User:Deryck Chan/sandbox4

Section

asdfdghgjhk this is misleading content.

RfD NC examples

NC default to keep

• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_9#George_W._Bush_.28disambiguation.29

NC default to most plausible target

• Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_6#Northern_Syria
• Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 January 22#希望

NC default to delete

Wikidata tests

• no value
• UKH12
• Hertfordshire, Essex, Lincolnshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire

Lua tests

Discussion 1, comment only

Closed discussion, see full discussion.

Discussion 2, uses result field

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep.

Discussion 3, has an equal sign in result field

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: delete because D=delete.

Discussion 4

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: retarget WT:RFD.

Discussion 5

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: DAB.

Discussion 6

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: keep some, delete others.

Discussion 7

Closed discussion, see full discussion. Result was: special decision.

Discussion 8, relist icon is yellow

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 February 22#Not a real discussion

RfC notes

• All agree: Due weight; no original research; stick to reliable sources

"Can use related"

• HLHJ: can use related sources
• Doc James: need to debunk
• Johnbod
• Waddie96: need to rebutt

On the fence - use discretion about due weight:

• Chrisvls (voted yes)
• Markbassett (voted no)
• Jojalozzo (voted yes)
• SMcCandlish (voted no first but qualified his comment) - don't content fork but where medical source collides head-on with claim, we should present the counter-argument

Unclear - only stated the "all agree" points

• The Gnome (voted yes)

"Don't use related"

• QG: any source that doesn't refer directly to a marketing claim is off-topic
• Dlthewave - will be synthesis if we use a source that doesn't mention the claim

This discussion began with a general question: Should we include discussions about accuracy when describing a marketing claim. A few guiding principles were quickly agreed upon: due weight, no original research, and WP:MEDRS.

A few side issues were raised, including the overall bias of the article, and potential issues with editors who have conflicts of interest, though these were deemed outside of the scope of this discussion.

The discussion then rightly narrowed its focus: To what extent should we allow the use of sources that do not directly refer to a marketing claim, in order to critique a marketing claim? A range of firm opinions were presented, ranging from a blanket desire to critique all marketing claims with reliable medical sources, to an assertion that it is off-topic synthesis to use any source that doesn't mention a marketing claim to critique such claim.

There is sharp disagreement on where to draw the line between acceptable juxtaposition of sources and unacceptable original research. Nevertheless, the use of the word "minimize" in the formulation of the second RfC seems to have brought sentiments towards a rough consensus somewhere in the middle. We should prefer sources which directly refer to the marketing claims, though sources that address the same health claims as a marketing claim can be used sparingly if no direct critique is available and an alternative source is needed to accord due weight. There is also some fuzziness about what constitutes a "direct" discussion of a marketing claim and editor discretion is advisable.

That means the applicability of reliable sources which addresses a health issue but not a marketing claim should be decided on a topic by topic basis, and I am happy to see that this is already being done in the rest of this talk page.