Talk:Kombucha: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia

Line 233:

::::Greyfell, please explain why you think the second study "doesn't seem to meet" MEDRS standards, and then explain why you think the "death" claims do. Are you saying what was stated in a book written by a chemist at a Texas university is more reliable than a report by 4 MDs, a PharmaD plus a Journal Review which cites that same report? Perhaps I've overlooked something. --<font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font>^{[[User talk:Atsme |📞]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]]} 20:57, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

:::::Secondary sources are sources which analyze or summarize primary sources. They are, in almost all cases, preferable for use on Wikipedia. [[WP:MEDPRI]] spells it out pretty clearly. Because this is medical content, those secondary sources are also held to higher standards. If the study is important, it should be possible to find it explained in a reliable secondary source. The study itself is perfectly fine as a study. This isn't a comment on the credentials of any scientists, it's about neutrality and due weight, and avoiding [[WP:SYNTH]]. I have no idea why Texas would be relevant. [[User:Grayfell|Grayfell]] ([[User talk:Grayfell|talk]]) 21:19, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

== NPOV, V and MEDRS ==

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kombucha&diff=619924536&oldid=619918638 Agree with your comment from last year, Grayfell] That reference needs to be deleted all together and the statements cited to it need to be modified to reflect current sources.  Also, per [[WP:MEDRS]] {{xt|Case reports, whether in the popular press or a peer reviewed medical journal, are a form of anecdote and generally fall below the minimum requirements of reliable medical sources.}}  The only evidence related to illness and death regarding consumption of the tea are case reports published in a peer reviewed medical journal, all of which lack scientific evidence to confirm causality. The book that is cited to the lead statement that links consumption of the tea to death is not cited to a RS and is noncompliant with MEDRS for the following reasons: (1) the claim in the book is misstated, factually incorrect and not supported by the source cited in the book, (2) the cited source is a case report (3) the claim is only one author's opinion and it conflicts with the 2014 Journal review which cites that same case report. Policy dictates extraordinary claims require (multiple) extraordinary sources and all I've seen that link the tea to death cite the same case report which MEDRS considers to be anecdotal and below the minimum requirements. Furthermore, the inclusion of such material in this article demonstrates noncompliance with two core policies, NPOV and V.  I am asking for GF collaboration without the [[WP:OWN]] and [[WP:Battleground]] behavior we've seen demonstrated by the reverting of GF edits that correct policy noncompliance regarding the unreliable case reports and links to death.  The DS notice is now visible on this TP for all to see.  We all must abide by PAGs and MEDRS when editing this article. <font style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">[[User:Atsme|Atsme]]</font>^{[[User talk:Atsme |📞]][[Special:EmailUser/Atsme|📧]]} 13:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)