North Atlanticist Usonian (talk | contribs) |
North Atlanticist Usonian (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
:::::::::::: Jake, but the point remains that if a study has been criticised, the lede should either directly mention the criticism, or the lede should even it out per [[WP:NPOV]]. I do not dispute this is a meta-analysis, however it would be unencyclopedic to ignore reviews which have given opposing viewpoints. [[User:Pass a Method|<font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method</font>]] [[User talk:PassaMethod|<font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk</font>]] 17:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC) |
:::::::::::: Jake, but the point remains that if a study has been criticised, the lede should either directly mention the criticism, or the lede should even it out per [[WP:NPOV]]. I do not dispute this is a meta-analysis, however it would be unencyclopedic to ignore reviews which have given opposing viewpoints. [[User:Pass a Method|<font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method</font>]] [[User talk:PassaMethod|<font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk</font>]] 17:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::::I've already addressed that point, PassaMethod. The existence of criticism does not ''by itself'' mean that we should mention the criticism or omit the criticised material. We must consider [[WP:UNDUE|due weight]]. If the criticism represents a major viewpoint held by a comparable number of scientists to those endorsing the criticised material, then yes, we must certainly take it into account. But when the criticism represents the view of a tiny, [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] minority, as is the case here (only 2 of the 60 reviews I [[User:Jakew/reviewsumm|found]] were negative towards circumcision as partial prevention against female-to-male HIV transmission), then to do either of the things you mention would give undue weight to the critics. [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] ([[User talk:Jakew|talk]]) 18:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC) |
:::::::::::::I've already addressed that point, PassaMethod. The existence of criticism does not ''by itself'' mean that we should mention the criticism or omit the criticised material. We must consider [[WP:UNDUE|due weight]]. If the criticism represents a major viewpoint held by a comparable number of scientists to those endorsing the criticised material, then yes, we must certainly take it into account. But when the criticism represents the view of a tiny, [[WP:FRINGE|fringe]] minority, as is the case here (only 2 of the 60 reviews I [[User:Jakew/reviewsumm|found]] were negative towards circumcision as partial prevention against female-to-male HIV transmission), then to do either of the things you mention would give undue weight to the critics. [[User:Jakew|Jakew]] ([[User talk:Jakew|talk]]) 18:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::::::: Jake your definition of "due" is pretty skewed up if you ask me. There are several reviews which |
:::::::::::::: Jake your definition of "due" is pretty skewed up if you ask me. There are several reviews which dispute your version of the article. As long as you repeat such a selective approach to sources then i think that we will not reach concurrence. [[User:Pass a Method|<font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method</font>]] [[User talk:PassaMethod|<font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk</font>]] 18:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
*'''comment''' Some high-quality sources have disputed the methodological strength of this African study. Therefore the word "strong" should definitely be out of the lede. [[User:Pass a Method|<font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method</font>]] [[User talk:PassaMethod|<font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk</font>]] 07:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC) |
*'''comment''' Some high-quality sources have disputed the methodological strength of this African study. Therefore the word "strong" should definitely be out of the lede. [[User:Pass a Method|<font color="grey" face="Tahoma">Pass a Method</font>]] [[User talk:PassaMethod|<font color="grey" face="papyrus">talk</font>]] 07:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 18:32, 26 May 2012
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 |
Sample PubMed |
This page has archives. Sections older than 4 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Editorial Judgment
Despite all the heming and the hawing to justify it, "according to policy," the sentence "Strong evidence from Africa indicates that circumcision reduces the risk of HIV infection in heterosexual men by 38-66%" can only be included in the introduction by an editorial judgment that consciously slants the introduction in favor of the surgery. Statements to the contrary about "just following sources" and "writing an encyclopidea" don't pass muster. The hiv/aids arguments are the current health scare arguments in favor of circumcvision; assertion of this argument as "strong evidence" by wikipedia itself displays a profound and troublilng contempt for scientific objectivity, as well as condescending scorn for the public reader. Anyway, the English-speaking public are voting against the hiv scaremongering by ignoring it. Wikipedia may panic a few parents into the surgery with its advocacy of the hiv prevention theory; most parents are smart enough to see the absurdity of wikipedias advocacy inthis article. Robert B19 (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Since you've rejected all of the actual arguments made to date in favour of your bad faith theory of deliberate bias, there seems little point in discussing the issue. Jakew (talk) 08:26, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Are you so certain that the aforementioned editor is the one acting in bad faith? I've found that whenever a wikipedia editor says something similar to "there seems little point in discussing the issue", it is like the Wizard of Oz saying, "The great and powerful Oz has spoken". This is usually the place which most needs to be discussed, and exposed to sunshine. Tftobin (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Please read what you're responding to, Tom. A "bad faith theory of deliberate bias" is a theory that the editors are acting in bad faith by deliberately introducing bias. The key point is that discussion depends upon assuming that other editors are acting in good faith and actually addressing their arguments. Jakew (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Are you so certain that the aforementioned editor is the one acting in bad faith? I've found that whenever a wikipedia editor says something similar to "there seems little point in discussing the issue", it is like the Wizard of Oz saying, "The great and powerful Oz has spoken". This is usually the place which most needs to be discussed, and exposed to sunshine. Tftobin (talk) 21:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- I was already thinking I'd like to see the word "strong" deleted from this sentence. I've just found this article: " (it says it's "open access" but I've only managed to view the abstract) which seems to contradict or partially contradict the sentence. Note in the abstract where it says "the difficulty in translating results from high risk adults in a research setting to the general public". I argue that that supports the idea of removing "strong" and just having the sentence begin with "evidence". I think that one article is enough to support my argument, but here's another one: maybe I can only view the title, but the title seems to say something: "Male circumcision and HIV prevention insufficient evidence and neglected external validity."[1] And here's one; I'm not sure whether I quite understand their conclusion. " the fact that almost 90% of RCTs of interventions for prevention of sexual transmission of HIV have delivered flat results demands careful analysis. " [2] ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith does not mean you have to keep believing in a user's good faith where you have reason to think otherwise. Anyone who's spent enough time watching the endless debates here can easily see there's a very clever pro-circumcision lobby editing here. Egg Centric 16:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Or, to paraphrase, "it's okay not to assume good faith if you don't want to". Jakew (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Do you really think the pro-circumcision lobby is that clever? Or just that blatant, because they know that there in no wikipedia equivalent of a reprimand? Watch. You did not get called out for being off topic, or criticising an editor. Neither did the next editor. Bet I do. That is how things work here, no matter whose attention is brought, or how blatant the rules are bent. Still think it's just a strong interest? Tftobin (talk) 11:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what you're getting at Jake. Of course one still has to show good faith about why someone is pro-circumcision, but at the same time biases shouldn't be ignored when they blatantly spill out into editing. I am certain that if a RfC or RfArb were held on this topic and it were looked at by enough editors then this article would be consdierably less pro circumcision. As an experiment, why don't we all come up with a list of mutually agreed users to avoid editing on this topic for two months, vandalism removal aside, and let's see what uninvolved editors have made of the article by then? Egg Centric 14:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you've misunderstood, Egg. If someone has made an edit or expressed a viewpoint about article content, then there are usually (at least) two explanations for that: a) that they genuinely believe that this would improve the article in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's pillars, or b) that they wish to push a POV. Assuming good faith means choosing explanation 'a' wherever it is a plausible explanation. Feeling fed up with disagreements or otherwise frustrated does not mean that the explanation is implausible. Whether someone is pro- or anti-circumcision is beside the point, as is why they might hold such a view. Jakew (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- My guess is that enough people have been called in for an RFC on this article, that there is total RFC fatigue. The time I called for an RFC, as near as I can see there was only one uninvolved editor who responded. Another wikipedia hole in the process, to be exploited, if someone were inclined to do so. Then a new editor comes in, reacts strongly to what they perceive as obvious imbalance, beats their head on the process for a while, and understandably disappears. I agree with the editor who posted above. Whether someone is pro- or anti-circumcision is beside the point, as is why they might hold such a view. Either no one is in a position to change anything here, about the nature of perceived imbalances, or if they are, that ability is being ignored. Tftobin (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- a) and b) are not necessarily exclusive. It is possible to believe that an author believes they are improving an article in line with Wikipedia's pillars and to believe that an author is pushing a POV. Egg Centric 15:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- As a general rule, I think you may be right, but in this specific context I don't think so. The accusation at the start of this thread was that certain editors were "consciously slant[ing] the introduction in favor of the surgery", which (at least as I read it) means intentionally skewing content away from NPOV, and hence is inconsistent with the assumption of good faith. I've no doubt that many editors believe that other editors' actions are contrary to NPOV, and indeed are consistent with a pattern of POV pushing; certainly I hold such a view regarding several editors (I'm not going to name anyone, so please don't ask). To claim that they do so consciously is an assertion of bad faith editing, and one shouldn't do that. Jakew (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I guess it depends what is meant by POV and consciously. It's possible for an editor to believe their POV is infact NPOV, and therefore believe their edits are entirely in good faith and aimed at fixing POV problems, while in the opinion of another editor those edits are causing POV problems. Egg Centric 16:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- As a general rule, I think you may be right, but in this specific context I don't think so. The accusation at the start of this thread was that certain editors were "consciously slant[ing] the introduction in favor of the surgery", which (at least as I read it) means intentionally skewing content away from NPOV, and hence is inconsistent with the assumption of good faith. I've no doubt that many editors believe that other editors' actions are contrary to NPOV, and indeed are consistent with a pattern of POV pushing; certainly I hold such a view regarding several editors (I'm not going to name anyone, so please don't ask). To claim that they do so consciously is an assertion of bad faith editing, and one shouldn't do that. Jakew (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you've misunderstood, Egg. If someone has made an edit or expressed a viewpoint about article content, then there are usually (at least) two explanations for that: a) that they genuinely believe that this would improve the article in a manner consistent with Wikipedia's pillars, or b) that they wish to push a POV. Assuming good faith means choosing explanation 'a' wherever it is a plausible explanation. Feeling fed up with disagreements or otherwise frustrated does not mean that the explanation is implausible. Whether someone is pro- or anti-circumcision is beside the point, as is why they might hold such a view. Jakew (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Or, to paraphrase, "it's okay not to assume good faith if you don't want to". Jakew (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming good faith does not mean you have to keep believing in a user's good faith where you have reason to think otherwise. Anyone who's spent enough time watching the endless debates here can easily see there's a very clever pro-circumcision lobby editing here. Egg Centric 16:38, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi Coppertwig. I took a look at the articles. It appears that this is a tricky subject because a number of editors, including yourself, seem to be conflating two different things the Cochrane support says. Cochrane says 1) "There is strong evidence that medical male circumcision reduces the acquisition of HIV by heterosexual men by between 38% and 66% over 24 months." and 2) "Inclusion of male circumcision into current HIV prevention measures guidelines is warranted, with further research required to assess the feasibility, desirability, and cost-effectiveness of implementing the procedure within local contexts." 1) is a statement about a medical finding, 2) is a statement about how the finding can be used to fight a disease, HIV. The Van Howe article you provided seems to address 2) rather than 1). Meaning, it questions how the medical finding is useful in a general discussion about a program to fight the spread of HIV. I did not at all come away reading the the Van Howe abstract with the idea that 1), the medical finding, was undermined. Certainly not from that short abstract. Please take care to separate these two ideas. The second abstract from Padian et al provided nothing that would warrant a wording change, and I'm not even 100% sure from the timing information I can gather on when each study was release that the Padian article could have been written in response to the Cochrane study. From these two journals, there's nothing that would provide a policy-based reason to change 'strong evidence.'
Zad68
17:52, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
- The problem may be that people don't understand the difference between an argument and a justification. Editors with limited literary experience (or education) outside of Wikipeida's insular environment may not appreicate the wisdom of Encyclpedia Britannicas impartial approach to the same HIV material, introducting it as follows, "Advocates of circumcision cite studies indicating that..." We wouldn't want the public to conclude that Wikipedia's controversial articles a brawl between streetcorner hustlers with an agenda. Robert B19 (talk) 17:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
- Since you readily admit that it's a pro-circumcision argument, it might be prudent to re-examine its potential for POV abuse in the lead. An HIV medicine for African tribes seems irrelevant to an English-spoeaking population. We've re-read your previous justifications for inclusion, all of them boil down to a narrow exercise of editorial judgement. Robert B19 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
- There's a hillbilly booth at the County Fair that reminds me of these discussions. They grease up a pig and people pay a dollar to catch the pig. Guess what... no sooner they catch it the pig squeals and slips away. Robert B19 (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Please do not revert other editors post/concerns on the talk page. Garycompugeek (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- Excuse me--"African tribes"? Surely you don't mean to suggest that clinical trials are conducted on shield-beating Zulu warriors? Or that the language a person speaks affects the mechanisms of HIV acquisition? Morrowulf (talk) 04:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- A scientific theorry has to be tested in more than a limited geographical poplation to acheive the credibility that would make it a plausible theory. I suggest you offer us some evidence of other experiemnts that confirm the African experiemtns in other parts of the world. Robert B19 (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Robert please review the long history of discussions regarding modifying this sentence. Consensus was never established for changing it, and the way you changed it made it misrepresent the source cited. Please seek consensus here before changing this contentious sentence. Thanks.
Zad68
20:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Robert please review the long history of discussions regarding modifying this sentence. Consensus was never established for changing it, and the way you changed it made it misrepresent the source cited. Please seek consensus here before changing this contentious sentence. Thanks.
- I assure you that I'm very familiar with all the previous discusions, have read them up the gazoo so to speak. Since you agree that the sentence is contentious, I shall assume that you have no objection to a POV tag on the article while we resolve the dispute, which in the opinion of numerous editors weights the article heavily in favor of circumcision. The problem with the previous discussion is that it never directly addressed the responsibility of editorial judgment in the article, and if the truth must be told, too often the previous arguments were like the pea in a shell game, constantly shifting to avoid responding to specific objections. When all else failed a linkj to a previous argument was deemed the proof of last resort, and we were even treated to a digression about the Kuipers Belt beyond the orbit of Pluto I propose that as men of honor, who have no intent to deceive us or the public, you restate your original editorial motivation to include the HIJV studies in the lead, and how and why you came to that conclusion. Robert B19 (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
A bit of relief
Might (or might not) interest anyone on this talk page, whatever their views on circ, that google sez: No results found for "sir cum szechuan". I am amazed that no one, so far as can be seen, has used that term on the web before... Egg Centric 20:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- In that same spirit of brotherhood, here's a clip from Belgium Publilc Television thatshows the future of this issue in Eurpoe. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2b6_1337792618 It probably belongs in the article links for the ppubic reders. Robert B19 (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
recent revert of modification of "strong evidence" sentence
Robert please review the long history of discussions regarding modifying this sentence. Consensus was never established for changing it, and the way you changed it made it misrepresent the source cited. Please seek consensus here before changing this contentious sentence. Thanks. Zad68
20:28, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- Since I started this ssection I'll repost your comment and answeer it in the Editorial Judgment discussion above. Robert B19 (talk) 23:10, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've changed "Strong evidence" to "One study" - Wikipedia should not be taking the study's conclusions as its own. --NeilN talk to me 01:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- That is inaccurate, it's not "one study from Africa", but a meta-analysis (a very high quality one - a Cochrane review). Yobol (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's still one analysis. Again, Wikipedia should not be taking the analysis' conclusions as its own. --NeilN talk to me 02:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- All published meta-analyses of RCT data essentially agree on the point, as do the overwhelming majority of reviews, so it should be asserted as fact in accordance with WP:NPOV. For the other published meta-analyses, see Mills et al, Byakika-Tusiime, and Weiss et al; for an overview of reviews see User:Jakew/reviewsumm. It is particularly misleading to characterise the evidence as "One analysis of studies". Jakew (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Question: Do all these analyses analyze the same set of studies? --NeilN talk to me 13:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- All of them include the three RCTs, yes. Every meta-analysis published since they became available has included them, for obvious reasons. Some (Byakika-Tusiime and Weiss et al) also include observational studies in some of the analyses they present; Weiss et al also compare analysis of RCT data with analysis of non-RCT data. Jakew (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- What I'm trying to ask is if the other published analyses included other scientific studies and if so, came up with the "38-66%" number. --NeilN talk to me 14:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Weiss et al, for example, report on a meta-analysis of observational studies: "Circumcised men were consistently found to be at lower risk of HIV infection, and a meta-analysis of the 15 studies that adjusted for potential confounders showed this reduction to be large and highly statistically significant [adjusted risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34–0.54] [14]." They later compare this to the RCTs: "to summarize the protective effects seen in the trials, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of results of these three trials, following the recommendations of the QUORUM statement for reporting trials as appropriate [19]. There was no evidence of heterogeneity between the trials (P 1⁄4 0.86), and the summary rate ratio was 0.42 (95% CI 0.31–0.57; Fig. 2), corresponding to a protective effect of 58% (95% CI 43–69%), identical to that found in the observational studies (58%, 95% CI 46–66%) [14]." Jakew (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to take that as a "yes, analyses looked at other studies besides the ones looked at by the analysis currently referenced in the article." If that's the case, then the wording should be modified and more cites added to support the wording. --NeilN talk to me 15:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that it would be appropriate, especially in the lead where space is limited, to discuss analyses of lower-quality studies. WP:MEDASSESS seems to support that: "In general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom. ... The best evidence comes primarily from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)." Jakew (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Jake, but the point remains that if a study has been criticised, the lede should either directly mention the criticism, or the lede should even it out per WP:NPOV. I do not dispute this is a meta-analysis, however it would be unencyclopedic to ignore reviews which have given opposing viewpoints. Pass a Method talk 17:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've already addressed that point, PassaMethod. The existence of criticism does not by itself mean that we should mention the criticism or omit the criticised material. We must consider due weight. If the criticism represents a major viewpoint held by a comparable number of scientists to those endorsing the criticised material, then yes, we must certainly take it into account. But when the criticism represents the view of a tiny, fringe minority, as is the case here (only 2 of the 60 reviews I found were negative towards circumcision as partial prevention against female-to-male HIV transmission), then to do either of the things you mention would give undue weight to the critics. Jakew (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Jake your definition of "due" is pretty skewed up if you ask me. There are several reviews which dispute your version of the article. As long as you repeat such a selective approach to sources then i think that we will not reach concurrence. Pass a Method talk 18:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've already addressed that point, PassaMethod. The existence of criticism does not by itself mean that we should mention the criticism or omit the criticised material. We must consider due weight. If the criticism represents a major viewpoint held by a comparable number of scientists to those endorsing the criticised material, then yes, we must certainly take it into account. But when the criticism represents the view of a tiny, fringe minority, as is the case here (only 2 of the 60 reviews I found were negative towards circumcision as partial prevention against female-to-male HIV transmission), then to do either of the things you mention would give undue weight to the critics. Jakew (talk) 18:05, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Jake, but the point remains that if a study has been criticised, the lede should either directly mention the criticism, or the lede should even it out per WP:NPOV. I do not dispute this is a meta-analysis, however it would be unencyclopedic to ignore reviews which have given opposing viewpoints. Pass a Method talk 17:53, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that it would be appropriate, especially in the lead where space is limited, to discuss analyses of lower-quality studies. WP:MEDASSESS seems to support that: "In general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, such as anecdotes or conventional wisdom. ... The best evidence comes primarily from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs)." Jakew (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm going to take that as a "yes, analyses looked at other studies besides the ones looked at by the analysis currently referenced in the article." If that's the case, then the wording should be modified and more cites added to support the wording. --NeilN talk to me 15:48, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Weiss et al, for example, report on a meta-analysis of observational studies: "Circumcised men were consistently found to be at lower risk of HIV infection, and a meta-analysis of the 15 studies that adjusted for potential confounders showed this reduction to be large and highly statistically significant [adjusted risk ratio (RR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.34–0.54] [14]." They later compare this to the RCTs: "to summarize the protective effects seen in the trials, we conducted a random-effects meta-analysis of results of these three trials, following the recommendations of the QUORUM statement for reporting trials as appropriate [19]. There was no evidence of heterogeneity between the trials (P 1⁄4 0.86), and the summary rate ratio was 0.42 (95% CI 0.31–0.57; Fig. 2), corresponding to a protective effect of 58% (95% CI 43–69%), identical to that found in the observational studies (58%, 95% CI 46–66%) [14]." Jakew (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- What I'm trying to ask is if the other published analyses included other scientific studies and if so, came up with the "38-66%" number. --NeilN talk to me 14:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- All of them include the three RCTs, yes. Every meta-analysis published since they became available has included them, for obvious reasons. Some (Byakika-Tusiime and Weiss et al) also include observational studies in some of the analyses they present; Weiss et al also compare analysis of RCT data with analysis of non-RCT data. Jakew (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Question: Do all these analyses analyze the same set of studies? --NeilN talk to me 13:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- All published meta-analyses of RCT data essentially agree on the point, as do the overwhelming majority of reviews, so it should be asserted as fact in accordance with WP:NPOV. For the other published meta-analyses, see Mills et al, Byakika-Tusiime, and Weiss et al; for an overview of reviews see User:Jakew/reviewsumm. It is particularly misleading to characterise the evidence as "One analysis of studies". Jakew (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- It's still one analysis. Again, Wikipedia should not be taking the analysis' conclusions as its own. --NeilN talk to me 02:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- That is inaccurate, it's not "one study from Africa", but a meta-analysis (a very high quality one - a Cochrane review). Yobol (talk) 02:11, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- comment Some high-quality sources have disputed the methodological strength of this African study. Therefore the word "strong" should definitely be out of the lede. Pass a Method talk 07:32, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Similarly, some "high-quality" (in the same limited sense) sources have disputed the strength of the evidence linking HIV and AIDS. By your argument, we should therefore say that "Some analyses say that HIV causes AIDS". To do so would give undue weight to a fringe source, just as it would do here. Jakew (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
inability to reach anything approaching consensus
Exactly what is supposed to be done? There is a two month argument, and a doctor (or near doctor) calls for dispute resolution. As it is about to expire, with no consensus in sight, I call for an RFC. One outside editor responds, with mention of "war in a teacup with WLawyers circling overhead." and "I know better than to read it again". Clearly, the wikipedia structure is not working so far. Exactly, what is the next step, when an RFC fails to resolve anything? The Arbitration Committee? Tftobin (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- TransporterMan gave a good overview of the options in the DRN thread; see here. Jakew (talk) 07:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Time to move on to step 4 then? I just can't see a compromise solution ever being reached. Maybe that's too pessimistic... Egg Centric 15:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not opposed to another RfC, but I think we need to try to learn from the previous RfC. Specifically, how can we attract input from more outside editors? I've seen a couple of unsuccessful RfCs recently; neither were neutrally phrased, and in one case it wasn't even clear what the RfC was asking about. It's easy to understand why volunteers would find these characteristics off-putting — I would. So I think we need to take care with the RfC question, to ensure that it's neutral, straightforward, easy to answer, and very, very clear. A little neutral publicity (of the acceptable kinds, such as neutral messages at WT:MED and other places) might help, too. But that's secondary to getting the question right, so I suggest that if we are going to RfC again, we collaborate on the question in advance. Jakew (talk) 18:17, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- Time to move on to step 4 then? I just can't see a compromise solution ever being reached. Maybe that's too pessimistic... Egg Centric 15:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)