didn't try too many combinations there.
Also, I made the mistake of not checking the contents of this edit after I saw it in the history and it seemed to provide a perfect explanation of why I didn't previously find anything, but did find it this time. I checked it later, but by that time, you'd already annoyed me, so I wasn't in the mood to offer this explanation until now.
For the record, we're cool. My instructions for you not to ping me or edit my talk page are rescinded, and I'm happy to discuss this issue with you. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"but by that time, you'd already annoyed me” sums up much of my feelings on the issue at the time as well, looking back I can see a half dozen places either of us could have de-escalated but we are apparently both rather stubborn and unafraid to be heard. RSN is becoming unwieldy and I totally see that. I was unaware of the connectivity issues and I would like to thank Alexbrn for bringing it up. We’re cool on my end too, sorry I flew off the handle on you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Sources

[edit]

Citations by peer-reviewed research and in medical textbooks:

ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the Washington Post article that ScienceFlyer already brought up. Theres only a passing mention of Science-Based Medicine in there. Do any of these sources have more than a passing mention? Infinite passing mentions do not add up to notability. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reporters don't interview web sites. They interview people. And David Gorski of SBM is a prominent part of the piece. It doesn't mean that SBM web site isn't notable. The main topic of the article is efforts to "fight a wave of bad nutrition advice on the Internet", including featuring SBM.org. ScienceFlyer (talk) 19:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the point... None of these people are being interviewed about SBM... They’re giving their opinion as notable experts in their field about something other than SBM or what they’ve written on SBM about something else is being quoted. Having notable bloggers does not confer notability on the blog itself. Also note that they can be non-notable and still a reliable source within their area of expertise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:24, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back, They're being interviewed precisely because of the work they do at SBM. If Gorski and Novella were just practitioners (which is their day job in both cases), they'd have never given those interviews. If you check out their articles and the references there, it becomes clear that they're notable largely due to their efforts at SBM. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That can be true and SBM still not be notable though. I would note though that all of the named editors on the page were notable before they started working for SBM, Gorski and Novella especially were already some of America’s most famous skeptics (Novella even had a wiki page two years before SBM was launched). None seems to be treated as an expert because they write/work for SBM, they all seem to treated as experts who write/work for SBM. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn’t go to AFD but I think a discussion to merge this page with the parent organization New England Skeptical Society would be proper given the lack of feature coverage. There really isn’t much of substance to cover here, or at least if there is nobody has found it yet. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back, SBM is the primary outlet for their skepticism, with Novella also having SGU and Gorski also having Respectful Insolence.
If they're notable for their skepticism, then, pretty much by definition, the primary outlet through which they express said skepticism is notable.
Also, regarding a lack of coverage: There's a lot of coverage, but it's mostly about the articles on SBM, not about the history or organization of it. I would like to point you to the sources at New York Times, where there are a grand total of 7 independent sources which are actually about what might well be the most famous newspaper in the world. And one of those is from a blog that's on WP:PSL. The rest are from the Times itself, or are passing mentions.
Each topic we cover has to be approached differently. Sometimes we have P&G's for doing that, like WP:FRINGE or WP:BLP, sometimes we don't (think topics like pro wrestling or role-playing games), and we have to use a combination of our existing guidelines and our own best judgement to make determinations about them. In this case, if we took an approach like what is taken on the Times article (using numerous selfpub sources combined with passing mentions and whatever IRS sources we have), then we get an article much like this one was before you started paring it down.
On the other hand, if we take an approach like what you seem to want here with the NYT article, we'd have to cut it down by 50 or maybe even 75%, because so much of it is self published or passing mentions.
Now, if you want to propose a merge, that's fine. I can't stop you and won't argue against you doing so, I'll just participate in that discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"If they're notable for their skepticism, then, pretty much by definition, the primary outlet through which they express said skepticism is notable.” I don’t think thats how our notability policy works, can you point to the specify part you’re referencing here? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back, Horse Eye's Back, I'm not referring to a policy, but to basic common sense. Indeed, I'm curious as to how their skepticism could be notable without the outlet for said skepticism being notable. It's akin to suggesting that Smosh must be split into articles about Anthony Padilla and Ian Hecox, because the sources don't discuss the actual youtube channel, but the skits those two perform on it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:58, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But the sources (or at least enough of them) do in fact talk about Smosh itself such as this feature piece from Variety [6]. Thats not a good example, it clearly passes GNG. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also Anthony Padilla and Ian Hecox don’t appear to be individually notable unlike the guys we’re talking about. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Horse Eye's Back, That's about the sale of the business that owns the channel (as well as a few others). The channel itself is only mentioned in the founding date and the number of subscribers, treatment given to the other channels, as well.
In any case, I'm not sure why you're still arguing here. I've already made my position clear, as has ScienceFlyer. I'm not interested in trying to respond to each of the 2-3 comments you leave in reply to each of mine, and to be honest, it's getting frustrating trying to reply at all because every attempt results in an edit conflict.
If you want to continue to push the matter, a merge discussion or AfD is the way to go. Also, the preview button is your friend. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I’m responding because you keep pinging me. I don’t want to have to take it to merger or deletion, I’d much rather just add in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources but I can’t find any despite having looked way harder than I normally do. Do you want to help? None of your “additional sources” are more than a passing mention and "Anti-vaccine activists, Web 2.0, and the postmodern paradigm” doesn’t even do that... It just uses a few Gorski blog posts as sources. The only one I can't access is Cognitive Errors and Diagnostic Mistakes, would you be kind enough to cut and paste the relevant text to this talk page? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this approach require cutting length from the NYT article? Passing mentions and self published material are 100% good for building a page, it just has no impact on notability. A quick google also reveals more than a dozen full length books on NYT. If similar sources existed for SBM we wouldn’t be having this discussion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also just a note I did not remove passing mentions etc from this article, I primarily removed unreliable sources. What we have left is passing mentions and self sourced, but that doesn’t describe what I removed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the above but have not looked at the recent article history. As of now, the 2016 The Atlantic article cited in the lead makes a claim of significance and possibly also a case for notability: "Novella is a highly respected Yale neurologist, and the editor of Science-Based Medicine, an influential blog that has tirelessly gone after alternative medicine." (external link to article) The number of sources used for the article also seems satisfactory. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

removal of Atlantic & WSJ + overall language used to describe subject by RS

[edit]

Editing activity in the last year (2021-2022) addresses terms describing the subject as an "influential blog" (both used by The Atlantic). While some of the editors wished to stress and expand on the term "influential" (+ respected), others preferred to stress that SBM is described as a "blog". Its worth noting that the Atlantic has been a long standing part of the article - since 2016. An editor recently deleted The Atlantic & the WSJ (also part of the article for quite some time). The WSJ and The Atlantic both use the term blog but they are hardly outliers. I can understand that an editor may wish to debate the use of terminology based on RS . . . but I cannot understand the need to wipe several RS out of existence on an article that is not currently rich in 3rd party sourcing. For a summary of the subject, the article should not rely on Skeptical Inquirer or Novella's self descriptions when there are multiple 3rd party independent sources that summarize what SBM is and is known for. What do the bulk of the 3rd party independent sources actually say when summarizing the subject? It's worth reviewing the relevant quotes from each existing source:

  • Medical News Today (2014). "Steven Novella, founder and executive editor of the Science-Based Medicine website"
  • San Diego Union Tribune (2016)."said Gorski, who is also managing editor of Science-Based Medicine, which evaluates medical treatments according to scientific standards." (neither)
  • CBC News (2016). "Save your money and stick with real medicine," said Dr. David Gorski, an oncologist from Detroit, Mich., and editor of the blog Science-Based Medicine."
  • Psychology Today (2014). "Perhaps the most persuasive argument against evidence-based practice in its present form comes from physician Kimball Atwood (2008) and his colleagues at their superb blog, Science-Based Medicine."
  • NPR (2015). "says Steven Novella, a neurologist at Yale and executive editor of the website Science-Based Medicine."
  • Washington Post (2016). "in a recent post on the website Science-Based Medicine, where he is the managing editor."
  • The Globe and Mail (2015). "said Dr. Harriet Hall, one of the founders of the blog Science-Based Medicine"
  • USA Today (2016). "recently wrote about dry needling for Science-Based Medicine — a website critical of alternative medicine"[7]

Along with the two sources recently deleted:

  • The Atlantic (2011). "Novella is a highly respected Yale neurologist, and the editor of Science-Based Medicine, an influential blog that has tirelessly gone after alternative medicine."[8]
  • The Wall Street Journal (2014). "says Steven Novella, a clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Conn., and executive editor of the blog Science-Based Medicine, which looks at controversies in science and medicine."[9]

Other sources covering the subject include:

  • Slate (2008). "a new skeptically-based medical blog is now online: Science Based Medicine"[10]
  • Science Daily (2014). "Gorski and Novella are both editors for Science-Based Medicine, an organization and blog dedicated to exploring the complicated relationship between science and medicine."[11]
  • Scientific American (2016). "recent posts on their blog Science-Based Medicine make clear, their primary target is alternative medicine, which they attack aggressively, and rightfully so. The problem is that they are not equally aggressive in criticizing mainstream medicine, of which they tend to be protective."[12]
  • Inside Higher Education (2017). "wrote one critic, Steven Novella, on the blog Science-Based Medicine"[13]
  • Medscape (2021). "executive editor of the blog Science-Based Medicine" [14]
  • Los Angeles Times (2017). "executive editor of the Science-Based Medicine blog" [15]
  • Nature (2015). "Steven Novella, a clinical neurologist at Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, agreed in a blog post that enforcement will be key. “The WHO statement is a step in the right direction, although it needs to be backed up with more teeth,” he wrote on the Science-Based Medicine blog" [16]

RS clearly support the term blog as the most prominent term for describing the subject. Unless there is a good reason to omit the Atlantic and the WSJ, they should be restored to the article. It's true that some sources refer to SBM as a website, it is less redundant/repetitive to simply state that it is a blog. All blogs are in fact websites . . . although not all websites are blogs. SBM certainly has its admirers and its critics, but these are best instated into the body of the article rather than put forth in the lede.Cedar777 (talk) 21:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do not "WP:CLEARLY" show one term overrules another. More fundamentally, a WP:LEDE is for summarizing an article body, rather than having an WP:OVERCITE of selected refs merely in support of an editor's preferred word. Removing refs does not "wipe several RS out of existence"; the sources continue to exist on the web at the referred-to location. If the article is to be expanded (and it should be) the body needs development and the lede can then summarize that proportionately. Ideally we should have more than just the WP:LABEL "blog" in the lede, because using it alone is reductive to the point of being misleading (a bit like calling Cancer Research UK just "a charity") The bar could be raised here by using WP:SCHOLARSHIP rather than passing mentions in lesser sources. In particular,
  • Chen AT, Taylor-Swanson L, Buie RW, Park A, Conway M (October 2018). "Characterizing Websites That Provide Information About Complementary and Integrative Health: Systematic Search and Evaluation of Five Domains". Interact J Med Res. 7 (2): e14. doi:10.2196/ijmr.9803. PMC 6231734. PMID 30305254.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
specifically addresses the issue of how to characterize websites in this space and defines SBM (like WebMD) as being among "Websites that provide articles on health and illness issues". Following the WP:BESTSOURCES like this should help avoid POV issues. Alexbrn (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The previous talk page discussion addresses legitimate concerns that the subject, SBM, is not sufficiently notable in its own right (see above). The Atlantic is mentioned in the above section as a quality source that helps to substantiate the subject. Why would you delete it along with the WSJ? The Chen source is not relevant as it does not mention the subject, SBM. If I am mistaken, please clarify exactly where in the source SBM is mentioned, i.e., which section and what does it say about SBM? Without some mention of the subject, it is synth to include here. Cedar777 (talk) 06:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If notability is the issue, nominate the article for deletion. The Chen article lists SBM in Table 5 ("Definitions and examples of website type"). Alexbrn (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Alexbrn, the article was fairly stable until this bold edit which deleted The Atlantic, a source in use for over 5 years. The issue under discussion in this thread is the removal of the Atlantic and the WSJ. Why was the Atlantic not moved to the body of the article? The Atlantic along with the Wall Street Journal (deleted shortly afterwards in this edit) are sources that are best retained. Looking more closely at how the sources describe/mention SBM, the Atlantic and WSJ both give readers more information about what SBM is and does, surpassing several of the other existing sources that you did not delete, e.g. NPR (2015), Washington Post (2016), and The Globe and Mail (2015) - all of which simply state that SBM exists relative to an individual. To be clear, I don't see a reason to remove any of the sources existing prior to your bold edit that removed The Atlantic, (NPR, WaPo, and G&M are still useful) but rather to be more careful in reviewing what they actually say about the subject and their placement within the article. By what criteria did you deem Atlantic and WSJ inferior to NPR, Washington Post, the Globe and Mail? Without retaining Atlantic and WSJ in the body, the initial bold edit comes across as POV pushing or whitewashing of the term blog, which is not only used by the subject to self-describe but also by the majority of reliable sources. Cedar777 (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can only refer you to my previous response.[17] Alexbrn (talk) 05:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the previous response does not address the questions raised. Without an answer to this "By what criteria did you deem Atlantic and WSJ inferior to NPR, Washington Post, the Globe and Mail?" . . . it appears the decision was arbitrary. Cedar777 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

[edit]

Horse Eye's Back has now twice removed material cited to

I thought we were meant to be reflecting what RS says about Science-Based Medicine, and this topic has not so many good independent sources that we're spoiled for choice. Best to have content rather than a thin, short article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not WP:Due and also WP:OR... Show me where "Science-Based Medicine was one of many organizations cited on Wikipedia to contextualize and counteract misinformation that had spread through social media" can be found in the source. My reading of the source differs immensely. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's WP:DUE because it's proportionate. It's not like we have a mass of sources to weight this against, and it's one of a tiny handful of scholarly sources - so must be included. You have now tried three justifications for your POV deletion (DUE, "passing mention", OR). And they're all irrelevant or wrong. If you read the referred-to article you'll understand my summary was fair and good (see particularly Table 1 and the preceding paras). I have opened a thread at WP:FT/N to get more eyes on this. Alexbrn (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All three are correct... It is undue... It is a passing mention... And it is not an accurate summary of the piece, note that "to contextualize and counteract" was not within the bounds of the paper... I'm not sure where that comes from and you have made zero effort to supply quotations which support your desired content. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I pointed you to the precise source material, and what I had is a fair summary. If you don't get that, then maybe WP:CIR. When we have 1:1 relationship between source "quotations" and content here, that's called plagiarism, and to be avoided. The material I added is due because there is no weight of sourcing this material is squeezing out, and the "passing mention" stuff is only relevant to notability. We need to reflect what reliable sources are saying, and this scholarly source provides some precious content. Your crusade to degrade, reduce and damage this article is not constructive. When we have scholarly sources treating the topic of this article, we should be reflecting it. Alexbrn (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I read the source material, my reading of the source material leads me to believe that you are mistaken in your summation... If I'm wrong I will apologize profusely (as I do when wrong [18]). I am not a crusader, never have been and likely never will be. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have to conclude your reading skills fell short on this occasion. Perhaps rather than just deleting content, on this too-short article which everybody agrees need expansion, you could propose an expansion using the source? That would at least be constructive. All your contributions to this Talk page otherwise seem entirely questionable and destructive. Are you WP:HERE? to improve this article? Alexbrn (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They are exceptional but they are not godlike, it is entirely possible that I fell short. If I may ask again where are you seeing anything about "cited on Wikipedia to contextualize and counteract misinformation that had spread through social media" I think the best we can possibly do from this source is "During the COVID-19 pandemic Science-Based Medicine debunked misinformation about COVID vaccine" or similar but again it is only the most passing of mentions... There is absolutely no in-depth coverage of Science-Based Medicine in the paper. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, if you're that unsure about something I'd recommend against repeatedly deleting content because of it. No, obviously it's not "in-depth coverage". But it's coverage. And in a too-sparse article such scholarly coverage is what is needed. Let's see you then add "During the COVID-19 pandemic Science-Based Medicine debunked misinformation about COVID vaccine" (with the English fixed) and we can take it from there, to correct it. Do you not understand that when in Table 1 the article says "Wikipedia (Science-Based Medicine)" it means Wikipedia is citing SBM? Once you've made your edit we can start building on it to - you know - improve the article? Alexbrn (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm extremely sure and so far I've been correct on every single point of contention. Wikipedia is citing SBM, but where are you getting "to contextualize and counteract misinformation that had spread through social media" from? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well you've again proved Danth's Law; but to the point: the source says Wikipedia "provides citations to scientific articles that debunk the misconceptions". That is to say the misinformation is contextualized (by the "scientific articles") and counteracted ("debunking the misconceptions"). One of the listed resources for doing this (of several) is SBM. What I did is summarize in a way which avoids WP:CLOP and WP:PLAGIARISM. It's also kind of obvious (check the articles!); it's what the source is saying. Wikipedia should be reflecting that. Alexbrn (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"debunking the misconceptions" comes from "For example, the BBC is cited on the Wikipedia page above mentioned for identifying and debunking the misconception that “RNA alters a person’s DNA when taking the COVID-19 vaccine.”" it has nothing to do with Science-Based Medicine. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is but one example. As the source says

Organizations such as the Mayo Clinic, University of Missouri Health Care, University of California (UC) Davis Health, University of Alabama at Birmingham, Science-Based Medicine, PublicHealth.org, Snopes, and the British Broadcast Corporation (BBC) have been actively collecting misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccines and debunking them on public websites.

In the following table the "sources" and "targets" are all listed; and SBM is listed as the source for Wikipedia's rebuttal of the claim that "The COVID-19 vaccine causes infertility or miscarriages in women." We need to summarize this knowledge and relay it. Alexbrn (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not among the public websites they're talking about in that sentence... The relevant public website would be Science-Based Medicine's own (which is then cited on wikipedia, but not by Science-Based Medicine but an uninvolved editor). If Science-Based Medicine had been "debunking them on public websites" meaning Wikipedia we would be talking about a major COI issue... Also note that "debunking the misconceptions" is not in the quote you just provided, it is only found in that one quote about the BBC as far as I can tell. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I can't parse that. If a sentence mentions "Science-Base Medicine" then it is "talking about" it. Wikipedia cited SBM for the vaccine nonsense; PMID:34800722 provides this explicit citation to 2021 Wikipedia to show that and lists it in Table 1 "COVID-19 misinformation targets and their sources of information" as Wikipedia (Science-Based Medicine). So this is the reality that RS has noticed and recorded. But there are other organizations and sites that were also doing this kind of debunking, which we should also mention to avoid implying it was SBM/Wkipedia "alone". The question is, how to convey all that. Alexbrn (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If thats what you meant to convey I think we can do better. Pyrrho the Skipper's proposed wording does a good job of conveying that relevant information, would that wording work for you? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if we added some kind of "one of many" wording to avoid the lone-ranger impression, and added something like, "... as cited by Wikipedia in 2021". I think omitting the Wikipedia data point is a kind of POV-through-self-consciousness problem. This would then fairly represent all the relevant knowledge in the source. Alexbrn (talk) 04:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a bit long but could work, can you put the sentence together as you prefer it? Not sure exactly how best to incorporate something like "as cited by Wikipedia in 2021" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think this sentence would be better if it were closer to the source wording. Something like, "During the COVID-19 pandemic, Science-Based Medicine collected and debunked misinformation that had spread through social media, such as the false claim that COVID-19 vaccines could cause infertility." Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to @Alexbrn: for good example of civility behavior. This discussion sounds a nonsense forum and civil-pushing-pov to minimize the subject importance in science popularization and debunking of charlatans. The peer-reviewed paper gives to SBM the same value of other good guys in the fight against vaccine misinformation. Table 1 uses SBM as data to oppose misinformation, putting it on the same reliability level as Mayo, BBC, Snopes and the other mainstream science institutions. Against all this, detailed explained and patiently provided by Alex, we have these typical weasel wikilawyered summaries too:

This is a very tiresome and consuming discussion against many of our PAGs. Waiting for a rouge admin to help us clean this mess. Ixocactus (talk) 00:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, both parties in this dispute were pretty civil, unlike the aspersion-casting comment you just made, which was not. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 05:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That was the point. "Civil POV-pushing" is still POV-pushing. HEB can kiss hands and bow and lift the hat and say thank you and please as much as he wants, that does not change the fact that he has given no real reason, he just does not like it. The source is good, and this is a waste of time. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I was correct about every single point raised except due weight, which I have conceded there is consensus for. With all due respect I clearly demonstrated that the version which I removed failed WP:V which is why it barely resembles the current consensus version... And it's "they" not "he." Also just to be clear Ixocactus's accusation was leveled at both Pyrrho the Skipper and myself, those aren't all my edit summaries. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hob Gadling: A content disagreement is just that. Disagreeing with you is not POV-pushing. If an editor feels a source is no good, or OR is happening, they are wholly entitled to edit accordingly. Period. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both the Chen (2018) and the Weinzierl (2021) sources as instigated, are too pronounced, disproportionate to the broader article which was recently whitewashed of the Atlantic and the WSJ. The way Chen & Weinzierl were presented in the article is problematic and editors are warranted in removing that content and raising concerns for discussion. Chen includes SBM in a table . . . but does not actually mention it in the body of the article. SBM is described as "Information services" "Websites that provide articles on health and illness issues". Chen differentiates SBM from the blogs "Quackwatch" and "Homeopathic Medicine Blog". This does not change the fact that a dozen sources as well as the founders describe their work as a blog. SBM has a formation and development history and this content is better suited to that chronological content. It is needlessly heavy-handed to trumpet a mention in a table as a stand alone paragraph. The Weinzierl source also mentions SBM in a table (Table 1), in this case as "Wikipedia (Science-Based Medicine)", a subset within a lengthy root source page for Covid-19 misinformation with some 500+ sources (apparently SBM is among these). It is editorializing and an overreach to belabor these tables into paragraphs defining the subject for readers. The wording attributed to them needs to be considered more carefully. Cedar777 (talk) 16:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"recently whitewashed of the Atlantic and the WSJ" ← what rubbish! Removing do-nothing citations from the lede whitewashes nothing. In general Wikipedia is a respectable publication and prefers WP:SCHOLARSHIP like the new sources. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retractions

[edit]

SBM published a series of articles in response to Hall's original review of Irreversible Damage which have in turn attracted attention and scrutiny from other writers: Williams (2021) and Willing (2021), as well as Singal. It is worth recognizing that this controversy has included dissent from one of the founding editors, Kimball Atwood, in addition to representing a fracture of opinion between the current editors. As the publishers stated aim for SBM is to push research more towards evidence-based medicine, it is relevant that one of the most credible sources, Reuters, recently published an investigative report that stated that "No large-scale, long-term studies have tracked the incidence of detransition and regret among patients who received gender-affirming treatment as minors" and that the results available from existing studies varied widely and were inconclusive.[19] Reuters is essentially stating that more evidence is still needed. Cedar777 (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters is quite a poor source for biomedicine. But in any case, what has this to do with SBM? Bon courage (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In the linked source above (the same one added to the article), scroll down past the individual stories profiled by Reuters and read the section titled "Few answers: A survey of the science on gender-care outcomes for youths" which breaks things down for each study. Cedar777 (talk) 14:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No mention of SBM. Bon courage (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If Reuters is reporting in a December 2022 survey that results varied widely, were inconclusive, and that more evidence is still needed, we need to be more careful in how we are framing the dispute among the standing SBM editors, in particular the language "claim" used regarding Hall's views in the article. Per MOS:CLAIM "To say that someone asserted or claimed something can call their statement's credibility into question, by emphasizing any potential contradiction or implying disregard for evidence."
The subject of the article, the publisher SBM, has the stated aim of prioritizing evidence . . . Reuters recently reviewed the existing evidence and found it lacking, which should give editors pause. Cedar777 (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you sound as if you did not hear Reuters is quite a poor source for biomedicine and No mention of SBM? --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I'm finding it hard to square this desire to romp into detailed exposition from irrelevant sourcing, with (in the section below) a desire for narrow and curt coverage with all sources under the microscope. Bon courage (talk) 06:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A review of the article's edit history shows a bold edit, a reversion, and a discussion. In the January 9 follow up comment above, I am no longer advocating for the reintroduction of the investigative report as a source within the SBM article, as indeed it does not mention SBM. However, the Reuters coverage does address the broader dispute at SBM between 2 of the 5 founding editors (Hall/Atwood vs. Novella/Gorski and possibly Crislip although 3rd party independent sources don't mention him regarding the dispute). The Reuters coverage raises the question: Are we adhering to WP:NPOV when describing Hall's views? Hall's review expressed that Shrier's book had raised legitimate concerns about the science surrounding drug treatments for Gender dysphoria in children vs. Hall's review claimed that Shrier's book had raised legitimate concerns about the science surrounding drug treatments for Gender dysphoria in children. The source which covers SBM the publisher/organization in depth, The Critic, is keenly focused on its coverage of and retraction of content regarding gender dysphoria. Cedar777 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

There are three sources under the Legal section in the SBM article:

  • April 8 2015, The Washington Post, "Society for Science-Based Medicine is "media defendant" under Florida statute".
  • March 31, 2017, Lexology, "No Scrubs Permitted: Eleventh Circuit Affirms Blog Post Is Not Advertising Actionable Under Lanham Act".
  • February 24, 2017, Above the Law, "Another Free Speech Win In Libel Lawsuit Disguised As A Trademark Complaint".

The sources address opinions about the nuanced legal issues surrounding a multi-year lawsuit brought by a plantiff in response to 2 blog posts published in SBM. An editor recently expanded upon the terminology used in the Lexology article (which states the plantif was using Etanercept to "treat strokes and Alzheimer’s disease") here[20] Another editor removed the content more aligned with the Lexology article[21] and went on to expand it with content from the Above the Law article by quoting one of the defendants.[22]

Lexology and Above the Law are not ideal sources as both are written as blog posts. Lexology states "blog" at the top of the webpage. The Above the Law article is credited to "Tech Dirt" (which itself is a blog[23]) and the article we are using has the tag line "Finding critical speech that results in revenue a violation of the Lanham Act would... well, it would be stupid." which reads as the opinion of it's author, Mike Masnik. They are adequate sources for basic, factual information but it's best to keep the SBM Legal section encyclopedic, and limit it to presenting the basic facts, i.e. entities connected to the publisher were involved in a lawsuit, it was initiated on a certain date between specific parties, it was resolved in favor of plantiffs defendants. We don't need to get into the Lantham Act, Trademark, Defamation, what constitutes a "media defendant", or to directly quote those involved. Etanercept is already wiki linked in the prose and it is overkill to wikilink to it again at the start of the section that is supported by two blog posts and one WaPo article. Cedar777 (talk) 16:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It was resolved in favour of the defendants, not the plaintiffs. This is not controversial (link the court docs if you like) and the nub of what Novella said about this quackery is due. We're interested here in knowledge not "basic facts". There is also a WP:PSCI issue here: if we're going to air the notion that etanercept is a legitimate treatment for neurological damage, then we need some kind of proper scientific context for that (like Novella's). We can't just leave it in the air, as your edit would have us do. It may be better to include some WP:MEDRS to debunk the quacking too. Bon courage (talk) 16:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, looking at sources it seems the misuse of the Lanham Act seems to have excited several weighty textbooks, e.g.

   → Belmas GI, Sheoard JM (2022). "Chapter 13: Advertising and the Law". Major Principles of Media Law 2023 Edition (1st ed.). Cengage. p. 613. ISBN 978-0357657065.

The nub of the matter being that scholarly discourse can't be rebranded as commercial speech (advertising) in order to suppress it. I'll dig some more, but we should probably align Wikipedia to WP:RS in this respect. Bon courage (talk) 17:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BRD is a good method to retain collegiality between editors with differences of opinion, WP:BRR (bold, revert, revert) . . . not so much. If there are more sources that address the legal challenge that was posed to this publisher and how it relates to the Lantham Act, trademark, defamation, and/or what constitutes a "media defendant", it is welcome and wise for editors to bring these aditional sources to the table. Editors should discuss how best to include and/or modify the content to reflect them if it is waranted. The one provided looks promising. Please outline the relevant quote from Major Princliples and the Law for page 613 or provide a link for verification as available. The Google books preview of that source allows a view of page 614, which does mention S. Novella, but it unfortuntaly does not show the content on page 613 which presumably mentions the publisher SBM and the Lantham Act directly.[24]
Regarding this "We can't just leave it in the air" That content in Legal was stable for 6 months (it goes back to June 2022)[25] and remained unchanged until an editor prioritized the language in one of the blog posts and was reverted by an editor who then prioritized the other blog post. I remeber all three of the existing sources because I added them, despite that fact that two were less than ideal, because taken together, the three sources supported basic information about the publisher and its organizational history. Cedar777 (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Science-Based_Medicine&oldid=1195534883"