Questionable revert I have to question a recent revert here for the reason rv does not appear to be a medical association Previously the following statement was made Are you seriously suggesting that Wikipedia should only include statements that have been endorsed by medical associations Don t you think that would make it a little difficult to express the full range of viewpoints This is clearly inconsistent On one hand we are clearly stating that we can t express a full range of viewpoints if we limit ourselves to sourced material by medical associations but on the other hand we are doing reverts on properly cited material that is the conclusion of a sovereign government