Talk:NowMedical

Untitled section
NowMedical is a company worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Its activities are of interest to housing, immigration, medical and legal practitioners in the UK. The article could do with improvement. I have made some changes and intend to make more when I can. nik nicol (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

NowMedical's statement
Hello,

Wikimedia OTRS received concerns regarding this article. They asked OTRS agents to publish their statement. Reference: ticket:2020060310007957. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Inserted by --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to spend too much time on this - if they want edits to be made, they should use the Simple_conflict_of_interest_edit_request format and articulate clearly and simply (in a 'from X to Y' format) what they want to be changed.
 * As an aside, I don't think the complainant has understood our policies. WP:NOTABILITY clearly does not relate to the inclusion of local sources in an article, but rather prevents an article existing if it relies solely on local sources. There has clearly been sufficient national coverage (as the complainant admits) for this article to meet WP:NOTABILITY.
 * Cheers, Darren-M   talk  22:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As far as misunderstanding of policy goes, I don't think WP:OR is understood either. They've cited legislation, but this is a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. We're not going to alter content based on their reasoning of the law, or our opinion of their reasoning of the law, it would simply be original research. This request lacks in clarity and is far larger than any other in the currently-backlogged COI queue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I did nonetheless sympathise with their argument about the use of blogs, so have amended the article to remove the two blog entries. I've also expanded a couple of the paragraphs around court judgements, and provided a more lengthy quote.
 * It does seem that the article has been subject to WP:POVPUSHING to make the article more favourable to the subject, though. Time will tell if that will resurface against the hopefully more neutral and accurate phraseology that now exists.
 * As always, shout up if you have any queries re my edits. Best, Darren-M   talk  23:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * It does seem that the article has been subject to WP:POVPUSHING to make the article more favourable to the subject, though. Time will tell if that will resurface against the hopefully more neutral and accurate phraseology that now exists.
 * As always, shout up if you have any queries re my edits. Best, Darren-M   talk  23:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As always, shout up if you have any queries re my edits. Best, Darren-M   talk  23:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As always, shout up if you have any queries re my edits. Best, Darren-M   talk  23:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits
Some of the recent edits remove some important information or are factually incorrect so I thought it best to write here and let others adjust. I should declare an interest - I work in UK Housing and know some Now Medical cases well - I'm not employed by Now Medical nor have I ever been.

1 the lady from Sudan did not have a stroke - that is an error. She had a back problem (sciatica) according to the court judgement

2 the fact she had satisfactorily travelled from the Sudan to the UK is obviously relevant and should not have been removed from the page

3 the comment from the Scottish MP should be removed as suggested elsewhere, as if it is correct Now Medical don't advise in Scotland, she has no direct knowledge of the company's casework

4 the company have widely distributed - including to me - a document explaining their work and citing various cases when they have been praised by Judges in court - this evidence should be on WP, to balance the negative cases already described. Kind regards. Alberthalll (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)
 * , just two interim comments. On 1, the in-line source appears to confirm this was re a stroke, though happy for you to provide alternative sources. On 4, if that positive coverage has not been detailed in reliable secondary sources, that would be against WP:UNDUE. Best, Darren-M   talk  15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Requested changes from NowMedical
I work for NowMedical. Since there was no consensus at AfD, I would like to propose some specific changes to the page that may address some of the BLP/UNDUE/RS-type concerns expressed by NowMedical and echoed in the AfD discussion.

Current Content: "In April 2020, the London Borough of Islington decided to discontinue their contract and stop using services by NowMedical." Change to: Delete. Reason: WP:UNDUE. Listing individual customers that stopped using the service seems awfully detailed. This customer is not a significant part of NowMedical's history. NowMedical has more than 100 similar council customers. The cited article is just a short blurb in a local paper.

Current Content: "Criticisms and Controversies" Change to:"Use in Government Housing Determinations" Reason: WP:CSECTION. "Criticisms and Controversies" sections are discouraged. The proposed replacement is more neutral and more specific.

Current Content: In 2015. NowMedical was criticised for providing medical opinions to councils without seeing the people or the medical records of those whose health they assess, thereby "providing secondhand evidence" to the councils. Change to: As of 2015, about 80% of NowMedical's assessments are done without physically meeting the person they are assessing. Reason: WP:QUOTE, etc. Using quotes to add editorialized language is discouraged. Additionally, quotes are supposed to include a clear attribution to who said it. In this case, the criticisms and quote are from the plaintiff's attorney. A majority of the cited local news article is actually made-up of quotes from the plaintiff's lawyer.

Current Content: The Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine said that there should be "a review of how companies like NowMedical are awarded contracts to make these kinds of assessments.” Change to: Delete Reason: WP:QUOTE, WP:UNDUE. This politician's comment about what the government should do is not a significant part of the company's history. Using quotes to add editorialized language is discouraged.

Current Content: In November 2019 Keen advised that a woman who was housebound after having a stroke was able to return to Sudan on a plane, recommending frequent exercise whilst on board the plane by walking around the cabin Change to: Delete Reason: WP:UNDUE. NowMedical has provided more than 200,000 assessments. The journalist probably felt this anecdote was great for storytelling purposes, not that this individual assessment was a significant part of the company's history.

Current Content: Thanet District Council defended its use of the company in 2019, stating that "their role is to assess whether someone’s housing conditions impact on their health. They are not there to replace the services provided by the NHS and people should visit their own GP to discuss their health and medication.” Change to: The Thanet District Counsil defended its use of NowMedical, stating citizens should visit their own doctor for medical advice, not rely on the housing determinations made by NowMedical. Reason: WP:QUOTE. The lengthy quote seems unnecessary and can be stated more concisely.

Current Content: In 2017, it was criticised by the County Court at Central London for its advice to Lambeth Council, stating that "[NowMedical’s] approach to reaching a conclusion was flawed as a means of providing information that would help the decision maker". Change to: Delete Reason: WP:RS. This is cited to a personal blog.

Current Content: In 2017, NowMedical provided a medical opinion to Haringey Council relating to a mother having to care after a child with autism. The case concerned the suitability of accommodation provided to her and her family, and specifically the potential risk to the child stemming from the flat being situated on the first floor with access to balconies. Keen stated that the optimum solution would be a ground-floor property, however "given a fall from a first floor is unlikely to be fatal, and that availability of ground floor properties may be so scarce as to potentially delay a relocation, then I think that a first floor property is an acceptable alternative." Change to: Delete Reason: WP:UNDUE. NowMedical has provided more than 200,000 assessments. The journalist probably felt this anecdote was great for storytelling, not that this individual assessment was a significant part of the company's history.

Current Content: This advice was commented on by the High Court in 2018, which stated that it was "not clear on which medical basis he comes to [his] conclusion." Change to: Delete Reason: WP:RS. Most of this content, including the quote, is taken directly from the judge's opinion, a primary source.

Infobox: Replace the current infobox with the below expanded version:

Unfortunately, all of the available press articles featuring NowMedical are really about lawsuits against local governments that use NowMedical's services, rather than being profiles about NowMedical itself. The articles primarily repeat the plaintiff's allegations and related political discussions. As a result, there are no Wikipedia-compliant citations for even basic biographical details like when the company was founded. However, the changes above would at least address the most severe issues. MarthaLuke (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I was asked to comment. I would remove the two anecdotes, and anything based on blogs. But was updated in 2020 to include a rebuttal by the company.  DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


 * I started off by removing the bit about the London Borough of Islington. Agree that individual customers deciding to use or not use the service is undue. This includes Bracknell Forest Council. MarthaLuke, do you have a proper history that is [A] sourced, [B] not focused on individual customers, and [C] looks like something that belongs in an is in an encyclopedia?


 * Also, the lead paragraph appears to describe a different service than what I see at [ https://www.nowmedical.co.uk/ ] Medical advice and housing medical advice are quite different. Which is it? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I just noticed the OTRS section above. I am going to have to spend some time evaluating that and the deletion discussion. More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Our organization consists of about 9 part-time doctors and 3 secretaries. Besides press release reports, I am not aware of any substantial press focused on our small organization, other than the press around a lawsuit against Government customers using our service. We are housing medical advice only. MarthaLuke (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * No need to ping me. I am watching this page.
 * How about this: per WP:ABOUTSELF we can use nowmedical.co.uk as a source for the history of NowMedical. Write up a company history (make sure it reads like a typical company history and not a sales brochure) and ask whoever does your webpage to put it up on nowmedical.co.uk. that will give us something to put in the company history section.


 * I am still looking at the other sections. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello Guy Macon. A month ago you said you were looking into the “specific requested changes” above and asked if NowMedical could provide some content on their website for an ABOUTSELF citation, given the lack of media coverage about NowMedical’s history/operations. Please do let me know if this works for the ABOUSELF content and if you need anything additional. MarthaLuke (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * That's really useful. Most of it can be used in the article pretty much as written. One small issue; the same page says
 * "The contents of this page are made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. NowMedical has dedicated this work to the public domain by waiving all of its rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission."
 * but at the bottom it says
 * "Copyright © 2016 NowMedical. All rights reserved".
 * I think you want to keep the CC0 notice and drop the copyright notice. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello again Guy Macon. The copyright declaration on the “ABOUTSELF” content here should be fixed now. Thank you. MarthaLuke (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I will try to get to this tonight or tomorrow. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Guy Macon. Just checking in on your review of the creative commons content and the requested changes above. Please let me know if there’s anything else I can do to be of assistance. MarthaLuke (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reminder. Feel free to give me a nudge if a couple of days have gone by and I forgot something. I have a lot on my plate, but rewarding editors who work with us instead of engaging in undisclosed paid editing is a priority for me.


 * [ https://nowmedical.co.uk/nowmedical ] says "In 2015, the UK Supreme Court changed the standard used to determine which citizens qualify for government-sponsored housing in Johnson, a case NowMedical advised on" I am having trouble finding a case about housing with that name in List of United Kingdom Supreme Court cases


 * Could it be Hotak and others (Appellants) v London Borough of Southwark and another (Respondents) [2015] UKSC 30? If so, where is the evidence that NowMedical was involved? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , with all respect for your good intentions, I've reverted your latest edit (and am considering whether to revert some others). WP:ABOUTSELF is not about inserting a corporate whitewash of what appears to have been a very troubled history. Yes, it could be invoked to cite the address of the head office, or reported earnings for the year dot, but not in this way. Please obtain talk-page consensus before acting on edit requests that substantially alter the entire article in favour (surprise, surprise) of the interested party. Let's be clear: this thing wouldn't have a page here if it weren't for the negative press coverage – it seems it isn't notable for anything else. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No need to ping me. When I edit a page I watch that page.
 * It is my considered opinion that the history of the company should be in the history section and that criticisms should be in the criticisms and controversies section, but if even one editor disagrees I won't push the issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

This comment does raise notability questions, since the only press coverage about NowMedical is about the controversies, and the primary subject of those articles are political/governmental organizations that NowMedical provides services for. It seems unusual for a company of just over a dozen people to qualify for a page, but politics does attract a lot of media attention. In any case, about a year and a half ago a prior AfD resulted in no consensus.

Guy Macon, please would you still be willing to look at the "Specific Requested Changes" listed at the beginning of this string? seemed to agree blogs should be removed. MarthaLuke (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Please ask Justlettersandnumbers if they would object. I often handle edit requests from COI editors because I want to reward them for following the rules. I don't add anything that to my eye looks spammy or promotional, and in my opinion the requests made on this page were neither. On the other hand, I don't want to get into an argument with someone who doesn't like the edits. So your next step is to try to convince Justlettersandnumbers, and if that doesn't work, I would suggest posting an WP:RfC and letting the community decide. Let me know if you need help formatting an RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, any blog or other patently non-reliable source should be removed immediately, together with any otherwise unsourced associated content. Which source are we talking about here? – nearlylegal.co.uk? Are there others too? What the page needs is solid reliable sources such as this. As for dividing history and controversy into two separate sections, isn't that exactly what we don't do? The controversy is part of the history; since bad news makes better news than good news, that is what has received coverage. The strength of that coverage is reduced by being in only one major national newspaper; it'd be preferable to see something in the Times and the Grauniad too – is there anything? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * How about this as a way to go forward: MarthaLuke, could you please create a new set of suggested changes that address Justlettersandnumbers' concerns? I am still of the opinion that self-published sources are perfectly fine for noncontroversial claims such as who the founder is, what business they are in, previous corporate name, etc., but I am not the one you have to convince. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * and about the use of responsible self-published sources, I agree with . They cannot be presumed to be in error, it has to be shown.   DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Justlettersandnumbers removed some material I added with an edit comment of "WP:ABOUTSELF applies to basic facts, not a complete whitewash job."

Here is some of the material I added that I call "basic facts" and Justlettersandnumbers calls "a complete whitewash job":


 * John W. Keen, whose background is as a general medical practitioner....


 * In 2016 NowMedical started advising local authorities on the medical suitability of taxicab drivers.

Unless we can come to an agreement on this I intend on posting an RfC, and in my estimation the consensus will be over 90% in favor of my edits being "basic facts" with the consensus for "a complete whitewash job" being in the single digits.

When I respond to edit requests from people with COIs, I think I do a reasonable job of making the edits encyclopedic and not a whitewash. I often have them go back and redo the request (usually because it is too detailed, sometimes because it is too promotional). And I never respond to any request where I already have a personal opinion about the product or service, so you won't see me responding to edit requests about, say, laundry balls or Raspberry Pi, simply because I am biased against the the former and biased in favor of the latter. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * What is the next step to get a decision on this (one way or another)? I don’t mean to rush, but it has been six months and the edits I actually requested have yet to even be considered. Just trying to figure out next-steps to keep things moving along. MarthaLuke (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I have requested help at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. If that doesn't do it, I will post an WP:RFC. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)