Talk:ISO/IEEE 11073 Personal Health Data Standards

Concerns

It seems that a contributor/editor (DGG) has concerns about this article, and has posted alerts at the top of the article. It would be helpful if DGG could offer specific and detailed concerns so that these can be discussed and addressed.

Hi. I'm not DGG, but I've been editing for a while and I am familiar with the concepts that led to the tag. :)

There are three major issues here: verifiability, notability and conflict of interest. There is also concern that this content may have been copied from somewhere else, but no source has been offered to substantiate that.

Just as a general overview, the purpose of Wikipedia is to offer summaries of what reliable sources have to say about "notable" subjects, where notability is basically determined by how encyclopedic something is. If a lot of reliable sources talk about something, it's probably notable. There are a few cases where concepts and things are notable even if not a lot of people talk about them; for instance, it's generally agreed that cities, villages and towns are notable even if they don't have many sources. For most things, though, degree of notability is demonstrated by coverage in multiple reliable sources.

A reliable source is generally a peer-reviewed work like a scholarly book, an academic journal, a newspaper articles. Sometimes industry websites are reliable, but not when they are directly involved with the subject at hand. For instance, the website of a pop singer can't be used to establish that the pop singer is notable, because it benefits from promoting that pop singer. Disinterested sources are required to establish notability. See Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for more information on, well, identifying reliable sources. :)

To establish notability, it would be a good idea to add disinterested, reliable sources to show that the subject is a major topic of discussion. Wikipedia:Notability is the page to look at there.

Beyond notability, reliable sources are needed for verifiability (WP:V) and to demonstrate that Wikipedia is not being used to publish "original research". Since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, we are not a point for publishing novel theories (see WP:NOR). Again, we're just here to summarize what reliable sources say. :)

I'm not entirely sure how close connection issues apply. Generally, these may be a concern when an editor is closely associated with the subject. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Sometimes when people are too close to a subject, they may have difficulty adhering to Wikipedia's standards, particularly against original research (since they know something, they typically want to add it, even though they can't if it doesn't reflect published material) and non-neutral content. (See WP:NPOV.)

Finally, I see the article is also tagged for its level of intricate detail. This is connected to our core mission, to summarize what reliable sources say about subjects. We're meant to be for a general audience and most articles should be written to be understandable to people who just want an overview, while providing links and pointers to more indepth work for specialists. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I am the original author. I am not sure what can be done about the "notability" problem. I only wrote the article since the primary source (The IEEE standards) is copyright, only available for a substantial charge, and thus cannot be referenced by a web link. How can this be addressed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Acutetech (talk • contribs) 22:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

A weblink to the primary source wouldn't help anyway. :) As I mentioned above, notability is generally established through references from uninvolved sources talking about the subject. One of the major markers for notability on Wikipedia is whether or not reliable sources are interested in the subject. If they have a substantial amount to say, then it's generally presumed that we should, too.

There are some subjects that may be presumed notable even if reliable sources don't have a substantial amount to say - for instance, substantial human settlements like towns are generally considered notable regardless. But there aren't a lot of exceptions.

Are these standards discussed in books, journal articles, industry websites? More summary from those, with references to them, would be helpful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:14, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:222nd Broadcast Operations Detachment (BOD) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:49, 15 November 2022 (UTC)