User talk:JAustria

WP:MEDRS
JAustria, I reverted this because we need to stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for biomedical material. For example, we should typically avoid primary sources. See WP:Primary sources and WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

Please read and study WP:MEDRS. It is clear about the type of sourcing you should be using, and this begins with its introduction: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content – as such sources often include unreliable or preliminary information, for example early in vitro results which don't hold in later clinical trials." You should be looking for secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, tertiary sources. You can look on Google Books if that will help. It often helps me. If you haven't looked on PubMed, look on there as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Regarding this, I'm replying here. I prefer to keep discussion centralized (a route mentioned by WP:TALKCENT). I ask that you reply here as well instead of at my talk page.

See WP:Biomedical information. The "Since IPV is often underreported" part of your addition focuses on demographics. The source for that piece is fine since it's the World Health Organization (WHO). As for the rest, it is an extension of the demographics aspect. Regardless of how we characterize the latter piece, we should not be using a primary source/single study for that material. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP in addition to WP:MEDRS (a guideline, not a policy). And your text should not be worded to state what research needs to do or should do. Well, if the sources states "needs to," we might state that. You've spoken of the current sources in the article, but a good portion of those sources are WP:MEDRS-compliant because they are academic book sources, WHO sources, and literature reviews. An article having some primary sources and content based on them does not mean that it is okay to add more primary sources and content based on them. It simply means that those sources should be traded out for better sources if the material is worth preserving per WP:Preserve. Also, per WP:MEDRS, primary sources may be used for medical material. It's not that we never use them, but we do typically try to avoid them. In the case of what you added, I don't see why we should include that single study material instead of waiting for more research on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You keep talking about WP:MEDRS, but that is for medical material, and does not apply here. You also mention WP:SCHOLARSHIP. There, it is only said that secondary sources are better whenever possible. It adds that "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses". Actually, research papers in peer-reviewed journals are much more reliable than books (which often have no peer review). My comment about other primary sources in the article intended to show that this kind of article absolutely needs this kind of sources, or it would be impossible to give enough information about the topic. OK with regard to the comment on the wording (what research needs to do or should do), that was a way of introducing the issue, but I can re-word it. Regarding the general content, I don't see why we should wait "for more research on the matter". Actually, more research wouldn't be enough, according to your view. We would need a review paper, or a book, talking about that. That will not happen in some years, and probably never. But this is a piece of information that can be useful for some readers. The source is in one of the most reputable journals on the topic, and the reader can value that. Furthermore, the content I added does not express the issue as a settled fact. I just said: "has shown evidence of its potential to...". --JAustria (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * In what way is material about indirect measures that can identify possible (present or future) IPV victims or perpetrators and a study that has tested a short questionnaire of "Relationship Power Imbalance" which assesses to what extent a person feels afraid, inhibited or trapped in their relationship not medical material? How are you defining "medical material"? Now that I've pointed you to WP:Biomedical information, are you basing your "not medical material" argument on that? Either way, as seen above, I talked about more than WP:MEDRS. WP:SCHOLARSHIP clearly begins by stating, "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible." This does not mean "Well, if you don't have a secondary or tertiary source for your content, then go ahead and add the material supported by one or more primary sources." As for your comment that "Actually, research papers in peer-reviewed journals are much more reliable than books (which often have no peer review)", any academic source supporting that statement? A source being peer reviewed doesn't mean it's a good source to use. It's certainly not the same thing as a literature review. You stated "that will not happen in some years, and probably never." If the content you added will never be supported by a secondary or tertiary source, then we shouldn't add it. Waiting for material like this to be noted in secondary or tertiary sources is how we help keep medical articles in decent, good, or great shape. There can be a lot of primary studies on a topic, but this doesn't mean that we should include all of those studies in our articles. In fact, we obviously don't. If a study hasn't been replicated or mentioned in secondary or tertiary sources, then we ask ourselves why we should even include the material. Studies also conflict all of the time, which is why we generally stick to material that has significant support in the literature or has been widely reported on. And this approach doesn't only apply to medical articles.


 * Pinging Doc James for his thoughts on that piece I reverted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The WHO source looks good. The other source is primary and we should be using secondary sources. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I will send your question back to you, Flyer22 Reborn. In what way is that material medical material?


 * As I said, WP:SCHOLARSHIP sates what you mention (secondary sources are preferred), buy also says that primary sources are admitted if they come from reputable peer-reviewed sources. And that's our case.


 * Please, Doc James, see that we are not talking about medical material. It's Social Science (Sociology and Psychology). If we cannot use primary sources in Social Sciences (if we need to wait until secondary sources are available), then we should drop a large percent of Wikipedia's contents on academic issues. --JAustria (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Given that I quoted what you added, I fail to see why you are asking me that question. Not all medical material needs to strictly adhere to WP:MEDRS. And, in some cases, "medical" might be differentiated from "biomedical." But I've been very clear about why we should not use the study piece you added. I have nothing else to state to you on that matter, as I'd only be repeating myself. But I will go ahead and state that psychology is intertwined with "medical," which is why we adhere to WP:MEDRS for psychological disorders...and is why the American Psychological Association is a medical source (with regard to mental health and mental processes). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * This "A study has tested a short questionnaire of Relationship Power Imbalance, which assesses to what extent a person feels afraid, inhibited or trapped in their relationship. This instrument has shown evidence of its potential to work as a proxy of IPV."
 * Is way to tentative to be included. Would wait for a secondary source on the topic personally. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)