Wikipedia:Don't use today's news to contradict medical sources

The situation
The situation usually looks like this:
 * A Wikipedia article states something that is generally accepted as a fact, cited to a reliable medical(ish) secondary source: Scaryitis is an acquired medical condition that develops mainly in children who stay indoors all day. Primary prevention involves sending children outside to play for at least two hours per day, especially before the age of 7.
 * An editor adds text noting that Paul Politician has publicly disagreed with this statement, citing a recent report in The News: Paul Politician has announced that the main cause is children not eating enough foods rich in Vitamin A, such as carrots.
 * Another editor reverts it, citing Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (MEDRS).
 * Drama ensues.

WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources are not violated
The problem isn't the Verifiability policy or the Reliable Sources guideline. WP:V and WP:RS are concerned with individual claims. Is there at least one reliable source that says Scaryitis exists, is a medical condition, is acquired/non-congenital, develops over time, affects children who stay indoors, can be prevented by going outdoors, etc.? Then WP:V and WP:RS are ✅.

Is The News a reliable source that can be relied upon to report what Paul Politician has said? If so, and regardless of whether what he said was factually correct or not, then WP:V and WP:RS are ✅.

This is because the problem is not verifiability, which means – to quote the first sentence of the policy – "other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." For both the original and the new text, you can do that. The original statement really can be found in a decent medical source, and The News really did report Paul Politician saying what he said. All of it is verifiable.

WP:Neutral point of view is violated
The problem really is that the text violates WP:NPOV. Specifically, it violates WP:DUE, WP:BALASP, and WP:GEVAL.


 * WP:DUE says Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to the depth of detail, the quantity of text, prominence of placement, the juxtaposition of statements, and the use of imagery.
 * WP:BALASP says (in its entirely relevant entirety) An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic . This is a concern especially for recent events that may be in the news.
 * WP:GEVAL says While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

This is the problem that we keep encountering. We have some sort of biomedical information, but someone disagrees with it. So an editor who disagrees will attempt to improve the article by using a WP:PRIMARYNEWS source to debunk, contradict, or counter the mainstream views on a medical condition through the juxtaposition of a quote that gives undue weight to minor aspects, namely whatever one politician said yesterday, which is disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic and tends to result in his minority view or extraordinary claim [being] presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity.

See how all those underlined words line up with what the policy says editors must never do? That's what's going on in these disputes. It's not a question of whether you can verify the exact, specific claim in some source that's reliable for that purpose. The question at hand is whether that particular statement from that particular politician actually matters overall. It is a problem of DUE and BALASP and GEVAL and using primary sources to debunk secondary sources. It is not really a problem of simple verifiability.

What about WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) ?
WP:MEDRS is kind of the wrong page to be citing in these situations, but it does have one very relevant rule at WP:MEDPRI: Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering conclusions made by secondary sources.