Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices

Don't make a big deal about "monthly cost"

Extended content

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. @WhatamIdoing: To quote your edit summary: Undid revision 934930316 by Doc James James, you can claim that there are no incorrect prices as soon as you can prove that $27.77 divided by the price of Ethosuximide given in that source yields 150 pills, and not 150.5 pills. There are actually (a few) errors. A monthly cost is one-twelfth of the annual cost. that is, 365.25/12 = 30.4375 days cost (the average number of days in a month over a four-year span). The actual monthly cost is 30.4375 x 5 (closer to 152 pills per month) x US$0.1845 = US$28.08. This is a clear indication that you're counting angels dancing on pinheads: your arithmetic is as bad as James' and your assumptions cause a bigger error than the one that you were calling "incorrect". --RexxS (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2020 (UTC) I think the statement by WhatamIdoing was rhetorical, rather than insisting that this minor typo was the only error found. Actually see this paper for how 28 days, vs 30 days, vs calendar month is not a small rounding error: "We estimated that an extra cost of almost half a million euros (€495,420) would have been incurred if all prescriptions had been every 4 weeks." I don't think half a million euros is minor. But see also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Mistakes for several examples that indicate around 1:5 drug prices have always been wrong, and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Out of date for how, after 5 years, about 50% of our drug prices are likely wrong by a factor of 2 or more. See also Carvedilol: the article claims "the wholesale cost per dose is less than 0.05 USD" and yet if the NADAC database was searched for "Carvedilol" and "Carvedilol ER" we'd learn the extended release tablet was $7.08 a pill, which is more than 100x more expensive. These are not minor mistakes. -- Colin°Talk 21:54, 20 January 2020 (UTC) REMINDER to all: there is one venue for pricing discussions, and this is not it. @RexxS, Colin, and Barkeep49: Please keep everything on the same page, where everyone can see it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC) @SandyGeorgia and Colin: Don't mess with other peoples' posts, especially after a notification has been made. You don't get to decide where is best to discuss issues and the issue here is predicated on an edit summary made to the corresponding project page, not anywhere else. Rhetorical doesn't work in text-based discussions without further cues, and I don't see it as rhetorical. If you claim that prices are "incorrect" based on differing views of what a monthly cost is, you're not going to convince many folks. Perhaps you might do me and WAID the courtesy of sticking your nose back out again, and letting her answer for herself. --RexxS (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2020 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Group notice (resolved)

Just a heads-up that the Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Manual of Style group notice should ideally not appear upon participation in this RfC, though I've no idea how to suppress it. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 07:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've asked for help at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Edit notice question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Fixed by QEDK. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Launch details

See WT:MEDMOS archives 11, 12 and 13. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:24, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Moderator user:Barkeep49 launched this WP:RfC at 23:03, 23 January 2020 in

• special:permalink/937268145

Thanks for the ongoing moderation over these past few weeks.

Thanks User:Wugapodes for agreeing to close this at its end.

The launch notice at 23:08, 23 January 2020 in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles is in

• special:permalink/937268697

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Meta comments

This is in response to Gleeanon409's comments about the length. We went through several attempts to write this RFC. I agree that while the "question" is brief, the whole thing is not. If you read all the examples and the background information, it's about 1200 words long. (For reference, an average reading speed for an adult who speaks English natively is around 250 words per minute – but slower for harder content, such as this). I agree that it's a big "ask", and I've been very gratified by the way editors have generously responded to this request so far. This RFC has been open for a little less than five days so far, and it already has more responses, from more editors, explained in greater detail, than any of the RFCs listed at WP:RFC/SCI that have been up as long. I'm really loving the thoughtfulness and detail of some comments. Just to give one example, DMacks and davidwr gave examples of when prices should be included in the article in some fashion. Between them they listed price differences between countries, sudden price hikes, very expensive drugs, drugs that are widely used because they're so cheap, and presenting it as a comparison to similar drugs. I don't remember Oral rehydration therapy being mentioned as an example in the previous months of discussions, but it is a drug that is widely used precisely because of its affordability and accessibility. We are getting really good information from these responses. I hope that editors will continue sharing their advice and expertise with us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Gratitude

Thanks to everyone who put this RFC together. I looked through what it took, which was incredibly burdensome for many involved, resulting in a lot of animosity too. I hope everyone can put it behind them. EllenCT (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Notes on where the discussion stands

I expect to leave this open for at least another week, but I want to start making a few notes now. These are mostly notes to myself as I start thinking about the next, more general RFC on what advice to put in MEDMOS (not soon, I promise!), but I want to do this now and in public, so that if we find areas that are unclear, we have plenty of time to talk it out. (Also, although the discussion is slowing down and may be reaching it's natural end soon, there's no magic time limit on RFCs. If we need this to run longer, we can do that.)

I'm going to do the easy stuff first, which is what to do with the current content using the MSH database, and especially the three examples, which are discussed all over the page and then in more detail in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices#Comments about the specific examples.

Ethosuximide

The use of this database record to put a price in (specifically) Ethosuximide was discussed by at least User:Pbsouthwood, User:Colin, User:SandyGeorgia, User:SMcCandlish, User:Seraphimblade, User:Adrian J. Hunter, User:Doc James, and User:EllenCT.

• No one (or almost no one?) approves of the sentence as written. Nobody thinks that a price offered to a single country should be called "the wholesale price in the developing world". At minimum, it would need to be re-written to say "the wholesale price in the Democratic Republic of Congo".
• Multiple editors objected to the false precision. At minimum, the price would need to be rounded to US$28.
• However, the corrections are probably irrelevant, because most editors think that it should be removed from the article entirely. Even among editors who support inclusion of prices, almost everyone thinks that a sentence about the wholesale price for the Democratic Republic of Congo is WP:UNDUE.
• As a side point, this drug is generally unavailable at any price in that country. Editors felt much more positive about including information whether it is available for sale than about the dollars-and-cents prices.

My sense from the discussions on this specific drug is that in general, if this database offers a price that is only for one or two countries, then editors do not want that record used, and no wholesale price should be given. This could mean removing information from many articles. If you have a different sense (i.e., that most editors in this discussion really do want sentences that say "The wholesale price in the Democratic Republic of Congo is US$30 a month"), then please speak up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with much of what you have written I disagree with the last bit. Why not include the price in the RFC somewhere in the article? Prices in LMIC are often similar and used for negotiations when bringing a medication into a similar country. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:31, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

James, I'm not asking if you want the information in the article. I'm asking whether you think that most editors, including the ones using phrases like "grossly inappropriate" and "exceptionally useless and misleading", want to include that information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I think attempting a summary at this stage is premature. I haven't even weighed in yet on the RFC (following your advice long ago to let others weigh in first, so as not to predispose.) Also, per my earlier objections to overly segmenting the RFC (I liked your first format better), I am finding the format to be so unfriendly that I'm not even sure how or where to weigh in, as these segments have been off-putting and resulted in loss of big picture. And noticing that several participants have also commented on the overly segmented format, so taking my 18 brownie points now for having objected to that format :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

To me, it doesn't much matter how many countries the database offers prices for. If the only source is a database, but secondary sources haven't extensively discussed (note, that doesn't just mean "mentioned") the price, it is undue weight to include in the article. Generally speaking, articles on products should not include pricing information. There are exceptions to that rule when the price itself is a very notable feature of that product, but that should be the exception, not the rule, and should require extensive discussion of the price's significance by secondary sources. If you have to pull it out of a database, leave it out. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Seraphimblade.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As mentioned below, we should avoid having this discussion here, and instead register these points on the main RFC page. This pre-summary risks forking the RFC discussion off the RFC page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Carbamazepine

The use of this database to put a price in Carbamazepine was discussed by at least Peter, Colin, Ellen, Seraphimblade, User:HLHJ, and User:Sunrise.

Generally, I felt like the comments were more positive and more general. If misrepresenting the price in a single country as being the price for the entire developing world drew a certain amount of scorn from editors, then this record, with many suppliers, including some that reach into many, many countries, didn't draw as much fire.

• Most comments were general. Whether to include it at all seemed to be based upon how strictly the editor thought WP:NOTPRICE should be followed.
• If kept, the following specific changes were suggested by at least one editor:
  • Adding WP:INTEXT attribution to the database.
  • Using the median supplier price rather than the range

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Diazepam

The database record for Diazepam was discussed by at least Colin, Ellen, Adrian, Peter, Seraphimblade, User:Bluerasberry, and User:Tom (LT).

• Lane wanted to include as much information as possible, ranging from a qualitative statement that it was "affordable" to some sort of drop-down menu that would let readers see all of the information in all of the database records per dose/year/country. Other editors have other opinions, including some in favor of total exclusion.
• There was discussion of wholesale vs retail prices, with editors seeming to prefer retail prices as more "useful" to readers and being confused when a wholesale developing-world price is juxtaposed with a retail US price.
• The problem of picking which record to use was discussed, but no clear criteria were put forward for choosing a record. What some other source says is the most common strength? The record with the most data points? Something else?
• The few editors who commented on buyer prices (which is all the current record contains) were opposed to their use.
• Recommended changes, if it's kept at all:
  • Change the database record to one that lists many suppliers. (This record has much more limited information than some others.)
  • Specify the strength (assuming it's possible to choose one without violating WP:SYNTH).
  • The comments about in-text attribution probably also apply, but weren't mentioned specifically in relation to this drug.
  • The comments about not using records with only one or two data points and specifying prices that only apply to a single place, etc., also apply, but in this case, they can be worked around by switching to a different record.
• Something praised in this record: It provided a price with a single significant figure.

The bottom line for this one seems (so far) to be that editors do not approve of the current form. Whether the content should be "fixed" or "removed" is beyond my scope for today.

Again, what I want to know is whether this seems like a fair description of what other editors said about this drug, not whether you agree with the other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

WhatamIdoing, I agree with Sandy. I think this summing up is premature. There are more points I would like to make but have also held bad to see if others note them first. I wouldn't read too much into how individual examples were commented-on or not-commented-on because they are just three examples from 322 drugs using this database. There is indeed still WP:NOTPRICE to contend with for even the best-supplied database record, and I don't detect any serious consensus that it should not be fully enforced from "commentary" in "mainstream media sources". I think you've focused a little too much on the examples than on the general "no, this database-derived approach to indicating cost to readers in dollars and cents is just all wrong". There is a danger your discussion above provokes novel discussion points here rather than on RFC proper. For example, James's false claim "Prices in LMIC are often similar" which is ridiculous, and even more so when we consider prices paid by patients. I also note wrt diazepam's price: there is nothing, absolutely nothing, to praise about this article's pricing. As I noted on the RFC: "The $0.01 for diazepam is an illusion: it isn't a ballpark figure [single significant figure] but just the result of the two buyer prices being the same "$0.0100" five-significant figure price." The price is a small number because it is "per dose" rather than "per month" and in your summing up, you didn't pick up that "per dose" is totally meaningless to our readers. Might as well price a meal "per mouthful". I suggest we cap this discussion and wait. If you want to know if a "summing up" is fair, please wait till the discussion is about to close. I'd recommend not taking a "so what will we do about just these three articles" approach, or structuring it round three drugs, but rather structuring it around the various issues raised. As an aside, has anyone had any luck accessing the MSH website for the last few days? -- Colin°^Talk 10:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think we can ask Barkeep49's opinion on hatting this, because he just put up a "busy" til next Friday template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I think it was admirable effort by WaID but when I read it did strike me as overlapping with what a formal close would do. Since all agreed in advance this RfC would be best to have an uninvolved close, I'll suggest we wait for that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see this in any way a formal closing statement for the RFC. (For one thing, it's already ~20x the length of a typical closing statement.) As far as I'm concerned, the closing admins can safely skip this entire page. I am, however, trying to be transparent about what I'm seeing in this discussion and what I think will happen after this RFC. If people read this and think their favorite points aren't getting enough attention, then the RFC is overleaf, and I recommend going there and pounding on your favorite point.

IMO the easier part to predict is that there will be some changes to the existing content. IMO the two likely outcomes (assuming no significant changes in sentiment between now and then) are:

• We conclude that it all violates NOTPRICES and has to be removed wholesale, or
• We conclude that some (or all) of it can stay but needs changes.

If the latter, then I've made a list of the likely changes above, but I have no opinion on what the closers will think of the NOTPRICES question. Either way, we'll need editors to make those changes.

IMO the harder part is figuring out how to turn the themes from this discussion into a comprehensive but brief proposed addition to MEDMOS. I'm not close to writing a coherent summary of comments, much less proposed text. But I have been thinking about it since before the RFC launched, so it shouldn't surprise anyone to hear that I'm still thinking about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Translation

Taking this off the main RFC page, but I understand very little of this response from Bluerasberry. There are no posts at the talk page of WP:PRICES (an essay which I first saw as a result of the formulation of this RFC) from Bluerasberry since 2016. Could someone please translate, or could you please rephrase, Bluerasberry? The questions were: who are the "we"-- the who, what, where-- behind this "pilot" "plan" that you mentioned. It would have been quite a timesaver if we had all known there was a pilot plan in place. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I posted all of previous price discussions which I found at WP:PRICES, which is what I consider to be the experiment or pilot. The people who put that plan into place are the people who commented in the discussions linked at that page. Ask if I can clarify further. Excuse my miscommunication as I am not aware of additional information anywhere. By compiling WP:PRICES, I tried to make the precedent more clear. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

ah, understood now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Format frustration

Have I mentioned how much I hate the segmented format? Had I been able to compose one post, in sandbox, for one section, I could at least attempt to avoid repetition and correct all my typos in sandbox. Having to respond section by section will mean, in my case (considering the number of typos I make per essential tremor, arthritis and eyesight) that I will end up with hundreds of edits. Well, anyway, going in; I hope this is only me, per my difficulties in posting.

I do recognize this format is easier on the admins who have to close, and for that reason I am sticking with the suggested format rather than composing one post.

I did not participate in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Genetically modified organisms for the same reason, and regardless of advertisement at CENT, getting non-pharm people to care about a drug pricing RFC was always going to be an uphill battle compared to GMO, which got over hundred responses. IMO, this format isn't helping, trading off ease of closing at the expense of breadth of responses and responses from those outside of the pharm/medical community. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Query the admins

@Ymblanter, Barkeep49, and Wugapodes: Multiple editors tried to remove these drug prices, and were reverted, generally by one editor. Many of them were now-gone student editors or IPs, but some of them are still active. Can a neutral post be made to them about this RFC? Besides Ronz, Seraphimblade and Kashmiri (who have weighed in on the RFC or formulation) they are Pol098, Jorge Stolfi, Surtsicna, Gprobins, Jrfw51, Garzfoth, Zefr, D A Patriarche, David notMD, and Mparagas18. If this is possible, it would best come from a neutral party. Somewhere in this RFC I saw a borderline ping, and I don't want to fall afoul of such possible canvassing, but these editors were reverted against policy and should have a say, if they could be neutrally notified. If we can't notify them, at minimum they are indications of support of WP:NOT. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, when you sya they tried to remove pricing when are you thinking? If ever, I would find tht inappropriate canvassing. If during the course of this RfC if you point me to the articles where it happened I would be happy to take a closer look for possible notification of the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

All that information is in the link I gave in my post ... Colin’s computer-extracted data. Should I go through and extra dates and diffs? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That they all seem to have removed prices makes me feel that even with a neutrally worded message, the list of editors to be notified skews towards a particular view on what the outcome should be. It's not canvassing in a malicious way, but I don't think we can safely say the listed editors form a representative sample of the community. On the chance that I'm wrong, I drafted a neutral message at User:Wugapodes/sandbox5 that people may use if they want to post a neutral message on someone's talk page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 04:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Colin’s data found conflicts on about two dozen articles: Having a look at the conflicts in the data I link may be helpful. All diffs for all drug prices are also given, but the couple dozen conflicts are listed up front. The problem is, there is no skew because only three editors were inserting that data, and they are all involved here. We are excluding only one side; those enforcing policy. Could you glance at the data I linked ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

PS, I hope no one will notify using Wugapodes message until/unless our neutral admins reach a consensus that doing so is acceptable ... . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, sorry for not reading your original message carefully enough. I am opposed to notification of editors who've removed the information in the past. This RfC was publicized widely - including ongoing CENT inclusion. It is not a neutral sample group, which I take to be Wugapodes position as well. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This certainly should be at least noted in the RfC, though. It certainly shows some of the ownership issues that were occurring with these, which I also ran across myself. It seems those of us here were not the only ones who recognized that inclusion of prices in those articles is inappropriate. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:14, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I did note it in the RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

As this RFC is primarily about the how/whether of a single source, the history isn't the main point. If one saw the RFC as a sort of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct or as a prelude to a trip to ArbCom over someone's behavior, then it might be more relevant. That's not my goal, however, and therefore I think it's enough to talk about what the source and its potential uses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If this was a balanced sort of content query, where multiple editors had added, moved, removed and reverted drug prices, then one could envision a neutral post to all parties asking them to participate. I'm sure that happens with MOS queries where editors on both sides want their way, have edited as such, and there is genuine community division among editors at the coal face. We can't ping all involved parties in this dispute in a way that seems balanced, because this dispute is very much not balanced, as User:Colin/PriceEdits clearly demonstrates. We'd end up pinging one editor a dozen times. Alarm bells would normally be ringing at this point. -- Colin°^Talk 09:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Having refreshed my memory of the listed two dozen disputes at User:Colin/PriceEdits, I strongly encourage that the closing admin read them and consider those editors' voices (on both sides) as part of a community view on drug prices. To ignore them would give a false impression about community feeling on this matter. -- Colin°^Talk 11:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Invited WikiProject Video Games to comment

Video game editors have in the past discussed prices in context of that field. Because of that I invited WikiProject Video Games editors to come here.

• Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#WikiProject_Medicine_+_WikiProject_Video_Games

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, so much for carefully avoiding canvassing, so we would have a valid RFC after all our hard work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

@Barkeep49, Ymblanter, and Wugapodes: could you have a look at the message posted,(20 Feb 11:31) particularly in comparison to the discussion we just had in the section just above this? After we carefully avoided notifying editors with a distinct pony in this race, we have now notified editors about a NOT issue in general, not even specific to this issue, and not even remotely in a neutral way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:06, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

The 11:31 post was seven hours after we concluded the discussion above about notifying others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Wow, that was not a neutral audience (editors who include pricing), nor a neutral message, and coming after the above discussion about notifying editors who removed pricing, I find it extremely inappropriate. Levivich (lulz) 16:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
• I am less bothered by the who - functioning WikiProjects (as Video Games is) are not monoliths, notifying WikiProjects is qualatively different than notifying individual editors, and the discussion Blue references is a dozen years old so who knows what current editors think. I do think the lack of neutrality in the message is more troubling - it should have been much closer to Wugapodes draft in the section above. I don't know why as we approach the 30 day mark we're suddenly trying to canvas more participation in what has been a reasonably attended RfC - especially given the complexity of the topic and length of background material. But I think it would be good to just let this finish itself out and be closed by Yunshui and Wugapodes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• Did you mean Yunshui or Ymblanter? Considering the very clear discussion above that we had before Bluerasberrry canvassed, taken in conjunction with the old redirects to a false statement, the impression is that Blue is very vested in seeing his essay promoted and may need a break from all pricing discussions, not just drugs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  I meant Ymblanter. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I do not think we can do anything in this situation.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:40, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

• I was just coming here to remove this, as not the right forum. Too late, I see ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

More here, which I chanced upon when notifying of a Featured article review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about this. First, the community is more suspicious of this sort of message than it was some years ago, so it's harder to make canvassing "work". Second, two editors had already compared the general question of drug pricing to how we handle prices around video games. As neither of them really share Lane's price-inclusive POV, I am not sure that he could have reasonably expected others at WP:VG to agree with him. (The only response so far is from one of those two, to more clearly disagree with him.) Having said that, I think it's a creative connection, and I found the analogy an interesting way of thinking about the general question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• The alleged offense is that I posted a notice to a stakeholder WikiProject, which drew attention only because I documented this here on this talk page. I believe that I am compliant with rules and intended no harm. In 2016 I produced documentation at WP:PRICES which identified WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Video games as stakeholders in this discussion. Since that time I have added price discussions to that list when I saw them. It would be an omission to neglect to notify that WikiProject. I would like to request that any moderator state the most severe admonishment they can to me of my guilt, or otherwise to drop this issue. I can give a sincere apology and do what I can to make things better, but I believe that having fear, uncertainty, and doubt hanging here is harmful to the discussion and worse for me than an explicit confirmation of an offense. If anyone has anything to say please be as direct as possible in saying it. I feel that contacting projects which previously on multiple occasions participated in discussions on this issue is good and I would like to be told why this is problematic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

  If you insist on making this about your behavior, we can go to ArbEnf after the RfC closes. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• It would be helpful if both Bluerasberry and Hipal/Ronz de-escalated the language used here. A request for the "most severe admonishment" or to shut up is unhelpful game-playing. Sandy was sensitive to the tension surrounding this topic, tension that has led one editor to retire and another to receive a topic ban, and posted above a "Query the admins" question about whether it would be all right to ping some "stakeholder"s as you put it, people who have had previous editing involvement with drug prices. Sandy was told no, and complied, despite being disappointed with the decision. In contrast, as an editor with strong and clearly expressed opinions on the matter, you posted an advert at an unrelated Wikiproject, and afterwards notified the admins here.

I have had a look at their Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games, which is mostly compliant with WP:NOTPRICES though they make an exception that is debatable. They do give a good example at the bottom of their MOS: "It is usually inappropriate to include cost information, but including the launch price of the PlayStation 3 in its article is an exception because it was largely criticized across various reliable publications". Recent discussions on their project talk page have largely reaffirmed WP:NOTPRICES and also document that prices were routine in the past but now the project complies with policy. I haven't looked at a variety of actual articles to see if this is practised. It doesn't seem obvious to me that the project are likely to support Bluerasberry's position, and their members might have something useful to contribute, but it is such an unrelated project that it seems a bit of a stretch to think video game enthusiasts are particularly likely to invest effort to review the main topic of this RFC, which concentrated on one source and on developing world drug prices.

But most importantly, Bluerasberry, you have upset editors whose immediate reaction is that this was canvassing a non-neutral group of editors, and that could have been entirely avoided. If you had posted, like Sandy did, your thoughts on contacting this group, you could have reassured folk that the group was not pro-prices, and been given advice on how to draft a neutral post. By your rash actions, you unnecessarily inflamed things, in an RFC that has gone remarkably smoothly, considering all the angry comments beforehand. That's what I think you did wrong. -- Colin°^Talk 08:46, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

In fairness to Ronz and Blue, one sentence of my 18:41 22 Feb post was also inflammatory; busy editing elsewhere, that only occurred to me two hours later, and I came back to remove it, found it had already been addressed, so struck. Blue, I'm sorry that (now struck) wording might have offended you. We have many differences here-- our manner of expression, our views on the topic, and our views about the purpose of Wikipedia-- but malintent is not what any of us are about, IMO. So, yes, please pardon my initial (now struck) post, and focus on content moving forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

PS, Colin, I wasn't "disappointed with the decision"; I asked because I honestly didn't know about a case like this, and I got the same answer from two of the three admins-- no problem here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I've struck out my comment. The plan from the start has been to defer behavioral concerns to afterward, if needed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I apologize for errors. I do not understand the full nature of the mistake attributed to me and right now only regret that my actions led to anxiety. I appreciate that everyone says they have no bad intent, and I also mean no harm. I trade apologies with anyone who offered a reciprocal one to me, and would give an apology without reciprocation if anyone thought it were useful to talk the matter through with me to help me understand the error you saw. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:34, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Endpoint

@Barkeep49, Ymblanter, and WhatamIdoing: When does the RFC end? Above Barkeep mentioned a "30 day mark". I have had a busy week IRL and had intended to review the comments and note any missing issues during the week, but didn't find the time. I should have some time tomorrow (Sunday AM UTC). -- Colin°^Talk 20:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Colin, technically an RfC ends when consensus emerges. In reality, most RfCs run for the thirty days that they're tagged by Legobot. Not all RfCs need to be formally closed either, but obviously in this case we know there will be such a formal close. I don't know what timeline Ymblanter and Wugapodes plan to operate on and will let them comment for themslves about that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I would say several days without activity is a signal that we could start closing.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm in no rush, and I don't think anyone is. If someone wants another week or two, it's fine with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Things seem to have been slowing down, so I say give it a few days to see if any late comments come in. Unless there's a huge spike in the coming days, I think this could be closed within the next week or so. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope to find time to get to the specific examples and Other in the next 24 hours, but ... my fingers hurt, and if I don't get to it, I think I've made most of my points, albeit with a gazillion typos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• @Barkeep49 and Ymblanter: This page has been quiet for a bit, and I think this may be a good place to wrap up. Unless anyone has some 11th hour comments or concerns, I'll place a {{closing}} tag in a few hours, and spend the evening summarizing my thoughts to share with you both. — Wug·a·po·des​ 18:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  Good, indeed feel free to please the tag if there have been no further comments. I am not entirely free, and for me it will take time to even read the RfC, I do not expect I will be able to formulate the closing statement before the weekend, and there is thus no rush.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  That makes sense to me as well. Just for clarity, I do not see myself as being part of the close. Best to have fresh eyes on that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

  I closed the RfC from editing and will now read through it (which can easily take a few days). @Wugapodes: feel free to send me a wikimail when needed, or else I will contact you once I have read through the materials and came to some preliminary conclusions--Ymblanter (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

  Just to mention that at this point I am the bottleneck. We had quite some development in real life due to coronavirus (the university is closed and we need urgently to give classes online), which I have to prioritize. I do read through the RfC every day, and I am well into the second half, but I will need more time. I apologize for this and I hope we will be able to close within a few days.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  Thanks for info, stay safe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

  Ymblanter please prioritise real life at this time. You can suspend it indefinitely as far as I'm concerned. This sort of thing should be well down on priority list. Take care. -- Colin°^Talk 19:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

• Wugapodes, Ymblanter, and Barkeep49: Thank you for traveling with us during this discussion. I very much appreciate the hours you spent and your efforts to keep the peace, to be even-handed, and to provide clarity. I also want to echo your thanks to the participants. This RFC page has now been edited by 47 different editors, plus benefiting during its formulation from information, comments, and advice from a few more who joined the (many) earlier discussions but didn't post here. I'm very happy with the level of participation, the thoughtfulness of the comments, and the variety of perspectives among the editors who participated, (e.g., editors with knowledge of the pharmaceutical industry and editors with knowledge of how non-medical products are handled on Wikipedia). Thank you all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Poor close, please self-revert and ask for help

Saying that editors are opposed to prices in article intros, and there's no consensus for including them in articles or infoboxes isn't just an oversimplification, it's an outright rejection of the many points of agreement reached in this RFC. I call upon the closers, Wugapodes and Ymblanter to voluntarily revert themselves and ask for editors with more skill in closing complex discussions to do so instead. EllenCT (talk) 01:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Both Ymblanter and Wugapodes have ample experience making closes on difficult topics judging by results I found searching WP:ANRFC. Ymblanter's results Wugapodes results. Experience and skill are obviously not perfectly correlated but I would suggest in looking at some of those closes plenty of skill is demonstrated as well. And finding these two was certainly not easy and I'm not sure where we'd find more skilled closers in normal circumstances, let alone while the case is at ArbCom. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I think Ymblanter and Wugapodes had a difficult job and likely we all would have phrased a conclusion differently. In my own experience throughout the discussion, seeing the way some editors have perverted what policy and sources say, I would have been extremely aware of avoiding ambiguity or easily permitting misinterpretation. I suspect that is also behind WhatamIdoing's Arbcom comment. The closing admins have made some clarifying comments post-close, and at some point it would be useful to combine those clarifying remarks into a better close statement. But it is also clear in my view that there has been a deliberate misreading and misquoting of the close and of clarifying addenda, and a willingness to edit war with peers rather than seek clarification, that will come under scrutiny at the ArbCom. If a better close is to be eventually drafted, I'd rather see Ymblanter and Wugapodes work alongside additional help, than for them to be dismissed as EllenCT suggests. I shall post below some of the clarifying statements. User:EllenCT, when you read the clarifying remarks, are you happier with their opinions wrt RFC consensus, or do you still feel they misrepresent the consensus? What is your own interpretation of the consensus? -- Colin°^Talk 11:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Reconsideration request

Wugapodes and Ymblanter, when experienced users make mistakes, it is even more important that they stand aside to let them be corrected, because of the example we set for others. Do you dispute my claim that you have made serious errors of oversimplification? If not, will you please call upon the more experienced to correct your close with recognition of the many compromises and agreements reached in this RFC? EllenCT (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@EllenCT: I haven't responded because you've raised no substantive point. You don't assert that the close is incorrect, just that you don't like it and don't trust our closing abilities. Neither of those are reasons to overturn a close, and you have not engaged with any editor who has disagreed with you in this thread. The discussion is 300kb, obviously the closure is not an exhaustive list of every argument brought up. The point of a closure is to succinctly summarize the major points of agreement and disagreement in the discussion. If you think we misread consensus, it helps to say why you think that rather than simply asserting we're wrong and you're right. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

I think our closure was good, and I am not going to unclose it. The fact that EllenCT doe not like it is not a reason to reopen the RfC. Calling me an unexperienced closer is ridiculous.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Post RFC Addenda

Here are the clarifying remarks by the closing admins. In some cases, I have included the preceding questions or described the context in which the remark is made. If I have missed some then we can add more. -- Colin°^Talk 11:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

At WT:MED

• Ymblanter: Our conclusion is that whether prices can go to the body of a specific articles is determined on case per case basis, and there is no general consensus on this. In practice, probably, as usual, if some users agree and some disagree, they should go to the talk page and sort it out, taking into account whether pricing sources are primary or secondary, their quality, the formulation of the statement etc.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[1]

• WhatamIdoing: The RFC's conclusions also say "Where pricing information is included, claims should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources and not solely primary source data from price databases." This statement does not restrict itself to the introduction. It applies to all drug price content in the entire article.

In keeping with my understanding of this conclusion, I removed a claim in Simvastatin that was sourced solely to primary source data from the MSH price database. James put it back in the article with slightly different wording at Simvastatin#Cost. It is still sourced solely to primary source data from a drug price database (a database that, because they're re-organizing their website, can only be accessed via tables in a PDF at the moment).

Ymblanter and Wugapodes, when you said that it's not okay to source drug price content solely to the drug price databases, did you mean to include, well, sourcing this drug price content solely to the MSH drug price database? Do you think that including that sentence, with that single source, is in keeping with the community's consensus or against it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[2]

• Ymblanter (in reply to WhatamIdoing): We believe that the RfC established that sourcing prices only from a database involves original research. If there are some issues (like, I do not know, one database which covers some ground and does not require interpretation) which have not been discussed during this RfC then they should be discussed at the talk page. I can not really comment on the specific case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[3]
• Wugapodes: To add to Ymblanter's point, I took that language from WP:MEDRS which says to prefer secondary sources to primary sources. If primary sources like price databases are used anywhere in an article, they should be used with caution in line with our existing guidance on the use of primary sources. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[4]

• Colin: Ymblanter and Wugapodes, the "no consensus" part of your closing remarks is being seized upon as suggesting the RFC failed to reach a conclusion on the central points. My interpretation of your words is that there is indeed no consensus that prices should routinely be inserted in articles or never inserted in articles but that, as always, per WP:NOTPRICES, this is determined per drug article based on "secondary sources discuss[ing] pricing extensively" [for that drug] or as policy states it "mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention". Can I ask you to urgently clarify this. In my view the RFC achieved several things:

• Prices should nearly always be removed from the lead.
• Prices should not be sourced solely to primary databases of raw product prices, which when interpreted leads to WP:OR, WP:V and even if carefully written have WP:WEIGHT issues.
• WP:NOTPRICES is reaffirmed as fully applying to drug prices.
• The suggestions by some that prices might appear in info boxes, sourced to wikidata, is likely to be a non-starter and be rejected.

In particular, it is not sufficient to find secondary sources mentioning the the cost of a drug (whether in dollars or abstractly) and then include a different price sourced to a primary database of product prices. The prices themselves must be sourced to secondary sources who make extended commentary on that price. -- Colin°^Talk 07:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[5]

• Ymblanter (in reply to Colin): Yes, this is what we concluded (with an obvious comment that we only summarized the discussion at this RfC - for example, if there are some magic databases which can be taken over without interpretation, this might be a different story, but it was not a subject of this RfC).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[6]

At Talk:Ethosuximide

• A discussion regarding the article text that Doc James had written, had been removed by User:Colin and then restored by Doc James, which states: "The wholesale cost in the developing world is about US$27.68 per month as of 2014." citing the MSH Price Guide. Wugapodes is pinged for comment:
• Wugapodes: Editors in the RfC pointed to this sentence as an example of OR and source interpretation that was unacceptable. I don't see how I can read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices#Ethosuximide as anything other than consensus for this sentences exclusion, especially given the wider discussion of principles. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[7]
• James argued that he had altered the sentence to no longer require interpretation. WhatamIdoing asked Wugapodes "could you please officially confirm for us whether the RFC concluded that the MSH IMPPG source should be used to support any content about drug prices in any sentence (i.e., no matter how it got re-written) in this article?"[8]
• Wugapodes (in reply to WhatamIdoing): I don't think consensus at the RfC was sufficient for a blanket ban on the MSH IMPPG database, but a number of editors indicated that it is better to not include price information than to use database information as the only source for claims. To be clear, the RfC should be taken to cover that database and any substantially similar database regardless of publisher; citing a photocopy of a letter reproduced in a history book is still citing a primary source because you are citing the primary material itself not the secondary analysis of it, even if the primary source object is contained in what is generally a secondary source. To the specific sentence now in the article, revisions like these were addressed as hypotheticals in the RfC and generally disfavored. This was covered in the closing statement: In addition, there are concerns that proper explanation of the situation for the indicated price would give the price undue weight. While the sentence now in this article resolves interpretation and verifiability concerns, it raises questions of due weight. Is a single wholesale transaction in the DRC important enough for this level of specificity when weighed against all the other information available about this drug? Being pretty ignorant of the pharmacology field, I don't have much of an opinion on the specifics, but in general editors foresaw situations like the current text and were suspicious of them. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[9]
• At this point, WhatamIdoing and Doc James are interpreting Wugapodes's comments as supporting their opposite arguments (for removal / for retention), so WhatamIdoing asks again for more clarity.
• Wugapodes: The RFC says whether information should be included in the body of the article should be determined by local consensus. There is a local consensus on this talk page that the current text should not be included. Per WP:ONUS, the disputed text should be removed and the information not re-added until a consensus for its inclusion has developed. I would encourage editors to read Wikipedia:The rules are principles and Wikipedia:Tendentious editing before trying to find more loopholes as my patience is growing thin. If you need me, ping me or post on my talk page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[10]

Question (added)

@Ymblanter: In the WT:MED discussion above, you were told that an editor "seized upon" the wording about "no consensus", and it was blue-linked to a comment that I had made. You said that you agreed with the gist of that comment. Do you believe that I actually "seized upon" it, in the sense of intentionally misrepresenting it? Do you believe that any sensible editor would never have understood the wording to mean it the way that I interpreted it? Do you believe that other editors who understood the wording the way that I did are acting disruptively or in bad faith if they understood it that way? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have not actually looked at the comment. I do not think it is my role as an RfC closer. I do agree though the Colin's points correspond to what we expressed in the closing statement.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I hope it is very clear in the context above that I only asked Ymblanter to comment on whether they agreed with my own interpretation of the close as described there, and not on the behaviours or motives of individuals. The term "seized upon" does not in any way imply "intentionally misrepresenting". All of us read the initial closing remarks in the context of our own prejudice and wishes, and may place greater emphasis on some aspects, or view it more positively or negatively. There is a difference between your general-impression remark, and the cherry-picking of a few words to conclude something a sentence does not say, which sadly we have seen. You had concluded the entire RFC had failed to get consensus "about the central question". I disagreed and am pleased Ymblanter agreed with me there were several important points about which consensus was achieved, including the key one about the use of product price databases, and the reaffirmation of WP:NOTPRICES. It is simply the case you were mistaken, and naturally and quite humanly in a way that supported your existing prejudice and expectations regarding the RFC. We are all human, so that is not a crime. The real test is what you and others do now with the clarifying responses above; whether editors seek consensus, clarity and agreement, or simply edit war with their peers while dismissing the results. One editor in particular, is clearly not handling that well at all, but a discussion of that belongs at arbcom. -- Colin°^Talk 07:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, both of you. It's always a good thing to clarify the intended meaning of anything that one has said, so I appreciate that on multiple levels. As long as we agree that, when I said that when discussion would still be needed on a case-by-case basis, there would likely be differing views about what the RfC found, pending case-by-case discussions and pending the clarifications subsequently given here, that was a reasonable thing for me to say at the time, then that's good enough for me. So I'm glad to find that "seized upon" (as opposed to, for example, "thought that") was not intended in the way that I had feared. There's a glass half-empty versus glass half-full aspect to whether the RfC, even after clarification, really got consensus on everything that one might have hoped for. I don't think it's quite right to call me "mistaken" or driven by my "existing prejudice". None of us is a mind reader, and I was going by a plain reading of the language of the original RfC closing statement, and I was in no position to presume what would emerge from clarifications of which I was not yet aware. Indeed, the very fact that you sought clarification indicates that you, too, felt that the original language was something less than what has been clarified here. But I agree with you entirely that what really matters going forward is what editors "do now with the clarifying responses above; whether editors seek consensus". And that's the right note on which to proceed now. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

MY sense (??) is that the phrasing seized upon is troubling to you, Trypto. Not having ever used that phrase, I looked it up in several online dictionaries, and don't see a troubling aspect to it. It can be hard to interpret other's meaning via the spoken written word.

I am, independently, feeling quite sorry for the three admins who courageously stepped up to admin this RFC, and wonder how we will ever find neutral admins to weigh in on WPMED issues again, as their pingie-thingie list must be going nuts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think that I was pretty clear that I was concerned about that phrase, and only because it was specifically linked to something that I had said. In my mind, there are differing overtones to Tryptofish seized upon that phrase versus Tryptofish thought that the phrase meant.... But I asked, and I was answered to my satisfaction. When the intended meaning of something is unclear, it's good to ask and find out. And I'd be quite happy to end this particular discussion here, with everything resolved to my satisfaction, and go back to my quiet little corner. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Tryptofish, I have been poring over the various discussions on drug prices over the years. Other than WP:NOTPRICES, which dates from 2007, the earliest discussion I can find wrt drug prices is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 4#Pricing information, where no lesser person than your good self can be found expressing concerned "hope that price information is not widespread" and offering encouragement "about, generally, removing it". You remark "Wikipedia should not be serving as a provider of commercial information. I think the only instance in which prices should be regarded as encyclopedic is when secondary sources indicate that there has been a notable issue concerning pricing.", which echoes WP:NOTPRICES. User:WhatamIdoing agreed with you so much they added non-notable pricing to MEDMOS's "do not include" list (along side dosing and titration), clarifying "notable" as meaning "extensively discussed by secondary sources". *sigh*. If only we had left it as it was in 2010. No prizes for guessing who removed that pricing restriction from MEDMOS. -- Colin°^Talk 21:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Again, I'm eager to leave this discussion, but yes, that has been my view for as long as I can remember. Indeed, I remember telling you that that was my opinion fairly recently at Barkeep's talk page. I just don't regard editors who hold different opinions than my own negatively, and I hope that all editors will be treated fairly. There is no need for anyone to reply to me. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Confirming: I do recall that Tryptofish mentioned somewhere (buried in the three pages of archives or at Barkeep's talk) that they did not support the inclusion of these particular prices. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)