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)

I support changing high quality type to high quality source, especially because this gives a stronger barrier to entry of all of our sources. However, I do not support omitting "country of origin" for two reasons: 1) it goes against the previous close, 2) it allows "funding sources" (which in some fields have shown major issues with bias) but disallows country of origin for same, albeit lesser, reasons. Why would we allow funding sources into our statement but not country of origin? LesVegas (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Since the whole section is about types of studies, then why would we change it to talk about individual studies? A source can be the very best type of study and still be unreliable due to factors unrelated to evidence quality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support 5. Reject all other proposals. Bias sources may be rejected where they is a known problem. WhatamIdoing, your proposal is too confusing for me. QuackGuru (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It would be very helpful to me to know which of the proposed changes is most confusing to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Number 4 is most confusing (ambiguous). Your proposal is too complicated. QuackGuru (talk) 00:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support 3 and second 1. Country of origin should not be a factor in disqualifying high quality sources. AlbinoFerret 14:16, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support 3 only The other options are really invalid options since the content of these was not addressed during the previous RfC close, plus this RfC is about how exactly to word the previous close's decision (something the previous RfC also tackled, but certain tendentious editors are ignoring that fact.) When the previous RfC is a simple question asking, should we change MEDRS from:

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

to

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

The answer to that simple question was Yes, so this RfC about what version to implement wasn't needed. But CFCF, who objected to the original RfC, decided to game the system and create an RfC that seeks to overturn the previous close, while cloaking this RfC as "which version of the new clause" do we use? This RfC is nothing more than an elaborate WP:GAME by an editor who objected without basis, was refuted, attempted to edit war his version into place, and hopes to have a version that circumvents due process.

Options 2 and 5 are particularly awful since they don't even contain the words "country of origin" whatsoever, something the prior close was adamant was necessary. I will also note that the OP, CFCF, stated this was a hypothetical situation that had never occurred., yet he continues to ignore the fact that, yes, it had occurred multiple times1

• Support 3 Primarily, I am still in support of the previous close. If the community considers the best, however, to choose an alternative way for implementing it, I am in support of the alternative number 3. I'd like to point out that whereas number 3 is the only one that is actually searching for a way to implement the new clause, it isn't supported even by the original poster himself. The other alternatives do not really fit how the very RfC is formatted.
  • Brevity is the source of wit, so three points in regards to the RfC at hand:
    • 1. Existing RfC closure, and the conclusion was yes to include "the country of origin" to the text.
    • 2. The new RfC started by the very same person who objected the first one, but who wasn't pleased with the outcome. In my opinion, this seems gaming against the previous closure. Meanwhile, we have the previous closure in force.
    • 3. The RfC is misleadingly named "Appropriate version for the new clause", but the options offered by the original poster don't seem to be versions of the new clause at all, i.e. they do omit the part "country of origin" completely. Therefore, this RfC has nothing to do with implementing the new clause, but getting rid of it totally. Not just seems this RfC to be poorly formatted, but it is opened by the very same editor that objected the previous RfC and who now - unsatisfied by the outcome - seems to game against it.
• Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 23:30, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
  • 3 is supporting the use of sources that violates MEDRS. Poorly sourced text from a country that has been identified to have systematic problems in the medical literature is against MEDRS. Why are editors supporting the use of sources that violate MEDRS. Adding a source to an article from a country that is known to be bias in the medical literature can be inappropriate. Trying to rewrite MEDRS to allow lower quality sources is inappropriate. QuackGuru (talk) 19:32, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

What does MEDRS cover?

Closing this as biomedical, i.e. without "health". The numbers are approximately equal (per WP:NOTAVOTE, I didn't count precisely), but the strongest point is the issue raised by many "biomedical"-only people of the scope: by noting the far broader scope of "health", including everything from seatbelt usage to public health policies. Per WP:CONLIMITED, the broad community needs to be consulted for something affecting the broad community, and people who use chemistry and biology journals to write about pesticides and organic foods, or people who use non-medical reliable sources to write about bicycles and seat belt usage, won't have paid attention to this page and won't have had their views represented. Those opposing the inclusion of "health" don't seem to have been adequately answered when they challenge the issue of redundancy versus scope expansion; QuackGuru makes a good point in saying The lay reader does not know what the term "Biomedical" means, but the idea of inserting "health" merely as an explanation for the lay reader seems to have been outweighed by the idea of inserting "health" as an expansion of the page's scope, i.e. lots of supporters of "health" didn't address the topic of merely explaining things, while those opposing generally held that this was an expansion, rather than a clarification for the layman. Final note — some of the votes were simply weak, and they tended to be much more on the "and health" side. Short is fine, e.g. We want to have a simpler wording and adding health simplifies it and too broad, but per Doc James, Tryptofish, Jytdog, etc. and as per several others above. Biomedical is clear to me simply need to be given less weight, not to mention votes without rationale, and I'm seeing more of the latter sort in votes on the "and health" side than on the other. Nyttend (talk) 14:14, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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. I will also point out that those that say its a long standing version or meaning are incorrect. This diff shows "and health was not part of the page from 2011 until CFCF added it in 2015. 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 very 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)

• support -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support. To me this describes the sense of this clause more clearly, in a way that should head off wikilawyering on topics that should be covered by MEDRS but where tendentious editors wish to evade its coverage. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support: Rewriting the scope to include health will make explicit this guideline's appropriateness for articles on health topics. In my opinion, the potential for the ambiguity of the term "health" to be misused is less than the potential harm that can be caused by people not believing high quality medical sources are needed for articles concerning human health. Songleaves (talk) 04:57, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Oppose. The purpose of MEDRS, which includes the three letters MED for Medicine or Medical, is to make sure that readers who mistakenly rely on Misplaced Pages for medical advice are not mislead, and Misplaced Pages is not subject to a medical malpractice lawsuit. That was made clear since the initial version of 10 November 2006 here and has stood firm since then. I have witnessed how this standard is being misapplied and needlessly expanded by those with a particular narrow agenda to CENSOR good content and sources regarding political, philosophical, legal, administrative, cultural or controversial material, by eliminating sources that formerly had been acceptable for coverage and restricting only to high quality sources related to medicine. That is unacceptable for an encyclopedia. Misplaced Pages is not a medical journal and should not have an increasing scope of articles subjected to such a standard. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Most of my concern if health was not included is gaming. I've seen editors try to argue a topic is not health related (e.g., e-cigs, GMOs, etc.) when the very spirit of this guideline has always been health. Including the term health would prevent that kind of wikilawyering. If the "worst-case" scenario happens described by opposers that some topics get placed under MEDRS that are more tangential, then we're just going to have a push for more reliable sources. There's not really a downside to including the health term at all. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: I fail to see how the inclusion of a completely redundant term in this proposal could add anything useful. The additional wording ("health") has an extraordinarily large scope, covering a range of related topics that are not subject to MEDRS such as public health policies and public healthcare funding. It is likely to cause unnecessary confusion to the reader and so I strongly oppose the use of such a vague and overly broad description. -RoseL2P (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support the whole point of MEDRS is to keep sourcing standards high for WP content about health; the internet is full of poor quality content about health and MEDRS helps us keep that crap out of the encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support Support per Doc James, Tryptofish, Jytdog, etc. Alexbrn (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I see the reasons for wanting to include "health" here as being dishonorable and dishonest, an attempt to sort of "game the system" to be able to require higher level sourcing for some claims about sociology related to things like violence, as i've seen from some past discussions on this topic, and therefore i say leave it as "biomedical" alone because we want actual physical health-related content to be included but not necessarily sociological dynamics that may surround health but not be central to the intent of MEDRS. SageRad (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - much too broad. Perhaps if it was better defined to a specific area, it would garner more support but "health" is too far reaching. For example, a healthy diet is good for you - uhm, we don't need to cite MEDRS. Atsme 21:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - too broad. TimidGuy (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support – I am somewhat conflicted on this RFC because I see both sides abuse the scope of MEDRS. However I think the more problematic abuse arrises from applying a too narrow definition. For example, alternative medicine is often considered outside the scope of biomedicine but within the scope of health and medicine. Despite the medical disclaimer, readers do sometimes consult Misplaced Pages in making health decisions and therefore it is prudent that any health related content be held to a higher sourcing standard. Hence I think it is reasonable to add health in defining the scope of MEDRS to remove any doubt that health related subjects such as alternative medicine are covered. Boghog (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support; this all seems like wiki-lawyering to exclude health. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 02:18, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support as clarification of what the longstanding of what MEDRS has typically covered. Yobol (talk) 02:39, 31 December 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)
• oppose per Tryptofish. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:09, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Support Covers the intended scope of MEDRS, and is quite clearly defined as a term, whereas health is so broad, it would require its own MEDRS-specific definition to be meaningful. Combining "biomedical and health" further confuses the situation, considering that the general argument for health is that it is essentially synonymous and does not expand the scope - how can we have an "and" if they are the same thing? "Biomedical" is the reasonably clear and straightforward choice. --Tsavage (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The spirit of this guideline has always been related to health claims in general. Including only biomedical is ambiguous and opens up the guideline for more gaming than biomedical and health would. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support: I fail to see how the inclusion of a completely redundant term in the first of the two proposals could add anything useful. Besides, the proposed additional wording ("health") has an extraordinarily large scope, covering a range of related topics that are not subject to MEDRS such as public health policies and public healthcare funding. It is also likely to cause unnecessary confusion to the reader and so I am inclined to support the second proposal especially for its brevity -RoseL2P (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose the whole point of MEDRS is to keep sourcing standards high for WP content about health; the internet is full of poor quality content about health and MEDRS helps us keep that crap out of the encyclopedia. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per Guy Macon. Atsme 21:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per my comments in the previous section directly above. Boghog (talk) 22:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose; this all seems like wiki-lawyering to exclude health. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 02:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose; as a change against longstanding consensus on what MEDRS covers. Yobol (talk) 02:39, 31 December 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)

Responses to votes

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

• Response to Doc James' vote: No, you've got it backwards. Socio-medical information is health information, too, but it's not biomedical information. There's nothing "biomedical" about a woman refusing consent for an intimate exam by a male provider, but there's a lot of "health" in that decision. "Biomedical" is smaller than "health". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Response to Ozzie10aaaa's vote: Perhaps you should rethink that "without question", seeing as how you have managed to reverse what is contained within what. Health content is far larger than and includes biomedical content, not the other way around. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Response to Casliber's vote: I am puzzled by your comment. You say "health is medicine". Are you saying that they are synonymous? Or that heath is a subset of medicine? Is exercising medicine? Or that medicine is a subset of health, in which case, why isn't just putting medicine enough to avoid wikilawyering? Wikilawyering can work both ways - arguing that a narrow category doesn't apply, or arguing that a broad category applies. Since WP:MEDRS is a guideline which restricts sources (in principle), the latter event is more pernicious - arguing that a source doesn't fulfill WP:MEDRS simply excludes it from discussion. The former can still be handled with WP:DUE, WP:NPOV etc. Kingsindian ♝♚ 14:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
• Response to Tsavage's vote: Biomedical currently redirects to Medical research, wouldn't Biomedicine or even better, Medicine make more sense? Surely the intention is that MEDRS should apply not only to biomedical research, but the application of that research to clinical practice. Also isn't health reasonably well defined? The ICF and ICD definitions of health are very precise. Boghog (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Additional proposal

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

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

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

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

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

Logical inconsistency in this RfC discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because the guideline was attacked for using the term biomedical when it prior to August had used both "medical" and "health-related" in its place. Biomedical while very clear for many was being defined in such a way that it did not include epidemiology. This discussion has brought with it a fair share of advocates who would have nothing rather than a complete break-down of MEDRS. CFCF 💌 📧 23:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That is not true. The lead paragraph (the one you changed. the one you edit warred over and the one you posted this RfC about) did not have "medical" or "health-related" in the place of "biomedical" prior to August. Please stop saying that it did. Repeating the same easily-checked falsehood over and over isn't fooling anyone. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

"...fair share of advocates who would have nothing rather than a complete break-down of MEDRS" - CFCF, would you show me an example of exactly what you are referring to in this statement? petrarchan47คุก 08:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• Personally I would love to see what solution the community could come up with if the top 3 or so commenters on this issue would take a step back rather than flooding these threads with the same stuff over and over and over again. It is far from necessary for only a couple of people from each side to reply to almost every comment from the other side. It cuts off opportunities for new perspectives and created a TL;DR thread which will resolve nothing because few people want to plow through all of the text. I guarantee that everyone is well aware of the primary 'participants' views on this issue - the purpose of an RfC is to get other editors' opinions. Just say'n. Jbh 00:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• 1 and 2 are not logically inconsistent when analyzed correctly. 1 is a minor clarification of the always intended, and actually applicable scope. The effect predicted in 2 is on misperceptive expectations that MEDRS's scope was intended to be ridiculously narrow and WP:GAMEable. As an analogy, in most Western legal systems, it's unlawful to make threats of bodily harm. Not all of these laws state outright that they apply to oral as well as written threats, and many people are not aware that they apply to oral threats, or such threats would not happen very often. If it were proposed that a particular statute were clarified so as to leave no doubt that it also covered orally made threats, this would in fact be a minor clarifying change, no matter how many people flipped out and thought that it was a new, censorious legal land-grab intended to criminalize previously legal (in their mistaken view) behavior. That said, while I agree with the general thrust of this proposal, the unqualified word "health" by itself may be too vague and overbroad; we do not want MEDRS to pertain to traditional medicine systems, though perhaps claims about their efficacy should be.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  13:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺ I agree with your analysis, insofar as the term "health" might be clearly included in "biomedical" or other existing guideline material, in the way that "oral threats" may be included in "threats of bodily harm" (and so adding "health" is simply doing some housekeeping on routine wording). However, the inconsistency I see is in the arguments that suggest that adding "health" changes nothing, because it was already there (1), while other arguments suggest that adding health will have a significant effect (2, 3). If a "minor clarification" has major effects, then, from a practical standpoint, it is (also) a major clarification. The inconsistency only vanishes if you narrowly define "minor" to refer to the semantics of a definition, to the exclusion of actual effect. In the legal example, trial outcomes would presumably be unaffected by the change, so in a statutory sense it would be a minor alteration, but if making "oral threats" explicit resulted in a slew of newly founded charges, there, too, it would not be minor in effect. In any case, in Misplaced Pages, we in theory rely on reasonable interpretation, case by case, and on the implied as much as the explicitly stated, and particularly in that context, "health" seems entirely too broad and vague for this purpose. --Tsavage (talk) 00:22, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

To expand on the above, attempting to make changes based upon "health" being in the first paragraph has already happened, even though "health" was never in the first paragraph. This entire conversation started when an editor attempted to use MEDRS to remove a reliable source (Scientific American) and its associated claim concerning the rates of male on female vs. female on male domestic violence. The editor argued that domestic violence is a public health issue and thus MEDRS applies, When told that MEDRS applies to biomedical claims, not public health claims, he started a campaign to change MEDRS so that it supports his source removal. So adding "health" is clearly not a minor clarification but rather a major change that would apply WP:MEDRS to thousands of articles that are now under WP:RS. Also, "health" can never be included in "biomedical", because "biomedical" is already included in "heath". "Health" is a much larger topic that includes "biomedical" as a sunset. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As it is currently worded, the Nutshell summary should properly be: "Ideal sources for biomedical and health material ..." because we can't have supplementary guidelines, intended to focus and clarify core policies for specific subject areas, defining themselves in terms so broad, we can't provide a simple explanation as to what they mean. With "health," MEDRS prominently describes its scope with a term that cannot be usefully linked to its own article, because the very first paragraph of that article immediately introduces a total lack of clarity as to what it is supposed to mean in this context. --Tsavage (talk) 02:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Guy Macon's "01:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)" summary is inaccurate (for example, I'm the editor who attempted to remove the Scientific American source, and WP:MEDRS was only one of the reasons; further, that text/source will be removed soon per the WP:RfC at that talk page), but I've already been over this matter with him more than once on this talk page; so has CFCF (the editor he is referring to in that post). For example, "health" has always been in the first paragraph, and elsewhere in the lead...and lower in the guideline, and was well-supported by medical editors. Guy Macon took issue with the second sentence of the first paragraph ("For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information") being changed to include "biomedical and health," as if that changes how the guideline was already being used. Furthermore, editors on this talk page clearly disagree about what "biomedical" applies to. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

And all of this biomedical debating currently at this talk page started after this dispute, and the section above where I pinged Guy Macon and others. No matter how one defines "biomedical," WP:MEDRS encourages better sources than Scientific American, as is clear at Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Popular press. I'd left the Scientific American source in the Domestic violence article for a year to give editors a chance to update it with a better source; I only let it stay because WP:MEDRS is clear that Scientific American can be a decent source. But after the year was up, and I thought about (and further saw) how the content was presented without WP:Due weight, and was presented inaccurately, I removed it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think my legal analogy stands fine. A well-publicized and pseudo-controversial clarification of a vague threats-of-bodily-harm law to make it clearer that, yes, it does apply (as it always really did) to orally delivered threats would have the contextually major effect of reducing the incidence of jackasses threatening to beat the tar out of people, but it would remain actually a minor change to the law, with very little impact on society at large. See my three sentences beginning "1 and 2 are not logically inconsistent when analyzed correctly" again in this light, please. The cognitive dissonance is happening because of a commingling of entirely different concepts of "major/minor" and to what they refer. By way of another analogy, if I take a step to the right (with my hands on my hips), this is a very minor action. If another entity happens to be an ant that I stepped on, the consequences were major in the context of that entity, but this does not affect the fact that it was a minor, non-controversial action on my part with little effect on the world (except perhaps in the view of that ect of Jains who walk around staring carefully at the ground and sweeping it lest they step on an insect, I suppose).

The point being, we do not need to wring our hands over how "major" the effect will be if it's an effect that was always within the intent for which this guideline's consensus enacted it. It's simply about time that it was applied correctly, and unless written really poorly, it should have no negative effect, only the positive one of further restraining WP:FRINGE, WP:OR and WP:NOT#ADVOCACY problems affecting many articles due to PoV-pushing in these directions by parties who think that MEDRS is or should be easily WP:GAMEable by playing verbal shell-games with terms like "health" and "wellness". Fewer disputes like the ongoing one at ArbCom about electronic cigarettes (involving a lot of party-overlap with this discussion) would arise. Tsavage has a valid observation about the vagueness of the article Health, which dovetails with my concerns about applying the term here without clearly defining it and/or limiting the scope of the intended meaning. The obvious solution to that is, well, to clearly define it and/or limit the scope of the intended meaning.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  12:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

SMcCandlish ☺: My intention in challenging your challenge of my comment criticizing this proposal isn't to start a further sub-argument, it is simply to not have my original statement discounted as a valid proposition, in order for you to "agree with the general thrust of this proposal." My argument isn't against clarification, per se, it is against "unless written really poorly," which this proposal seems to me to advocate.

You say, "The cognitive dissonance is happening because of a commingling of entirely different concepts of "major/minor" and to what they refer," which is the main point of my original comment, and is acknowledged in my reply to you: "If a "minor clarification" has major effects, then, from a practical standpoint, it is (also) a major clarification." Your legal and side-stepping analogies both suffer from the problem we have both identified: context matters. If you were knowingly side-stepping onto ant-infested ground, claiming that, "I only just took one little step," would seem disingenuous at best as a denial that you were out to kill ants.

(As for oral threats, you've given the hypothetical result a positive spin - "contextually major effect of reducing the incidence of jackasses threatening to beat the tar out of people" - while not acknowledging the equally plausible-sounding scenario where, being alerted to these "new" grounds, there is a rise in cases where other jackasses file oral threat charges that are really unwarranted by any reasonable consideration, further clogging up the judicial system, and ratcheting up overall stress and noise. There are things best left unsaid.)

My example, with highlighting subhead, was an attempt to provide a different framing of the underlying problem as I and some other editors see it, that the proposed step amounts to a significant (major) practical change. When editors argue simultaneously that it is only a minor change, but that it is a change necessary to correct the perceived scope of MEDRS, there is an apparent logical inconsistency that should be resolved so that all RfC input is about the same thing.

I don't think we are in disagreement, I find that "health" is obviously problematically broad (first of all, as my health link example indicates, it can't be usefully defined for this purpose), and I also wonder why "biomedical" is used in place of what the linked article says, in the first sentence, "is in general simply known as medical research," which is the actual title of the article, and seems much clearer to me (I have a pretty clear idea of what medical research is, I don't really of what biomedical refers to exactly...oh, it means "medical research") - aren't guidelines supposed to be straightforward and accessible to the general editor, as our content is supposed to be to the general reader?

The real major problem, IMHO, is that we seem to trying to fix actual problems with ever more specific rules, and this just cannot work in the anonymous Misplaced Pages editing environment. IMO, we should be concentrating on improving editor oversight processes, rather than trying to hardwire in more specificity to core policies that rely on general principles and common sense interpretation. --Tsavage (talk) 13:58, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see where you're coming from better. Not sure I particularly disagree with much of that, but would insert some things. It's not mandatory that we link to articles on topics to say something in a guideline. Whenever we do, there's always a risk that the article content will change out from under us and be seen as altering the nature or applicability of the guideline (or policy or whatever). It's better to use links in examples, or as supplementary within the prose while writing the prose clearly and solidly enough that it still means what it means if you print it out on paper or if the linked article turns into crap. That naturally requires the kind of straightforward, accessible, common-sense codification of principles you're talking about. But when an area has real-world ethical consequences, we do in fact tend to insert specific anti-gaming, anti-misinterpretation wording that's quite detailed and tends to form definitions, scope clarifications, and line-item rules. WP:BLP largely consists of this, and it works fine, embedded within a more general-principles outline. The two approaches are not really mutually exclusive, it just takes work and care to integrate the one into the other.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  14:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Tsavage, the lead for Biomedical research is, well, wrong. Or at least sloppy. There is plenty of medical research that doesn't have any "bio" in it. Look at these clinical trials: Those are all "medical research", but they're all socio-medical, not bio-medical. "Biomedical" is the biological side of medicine ("bio" + "medical"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

A different question

To some extent, what I'm about to say is a different variation on the idea of a logical flaw in the RfC than what is in the talk section just above. It looks pretty obvious to me that this RfC is already destined to end in "no consensus". And the discussion between me and WhatamIdoing in #Discussion question, above, got me thinking that the real problem is not going to be solved by whether we do, or don't, add the word "health" to the guideline. The issue is that there needs to be a better delineation of where MEDRS does, and does not, apply. The disagreements between editors arise when one editor believes that a particular bit of content does not fall within the scope of MEDRS, and another editor believes that it does. No amount of wordsmithing between "health" and "biomedical" is going to fix that. Please see #Discussion question for examples of content topics where one part of the topic probably should be sourced according to MEDRS and another part of the topic probably should not. In that section above, I suggested that MEDRS applies where the content is going to influence how our readers make decisions about their health, but it doesn't have to apply more widely than that. Instead of battling over the issues that editors are battling over in this RfC, I'd much rather that editors brainstorm on how, exactly, MEDRS should express where it applies, and where it does not. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:49, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Tryp, see the RfC above this one and the withdrawn one above that one. Maybe it's time for some actual alternative proposals so participants can get a better sense of how the guideline can be used (and misused) based on the specificity or ambiguity of the language in the guideline. I agree that the enclusion or exclusion of "health" will not resolve anything because we dont have a common understanding of what "health information" comprises. Same issue with the prior RfC because different editirs had different understandings of the word "epidemiology" and its scope. I have tried to suggest some common ground for understanding but it has gone nowhere. Maybe you will have more success. Minor4th 22:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a definitive answer. But I can see two general ways to approach it. I just looked again at the wording now on the page, and I see how it links to Misplaced Pages:Biomedical information – and that page actually makes exactly the kind of distinction that I think we need. So, in one possible approach, the problem resides in editors incorrectly applying Misplaced Pages:Biomedical information, and there needs to be some codification here that MEDRS does not deviate from that other page. The other possible approach is to better define where it says: "For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information is based on...", by indicating more specifically and narrowly what that blue link actually links to. An example of the latter would be something along the lines of: "For this reason it is vital that any biomedical information that could affect how readers make health care decisions is based on...". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There is actually a problem with that definition in that some editors have suggested that it doesn't include a number of epidemiological concerns where the lay-reader is not likely to make a health choice based upon the information, even when other professional groups may. The issue might be that we are trying to hard to be concise with a one-size-fit-all definition (I don't agree).

For a constructive approach it may be better to instead include part of that essay as a subheader of MEDRS, titled "Topics covered" (or something to that effect). CFCF 💌 📧 23:10, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps that could work. For example, this page could have a section titled something like "What is and is not biomedical information". That would be based upon the two corresponding sections of the essay page. And then "biomedical information" in the lead would be blue-linked to that page section. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

This common-sense approach does seem to be supported by the first paragraph of WP:MEDRS and it is also how i understood the rationale and spirit of the guideline:

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 information is based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and that it accurately reflects current knowledge.

I think that health-related biomedical content in articles is special because it is indeed used by readers to make decisions about their health, both for prevention as well as diagnosis and treatment. Therefore, anything relating to etiology of disease or health, anything relating to direct explanation of human physiology, and anything relating to epidemiology of disease or health falls under this category. I would hope that all other content is also sourced as well as possible, but the stricter requirements for such content makes sense in this light. SageRad (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Yes, that's right, I think. Looking at Misplaced Pages:Biomedical information#What is biomedical information?, the following specific examples are listed as topics that potentially should be sourced according to MEDRS: attributes of a disease or condition, attributes of a treatment or drug, medical decisions, health effects, population data, and biomedical research. And, from Misplaced Pages:Biomedical information#What is not biomedical information?, these are listed as potentially not subject to MEDRS: commercial or business information, economics, beliefs, history, society and culture, legal issues, notable cases, popular culture, etymology and definitions, training, regulatory status, and medical ethics. Currently, the lead here links to that, and I think it does a reasonably good job of delineating the boundaries. On the other hand, it's just an essay, and there is no reason why the two lists cannot be revised here. Maybe an improved version of those two lists could be made into a new section of this page, MEDRS, and maybe that would be a way of clarifying the issues where editors keep disagreeing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem here appears to be that I, SageRad. and Tryptofish all appear to want to apply MEDRS to health-related biomedical content -- otherwise known as "content used by readers to make decisions about their health" while CFCF and Flyer22 Reborn want MEDRS to also apply to things like the rate of male-female vs. female-male domestic violence. The latter is an important scientific, statistical and sociological topic, and it can be argued to be "population data", but nobody is going to use the information to make decisions about their health. On the other hand, as Tryptofish has correctly pointed out several times, the number of editors who want to expand MEDRS so that it can be used to exclude sources that meet our WP:RS standard is small and the number of editors who want to weaken MEDRS so that they can sell their snake oil, fat burning pills and penis/breast enlarging products is quite large and very persistent. Of the two alternatives we are discussing here, I strongly prefer the wording of the lead paragraph that has served us well for at least five years, but I also think that we can come up with something that is better than either. Alas, to do that we need to somehow stop the discussion from being derailed by those who want MEDRS to apply to anything health-related (as interpreted by whoever is trying to apply MEDRS). :( --Guy Macon (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

You've probably oversimplified who I agree and who I disagree with, and I really would rather we move away from grouping editors into opposing camps. Instead, I would rather we focus more on what I just asked about above: what are the topics that should be listed as within MEDRS, and what are the topics that should be listed as not within MEDRS? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Good comment, Guy Macon. Thank you for boiling it down. I would like to be clear that defining WP:MEDRS to apply to biomedical claims relating to human health does require MEDRS sourcing for the claims that you call snake oil, like fat-burning pills and the like. Those would have to produce good, solid secondary sources to support any claim as to their efficacy. It would simply exclude topics like the sociology of domestic abuse, which is what i think we want. I think we're all seeing that agenda pushing like trying to exclude knowledge about domestic abuse patterns in society is not good, and neither is snake oil pushing like advocating fat-burning pills that don't really work. I think the simple interpretation of MEDRS based on its true spirit is the solution. I think that this is all spelled out, albeit in subdued language, in the third paragraph:

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

"Alternative medicine" could be construed to include any possible snake oil, and "non-medical information in medicine-articles" could be construed to mean that content which a stubborn few try to exclude from articles by demanding MEDRS sourcing for sociological claims. SageRad (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Tryptofish about Guy Macon representing people in inaccurate ways. He's done that all over this talk page as far as CFCF and I are concerned, and he refuses to stop, despite telling me to stop supposedly misrepresenting him. And he continues to act like CFCF and I are the only ones who feel that WP:MEDRS applies to epidemiology or, more specifically, to rates of male-female vs. female-male domestic violence, despite various other editors on this talk page agreeing with me and CFCF. Arguing that reports on the physical and/or psychological harm of domestic violence are not biomedical, whether about the rates of those aspects or not, and/or that this does not fall within WP:MEDRS, makes not a bit of sense to me. I made my feelings well known in the #Clarifying "biomedical" section above. And in the #Does MEDRS apply to Epidemiology? section above, I commented, " I will go ahead and state, though, that of course WP:MEDRS applies to epidemiology. This is also covered in the 'Included' aspect of the WP:Biomedical information essay, under the listing Population data. That stated, this doesn't mean that we need to be overly strict with regard to WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing for epidemiological material. Some epidemiological material requires a higher level of sourcing than other epidemiological material. And WP:MEDDATE is clear that we can make exceptions in areas 'where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published'." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why editors are acting like WP:MEDRS is so strict. Like I told Guy Macon, "ou have a misunderstanding of the guideline; you are applying the five-year standard as though it is gospel. is also clear that newer is not necessarily better. If the older source is better, then we go with that, as medical editors commonly do at the Circumcision article." Furthermore, reviews are not the only sources that WP:MEDRS recommends. For example, a good book source is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:25, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

And I again point out that even though I have not been advocating that "health" be added to the guideline, this link shows that not only was it already in the introduction of the guideline, it was also lower in the guideline; CFCF adding it to the guideline does not make its appearance there a new aspect of the guideline, no matter how many times Guy Macon or others state or indicate that it is. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

That is not true. The lead (first) paragraph was the paragraph that CFCF changed. The lead (first) paragraph was the paragraph that CFCF posted this RfC to get permission to change after multiple editors opposed his change to the lead (first) paragraph. Your diff shows zero changes to the lead (first) paragraph. "CFCF adding it to the guideline does not make its appearance there a new aspect of the guideline" is a blatant falsehood. people are tired of you saying something that isn't true, and people are tired of me correcting your false claim. Just stop. Anything other than "any biomedical information in articles" in the lead (first) paragraph is a major change, and is not supported by any previous version that anyone has found. Please stop doing this. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It is true. This is why I questioned if you are acting blind. I already told you, "so now you are only focusing on the first lead paragraph, not the other parts of the lead that were changed in August? As for what you stated in this edit summary, I have not been advocating to add 'health' to the lead; I haven't even yet voted on whether or not 'health' should be re-added; this is because I do have concerns that it might be used too broadly. 'Health' is still in the lead paragraph, though." Do you think you can confuse editors here by focusing only on the first paragraph of the introduction and acting like "health" was never in that introduction, that it was only there because CFCF added it? You can't. So stop it. Stating that "people are tired of saying something that isn't true, and people are tired of correcting false claim." is clearly something you have backwards. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

More stated here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn, I did not say (either) that Guy Macon is representing people in inaccurate ways. This entire back-and-forth has gotten off track from what I started this discussion section about: what are the topics that should be listed as within MEDRS, and what are the topics that should be listed as not within MEDRS? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

My wording was off and I considered tweaking that, but I was clearly referring to your comment that "You've probably oversimplified who I agree and who I disagree with, and I really would rather we move away from grouping editors into opposing camps." He does that over and over again, with different editors, and he's very much misrepresented me and CFCF. I'm tired of it. Just as much as he claims to be tired of me supposedly misrepresenting him. Thing is...I barely focus on him, but he repeatedly focuses on me, even though I have not been as active in these discussions as certain others. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thinking about this some more, I notice how some editors used snake oil as an example. I actually think that everyone here agrees that we should not use non-MEDRS sources to claim that snake oil is a cure-all. Misplaced Pages is pretty good at dealing with users who come here to peddle obviously bogus products. The problem, instead, comes when editors have genuinely conflicting opinions about a topic. Editors do not have the same consensus about, for example, GMO foods that we have about, for example, phrenology. I'm also starting to notice that a lot of the needless drama here arises because editors define topics differently. Epidemiology is a good example of that. I think that editors would actually all agree that the epidemiology of which human populations have an elevated risk of type-two diabetes is something that properly falls within MEDRS – and that the epidemiology of people whose employers do not provide them with adequate health insurance is not something for MEDRS. Right? Those things ought to be no-brainers. So when editors argue about whether or not epidemiology is subject to MEDRS, the answer ends up depending on how a given editor defines it, how narrowly or broadly that editor applies the term. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed +1 Minor4th 21:50, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail on the head as to why there is disagreement. The trick is finding language that satisfies both groups. AlbinoFerret 01:39, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yep. MEDRS does nott apply to, e.g., the epidemiology of the black plague in medieval Europe. It absolutely does apply to claims of efficacy of aromatherapy, even if someone defines that as a spiritual/religious practice. Despite some "don't you dare misrepresent me" fist-shaking, this section has come a long way toward identifying the way forward. And it's clearly does not include treating a figurative use ("the epidemiology of lack of insurance") as a MEDRS topic, which is not a medical claim of fact (though often is poor, misleading, and PoV-pushing violence; see, e.g., widespread condemnation both on and off WP of describing the rise in obesity and diabetes levels in affluent countries like the US and UAE as "epidemics"). The solution clearly does include, per WP:FRINGE and per WP:NPOV and WP:NOR generally, claims about negative health effects of GMO products and vaccines; the sheer popularity of those topics and the number of (mostly educated, middle-class) people who believe utter nonsense about them simply because it's been repeated enough times gives us a serious responsibility to not repeat it again (other than as a attributed quotations followed by a reliably sourced refutation).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  20:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I'm thinking about the question: Will people use this to make decisions about their health? I don't think it's broad enough. As pointed out above, we also want to capture policy makers making decisions about other people's health. And we probably also want to cover things that aren't at all decision-related, but are hard science. Nobody is really going to make a "health decision" related to physiology or the number of atoms in a given drug molecule, but we still want to get it right. Following MEDRS and/or SCIRS (whichever is more relevant to the immediate subject) for hard science increases the likelihood that we'll get it right. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much everyone! Yes, WhatamIdoing, how to figure out that question is the real task at hand, and it's surprisingly difficult. I've been thinking hard about it, and not getting very far. As you say, "decisions about their health" comes close, but does not quite suffice. I hope that many editors here will think about it and try to come up with new ideas. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed with WhatamIdoing. As for it being difficult to approach this in guideline language, how about just starting with the wording WaId used and adapting it with some other concerns raised. We could work on tweaking something like this: "The scope of this guideline includes information that some readers are likely to use to make health decisions, including claims of medical efficacy . It also includes scientific data about medical topics, including biochemistry . Socio-political claims about such data are subject to MEDRS when they are presented in Misplaced Pages's voice or presented as the consensus viewpoint in sources." The second sentence there would, for example, have thwarted that entire time-wasting and blood-pressure-increasing extended flamewar about whether electronic cigarette aerosol is (of course) a MEDRS topic. The third sentence would allow any article to exclude fringe nonsense as long as it's well sourced in MEDRS terms, and prevent the exclusion of real medical data from an article dominated by fringey quotations masquerading as fact.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ≼  20:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you give some examples of "socio-political claims about the data"? Would things like "most patients dislike hospital gowns" or "there is much more government funding for breast cancer research than for prostate cancer" be "socio-political claims"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

This is insanity!

• Comment Look folks, when I first responded to the RFC it was too big to assimilate in any reasonable time. Now I find myself called a second time and on my screen it now is fifteen pages of spaghetti! Never mind my poor decaying attention span; doesn't that suggest, sight unseen, that there is something very, very badly wrong with the whole discussion? Skimming the text in ricochet mode it seems to me that there are several sane voices being drowned out, but trying to sort out a topic for a vote in this mess just won't work! I propose closing the RFC forthwith, but keeping it up for reference or for masochism, while we start another RFC or topic, as preferred, in which we put up just alternative proposals for vote or acclaim. Each alternative to have an appended justification not more than say 300 words (200? pick a number, but whatever it is must fit easily onto one page...)
  

Any discussion NOT to be in the same section.
Example:

• Proposal 1 that every article adheres at a minimum to Misplaced Pages's citation rules, irrespective of the topic or context, subject to reasonable challenges as always; that in technical matters in particular disciplines, higher or more specialised standards of citation may be required in particular contexts -- for example, in an article concerning mosquitoes, a section on medical or epidemiological aspects of malaria might contain claims that need citations according to MEDRS standards, but it does not follow that every citation in such a section falls under MEDRS direction, let alone the whole article.
  
• Proposal 2 that every article adheres at a minimum to Misplaced Pages's MEDRS citation rules throughout in case there should....
  

etc. What we need here is a bit of sense, sense of what readers need, what editors need if they are to meet those needs, and what will make WP look like the kind of encyclopaedia that people can trust to contain what is needed and to exclude what cannot be trusted, without insulting readers' intelligence, whether they happen to be professionals or schoolchildren. JonRichfield (talk) 08:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree. A hundred pages of discussion ensures that only people who obsessively track this page are up to date with all nuances. This is no way to have a discussion. By the way "I told you so", that this discussion is going to be an enormous waste of time. Unfortunately I failed to take my own advice. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:45, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well. I especially like John R's refreshing common sense, in particular his final statement. petrarchan47คุก 09:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If all of this has been a waste of time, then it's only because editors didn't stick to clarifying what biomedical is supposed to cover; clarification is why I started the #Clarifying "biomedical" section above, after all. The above WP:RfCs are not what I had in mind. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

CFCF's WP:RfC placed under another WP:RfC (#Does MEDRS apply to Epidemiology?) is the WP:RfC that stays most on track, since it's essentially asking if epidemiology falls under "biomedical." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, not really. I mean, yes, one of the most important justifications for the sourcing standards set forth in MEDRS is to prevent the real-life harm that could result from providing inaccurate or misleading medical information. But the purpose of MEDRS is broader than that (I feel justified to speak here, as one of the people closely involved in this guideline's creation). The overarching purpose of MEDRS is to ensure that our coverage of medical and health-related issues is the best it can possibly be. The guideline is a summary of standards that ensure article quality and accuracy, derived from the collective experience of editors who have written tons of high-quality medical and health-related content. MastCell  17:59, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• This particular inmate at the asylum would like to make a suggestion. At #A different question, above, there is an idea about a different approach, and more eyes there could be helpful. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
• I don't know about you, but I'm hearing reasonable voices and even reasonable ideas from a couple of less-than-reasonable voices. Tryptofish's question in particular is producing some useful comments right now. Now if you'd just let me banish everyone from the page for a month or two, we could get back to work...  ;-)
  Also, I think I'm going to have to start drafting WP:MEDDUE. I'd hoped to put it off until I'd finally finished dealing with the long-overdue merger of INDY and 3PARTY, but perhaps it can't wait any longer. Most of our serious disputes are due to people using MEDRS as a substitute for DUE ("Don't exclude Archer because his POV is a very small minority; instead, exclude him because it 'fails' MEDDATE!"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good to me WhatamIdoing and jolly good luck to you! I assume that the outcome will include dealing with doubts about when a guideline applies to only part of an article. I get the impression that some voices urge that the presence of any passing remark on matters that could be of medical concern in an article, implies that the whole article is subject to MEDRS or related guidelines. There already have been remarks about epidemiology of bicycles, and I would point out that many biological articles such as mosquito or spider include sections of medical relevance, whereas the rest of the content of the article could only be degraded by such irrelevant constraints. In short, common sense should trump doctrinaire authoritarianism. May the force .... and all that! JonRichfield (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• MEDRS is used on health-related topics. User:Kelapstick disagrees. Why? QuackGuru (talk) 20:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
  • QuackGuru, I have no opinion on the matter. There was an edit war ongoing, I protected the page and changed the wording to what I consider the status quo prior to the edit warring, which happened to coincide with the status quo before the RfC. This is permitted by our protection policy. This matter is further elaborated on my talk page, and I don't wish to repeat myself. I was brought to the page per a request at RFPP, and I am not going to take part in this discussion any more. --kelapstick 20:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Per this post, which tracks with diffs that "biomedical" never included "and health" in the lede, shows the reasoning for the RFC. The change was edit warred in, and some of it still remains. kelapstick did not abuse anything, but returned part of the page to its pre RFC stable version. WP is not governed by might of numbers in a revert war, but by discussion and consensus. Waiting for the close of the RFC before changeing the proposed wording is a sound administrative decision. AlbinoFerret 21:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Involved close

CFCF is involved, and it is inappropriate for him to close this RFC and attempt to archive it, on a holiday of all days. I have requested an uninvolved admin close at WP:ANRFC AlbinoFerret 23:00, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree. It's really necessary to have an uninvolved close of any contentious RfC. I also see edit warring going on about the "and health" phrase -- that phrase must feel like a volleyball at this point. SageRad (talk) 09:03, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Inadequate close

Please be aware that this close favors a minority opinion (adding a tally soon), and relies on an incorrect assumption that "people of the scope: by noting the far broader scope of "health", including everything from seatbelt usage to public health policies". There is long-standing consensus that these are topics included under MEDRS under the definition of biomedical (as defined on the article biomedical and linked WP:biomedical, and information to these communities is adequate. If the information is termed inadequate the discussion should be opened for more input, not closed. CFCF 💌 📧 11:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

"Do not reject a high-quality study-type" ?

Do not reject a high-quality study-type because of personal objections to: inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.

I know this has been discussed recently, and I may be being dim, but what does rejecting a study-type look like? Is it saying something like "I deny this is a even a systematic review because it is funded by cigarette manufacturers?" How can a "study-type" have "inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions"? Those properties can only belong to instances of a type (i.e. an actual study), and not to a "type" itself. Alexbrn (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, "type" could be dropped. Johnbod (talk) 12:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

But then, is it actually right? In my experience the mentioned properties are often taken into account when evaluating sources. Alexbrn (talk) 12:53, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure the meaning is changed much. "Do not reject a study of a high-quality type because of ..." expresses what is presumably the intended meaning more grammatically. Johnbod (talk) 15:21, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

The "study-type" wording is new. It used to say "high-quality type of study". The word high-quality refers to the type of evidence (see: the entire rest of the section that this sentence is in), not to the overall reliability of an individual source. The main point to be made here is "No, you don't get to reject the meta analysis in favor of your cherry-picked randomized controlled trial, merely because you have a personal objection to some characteristic of the meta analysis". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Well we should go back, though "Do not reject a study of a high-quality type because of ..." is clearer, as it is an individual rejection that is being talked about. Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I see it as specifying that in this context, quality refers to its position on the hierarchy of evidence. "High-quality study" on its own could potentially refer to primary sources, and is also considerably more subjective. I don't think the objection being addressed is "I deny this is even a systematic review" as much as "This systematic review should be excluded/attributed because of my personal opinions about its inclusion criteria/references/etc," as opposed to objecting based on e.g. the weight of competing sources. This was discussed a few months ago in Archive 15 - it's the entire archive, but the second half is probably more relevant. Sunrise (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing recently proposed changing that wording to emphasize source quality over source type, since the way the language reads, we can't actually reject a meta-analysis that uses industry funded research that's been red-flagged as having possible conflict of interest. I thought that proposal might be a good idea, but still think there's issues with it, and yeah, we don't want to remove "type" because then we'll get primary studies. Now, the question is, if we have cigarette manufacturers funding studies that show cigarettes have no association with lung cancer and those get picked up in a meta-analysis, what do we do then? LesVegas (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

FTR: You have apparently not understood my proposal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

We describe the results of the meta-analysis, and we frame that within the suggestions of RS on the likelihood of bias. A good idea in general and it doesn't require us to rewrite any guidelines. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

And we consider if such a deranged proposal is WP:DUE. There is more than sufficient evidence of the contrary that it is impossible that such a meta-analysis could be of acceptable quality. CFCF 💌 📧 15:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC) 

Due weight would indeed be important. I think that LesVegas is trying to make the point that a really high-quality study type should almost always be mentioned, however grave the suspicions surrounding it. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Despite the oft-repeated assertions that MEDRS requires us to use industry-funded sources, we most certainly can and do reject meta-analyses for all kinds of reasons – just not (a) in favor of weaker evidence and (b) due to personal objections to funding sources. We cheerfully reject bad meta-analyses in favor of good ones every day of the week, and we also reject sources that have been discredited by academics ("impersonal" objections), or carefully limit them to their proper WP:DUE weight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

These decisions are indeed a matter of weight and consensus. I would still start with a feeling that a large meta-analysis is generally worth mentioning in some context, and that serious doubts about its validity should form part of that context. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I am inclined to agree with Richard Keatinge here that mentioning meta-analyses, systematic reviews and the like is usually a worthwhile endeavor and if there are noted issues with those based on funding, methods, or whatever, and we have criticisms which explicitly identify the junk sources, those criticisms should definitely be mentioned. If we have a meta-analysis which was funded by big tobacco, it's still notable even if it's garbage science. It's not for us as editors to question a published meta-analysis. It's for us as editors to just state what sources say, including critical sources. And there's plenty of criticism out there which are easily obtainable and can be easily included. Even the recently famous Coca-Cola study is worthy of inclusion here on WP, although probably 3-4 sentences of scientific rebuttals should follow. I wonder if we should include something in MEDRS saying just that, i.e., "however, if you include high quality study-types with questionable research due to funding sources, methods, etc, please ensure that criticisms also be included, should explicit criticisms of the source in question be available." Shouldn't we add something like that to make it more understandable? LesVegas (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

My point was that such an article will never be published in any respectable journal, and we can't act upon hypotheticals that are so unlikely that they will never come to pass. If such a study were ever published it is absolutely correct that editors question it, just not with personal objections. I don't find the current wording to be ideal, but those suggestions are simply superfluous, and don't address the issue at all – there will be a period in which there are no rebuttals for which that wording will actually cause a worse situation than what we have now. As has been mentioned before a WP:MEDDUE guideline is very much needed so that we can avoid this endless and mostly unproductive debate. CFCF 💌 📧 21:51, 8 December 2015 (UTC) 

CFCF that's simply not correct, there is an ample amount of research that has been published in very respectable journals and criticized thereafter. I have provided a lot of this very research in varying diffs during the RfC process. I may need to make a note of this in the current RfC, since it appears your opinion is based on not reading these diffs. So much research is industry-funded that researchers would have a hard time conducting meta-analyses if it was all government or independently funded. LesVegas (talk) 23:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

This is an entirely unrelated discussion about your example about cigarettes. You have multiple times raised extremely unlikely hypotheticals, but they are made no more likely just because you once provided some unrelated diffs. CFCF 💌 📧 20:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

A large meta-analysis might be worth mentioning in some context, but it might not be worth mentioning at all. To give a very relevant example, 167 meta-analyses about acupuncture have been published in the last five years, and even if merely a tenth of them are "large", then we cannot and should not mention all of them in Acupuncture. In that case, it's probably best to pick those that are most reputable and most representative of the overall literature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, agreed Richard, and I agree with WhatamIdoing there as well. Of course there's no way one could mention 167 meta-analyses in an article. I have, in the past, proposed something similar on the Acupuncture article, and am curious if we should add this into our guideline somewhere. Namely, what I proposed was that we mention claims for conditions that Cochrane says something about. So if Cochrane says, "Acupuncture is good for migraines" we can use meta-analyses for migraines. But when Cochrane says, "There's not enough evidence to suggest Acupuncture is efficacious for allergic rhinitis" we don't mention it, meta-analysis or not, or just mention a whole list of conditions which Cochrane says Acupuncture may or may not have benefit for. What seems to happen on that article is that editors will post every single meta-analysis that gets published, good and bad, and edit wars ensue on both sides. So not only is WhatamIdoing's suggestion practical, it also avoids edit wars on articles like that. And I really think something to this affect should be written into the MEDRS guideline. LesVegas (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

That is really more "MEDDUE" than "MEDRS", but it might be interesting to figure out how to address that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

You're really trying to interpret this in a way that furthers your point of view at every level LesVegas. Cochrane reviews are considered some of the most authoritative, and would be WP:DUE for exactly the example you say they aren't. CFCF 💌 📧 06:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC) 

WP:CGTW#8 keeps coming to mind. Alexbrn (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

CFCF, the Cochrane database has a lot of "no good evidence found" results in it. That doesn't mean that we need to go over to Cough syrup and say that there's no good evidence about whether cough syrup causes Alzheimer's. (Even though there isn't! I just ran a systematic review on the subject myself.  ;-) Unless a lot of sources are talking about whether cough syrup causes Alzheimer's, there's no need to mention the subject at all. By contrast, there are a lot of sources talking about acupuncture for allergic rhinitis (including approximately one review a year specifically on the subject of allergies and acupuncture, e.g., PMID 25269403), so in that instance, I would include it in the list of "sometimes used this way, but there's no good evidence either way" (or whatever the result of the studies is). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

SO if this text boils down to "don't remove strong sources for capricious reasons" can't we say in more plainly? Or even remove it altogether as it's kind of obvious. Alexbrn (talk) 06:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The text exists because we've had problems with this area. Also, nobody believes that their reasons for removing a strong source is capricious. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Then this should be dealt with by normal consensus-building. Sorry, but I really don't think that we need any change to MEDRS. If anything useful were likely to emerge from this mass of verbiage, I suspect we'd have seen it by now. Richard Keatinge (talk) 13:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Patiromer

Patiromer, a recently expanded article about a hyperleukemia drug, is currently a Did You Know? nomnee. It might be helpful if someone famiiliar with MEDRS could comment at the nomination page. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:02, 31 December 2015 (UTC)