Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Guidelines/Medical advice: Difference between revisions

→‎Discussion: longish comment
(→‎Discussion: The bias is in the history section, which completely ignores an important fact in the history; that my edit was according to policy. Instead Moxy provides a biased reason for why I made the deletion that completely ignores my clearly-stated reason.)
(→‎Discussion: longish comment)
*:The page is clearly meant as a guideline on how to deal with questions seeking medical advice, not written for the people posting questions, but for the volunteer respondents. As such it is a useful supplement to the general maxim that Wikipedia does not provide medical advice.  --[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 14:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
*'''Revert demotion; then Discuss'''. I find it curious, to say the least, for someone to boldly demote a page from its long-standing guideline status to whatever <u>without clear consensus</u>, and then to argue that reverting this demotion amounts to establishing a '''new''' guideline. The best course of action, IMO, is to revert the demotion and then have an RfC on a proposal whether to keep or remove the guideline status, with a proper preceding discussion. If people have issues with the wording of the current version, <u>regardless of its status</u>, these should preferably be discussed and resolved first, because they may otherwise work to muddle the discussion. &nbsp;--[[User talk:Lambiam|Lambiam]] 14:31, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
* {{Comment}} I was pinged about this discussion, as I made some significant [ edits to this guideline] back in 2007, based on [[Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/Professional advice#Proposal: Replace questions soliciting professional advice with boilerplate|a proposal I made back then]]. As I haven't been active on the RD since 2010, I cannot really comment on the subsequent changes made to these guidelines, other than to observe that it (or at least the recommended procedure for dealing with questions asking for medical advice) already differs substantially from the version I proposed and wrote back then (which was, in a nutshell, to promptly replace both the question and any answers with {{tl|RD-deleted}} and let the asker rephrase the question if they feel it was not intended as a request for medical advice). Not being familiar with the current state of the reference desk, I cannot say whether or not the current version of the guideline still serves its purpose, although I also see no obvious reason to demote it from its historical status. <p>However, I'd like to respond to some of the arguments made above in favor of demoting this page by noting that '''the reference desks are not talk pages.''' They may ''look'' a little bit like talk pages, insofar as they also contain threaded discussions, but they differ from actual talk pages in several ways — most notably in the fact that ''they are part of the public-facing side of Wikipedia'' in a way that e.g. user and article talk pages (and also most pages in the Wikipedia namespace) are not. As such, the [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines|talk page guidelines]], including [[WP:TPOC]], do not and should not be assumed to apply to the reference desks in every respect. The refdesks are really their own thing, not exactly like anything else on Wikipedia, but in some respects (e.g. their intended audience) they're really closer to article space than to talk pages. <p>Of course, there's a lot of good advice on [[WP:TPG]] for smoothly and civilly conducting any kind of threaded discussion on a wiki page, and much of that advice ''does'' make sense also on the reference desks. But it should only be applied insofar as it ''does'' make sense here and, in particular, it should ''not'' be blindly applied where it contradicts guidelines established specifically for the reference desks. (Also, even if both guidelines were applicable to the same pages, and even if there was an apparent contradiction between them, this would still not in itself be a reason to demote one of them: guidelines are guidelines and, as the [[Template:Subcat guideline|template]] at the top of them says, they must be applied with common sense and with the need for occasional exceptions in mind.) <p>In particular, if I'm not mistaken, this whole demotion kerfuffle seems to have arisen from [ a single edit] removing an answer from a question on hot-button topic and citing this guideline for doing so, which the user whose answer was removed apparently took issue with. Whether or not the removal of that answer was justified (FWIW, I'd personally consider this a borderline case — the answer did include what might be construed as advice for medical treatment, and also rather went off on a tangent without actually answering the question as asked), this is IMO a specific dispute that should have been discussed on the reference desk talk page and/or on the user talk pages of the editors involved. —[[User:Ilmari Karonen|Ilmari Karonen]] <small>([[User talk:Ilmari Karonen|talk]])</small> 15:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)