Talk:Gender dysphoria in children/Archive 3

Reorganizing page slightly
TheTranarchist said they were reorganizing the page slightly. They put so much old information at a top level in the article. WP:MEDMOS advises placing history late in the article, so I put TheTranarchist's information late.

Others might want to investigate "Notable proponents of the view that a trans 'outcome' should be discouraged have included Richard Green, John Money, George Rekers, Ole Ivar Lovaas, Kenneth Zucker and Susan Bradley." There is some discussion at Talk:Kenneth Zucker about him rejecting some of the claims made against him. Try for WP:NEUTRAL where proper, everyone. SangdXurWan (talk). I have really red hair. 05:53, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. I have just had to revert TheTranarchist titling a section conversion therapy. That is completely non-neutral, for the reasons you say. Not to mention that this was not considered conversion therapy. The relative newness of such a view as conversion therapy was discussed at the conversion therapy talk page. Stathin (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Charges of conversion therapy are covered in the society and culture section, in a neutral way, although some might argue that it heavily favors those arguing against Zucker et al. It's better than calling the older practices conversion therapy in WP:WIKIVOICE. WP:WIKIVOICE talks about opinions and facts. The argument that Zucker et al. performed conversion therapy is an opinion. Stathin (talk) 19:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The mainstream view, held by all relevant professional bodies, is that therapy intended to change a person's gender identity is, in fact, conversion therapy. The position, in the 21st century, that it is anything else is marginal at best. Newimpartial (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * And now I've reverted. Stathin is entirely correct that calling this conversion therapy doesn't adhere to WP:WIKIVOICE. We don't present opinionated, hot button things such as this as fact. It's also why it's not done in Zucker's article without his response. For many social topic articles, whether's it's abortion or gender identity, we don't do this. Even material at the rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy article adheres to not presenting opinions about it in Wikipedia's voice. SangdXurWan (talk). I have really red hair. 00:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The discussion at Talk:Kenneth Zucker about his views on this includes material rejecting the claim that he and those who worked with him performed conversion therapy. Zucker's approach doesn't appear to have been "let's change this person's gender identity". SangdXurWan (talk). I have really red hair. 00:41, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Could you please quote the section within this that you all believe is not adhering to WP:WIKIVOICE? I've read it multiple times now and do not see what you all are seeing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have reverted it back. SangdXurWan, I don't think you are understanding what WIKIVOICE is about. The revised text does not assert in wikivoice that certain practices are conversion therapy, it attributes the statement to a list of organizations, saying that they consider attempts to change a person's gender identity to be conversion therapy (emphasis added). Nor is there any statement in Wikivoice taking Zucker to task for his therapeutic practices - there are two, attributed statements that represent mainline contemporary evaluations of his work. And DUE, rather than your feelings about hot button things, determines the inclusion (or not) of Zucker's own explanations in Wikipedia articles. I have not seen any evidence, based on reliable, secondary sources, that would make it appropriate to include them. Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Do either of you know the difference between fact and opinion? That is WP:WIKIVOICE in a nutshell. The heading alone is calling the practices conversion therapy. The heading is stating it as conversion therapy in wikivoice. And I've seen that headings have been considered in wikivoice violations on Wikipedia. Then the text says, in wikivoice, that past attempts at therapeutic intervention  often included conversion therapy, and lumps Zucker in there. Newimpartial has twisted protocol once again. Look at how they twisted WP:MEDRS, even when told by a medical editor how things work. They lecture about feelings when that appears to be the only way they know how to edit. Let's see you call Zucker a conversion therapist in wikivoice in his Wikipedia article and see how that works out. Then maybe you'll understand WIKIVOICE. Stathin (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Not the heading alone, the statements and positions of m major modern health organizations. Wikivoice doesn't mean agrees with you, it means it agrees with scientific consensus. When we're done squabbling this article, I see no issue updating Zucker's too. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I await you trying to call that man a conversion therapist in his Wikipedia article. Stathin (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Stathin, you confuse me when you revert changes to article text that have almost nothing to do with the use of wikivoice (with the one very small exception of the heading, "conversion therapy") and then, when your edits are contested, you change the topic to raise questions of attribution and wikivoice (re: Zucker) that were not altered in the edits you were reverting.
 * The current paragraph in which Zucker's practices are discussed reads as follows:


 * It is true that this paragraph does use wikivoice, but I don't see anything here but well-sourced statements of fact. And the only one that relates to Zucker names him among (n)otable proponents of the view that a trans "outcome" should be discouraged. This certainly does not have the character of a BLP violation, and I am not aware of any RS that contest his inclusion among proponents of this view. If it is contested, then by all means the prose could be adjusted to reflect the reliable sourcing. But that is not a pretext for reverting other content, nor is it justification for you to cast aspersions (though I must admit that twisted protocol would have been a good name for an early industrial band), make irrelevant "whataboutist" comments, and generally engage in playground behaviour that is out of scope for an article Talk page. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Love the word whataboutist? I guess we all have our favorite words. But it makes no sense when you use it. Stathin (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Zuckers' approach has been, according to what is in the article currently,
 * to "encourage the child to identify with their assigned sex"
 * to "encourage same-sex friendships"
 * "setting limits on the child's cross-gender behavior" (note conversion therapy is also defined as trying to police "deviant" gender expression of any kind)
 * to "state that children with GD tend to come from families where cross-gender role behavior was not explicitly discouraged."
 * All of these are based off his reports from 1997 and 2002, and the field of trans medicine has moved on since then.
 * Also, when criticized for conversion therapy, he made the stellar defense of calling it
 * "the work of a journalist whose views shouldn't be put into the same camp as those of scientists like Richard Green or himself." (Richard Green was a conversion therapist for the record)
 * Not to mention, as stated in Kenneth Zucker, he has stated:
 * "We recommend that one goal be to help the child feel more secure about his or her actual gender, another to deal with the child's emotional difficulties, and a third to help with problems in the family. It's helpful to have parents set limits on things like cross-dressing, which many parents have not done before coming to us."
 * What about this approach is not conversion therapy? And to be clear, conversion therapy as defined by the least the majority of major health organizations, the linked article goes into more detail than the already sizeable chunk on conversion therapy here. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Opinions. A wait-and-see approach, or trying to relieve gender dysphoria by seeing if the child can be comfortable in their assigned sex, because of the research they had on prepubebescents mostly desisting, is not conversion therapy in the sense of trying to change the child's gender identity. It's trying to figure out what that child's gender identity is and whether it's true. When most cases have shown children are likelier to desist, then accepting that the child is trans is neglectful. Puberty blockers for treatment of gender dysphoria also take a wait-and-see approach. When Zucker says he's fine with the child socially transitioning after a wait-and-see approach, he can hardly be called a conversion therapist in the way you're trying to make him out to be. I take back what I said about you being level-headed. Since day, one you have added a conversion therapy POV in dubious ways. If you do this at the Zucker article, let's see how WP:BLP holds up. Stathin (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Opinions is a funny way of saying quoting a person and comparing their statements to the positions of major modern health organizations.
 * Also, there are many other discussions of this throughout WP, but high desistance is not a fact but a misinterpretation of the data that is known to be so.
 * Quick question about my "conversion therapy POV", what false statements have I made? "Day one", I was challenged for trying to say transgender conversion therapy exists at all, not for faulty evidence. You haven't had to go through the fun stuff he describes as just "wait and see". It's also the position of the APA that "wait-and-see" is not neutral FYI.
 * In regards to my latest edit/reversion, I accidentally pressed enter while typing. The edit summary would have been: reverting the position of the Endocrine Society to a past one, misrepresenting what the medical community considers conversion therapy, countering style/format changes to keep older medical diagnosis criteria in there, and denying the existence of MEDR studies on the topic at hand is not "neutral". TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For your edification, conversion therapy as described by APA and the SAMHSA as "efforts to change an individual's sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression—is a practice that is not supported by credible evidence and has been disavowed by behavioral health experts and associations. Conversion therapy perpetuates outdated views of gender roles and identities as well as the negative stereotype that being a sexual or gender minority or identifying as LGBTQ is an abnormal aspect of human development. Most importantly, it may put young people at risk of serious harm."
 * According to the APA, "Due to the dynamic nature of puberty development, lack of gender-affirming interventions (i.e. social, psychological, and medical) is not a neutral decision; youth often experience worsening dysphoria and negative impact on mental health as the incongruent and unwanted puberty progresses. Trans-affirming treatment, such as the use of puberty suppression, is associated with the relief of emotional distress, and notable gains in psychosocial and emotional development, in trans and gender diverse youth"
 * According to WPATH: "Treatment aimed at trying to change a person’s gender identity and expression to become more congruent with sex assigned at birth has been attempted in the past without success (Gelder & Marks, 1969; Greenson, 1964), particularly in the long term (Cohen-Kettenis & Kuiper, 1984; Pauly, 1965). Such treatment is no longer considered ethical."
 * Did Zucker not explicitly say he set limits in a child's gender expression ("It's helpful to have parents set limits on things like cross-dressing")? That is a yes or no question.
 * You are the one here who is not "level-headed", and is pushing misinformation. As a trans girl who's seen too many people go through what you're describing as fine and not conversion therapy, and as someone who actually relies on current sources and definitions which you seem to have an aversion to including, frankly your POV is laughable if not for its real world dangerous effects. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * "Conversion therapy" in the heading is WP:WIKIVOICE. And having Zucker in a paragraph about conversion therapy is obviously implying that he performed conversion therapy. Wikivoice doesn't mean agrees with you. Take note, I agree. And I didn't mean to remove any updates to the diagnosis criteria. I only meant to remove your POV of calling practices conversion therapy when they were based on desistance rates, the DSM criteria at the time, and trying to apply appropriate standards of care. Your argument that "high desistance is not a fact but a misinterpretation of the data that is known to be so" is only an assertion at this point with the research that exists. I notice that you admit to that here. The desistance rates may not be as high as reported, but more research is needed for the true prevalence. Not one primary study.
 * Where do reviews call Zucker's practices "conversion therapy"? I don't see it in reviews. I see more neutral outlooks than what you describe. "Gender nonconforming youth: current perspectives" is a 2017 review that mentions Zucker and analyzes what it calls "the traditional model of gender development". It says "Underlying the treatment was the intent of warding off a homosexual outcome for young effeminate boys" and "it should be mentioned that this model is still practiced today, referred to by some as the reparative model.", but one of the things among many that it says about the newer model is, "In this contemporary model of gender development, added to the three dimensions of nature, nurture, and culture is the fourth dimension: time. Each child alters their gender web as they weave together nature, nurture, and culture, 'over time'. In other words, gender is neither fixed by age 6, as in the traditional model, nor static throughout all stages of child and adult development, thus explaining how an individual at age 40 or 50 could come to the realization that the gender they had identified as being is no longer a good fit."
 * Of note, it also says of the "live in your own skin" model, "As mentioned earlier, this model was developed by Drs Susan Bradley and Ken Zucker at the Center for Alcoholism and Mental Health gender clinic in Toronto.16 The treatment goal of facilitating a young child accepting the gender identity matching the sex assigned to that child at birth, based on the supposition that younger children, in contrast to older youth, have a malleable gender brain, is tied to a medical–social rationale. Specifically, being transgender is a harder way to live one’s life, both because of social stigma and potential requested hormonal treatments and surgeries to align a youth’s body with their transgender identity. Given the perceived plasticity of the young child’s gender brain, best practice would be to introduce interventions to help a child accept the sex assigned to them at birth as their gender identity, with no harm done and indeed added benefit to their psychological and social well-being." They describe things differently than you do.
 * You also say, "It's also the position of the APA that 'wait-and-see' is not neutral FYI." The review says, "The 'watchful waiting' model was designed by the members of the interdisciplinary team at the Amsterdam Center of Expertise on Gender Dysphoria, VU University Medical Center, under the leadership of Dr Peggy Cohen-Kettenis. Borrowing from the medical use of GnRH agonists for children exhibiting precocious puberty, the Netherlands team is responsible for introducing the use of puberty blockers for gender purposes, to put a pause on pubertal growth and allow more time for a youth to explore their gender and consolidate their adolescent gender identity, with the future possibility of cross-sex hormone therapy to align their bodies with their affirmed gender identity. In contrast to the live in your own skin approach, a young child’s demonstration of gender nonconformity, be it in identity, expressions, or both, is not to be manipulated in any way, but observed over time. If a child’s cross-gender identifications and affirmations are persistent over time, interventions are made available for a child to consolidate a transgender identity, once it is assessed, through therapeutic intervention and psychometric assessment, as in the best interests of the child. ... No attempts are made to alter a child’s gender identity or expressions; yet it is postulated in this model that it would be better to hold off until puberty on any social transitions of a child from one gender to another, and instead give them safe spaces to fully express their gender as they prefer before facilitating any full gender transitions.. ... The third model of care, the gender affirmative model, is closely aligned with the watchful waiting model but in opposition to the live in your own skin model." It also describes things differently than you do on this, and reflects my comment on puberty blockers.
 * More: "The watchful waiting model is a highly respected model of care worldwide, offering careful and cautious procedures; but it has run into a snag: many contemporary families in the Netherlands are not content to hold their children back from social transitions until puberty, and have, through both local and international support networks of parents and professionals, proceeded to facilitate their children’s social transitions without awaiting clinical approval or waiting until puberty arrives. Parents do this not because they dismiss professional care, but because evidence is accruing that young children thrive when given permission to live in the gender that is most authentic,27,28 and are at risk for symptomatic behaviors if prevented from doing so. At the same time, the watchful waiting model is effective in its thorough attention and assessment of the child over time, integrating the services of mental health and medical professionals. ... The gender affirmative model is questioned by some on the basis of the lack of evidence-based data that indicates that young children can reliably communicate and have self-knowledge of a transgender identity or benefit from a social transition. There is also concern that the model of listening to the children puts too much weight on a child’s self-report."
 * Newimpartial criticized Jdbrook in the weak support section and at WP:MED, but it looks like some of the criticism is unwarranted. Stathin (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * This last paragraph is a perfect example of Whataboutism, since it directs the discussion entirely away from the topic (in this case, away from any of the topics actually being discussed) and towards some poorly articulated "dead cats". Newimpartial (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That last paragraph is very relevant, considering what Jdbrook argued. I've never seen your interpretation of whataboutism until you. At least you changed that "conversion therapy" heading. Stathin (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen Jdbrook make any arguments, on this page or elsewhere, that would be relevant to this section. Perhaps you could enlighten me. Newimpartial (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * 1) Here is a peer-reviewed critiques of the high desistance myth: https://doi.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fsgd0000504. Here are the original authors of the high desistance review ackowledging they didn't track gender identity, but referrals to clinics. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/15532739.2018.1468292
 * 2) Here is a sources where Zucker's practices are compared to conversion therapy: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/19361653.2019.1665610,
 * 3) In regards to "Specifically, being transgender is a harder way to live one’s life, both because of social stigma and potential requested hormonal treatments and surgeries to align a youth’s body with their transgender identity. Given the perceived plasticity of the young child’s gender brain, best practice would be to introduce interventions to help a child accept the sex assigned to them at birth as their gender identity":"
 * 3.1) the current medical consensus is that gender identity is biologically rooted, not a choice.
 * 3.2) I suppose you would also be completely fine with the statement "Being homosexual is a harder way to live one’s life, both because of social stigma and potential discrimination in receiving healthcare. Given the perceived plasticity of the young child’s sexual brain, best practice would be to introduce interventions to help a child accept the sexual orientation assigned to them at birth as their sexual orientation." For the record, the approximate phrase "it's not conversion therapy since life is hard for trans people and we'll treat them when they're older" is nothing new, I refer you to the history section of this article and page conversion therapy.
 * 4) The affirmative model does not mean tell any gender-noncomforming kid they're trans, it means accept them without judgement without trying to convince them they're anything." No attempts are made to alter a child’s gender identity or expressions" is contrary to Zucker's own quote. From your own quote, "evidence is accruing that young children thrive when given permission to live in the gender that is most authentic,27,28 and are at risk for symptomatic behaviors if prevented from doing so." Here is an article where the main factor separating the wait-and-see from affirmative model is laid out to be disallowing social transition before puberty: https://acamh.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jcpp.12833 It's also interesting how you quote the APA's 2017 review to try and get around their 2020 position statement.
 * 4) As stated and you keep avoiding. 1) Is the definition of conversion therapy as I stated (attempting to change gender identity or expression)? 2) Did Zucker not encourage parents to set limits on gender expression? TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * TheTranarchist, I don't know the full context of "the perceived plasticity of the young child's gender brain" in terms of this topic, but neuroplasticity is a biologically-rooted topic and the Wikipedia article for it says that the developing brain exhibits a higher degree of plasticity than the adult brain. "Choice" wasn't mentioned in the text Stathin quoted.
 * Re: "quote the APA's 2017 review to try and get around their 2020 position statement", I don't think that's what they were doing. FYI, though, WP:MEDORG has a section on guidelines, position statements, and reviews. SangdXurWan (talk). I have really red hair. 03:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Prevalence section
This section should only be about the prevalence of those with gender dysphoria. The prevalence of trans or gender-diverse children is a different topic. Crossroads already removed the different topic from the section. But TheTranarchist has attempted to add more information about trans kids to the section. I reverted this. Stathin (talk) 18:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Gender dysphoria is a convenient half-truth the medical system has rather than an existing condition. It is the term for a trans person's desire to transition which prioritizes the distress caused by not being able to as the issue at hand, as opposed to terms like euphoria which center the joy and authenticity transition allows us to express. While not all trans people have dysphoria and vice versa, that's because it's a poorly formulated concept that's been changed over the decades. Under the current medical system, any trans person who wants to transition requires a diagnosis of gender dysphoria. The current diagnosis requires only a self-identification as trans/desire to transition. As such, when discussing how many children have "gender dysphoria", ie don't feel comfortable in their assigned gender at birth and want to transition, how on earth isn't how many kids say they're trans a valid datapoint?
 * Not to mention, I updated it after Crossroads undid my initial edit. The initial figures referred to gender-noncomforming children, that is true, the one I added and you reverted referred explicitly to transgender youth. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The prevalence of children with gender dysphoria still is not the same population as children who actively identify as transgender. We have to be even more careful about this because of the shifting data on this topic and questions about what percentage of prepubescent children with gender dysphoria desisit or persist. SangdXurWan (talk). I have really red hair. 00:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What evidence do you accept as reliable on this topic? Newimpartial (talk) 01:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * What we need are MEDRS review(s) that are specifically on numbers of children with gender dysphoria. Crossroads -talk- 05:04, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a source for "people with gender dysphoria" does not refer to trans people? How does "gender dysphoria", distress with one's assigned sex at birth and a desire to transition, not reflect trans people? If "gender dysphoria" is defined as "A strong desire to be of the other gender or an insistence that one is the other gender", which trans youth exactly don't fall under that umbrella?
 * As stated earlier, and in the article concerning it for that matter, gender dysphoria is a medical diagnosis which its proponents say exists to justify a trans person's desire to transition medically. The idea "distress" is the end all be all of the trans experience is deeply misguided. If considering homosexuality as an example, would you argue that there is a objective meaningful difference between statistics on how many people identify as gay vs how many have been diagnosed with homosexuality, ie "medically" recognized as "desiring to have romantic relations with the same gender and distress when expected to do the opposite"? So when considering the medical term for "wanting to live as one gender and feeling distress over being unable to do so", why exactly can't we use the statistics on the number who are trans as relevant?
 * Also, the studies referenced included reports on youth <= 19 who were asked "Do you think you are transgender? This is a girl who feels like she should have been a boy, or a boy who feels like he should have been a girl (e.g., Trans, Queen, Fa’faffine, Whakawahine, Tangataira Tane, Genderqueer)". Given how a common statement by any side researching trans healthcare is we need more studies that aren't completely focused on clinics and small populations, multiple surveys across thousands of kids at different schools seems like a fairly good statistical look into the question of many of how many people are trans, ie don't feel comfortable in their assigned gender at birth.
 * If you can provide some better statistics on this, please by all means do. But please don't act like a systematic review fully MEDR compliant doesn't cut the mustard because it doesn't pathologize and medicalize trans people enough. For the record, the review used studies using the term "gender dysphoria" and the official diagnosis. All studies selected for the publication did so because they "1) appeared in press in 2009 or later; 2) were published in English; 3) used a clear definition of TGD status; 4) calculated proportions of TGD people based on a well-defined population denominator; and 5) were peer-reviewed." TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Earlier, you say, "While not all trans people have dysphoria and vice versa, that's because it's a poorly formulated concept that's been changed over the decades." Then you ask if there is a source for saying "people with gender dysphoria" does not refer to trans people. You also include the question: How does "gender dysphoria", distress with one's assigned sex at birth and a desire to transition, not reflect trans people? Well, sure there's a source. There's many. You can't not know that. National Health Service has a report saying, "A diagnosis of gender dysphoria in childhood is rare. Most children who seem confused about their gender identity when young will not continue to feel the same way beyond puberty. Role playing is not unusual in young children."
 * But that's the crux, isn't it? A lot of sources, even if relying on "myth" data, report that children with gender dysphoria will no longer have it before or at some time during puberty. In the case that we think of "children who seem confused about their gender identity" to be broader than those with gender dysphoria, the National Health Service uses that wording under a title termed "Signs of gender dysphoria in children" regardless. The material on desistance is about some prepubertal children who were diagnosed with gender dysphoria and then not having gender dysphoria and not actually being transgender. Do you think differently about it because the older criteria for gender dysphoria was partly "wrong"? All children diagnosed with gender dysphoria today are transgender? Also, you endorse "gender dysphoria is just about trans people", and the altered criteria, but then say the idea that distress "is the end all be all of the trans experience is deeply misguided" while an article from the American Psychiatric Association says, "In order to meet criteria for the diagnosis, the condition must also be associated with clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning"? SangdXurWan (talk). I have really red hair. 03:39, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Continued reorganization
Foe those averse to following the thread of wdit summaries, I have again followed up on some of TheTranarchist's structural changes by making more modest changes of my own: in this case, moving material from "Management" to "History" so that contemporary management tools are in managwmrnt and the whole historic arc of deprecated approaches is in "History" (including the decisions that deprecated them). I believe this change serves the interests of our readers. Newimpartial (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Realise I'm re-opening a can of worms here per the above sections, but the History section really really badly needs some subsections to break up the content. There's also something odd about how that section flows linguistically, possibly with some repetition, though I can't quite tell if you're finished with your rejig yet. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I did some basic work on verb tenses, but I'm fine for others to continue now. I just wanted to rough out a basic division of content between sections: there is certainly more to be done. Newimpartial (talk) 00:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The new setup isn't too bad, but the history section does look exhaustive. SangdXurWan (talk). I have really red hair. 03:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Recent sources
Recent investigative reports by Reuters, The BMJ and others may be useful for article improvement, especially the societal aspects. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2023 (UTC)