This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Sociology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Medicine: Cardiology / Society Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Cardiology task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance). Physiology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to the physiology of the heart. Pennsylvania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pennsylvania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PennsylvaniaWikipedia:WikiProject PennsylvaniaTemplate:WikiProject PennsylvaniaPennsylvania Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Could it be that the decline in longevity is not due solely to people moving out, forgetting the old ways, etc, but also to the washing away of the epigenetic inputs of the founders of the village? Think of the momentous event in the lives of all the people who made the move first. It is the late 18 hundreds and they pop out of a world of monotonous misery into an entirely new experience, language, culture, nature, etc. After crossing the ocean out of my little village - and breaking with centuries of habits - I would enjoy the move for the rest of my life, and totally seek stability, trust, predictability. Epigenetics could make that last a couple of generations, but not forever. -- unsigned comment by User:82.67.197.191 (talk) Oct 19, 2017

Several sources mention the beers, so I thought to include it. I reckon they mention the beer because it evokes the human nature of the doctors and paints an image of a casual conversation during which this observation was first made. The beers were mentioned in this page's DYK entry. -- ke4roh (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bon courage (talk · contribs) nominated this article for deletion owing to WP:MEDRS. This discussion is to help sort out best to improve Wikipedia with respect to this article, be it by deleting or improving the article by any number of means.

I appreciate that some of the sources are not peer-reviewed, but others are, and the doctors studied the population. Perhaps follow-up studies are warranted (or have been done), but I can also imagine a double-blind experiment is not really possible or ethical, so we refer to natural experiments such as this one. That said, I'd like to hear more from Bon Courage about what's amiss. ke4roh (talk)

More fundamentally, has this got any attention is reliable sources (i.e. WP:MEDRS), or was it just a term floated in unreliable sources many years ago, which sank into obscurity rather than forming any part of the corpus of 'accepted knowledge' that Wikipedia is concerned with? Bon courage (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have added additional peer-reviewed sources, including some (preprint) criticism of the initial findings. -- ke4roh (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But it all fails WP:MEDRS, rather accentuating the problem we have. Bon courage (talk) 20:17, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve made substantial improvements to this article with WP:MEDRS in mind, in response to the concerns raised earlier. Specifically:

• Added multiple peer-reviewed systematic reviews and meta-analyses on social cohesion, psychosocial stress, and cardiovascular health (Park 2021, Pérez 2019, Leigh-Hunt 2017, Fishta 2015).
• Reframed medical claims to emphasize observational associations, avoiding unsupported causation.
• Cited primary and secondary peer-reviewed literature for both the original Roseto findings and their re-evaluations (including a 2024 peer-reviewed reinterpretation and a recent preprint critique).
• Used non-MEDRS sources (e.g., People) only for clearly marked anecdotal or historical detail, not to support medical claims.

Being Wikipedia, we're always open to further refinement, but I hope this helps resolve the MEDRS concern constructively. More specific feedback would be helpful to resolve any remaining issues. -- ke4roh (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources need to be on-topic (i.e. explicitly discussing the Roseto Effect) to avoid WP:SYNTH/WP:OR issues. Primary research is generally forbidden for anything biomedical. So far as I can see, there are zero MEDRS on this topic[1] which suggests it was a flash-in-the-pan term which failed to gain traction within the medical literature and so is not worthy of encyclopedic coverage, especially in a standalone article. Bon courage (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage: Thanks for continuing the discussion. I’ve reverted to a version of the article that reflects recent improvements aimed at aligning with WP:MEDRS, WP:SYNTH, and WP:NPOV. These edits added multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Park 2021, Pérez 2019, Leigh-Hunt 2017, Fishta 2015) that support the broader context of social cohesion and cardiovascular health outcomes—framing the original Roseto study as a historically influential but contested example.

The article now attributes all health claims clearly, avoids unsupported causation, and presents both the original findings and a later critique (Coste 2024, omitting Adhikari 2024 preprint as not reviewed) with proper attribution. Primary studies are used only for historical documentation, not as standalone evidence of health effects, and the term “Roseto Effect” is presented as a historical label, not a currently accepted medical concept.

I understand your concern about the term’s limited use in modern medical literature. That’s a fair point. But notability on Wikipedia is based on **coverage in reliable secondary sources**, not on continued technical adoption. The Roseto case has been cited in mainstream publications, textbooks, and academic work, and has cultural and historical value as one of the early sociological explorations of health disparities.

Going forward, I propose we focus on improving structure and clarity rather than removing sourced, policy-compliant content. If a title or scope change is appropriate (e.g. focusing on social cohesion and health), I'm open to that. But I ask that we avoid further large-scale removals until we’ve reached at least some consensus here. Thanks. -- ke4roh (talk) 16:15, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point is there are no reliable medical secondary sources covering this topic. Bon courage (talk) 16:21, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing disagreement on this talk page[2] about the sourcing and notability of the article on the Roseto Effect. One editor has argued that there are no MEDRS-compliant sources that explicitly discuss the Roseto Effect and therefore the article fails WP:MEDRS and WP:NOTABILITY. Another editor contends that while the term is not widely used in modern medical literature, the original Roseto studies are historically notable and have been covered in multiple reliable secondary sources (e.g., JAMA, AJPH, Chicago Tribune), and that the article has been updated to frame the effect as a historical concept rather than a current medical claim.

The current version includes:

• Historical peer-reviewed sources describing the phenomenon (Stout et al. 1964; Egolf et al. 1992)
• Modern scholarly analysis of the Roseto case (Coste & Glatron 2024)
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the general relationship between social cohesion and cardiovascular health, used to contextualize (not synthesize) the broader topic

It does not include (but has previously):

• A 2024 preprint critique of the original Roseto effect research (clearly labeled as such)

Question: Is the current version of the article (as of [3]) appropriately framed and sourced under Wikipedia policy? If not, what changes would you recommend — merging, renaming, restructuring, or something else?

All input welcome — thanks. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:23, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: One editor has previously posted to WikiProject Medicine requesting informal feedback on this topic. This RfC is intended to serve as the structured venue for resolving the dispute based on Wikipedia policies and broader community input. -- ke4roh (talk) 02:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The RfC question is not neutrally worded, and is too imprecise for me to give anything approaching a yes-or-no answer. But as a general observation, it seems to me that this page should treat the topic as a speculative idea, rather than as an "effect" for which there is scientific consensus. I also think that any sourcing that is about "the general relationship between social cohesion and cardiovascular health", but that is not specifically about Roseto, should probably be omitted, at least so long as this page exists under its present title. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It doesn't seem right that the article is at the OP's preferred version, rather than the status quo ante. Support the fishy comment about sourcing. - Roxy the dog 07:54, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for the comment, Roxy. For transparency, the current version reflects content that was added and later removed in response to earlier MEDRS concerns. I restored it after those removals were made without prior consensus. This RfC is intended to help resolve that dispute by seeking broader community input. I’m open to revising the article based on whatever consensus emerges here. -- ke4roh (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I disagree, unless the history somehow is different for you and me? - Roxy the dog 12:47, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I recommend actually reading WP:STATUSQUO, aka Wikipedia:Reverting#Avoid reverting during discussion, and which says things like "Do not edit war even if your excuse is restoring the 'status quo version'" and "If a dispute arises regarding which version is the status quo ante bellum, be the adult in the room and don't revert.". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WAID, are you calling me an adult? - Roxy the dog 18:45, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Your account is 17 years, 4 months old. Unless you started editing while you were a baby, then I am forced to draw certain chronological conclusions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WAID, Roxy hasn't reverted anything. He has commented in talk, but he didn't revert at all. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:09, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]