Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

Does WP:MEDRS apply to medical information about individuals?

In a previous discussion on this talk page, some editors concluded that no, WP:MEDRS does not apply to diagnosis (see here); however, this was a brief discussion with few comments and no formal closure. The issue was also raised on the Julian Assange talk page, and different views on the relevance of WP:MEDRS were expressed (see here). In two RfCs on Trump's mental health (RfC 2019 and RfC 2021), the consensus was "Do not bring up for discussion again until an announced formal diagnosis or WP:MEDRS-level sources are provided" [1], implying that WP:MEDRS applies to medical diagnoses. I suspect that this issue has arisen elsewhere (e.g. regarding the athlete Imane Khelif here). The intersection between BLP and MEDRS has far-reaching implications for content (e.g., should we remove from Vladimir Putin the statement In April 2022, tabloid newspaper The Sun reported that based on video footage Putin may have Parkinson's disease?) that are hard to foresee. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 10:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Firstly, to state the obvious, even if WP:MEDRS didn't apply, both WP:RS and WP:BLP would. Which implies that we shouldn't be making statements regarding any diagnosis concerning a living individual without (a) very good sourcing, and (b) a legitimate reason to consider such diagnosis to be of real enduring significance to public life of the individual concerned. In such a context, I'm finding it hard to see how a non-medical source could be used for sourcing in very many circumstances, beyond possibly the subject themselves stating that they had been diagnosed with something. Wikipedia certainly shouldn't be republishing tabloid speculation without good cause, even if framed in text attributing it to said tabloid sources.

As for whether WP:MEDRS should apply, I'm doubtful that it could in practice. Very few medical diagnoses will involve peer-review etc, or be discussed in systemic reviews. Quite possibly what we need is an amendment (or rather clarification) to 'WP:BLP policy, making it clear that speculation about a living individuals' medical status does not belong in articles except in very exceptional circumstances, and that repeating poorly-sourced 'diagnoses' is an unacceptable breach of the requirement to respect the privacy of individuals etc, regardless of how it is attributed or framed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yup, and I think common sense applies. The yardstick is whether or not the statement implies anything about biomedicine. Saying Taylor Swift had a cold (say) does not; saying a celebrity was diagnosed with Morgellons would imply that was a real condition, so would. Bon courage (talk) 13:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. MEDRS does not apply to an individual's diagnosis, but BLP/RS does. In the Trump case you quote, there's an "or" as an announced formal diagnosis in a regular RS would be fine. We should generally strive for the best sourcing available, so MEDRS-level sourcing is to be encouraged generally. Bondegezou (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all the comments above, but I'd like to understand if there's anything specific to medical diagnoses (e.g. the high level of expertise required to make one) that makes their coverage different from other sensitive areas of a BLP such as, say, sexual orientation. If this is the case, then perhaps a few lines could be added to either WP:MEDRS or WP:BLP to make it clear. Otherwise, the usual WP:BLP + RS apply, including WP:BLPGOSSIP, and if multiple news organisations report, for instance, that according to The Sun Putin may have Parkinson's, we can do the same. If they report that a public figure may have some medical condition (something that does imply questionable biomedical statements: not Morgellons or any other alternative diagnoses/delusional disorders) we can include this. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:32, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

IF The Sun, a British tabloid that is deprecated by RSP at WP:THESUN, speculates that a public figure has a medical condition, and this gets repeated by other media companies, then we should probably not include that.

Spend a while thinking about what some celebrity articles (Britney Spears?) would look like if the standard was "One unreliable source said it, and a bunch of media companies decided that they wanted some of that traffic". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the example from Putin is a bit extreme - we should probably remove that content from the article. But what about articles like Claims of Vladimir Putin's incapacity and death and Age and health concerns about Donald Trump? These subjects are notable and the content is potentially contentious. It would be impossible to write these articles if MEDRS-compliant sources were required. This suggests that WP:MEDRS does not apply to diagnoses of individuals, but only to content that presupposes or explicates biomedical knowledge. It seems that the purpose of WP:MEDRS is not to protect the privacy of living persons, but to ensure that reporting on biomedical topics reflects scientific consensus. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Context: Gitz was banned from Imane Khelif article for WP:MEDRS and WP:BLP violations. See User_talk:Gitz6666#August_2024_2 Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

This "context" is irrelevant: the issue is of general interest and does not concern me or my partial block. I opened this thread because 331dot suggested that if I felt the policy needed clarification (which I do), this should be sought at WT:MEDRS rather than in the unblock request. But this discussion has no direct bearing on my block: even if everyone agreed that WP:MEDRS does not apply to individual diagnoses, my block would still remain in place. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:00, 28 August 2024 (UTC) .

Further Context Gitz had an unblock request denied at User_talk:Gitz6666#August_2024_2 as they did not provide a convincing reason why they should be unblocked from Imane Khelif. TarnishedPath^talk 11:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Do you just want to provide "further context" or do you also have an opinion on the topic of this thread? I remember you arguing that we need MEDRS-level sources to include a diagnosis in a BLP if it belongs to the GENSEX topic area (or something like that). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

On the Trump RFC outcomes: The community is allowed to set higher rules for an individual article, particularly when repeated discussions are wasting the community's time and wearing on its patience. "Come back when you've got a MEDRS source" is not very different from "One-year moratorium on this subject, because the answer is not changing" or "All future discussions will be subject to WP:EXTCONFIRMED rules, because we've wasted enough time on throw-away accounts". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I understand. Let me expand on what you've said. In a talk page discussion, when an editor says "we need WP:MEDRS sources for this statement", this might mean either: 1) "WP:MEDRS applies here". Based on our discussion, this is wrong if the statement is about an individual's diagnosis as opposed to general biomedical knowledge. To include content about a diagnosis in a BLP, we need sufficient coverage from generally reliable sources to ensure due weight, but MEDRS-level sources aren't strictly necessary; 2) Or, "Given the contentious and complex nature of this topic, we should require MEDRS-level sources - the usual NEWSORGs are not sufficient". This would be a suggestion, not a policy requirement; it may gain consensus on the talk page, but doesn't reflect the standard use of MEDRS. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:46, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think there's a danger of over-thinking this. For Wikipedia to say any living person has a serious medical condition there would need to be a proper diagnosis and (in reality) that private information would need to be made public in a decent, reputable WP:RS. Speculation about a condition, or armchair diagnosis – if ever due – would need to come from a MEDRS source of some sort. Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that if there is a consensus on this approach, then we should write it down somewhere in unambiguous terms, because I keep coming across BLPs that do not follow it. From the article about a recently deceased woman, Tamara Press: Both sisters were accused of being either secretly male or intersex; from the article about her sister Irina Press: Some have suggested that the Press sisters were male or intersex. Another allegation was that they were being injected with male hormones by the Soviet government in order to make them stronger. Sources are the Telegraph, thestraightdope.com, TransGriot, sports-reference.com. Nothing here remotely resembles a "proper diagnosis", which in the case of the Press sisters was never made. At best, we should write something like "The Press sisters retired in 1966, coinciding with the introduction of required gender verification in track & field. This led to widespread, yet never proven, rumors regarding the Presses' genders" (from the last cited source). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that there is a problem with this (other than the last sentence probably needing to say sex instead of genders). "She was accused of..." is not the same as "She had..." We don't need a medical journal to say that some athletes get accused of having the "wrong" type of body, or that the accusations, even if completely unfounded, can lead to real-world consequences for the accused athlete. In such cases, the article content should focus on the fact that the accusations historically happened, without implying that the accusations are medically true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree, that example does not seem to be about 'diagnosis' or 'serious medical conditions'. Bon courage (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Seems like the answer to the question in the title to this section (Does WP:MEDRS apply to medical information about individuals?) is already covered by Wikipedia:Biomedical_information#What_is_not_biomedical_information?. A relevant excerpt of examples of what is not covered by MEDRS:

Notable cases

If the patient is still alive or is recently deceased, the Wikipedia:Biographies of living people rules apply.

Popular culture

Examples of people with the disease in literature, video, or songs

I don't see a need to further clarify the issue. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I had noticed this page, which is indeed quite relevant to this discussion. However, it is only an explanatory essay (This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines). So, if I'm not mistaken, there's nothing to stop a local consensus being reached that diagnoses in a particular BLP (because it's particularly controversial, because the diagnosis is difficult, because news organisations don't seem reliable enough...) require MEDRS-level sources. But in general there seems to be no doubt that MEDRS does not apply to individual diagnoses: the medical conditions of a living person can be covered with the usual WP:RS and the usual policies and guidelines, including WP:WIKIVOICE and WP:INTEXT (if the diagnosis is controversial or just "rumours" or "accusations"). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing in MEDRS that says BLPs are "biomedical information", either.

If you run into problems that you can't resolve on your own (POV pushing comes in many guises), then I suggest asking for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You might also be interested in WP:Bring me a rock. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the backstory here but isn't the problem from the other direction – that is with editors wanting to say that Dave the Doctor has said Paul Politician obviously has dementia or that Alice the Athlete is a man, actually? Bon courage (talk) 16:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the point is whether WP:MEDRS prevents these editors from making this case, or whether it's just a normal dispute about WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT. Do they need Dave the Doctor to have published his theories in a reputable medical journal, or is it enough that Dave's views have been covered by many news organisations? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 17:12, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You mean articles like Age and health concerns about Donald Trump#Allegations of mental illness by medical professionals? I don't expect editors to restrict themselves to MEDRS' ideal in such articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

O God that exists eh? An "ideal" MEDRS source is never going to exist for such material but I do think a MEDRS source of some sort is needed for diagnosis of a medical condition in a BLP, a source sufficient to support the weight of the claim made. I suspect the real issue here is AP2/GENSEX and editors wanting to advocate positions, which is something this WikiProject cannot fix. I see we also have Age and health concerns about Joe Biden which delightfully has "No signs of cognitive decline or dementia were noted.". It seems to be attempting to source stuff to the Whitehouse's published presidential physical exam, which would be some sort of MEDRS, FWIW? Bon courage (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Of course it exists. These armchair diagnoses got so much attention in the press during the previous elections that I heard the APA put out a warning to its members about it being unethical to claim you've diagnosed someone who isn't your patient (and illegal to disclose your diagnoses if he is). It would be WP:UNDUE to exclude it, but impossible to source statements like "He's scientifically proven to have _____". Therefore the contents end up being some variation on "Alice claims he has _____", and editors fight over negotiate about which claims are necessary to include and how to phrase them.

A published presidential exam would be a primary source, which is not the MEDRS ideal. Based on the media kerfuffle around one of Trump's published reports allegedly having been written by his (political) staff, we should probably insist upon WP:INTEXT attribution for such sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

For sure. Bon courage (talk) 04:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

What has prompted this discussoin is editors, Gitz included, wanting to include material in an article that includes speculation about a medical diagnosis in the absense of reliable evidence. TarnishedPath^talk 00:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

You need a MEDRS-quality source to say, e.g., that human sexual differentiation exists on a spectrum rather than a binary, and therefore at some level we are all intersex. You do not need a MEDRS-quality source to say that Imane Khelif has been accused of having a medical condition that could render her ineligible for competing in women's sports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

But what about that she has all the signs of having that condition, so the diagnosis surely follows? Bon courage (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't followed this, but I saw a headline about 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, which doesn't necessarily come with visible signs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I am not clear what you mean, Bon courage, but doesn't WP:OR apply there? We shouldn't be drawing conclusions. If RS have drawn conclusions, we report what RS said, subject to normal BLP rules. Bondegezou (talk) 11:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

My assumption was it would be sourced. I have no interest in this particular case (and have not followed it) but, hypothetically, if Doctor Dave says something about biomedical about Athlete Alice (or Paul Politician, or Celebrity Caleb) along the lines of "I can see from observation X that they have condition Y" I don't think that's okay to relay that if it just comes from a lay source, as much for reasons of BLP/NPOV as for weakness of the sourcing. Bon courage (talk) 12:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, and in the content dispute that has brought about this discussion (Imane Khelif) we have some pundits, some of whom happen to have degrees in adjacent areas and one or two that are subject matter experts, either engaging in commentary (in sources) which are presumptive or speculative about the subjects medical conditions when it would be unethical for them to discuss a patient diagnosis when they are not the treating doctor or illegal if they are. Editors, such as the one who started this discussion, have tried to push the comments of those pundits as evidence that there is reasonable discussion about the subject's diagnosis and not a whole bunch of misinformation. TarnishedPath^talk 12:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't want to go into the specifics of the case as this is a general discussion, but some background information might be helpful. In 2023 Imane Khelif was disqualified by the International Boxing Federation (a Russian-led, much-criticised sport organisation) because (they claimed) she has XY chromosomes. She waived her appeal against that decision and never released a medical test showing that she has XX chromosomes. In 2024 the International Olympic Committee took the athletes' passports at face value and did not carry out gender testing. So some sports journalists and commentators took it for granted that Khelif has XY chromosomes. Some sources have reported either that she is intersex (Italian press) or that she may be intersex (BBC, New York Times - all major English-speaking NEWSORGs). Even if that were the case, it doesn't mean that she went through male puberty and had a competitive advantage at the Olympics: certain forms of DSDs don't provide any advantage. However, some (more or less WP:BIASED) "experts" ventured a speculative diagnosis of 5-ARD (which would give her a competitive advantage) based on observations such as visual evidence of high levels of testosterone and the like. On the Imane Khelif talk page, there was a broad consensus (myself included) that she should not be described as intersex, not even hypothetically or with attribution ("some have argued that ... she may be"). The point of contention in this RfC is whether to include in the lead that she's been the subject of public debate about her eligibility to compete with women (and also about the soundness of the IOC policy of "stick to the passport, no testing"). In the context of that discussion, I was partially blocked for making this comment. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:20, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Well there you have it. On such multiple-WP:CTOPs, sourcing and behaviour needs to be impeccable or sanctions will likely follow. Personally speculating on a Talk page about somebody's medical condition(s) is really irrelevant to this discussion and not anything WP:MED or MEDRS can influence. FAFO. Bon courage (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. This thread, however, is significant if the issue comes up again in talk page discussions, as it's likely to happen. In my view, there is a clear consensus that WP:MEDRS does not apply to individual diagnoses (as per WP:NOTBMI), unless they based on or express controversial biomedical theories. If I were not involved, I would venture to close it with this statement. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 13:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Well yeah, where that is a proper 'diagnosis' and not pundit speculation and/or in a weak source. Bon courage (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

a) A reliable sources don't say she waived her appeal. A reliable sources say she couldn't continue due to not having the funds.

b) The onus isn't on her to disprove the IBA which is unreliable and discredited.

c) Italian sources posting that she is intersex are obviously engaging in disinformation on the basis of nationalism.

d) any expert who isn't her doctor speculating about medical diagnosis is engaging in unethical behaviour. They can't claim high levels of testosterone when they are not her doctor and there are is no reliable evidence.

e) the point of the RFC is to insert language into the article which paints the picture that there has been legitimate concerns, when there has not. Legitimate concerns are based of reliable evidence/facts and there is an abundant lack of those. TarnishedPath^talk 01:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

A reliable sources don't say she waived her appeal. Times of Israel, "Khelif initially appealed but then withdrew her motion"; Forbes, "Khelif later withdrew her appeal"; BBC, "Khelif did take her case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (Cas), but then withdrew the appeal"; 3 Wire Sports, "Both athletes were afforded the chance to appeal the DQs to the Swiss-based Court of Appeal. Lin did not. Khelif did but then opted last July not to pursue the matter"; France 24: "Khelif did take her case to the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) but then withdrew the appeal". And so on...

As for your other comments: the athlete's body has always been a subject of public debate. Ideals of beauty and physique, performance enhancement and doping, gender and sexuality, body image and eating disorders... you name it. It's part and parcel of being a professional athlete, it's not a matter of The onus isn't on her to disprove ... any expert who isn't her doctor speculating about medical diagnosis is engaging in unethical behaviour ... Legitimate concerns are based of reliable evidence/facts. Your questionable reading of BLP+MEDRS+GENSEX denies and trivialises a significant public debate in sport, preventing its coverage based on RS. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:01, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

You were banned from the article for a reason. Why are you discussing it here? M.Bitton (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I am partially blocked, not topic banned. Anyway, you're right - there's no point in continuing to discuss Khelif here. The issue raised by my original post also seems to have been sufficiently clarified. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:33, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

From the Sydney Morning Herald "Three months later, CAS issued a termination order because Khelif could not fund the costs of the matter".

As per the rest of what you wrote, M.Bitton summed it up. TarnishedPath^talk 03:28, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bon courage, I think I disagree with you about hypothetically, if Doctor Dave says something about biomedical about Athlete Alice (or Paul Politician, or Celebrity Caleb) along the lines of "I can see from observation X that they have condition Y" I don't think that's okay to relay that if it just comes from a lay source. To illustrate why, I'm going to give you my own totally non-RS diagnosis about a BLP: Bryce Dallas Howard has a significantly elevated risk of skin cancer due to her genetics.

How can I, a lay person, make such a strong medical claim about a person I've never met, much less examined, and actually don't know anything about except that her name turns up in lists of actresses with naturally red hair and green eyes? It's very simple: Every single human with naturally red hair and green eyes has a significantly elevated risk of skin cancer.

We wouldn't want to put this in an article about her (unless, e.g., she announced that she had skin cancer, or got involved in skin cancer prevention advertisements), but that's because it'd be UNDUE, not because it's untrue. But this is such a lightweight claim that any barely passable source should be considered sufficient.

(Why did I pick that as an example? Because a few years back, the California legislature has decided that students should not be exposed to their own genetic information as part of a class, and a professor gave that as an example of an unintended consequence.)

I don't think that all medical claims need the same level of sourcing. Sometimes a person's appearance alone is sufficient; often it's not. And some conditions are more stigmatized, which, as you indicated, has BLP and DUE implications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, so would you agree if the prohibition applied only to "non-obvious" statements? Bon courage (talk) 07:50, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the decision needs to be multi-factorial. "Obviousness" is one factor (e.g., "He has a bad sunburn"). Part of the difficulty here is that what's obvious to "me" isn't obvious to everyone.

Self-disclosure should be another. People do sometimes lie about their health, and misdiagnoses happen, so a press release saying that Chris Celebrity can't eat gluten should never be taken as the final word, but generally you assume that a qualified healthcare professional was involved.

Did you ever work on the Terry Schiavo article? I remember a physician-turned-politician saying that he was convinced she was conscious on the basis of a very brief video clip. It turned out that the video clip was carefully chosen because if you saw those few seconds alone, she looked like she was watching a balloon move. (The autopsy report said she was totally blind as a result of brain damage.) So I think you also want some judgement call about credibility. Someone looking to score political points is less credible than someone who isn't. Someone with relevant expertise is more credible than ordinary people. Someone with more information is more credible than someone less information. Someone whose voice was elevated by a high-quality publisher/source is more credible than someone whose claim only got published because a junky source thought it'd drive traffic.

And then sometimes we have to throw this all away and say: So much has been written about speculations on Donald Trump's mental and physical health that the speculation should be covered one way or the other. The question there is not whether the speculation is true (e.g., "Is he really a narcissist?"), but whether the speculation is impactful (e.g., "Did the claim that he's supposedly a narcissist have any effect on whether people are likely to vote for him?"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there are people who have been 'cured' of cancer but where the diagnosis was questionable in the first place. I don't know about Terry Schiavo. I agree sources should always be credible. Bon courage (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what others are saying. I'm not sure that whoever said a MEDRS is required for saying an individual has a medical condition has really thought it through. We have other guidelines that deal with speculative, negative information about individuals. We likely have countless biographical articles that note people got cancer or had epilepsy or died of a stroke that are sourced to newspapers, and those aren't MEDRS. Contentious extraordinary claims require high quality sources. Wrt historical figures, even medical journals can be prone to armchair diagnoses of dubious quality. -- Colin°^Talk 18:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

We have a lot of articles that cite newspapers or obits to say "Alice died at the age of 67 from cancer", which are entirely acceptable and not MEDRS' ideal. See Angelina Jolie#Cancer prevention treatment for an WP:FA that discusses one individual's personal medical information without citing a single medical journal, reference book, or anything similar. Instead, it relies almost entirely on news stories (or worse). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't think anybody's arguing (are they?) that MEDRS is needed to relay the knowledge that somebody has a medical condition. What's at stake is the sourcing required to make the determination that somebody has (or might have) such a condition. Right so; to repeat: For Wikipedia to say any living person has a serious medical condition there would need to be a proper diagnosis and (in reality) that private information would need to be made public in a decent, reputable WP:RS. Speculation about a condition, or armchair diagnosis – if ever due – would need to come from a MEDRS source of some sort. I don't think any change of WP:PAG is necessary. Bon courage (talk) 01:31, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

If I've understood the distinction you're drawing, then we need:

• Pretty much any reliable source to say that Chris Celebrity has been diagnosed (e.g., by their own doctor) with scaryitis. See, e.g., Charles III#Health.
• MEDRS-level article to say that, according to people who have never examined them, Chris Celebrity appears to have scaryitis. See, e.g., Retrospective diagnosis#Examples.
• And (perhaps? are we agreed?) multiple decent sources (e.g., news and magazines) to say that Chris Celebrity has been the subject of speculation about health conditions, but these should not say that the speculations are either true or definitely false. See, e.g., basically all of Age and health concerns about Donald Trump.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:22, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah something like that. In the second case obviously a strong MEDRS isn't needed to say (e.g.) somebody 'sounded hoarse' while singing; but to say their gait was characteristic of a neurological condition would need something with some MEDRS chops. Bon courage (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

For that second category, I'd expect "some MEDRS chops" to be generally on the lower side (perhaps a peer-reviewed primary source), and I think we need to use sensible judgment, so that things that are more common and obvious don't require much, but wild speculation requires stronger sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:41, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I think Chris's surname is unhelpful. None of the people at Retrospective diagnosis#Examples are "celebrities" and I would hope medical journals would have better things to do than speculate on the Kardashians or the latest Love Island contestants. The Marfan's syndrome source is sadly typical of superficially "MEDRS" sources, where a famous name is dropped in the introduction to a more serious article that isn't about them at all. Presumably journal editors/reviewers permit this kind of speculation as "harmless" and don't stop to think "but some Wikipedian might cite this".

I'm not sure there is good evidence that for historical figures, supposedly MEDRS sources are any better than a serious history book. Possibly a serious historian has dug up detailed descriptions of their illness and described them to a medical expert like any scholar might about any fact outside of their expertise. So some Oxford University Press history book could well diagnose an illness or cause of death and I actually think historians would be more professionally motivated to get their history right vs some random consultant neurologist attempting an entertaining introduction to their latest review. -- Colin°^Talk 14:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Health of Abraham Lincoln lists several possible diagnoses. We would presumably accept a med school textbook saying that he might have had Marfan's (or, perhaps more likely, depression), and perhaps a similarly serious work of history would also be appropriate. I think it's worth thinking over, but right now, I'm having trouble explaining why a scholarly history book feels okay, but the "peer-reviewed literary analysis" mentioned at Talk:Cass Review concerns me. Perhaps the latter is closer to the concept of using a primary source to debunk a secondary one. I'm still thinking about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Maybe the thing to think about is what would the peer reviewers (and editors and publishers) be concerning themselves with? A neurological paper, outlining the state of understanding of a condition and its treatment, is concerned with whether that is an accurate and comprehensive medical review, not whether the introduction correctly identifies some long dead historical figure. Whereas presumably a university press history book is concerned with getting history right.

A literary analysis would seem to be utterly unconcerned with truth, facts, or indeed the real world, but seeks to view a piece of writing under various conceptual frameworks and thought processes. It seems that two literary analysis papers could produce entirely contradictory conclusions about a work, and that would be just fine as long as the analysis is self consistent. It seems to me that using it to say something about the real world is as much a conceptual error as using an academic theology paper about some Hindu script's story about a god, is evidence that this god does or does not exist. -- Colin°^Talk 18:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

In policy terms, I think we'd call that "appropriate", as in Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. A gold-plated scientific source is not appropriate for information about movie ticket sales, and a source that's appropriate for box office success is not appropriate for scientific claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That's probably too vague a word to be useful. I think the problem we had with that literary analysis was that even non-literary-analysis claims (like factual claims, some of which were inaccurate) were held to be true because it was published in a scientific journal and had been peer reviewed. Elsewhere we have seen what I would regard as opinion pieces but not always labelled as such, because they are more some kind of intellectual academic thought piece. Again, there's a misconception that the author's thoughts are thus held to be factual rather than "Hmm, that's an interesting and coherent argument you made". Understanding these different kinds of academic works, and their limitations, is outside of my education. I don't know who might know better. But I think it might be useful if wiki had some kind of guideline on the different sorts of academic works, and what peer review means for each of them, to help people know what is "appropriate". -- Colin°^Talk 07:22, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

That's a good idea. S Marshall, Drmies, and LeadSongDog have all worked on Wikipedia:Scholarly journal in the past. Maybe a section on types of articles and what to expect from them would be an appropriate expansion of that page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping to this interesting discussion. I've recently come to analogous thoughts in a very different topic, which was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muslim grooming gangs in the United Kingdom, where the usually-reliable newspaper of record The Times published what I would describe as right-wing confabulation about who perpetrates sexual abuse. Hmm.—S Marshall T/C 12:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Another area where this sort of question comes up is around Lucy Letby, the nurse who was twice found guilty of murder/attempted murder. There has been considerable media discussion about the safety of those convictions, often revolving around expert issues of medicine and statistics. How do we ensure good sourcing? There's an ongoing discussion at Talk:Lucy_Letby#Determination_of_WP:UNDUE_should_be_per_RS and input would be welcome. I feel parts of the article spend too much time on discussing individual commentaries by experts that are getting close to WP:PRIMARY, for example. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Well I'm not going there, but I'd have thought Wikipedia should stick to a summary: i.e. that's she's been convicted but doubts have been raised about the safety of that conviction, without going into the weeds about breathing tubes, statistical analysis and so on. Bon courage (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd agree with that. That is certainly not the current approach being taken! It is 100% in the weeds, lots of "this expert said this", a huge Lucy_Letby#Doubts_about_the_convictions section. 7667 word article with 28% on the Doubts section. Bondegezou (talk) 13:20, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm supposing that is one of those articles where WP:NOTNEWS goes out the window while the media is pumping out volumes of stuff. Bon courage (talk) 13:30, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

NOTNEWS is opposed to Wikipedia creating original news reports. It's got nothing against citing the news or keeping articles up to date. I think this is more of a WP:VNOT situation: Just because you can find a source that quotes someone who says ____ is/isn't evidence of guilt/innocence doesn't mean that an encyclopedia article needs to include it. We need more bottom-line summaries ("She was convicted, though some experts have doubts") and less blow-by-blow detail ("Well, Dr. Expert says that discoloration alone isn't proof of air embolism, but Dr. Authority said that discoloration wasn't considered alone"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm thinking of WP:NOTNEW's "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia", but sure this overlaps with a long of other NOTs. Bon courage (talk) 07:36, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

If either of you, or anyone else, would like to input those, or other, thoughts at Talk:Lucy_Letby#Determination_of_WP:UNDUE_should_be_per_RS, that would be appreciated. Bondegezou (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Per Bon courage, yes it has got something against citing the news or keeping the articles up to date. It has multiple statements to the effect of "Wikipedia doesn't want everything you read about in the news" in it. But as Bon courage notes, editor enthusiasm is hard to contain while it is an ongoing story. And for an encyclopaedic POV, it is awful because the deluge of stories is based around editorial policy/position rather than what the current best sources say. We are at the mercy of whether some newspaper editor wants to run with the Evil Nurse angle or the Miscarriage of Justice / Cover Up angle. Which angle sells more papers or suits our political agenda? -- 14:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC) Colin°^Talk 14:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on the relative reliability of medical sources in regard to Pornography Addiction

There is a discussion on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard about "Pornography Consumption and Cognitive-Affective Distress" doi:10.1097/nmd.0000000000001669 that could use editors with knowledge of medical sources. See WP:RSN#Pornography addiction -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 14:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Teahouse discussion about students creating articles on medical topics

Alert: could some folks here please monitor and/or contribute at the discussion going on at WP:Teahouse#Medical article creation for students - Topic selection and audience level ?

First sentence there:

Hello, I'm an instructor guiding students in creating Wikipedia articles on medical topics. We use the list of requested articles for medicine as a starting point. I am now planning the semester 2 syllabus and would like to establish best practice around 2 areas: ...

Cross-posted at WP:Education noticeboard.

Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 15:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

A small 'licence' query...

...regarding NICE CKS sourcing in this edit (self-reverted as a scruple), which I feel helps provide key introductory information to [[Osteoporosis#Epidemiology]] succinctly and really quite conveniently. CKS was briefly discussed here back in 2014 (I was actually the OP then), and I believe the consensus then that it was permissable to use CKS, even though it is not accessible outside the UK. Now, CKS comes with a scary licence agreement, which states [my italics]:

2.1 You agree that you are only allowed to Use the Topics if you:

(i) Are an individual; in which case: You are allowed to Use for personal and/or your own educational purposes only and not on behalf of or for the benefit of any company, organisation, or business.
...
2.2 If you are not an individual or a clinician (as defined above), you must contact Us for a commercial licence. If you do not, you understand that by Using the Topics you or your organisation will be infringing Our intellectual property rights.
2.3 For the avoidance of doubt, the following, without limitation, are not permitted to Use the Topics (but may do so by contacting Agilio and entering into a commercial licence):
...

(iii) companies, businesses, and any other private enterprises that are not part of the National Health Service.

I'm not sure whether Wikipedia is affected by this. Hence the query. 86.174.206.40 (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I doubt that it's a problem. See 3.1(v): "You cannot Use the Topics to create other material, such as books, articles, or guidance. This does not prevent you from referring to appropriately referenced extracts of Topics." Citing it as a source behind text that you have written in your own words presumably counts as "appropriate referencing". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that WAID. It would seem crazy to provide reliable medical information that can't even be cited, but hey what do I know? I'll restore the edit given that this is a really useful medrs, imo (I've sometimes found it tricky to find a good medrs that summarizes key basic info in a readily citable form). 86.174.206.40 (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2024 (UTC)