Talk:Endemic COVID-19: Difference between revisions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
|
|||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
|
===Survey=== |
===Survey=== |
||
|
*”’Yes”’, per [[WP:MEDORG]]. Such statements are in and of themselves [[WP:DUE]] for this topic, and are themselves MEDRS (MEDORG is a part of MEDRS). No additional commentary or analysis by third parties of any kind is needed to justify inclusion; such a requirement contradicts Wikipedia guidelines and amounts to skewing due weight and hence, is POV. However, if analysis exists that is also MEDRS, it would additionally be included; however such is by no means needed to include the original statement. [[User:Crossroads|”’Crossroads”’]] [[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]] 19:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
*”’Yes”’, per [[WP:MEDORG]]. Such statements are in and of themselves [[WP:DUE]] for this topic, and are themselves MEDRS (MEDORG is a part of MEDRS). No additional commentary or analysis by third parties of any kind is needed to justify inclusion; such a requirement contradicts Wikipedia guidelines and amounts to skewing due weight and hence, is POV. However, if analysis exists that is also MEDRS, it would additionally be included; however such is by no means needed to include the original statement. [[User:Crossroads|”’Crossroads”’]] [[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]] 19:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
||
|
*”’Depends”’ with a side serving of ”’Bad RfC”’. If such sources are relevant and offer encyclopedic/[[WP:SECONDARY]] coverage of this article’s topic, or if they’re an actual “position |
*”’Depends”’ with a side serving of ”’Bad RfC”’. If such sources are relevant and offer encyclopedic/[[WP:SECONDARY]] coverage of this article’s topic, or if they’re an actual “position ” as MEDRS considers RS, then very probably yes. If they not that, and not that relevant (making, say, only a passing mention of ‘endemic’) then probably no; but they may be still be suitable for the country’s individual article on COVID. An RfC seeking to give an open-ended [[WP:LOCALCON]] for a source type while disregarding [[WP:CONTEXTMATTERS]] is a bad idea. What we want to avoid is a repetitive laundry list of sources that contains the substring “endemic”, but which otherwise offer no knowledge for the subject of COVID-19 endemicity. [[User:Bon courage|Bon courage]] ([[User talk:Bon courage|talk]]) 19:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC) |
||
|
===Discussion=== |
===Discussion=== |
||
Latest revision as of 19:30, 2 May 2023
 |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||
Seems to me the article is WP:OVERTAG and I dont see any material discussion of any of these issues here or in the lone archive. @Bondegezou: please explain your re-addition of the tags and start discussion of them here. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- This article is a disaster. There is no sign of the concerns raised on this Talk page being resolved. The tags are a (minimal) indication of the serious problems this crappy article has. Bon courage (talk) 18:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- We had a long proposed merge discussion, now in the Archive at [1], which non-consensus-ed out. Some progress was made on bringing different perspectives together, for which I am thankful for editors involved, but I think some fundamental points of disagreement remain over the article (also discussed at [2]). That’s why I think tags are still useful.
- There are three tags in contention: “The neutrality of this article is disputed”; “This article relies excessively on references to primary sources”; “This article needs more medical references for verification or relies too heavily on primary sources”. I (and others; see Bon courage‘s pithier comments above) still feel the article is (in places) trying to knit together (i.e. WP:SYNTH) numerous low quality references…
Read More: Talk:Endemic COVID-19: Difference between revisions