Misplaced Pages

Good suggestion WhatamIdoing. Its main problem is that it won't help anyone win their content dispute. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:06, 17 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,, 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," " 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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, "ither way, with the exception of GregJackP (mentioned ), 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Popular press, news sources are often wrong on medical and other scientific topics? And when Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages: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)

I just looked at your links. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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. . 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  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  17:23, 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 Misplaced Pages 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  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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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. Please self-revert. Rhoark (talk) 00:45, 29 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages that cannot in some way be related to human health. We already have clear guidance as to where MEDRS applies:

"Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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; Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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  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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 . 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 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)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing at MEDRS

Per Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 . 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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages'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  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 , 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 , 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. 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 Misplaced Pages'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  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 Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages'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  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 "Misplaced Pages's articles ... are a widely used source of health information". Nobody is going to go to Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 and US-CDC 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 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 Misplaced Pages? 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). Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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

1. http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/why-bananas-are-good-for-weight-loss-and-immunity/
2. http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/maia2.htm

(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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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: Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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"
• Version from 2 September 2015 (as edited by CFCF!): "any biomedical information in articles"
• Version from 7 July 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
• Version from 13 January 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
• Version from 4 January 2014: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
• Version from 26 January 2013: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
• Version from 24 January 2012: "the biomedical information in articles"
• Version from 1 January 2011: "the biomedical information in articles"

CFCF edits changing "biomedical information" to "biomedical and health information": , , , ,

Related: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing on Misplaced Pages: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 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

"Misplaced Pages's articles are not intended to provide medical advice, but are important and widely used as a source of health information. 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".

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 , 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 21:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Adrian, I agree that how something affects health should normally be covered information. The question is where to draw the line between covered and non-covered information. For example: The number of people who always use seat belts when riding in vehicles is inversely related to the number of health problems caused by car wrecks. However, is just the number of people who use seat belts when riding in vehicles (e.g., "Drivers in Ruritania used seatbelts during 80% of their trips last year" or "Children were restrained in an appropriate child safety seat during 95% of driving trips in passenger vehicles last year") something that should be covered? The bare number can reasonably be construed as "health information", as public health researchers are very interested in that number, but it cannot reasonably be construed as "biomedical information", as there is no "bio" there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems one would have to do quite a bit of wikilawyering to make a connection between general stats on seatbelt use and a person's health. Until the connection is made between those stats and health in the article, it really wouldn't count as "health information" as far as common sense would seem to have it. I think you've highlighted a general problem with the current wording of "biomedical" since using this information to imply a health link without a "bio" part should be covered by MEDRS or worded to avoid such an implied link. If the subject is of great interest to health professionals, then we should be able to find acceptable health sources for the information that is more rigorous. Adrian 20:10, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Adrian, I'm talking about information about rates of seat belt use, used on its own, without any statement or implication about anything, e.g., the entire current contents of Seat belt use rates by country. One need not do any wikilawyering at all to make a connection between general stats on seatbelt use and public health. We could write an entire article on the connection between seat belt use and health (actually, two entire articles, because Health effects of seat belt use and traumatic Seat belt syndrome could both be written), but I'm talking only about the plain old rates: a person either takes or doesn't take a non-medical action, and everyone knows that said action is about health preservation.

It's easy to find good medical sources on this subject, because rates of seat belt use are very interesting to health professionals. Preserving health is the only rational reason to wear a seat belt. But should we declare that it's "ideal" for this non-biomedical information to come from a reputable medical journal, or might an equally (or more) reputable non-medical source also be "ideal" for that information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 8 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, Misplaced Pages 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 . 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 23:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Modified !vote Jbh 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 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, the Los Angeles Times, and the scientific journal Psychological Reports (because the paper was published in 2004 -- before the MEDRS 5-year limit). 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 (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 Misplaced Pages:Opening up a can of worms, IMHO. Keep things simple......Charlotte135 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. For five reasons: 1) Biomedical is more clear term whereas "health" is too ambiguous 2) adding "health" would be open to WP:GAME, 3) WP:MEDRS does not need expansion, 4) the attempted expansion actually has already been used to suppress citations in some articles, and and last but not least, 5) MEDRS could be applied to pretty much everything, like editor RexxS already stated that MEDRS should actually apply to articles such as "bicycles". Also, I think Kim D. Petersen made a good point above. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose "Biomedical and Health" greatly and dangerously expands MEDRS's application and actually leads to less clarity. MEDRS should not be applied to organic food, for instance, but it should be applied if we make a biomedical claim about organic food. Sources that talk about facts regarding pesticides, like chemical composition, are already well covered by RS and if we allowed editors to reject these because they don't pass MEDRS's barometer, we're opening up an enormous can of worms, which incidentally should also not have MEDRS policing claims about them, unless we talk about the nutritional benefit of eating canned worms, a biomedical claim, and then MEDRS applies. LesVegas (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The lay reader does not know what the term "Biomedical" means. "Biomedical and Health" clarifies the meaning. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support in theory, with narrowing. Just "health" by itself is too vague, and would arguably subject things like Chinese medicine and ayurvedic medicine to MEDRS, which seems dubious. But the vast majority of disputes I've seen about MEDRS are attempts to "corral" WP:FRINGE and "lifestyle" (e.g. electronic cigarettes articles, even when they contain actual biomedical information (as at electronic cigarette aerosol), as being outside the scope of MEDRS, on the faulty basis that they somehow not "really" bio-medical but just vaguely "health" related. This is basically nonsense and WP:WIKILAWYERing at its worst, for PoV-pushing purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:45, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

 SMcCandlish, the Ayurveda article has been subject to WP:MEDRS; there has been a lot of dubious editing and edit warring at that article. In fact, the article is currently locked down when it comes to new and/or unregistered editors. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't mean to second-guess consensus on that; I was not part of those discussions. My point is that the very presence of the word "health" on a page should not magically trigger MEDRS. Actual heath claims that can be subject to scientific examination should need to be at issue in order for MEDRS to apply, but if they are present, then MEDRS definitely should apply. "This helps balance your chi and chakras for a healthier life" is not a claim that can be subject to such testing. "Heals tumors and promotes tooth enamel restoration" is. There'll be a lot of grey area between these, and I think we should err on the side of MEDRS out of basic ethical responsibility to the public. We all know full well that many people are apt to believe uncritically, through sheer hope, any claim made about possible health benefits of something, no matter how dubious it is.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  15:47, 12 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 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: Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 (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)
• Support. For five reasons: 1) Biomedical is more clear term whereas "health" is too ambiguous 2) adding "health" would be open to WP:GAME, 3) WP:MEDRS does not need expansion, 4) the attempted expansion actually has already been used to suppress citations in some articles, and and last but not least, 5) MEDRS could be applied to pretty much everything, like editor RexxS already stated that MEDRS should actually apply to articles such as "bicycles" Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Health is far too broad a term, could easily be misapplied, and would create edit wars and WP:GAMEs galore. I have already seen editors try applying MEDRS to even things like organic food (for non-biomedical claims) and they should always get shot down. WP:RS works fantastically for non-biomedical claims, including health-related ones and MEDRS for biomedical claims. Doc James wrote that "'health' simplifies the wording": no, it doesn't. It confuses it greatly, and extends MEDRS to policing claims from everything from apples to zoos. Biomedical claims about apples, yes, MEDRS already covers these well. Children getting ill from petting animals at zoos? Yes, that could possibly be a biomedical claim also covered by MEDRS. But, just like zoo animals, MEDRS also needs to be caged and editors shouldn't be able to release it to run amok. LesVegas (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The wording "Biomedical" is too ambiguous and confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 19:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support as less vague and less all-encompassing than "health". Also, I support me finally having a couple of weeks to write a first draft of WP:MEDDUE, so that people will quit abusing MEDRS as a way to get WP:DUE weight into articles, and in the meantime, I support adding a clear, unambiguous section to MEDRS that states that many subjects are multidisciplinary (e.g., rates of seat belt use, crime, and poverty) and that the community does not support a "medicine über alles" approach to multidisciplinary subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:32, 17 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

1. http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/why-bananas-are-good-for-weight-loss-and-immunity/
2. http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/maia2.htm

(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 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 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 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 Misplaced Pages, 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 is great for you, or that 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Notecardforfree - Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages, 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:

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages 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

1. "Why Bananas Are Good For Weight Loss and Immunity". Health Impact News. Retrieved 2015-11-03.

• 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)

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, the Los Angeles Times, and the scientific journal Psychological Reports (because the paper was published in 2004 -- before the MEDRS 5-year limit). 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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"
• Version from 2 September 2015 (as edited by CFCF!): "any biomedical information in articles"
• Version from 7 July 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
• Version from 13 January 2015: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
• Version from 4 January 2014: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
• Version from 26 January 2013: "the biomedical information in all types of articles"
• Version from 24 January 2012: "the biomedical information in articles"
• Version from 1 January 2011: "the biomedical information in articles"

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)

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...

"Misplaced Pages's articles are not intended to provide medical advice, but are important and widely used as a source of health information. 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...

"Misplaced Pages's articles, while not intended to provide medical advice, are nonetheless an important and widely used source of health information. 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 . 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)

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? (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)

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. Misplaced Pages 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? (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 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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 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)

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:

Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view). If no reliable sources can be found on a topic, Misplaced Pages 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 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)