SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) →Wording: re |
SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) add |
||
Line 37: | Line 37: | ||
: c) The last example, to me at least, is one that absolutely should be attributed at [[aspirin]], even though now it is not. In children with Kawasaki disease, saying they can take aspirin when others can't raises the possibility of those children being harmed by aspirin. That is the kind of statement that should not be in WikiVoice, IMO. |
: c) The last example, to me at least, is one that absolutely should be attributed at [[aspirin]], even though now it is not. In children with Kawasaki disease, saying they can take aspirin when others can't raises the possibility of those children being harmed by aspirin. That is the kind of statement that should not be in WikiVoice, IMO. |
||
Perhaps others can come up with more illustrative examples of what kind of text needs attribution, and what doesn't. Seppi, I removed your "normative" edits, because that is precisely where the disgreement is. You have a different view of opinion v scientific fact as some others. |
Perhaps others can come up with more illustrative examples of what kind of text needs attribution, and what doesn't. Seppi, I removed your "normative" edits, because that is precisely where the disgreement is. You have a different view of opinion v scientific fact as some others. {{pb}} The problem here is that Seppi will oppose this article at [[WP:FAC]] if I don't attribute these bland statements, and from my point of view, this amounts to one person imposing personal preferences. [[User:SandyGeorgia|'''Sandy'''<span style="color: green;">Georgia</span>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:11, 28 April 2018
Wording
@SandyGeorgia: The RFC seems fine as is. I don't think there's any disagreement on the three issues specified below (i.e., I assume that both of us and the average person would answer "no" to all of them). If you want to keep those in, I suppose that'd be fine, but I don't think they're necessary to include.
- Is uncontroversial medical content, sourced to multiple MEDRS sources, likely to be challenged (WP:V)?
- With well-sourced uncontroversial medical text, is there a difference between "are advised" and "should"?
- Is there a difference (relative to medical advice) in saying "should not take X drug" and "X drug is contraindicated"?
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, the intro could probably use some minor revision. I'll tweak it now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Done. My suggestion to delete the full attribution column still stands, but if you want to go ahead and include it as another method for contrast, I'm fine with that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- After going back over this, I think the issue needs further clarification. The real issue at hand involves prescriptive statements in particular and normative statements in general.
- Prescriptive statements inform the reader what ought to be done by conveying permission or obligation to perform an action. Some examples of prescriptive statements are listed below (note that the verb "do" in the first two examples could be substituted for any other action verb; regardless of the action verb used, these would still be prescriptive statements because the modal verbs "should" and "must" convey an obligation to perform the associated action).
- "An individual should do X"
- "Practicioners must do Y"
- "Z should be considered when B occurs"
- "A patient's medical history must be taken into account when list of circumstances."
- Normative statements convey a value judgment about something and/or specify the way things ought to be (e.g., the right/correct course of action); in other words, they evaluate things, such as actions and outcomes, against a norm. Note that all prescriptive statements are normative statements, but not all normative statements are prescriptive statements. E.g., "
genocide is an evil action
" – the example statement from WP:WikiVoice – is a normative statement because it evaluates the morality of an action; however, it is not a prescriptive statement because it does not suggest/evaluate a course of action. The statement "genocide is evil; it should never be committed
" contains a non-prescriptive clause – "genocide is evil
" – and a prescriptive clause – "it should never be committed
– both of which are normative statements.
- Prescriptive statements inform the reader what ought to be done by conveying permission or obligation to perform an action. Some examples of prescriptive statements are listed below (note that the verb "do" in the first two examples could be substituted for any other action verb; regardless of the action verb used, these would still be prescriptive statements because the modal verbs "should" and "must" convey an obligation to perform the associated action).
- Now, keeping what I've said in mind, lets focus on the following two questions from the draft RFC (NB: I've modified these statements to more accurately reflect the issue). I don't think the other 3 questions are relevant to the type of article statements that are in dispute (i.e., I'm pretty sure you and I would both answer them with "no"); you can keep or remove those depending upon whether you're interested in what other Wikipedians think though.
- Should an uncontroversial and well-sourced normative medical statement be treated (for purposes of ASSERT and WikiVoice) as fact or opinion?
- Original version:
Should uncontroversial and well-sourced medical text be treated (for purposes of ASSERT and WikiVoice) as fact or opinion?
- rephrased for specificity; the issues involving this policy pertain only to normative statements.
- Original version:
- Do statements that specify what action ought to be taken in specific circumstances instruct the reader on how to do something (WP:NOTHOWTO)?
- Original version:
Is asserting well-sourced and uncontroversial medical text instructing the reader on how to do something (NOTHOWTO)?
- rephrased for specificity; the issue involving this policy pertains only to prescriptive statements. I don't think the sourcing and "controversial-ness" of a statement are relevant to this policy, so I cut that part of the question.
- Original version:
- Should an uncontroversial and well-sourced normative medical statement be treated (for purposes of ASSERT and WikiVoice) as fact or opinion?
- I think the first question is precise in the sense that it directly addresses the more general issue surrounding normative statements that are well-sourced and uncontroversial, but I don't think that the average Wikipedian understands what a "normative statement" is. As for the second question, I think the current phrasing accurately rephrases, in more understandable language, the question: "Do prescriptive statements violate WP:NOTHOWTO?". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- After going back over this, I think the issue needs further clarification. The real issue at hand involves prescriptive statements in particular and normative statements in general.
- I have some "meh" around this. There is a certain way things are written sometimes, where things come off as prescriptive and i hear the concern in that. But at the same time, our mission is to transmit accepted knowledge and in some cases there are things that one should do and should not do, that are indeed accepted knowledge. Like, oh, women who are pregnant or who might get pregnant should not take thalidomide. This has gone over the top a bit. Maybe a lot, and I will be opposing, the way this is written.... Jytdog (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's a problem that the RfC is scoped very widely (to all "medical text") but what seems to be the actual concern is statements about treatment in conventional settings which imply some kind of recommendation. I can sort of see the point of the RfC in this narrower context, but implemented as written I think the current proposal would be generally very damaging - especially in the WP:FRINGE topics which I predominantly edit. Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexbrn: could you spell this out better for me as an example? Foggy brain; I'm not following very well today. (Again, found we have no article, but 1 in 6 who get the new shingles vaccine get VERY sick, and that I am ... would have been nice for the doctor to tell me that, since I must miss a nice event tonight :) Let me know what I can do here to get to the point (do I really have to attribute, "you may need separate bedrooms" if you have REM sleep behavior disorder, and that sort of insistence is really garbling the prose at dementia with Lewy bodies, while on the other hand, Seppi does not attribute a pharmaceutical statement at amphetamine, while insisting that dengue fever do so. Unclear what Seppi's criterion are. If this RFC could cause harm in the fringe area, it might be better just to open an RFC at Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies, to see if I really need to jump through these hoops to attribute bland statements ... that may be a better option, but then, the lead of dengue fever did not need the change that Seppi introduced, IMO. So, first thing to decide here is whether we need a broader RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, I think a third relevant question to pose in this RFC is:
- Should statements that specify what action ought to be taken in specific circumstances be treated (for purposes of ASSERT and WikiVoice) as fact or opinion?
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:54, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
We should be in no hurry to launch this, and make sure it is framed in a way that will result in an answer to the opposition that has come up at dementia with Lewy bodies. To that end, I have tried to generate enough examples to illustrate different classes of concerns.
- a) The first three are examples that are unlikely to cause harm (get a driving assessment, may need separate bedrooms, and put away the guns). Jumping though hoops to attribute these bland, inoffensive statements (for Seppi) is garbling the prose.
- b) The next two are statements about medication, with real potential for harm (no NSAIDs for dengue fever and no amphetamine for people with allergic reaction or taking MAOIs). They each have three sources, no one disagrees, and attributing them would garble the text. It is curious that you don't attribute your own statement about amphetamine, Seppi333, but want the dengue text attributed, and the dementia articles to attribute far more bland statements. I also believe the change you introduced at dengue fever is not appropriate for the lead-- it goes in to unnecessary detail.
- c) The last example, to me at least, is one that absolutely should be attributed at aspirin, even though now it is not. In children with Kawasaki disease, saying they can take aspirin when others can't raises the possibility of those children being harmed by aspirin. That is the kind of statement that should not be in WikiVoice, IMO.
Perhaps others can come up with more illustrative examples of what kind of text needs attribution, and what doesn't. Seppi, I removed your "normative" edits, because that is precisely where the disgreement is. You have a different view of opinion v scientific fact as some others.
The problem here is that Seppi will oppose this article at WP:FAC if I don't attribute these bland statements, and from my point of view, this amounts to one person imposing personal preferences. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:11, 28 April 2018 (UTC)