Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 3

Trypophobia
Concept behind it and real treatment is by awareness about basics of brain reaction to primitive mind priming of ideation Arshad9 (talk) 19:52, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi . Please read WP:NOR and WP:MEDRS. --Neil N  talk to me 20:21, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Disputed
Statements are being presented as fact when they are disputed at best. "Phobia" has a specific medical and psychological meaning, which this condition does not satisfy and so should not be presented as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.65.199 (talk) 01:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * First please actually read the article. It says: "Trypophobia is a proposed phobia" (emphasis added). At no point does it actually say that this is a phobia.  Second, content in WP is driven by reliable sources.  If you disagree with any content in the article, please review the source(s) provided, and see if the content accurately summarizes the source.   Please also review the sources themselves, and you find that any of them are not reliable, please say why.   If you want to change content, please be sure your change is supported by reliable sources, and cite them. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. First, I did read the article and the sources and that's when I decided to mark this as disputed. The reputable sources linked (http://www.popsci.com/trypophobia, http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2013/02/13/171383429/fear-of-cantalopes-and-crumpets-a-phobia-rises-from-the-web) literally say the condition is not recognized, disputed, or misrepresented online. This article perpetuates those misrepresentations, which is a disservice to everyone and reduces the trustworthiness of this site. This page was previous deleted (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Trypophobia), but there has been no significant changes to the situations since then, so it should at least have a disputed tag. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.47.65.199 (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly what content that is actually in this article, are you disputing? Jytdog (talk) 16:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

New sources
Not exactly NEJM (or even MEDLINE indexed...), but certainly could be incorporated into the article. Yobol (talk) 21:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Trypophobia
This phobia can also include clusters of dots or very small circles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olsensally (talk • contribs) 22:47, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Rearranged and expanded article
With this edit, I rearranged and expanded the article. I removed the "claim" wording from the image caption because researchers are clear that the lotus seed image does cause anxiety, discomfort or repulsion in some people; I replaced the wording with "discomfort or repulsion" and supported it with an academic source. Noting the reactions without calling them into question with "claim" wording is not stating that this condition is officially recognized as a phobia, just like noting that coulrophobia (a fear of clowns) exists is not stating that it is officially recognized as a phobia. Both, however, are suggested to be specific phobias, and I noted the specific phobia aspect in my expansion of this article. I designed the article in a WP:MEDMOS style since this article is about a proposed phobia/psychological fear, and is within the scope of WP:WikiProject Psychology, WP:Med and WP:WikiProject Cognitive science, but it doesn't follow an exact WP:MEDMOS style since there is not much research out there on this condition. And, of course, the fact that the condition is not officially recognized as a mental disorder is still clear (in the lead and lower in the article). I put the prevalence and treatment material together because the material is too small to be divided into individual sections and the content flows together.

As noted on my talk page, I have this condition. And it seems that Yobol does as well. I was motivated to edit this article despite the fact that the lotus image is more than a little unpleasant for me to look at. I didn't have to look at it to edit this article, but I chose to. On my talk page, Doc James stated, "I am not sure if desensitisation is effective for this or not. I imagine it would be." Looking at the lotus image has gotten easier for me, but I still get unpleasant goosebumps, a little panicky, and repeated imagery of the lotus plant in my head when I look at it. That stated, I did add a piece to the article about exposure therapy likely being an effective treatment for trypophobia; this is attributed to an academic source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

And on a side note, I don't see that "a now defunct website" needs to be included, but I've retained it for now, in parentheses; I am likely to later remove it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Doc, regarding this and this, I'm generally against sections for a single sentence. I cite MOS:Paragraphs in these cases. That's why, as noted above, I had the prevalence and treatment material together. I also considered adding the "Epidemiology" heading, but "Prevalence" is clearer, and I know that you change "Etiology" to "Cause" or "Causes." As for why I had "Causes" titled "Hypothetical causes," it's because I was erring on the side of caution since this condition is not yet officially recognized as a mental disorder/phobia and since the causes are not really known. That stated, I don't feel strongly about your changes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It is better than jumbling epidemiology and treatment together.
 * For many sections on "cause" we state the cause is unknown and then describe theories and risk factors. We do this for every psyc condition. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I felt that readers would easily recognize that the section contains two different things by being titled "Prevalence and treatment," and the treatment bit being its own paragraph, but I see your point. I also understand what you mean about simply titling the section "Causes." I definitely thought about doing that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO one of the big benefits of keeping sections divided is that it makes Wikipedia easier to expand. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 18:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Update: With this edit (followup fixes here and here), I expanded the article a little more, including having added a Society and culture section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

More tweaks have followed. And on an off-topic note: Looking at the lotus image in this article repeatedly, and having very recently looked at a lot of trypophobic images on Google Images (something I feared doing before) has made me significantly more tolerant of trypophobic images; so, yeah, I will state that exposure therapy works (at least for me in this case). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Then again, the aforementioned lotus image did initially hit me like a ton of bricks and then hammered away in my head for sometime afterward (as explained on my talk page); so I'm not surprised that I've been desensitized to some degree. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Doc, regarding your changing the caption back, note taken. Like I stated with my latest edit, erring on the side of caution is what I noted above, but, after your layout changes to the article, I felt that it was fine to directly attribute the lotus seed pod to trypophobia in the caption. After all, the sources are clear that the lotus seed pod is one of the top trypophobic images. It might be the top trypophobic imagery when it comes identifying trypophobia. People can doubt that trypophobia is a real phobia, but the reactions to that image are very real and it seems that while some non-trypophobic people also find lotus seed pods unpleasant to look at, only those with trypophobia have visceral reactions to it. Although I know that some researchers ponder whether or not trypophobia can be classified as a real phobia, I don't really see any solid sources calling it controversial. It seems to be more controversial among laypeople who have never experienced it and are told about it, much like some people have doubts about the validity of a number of phobias. The doubts concerning trypophobia certainly showed themselves in the past discussion on this talk page with regard to the lotus image. Anyway, I understand your point. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * IMO captions should be short and descriptive. Content should generally go in the body of the article rather than the caption. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I generally agree, but my point is that the current caption does not explicitly tie the lotus image to trypophobia. Explicitly tying it to trypophobia gives readers a better understanding as to why it's there. See, for example, the short image caption about it at the Wiktionary article. That stated, I think readers get the point that the image relates to trypophobia without explicitly tying it to trypophobia in the caption, and the lotus seed aspect is mentioned lower in the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Trauma trigger
There is nothing in this article to suggest that Trypophobia is in any way related to psychological trauma. The evolutionary explanation suggests the opposite, in fact – that it is an innate rather than learned response. Linking to Trauma trigger is therefore not informative on this topic. The word trigger by itself is standard English for the action of precipitating a response; for instance: "The Asian financial crisis of 1997–1998 triggered the beginning of significant initiatives for regional cooperation and integration." "Apparently, star formation began near the west shoulder, and the massive stars that formed there triggered the formation of the stars you see in Orion's belt." "Parboosingh subsequently visited Rome and Florence, where frescoes by Giotto and Cimabue triggered his interest in wall paintings." So, not "slang" at all. But if the word trigger causes consternation, it could be swapped for cause, prompt, induce, elicit, or any of various other synonyms. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As stated in my edit summary, it's not something I'm concerned with at the moment. As someone who knows the literature on trauma trigger (which I first studied when studying rape), all I wanted to do was briefly note that it isn't restricted to posttraumatic stress disorder. The Trauma trigger article doesn't state that it's only covered within the realm of posttraumatic stress disorder either. It also currently states "although the stimulus itself need not be frightening or traumatic and can be only indirectly or superficially reminiscent of an earlier traumatic incident." In the medical literature, triggers are often defined broadly to mean events or circumstances that may produce an uneasy/uncomfortable emotional response, including anxiety and panicked feelings (which are feelings many with trypophobia have after seeing trypophobic imagery). The Psychological trauma article currently states that psychological trauma "is a type of damage to the mind that occurs as a result of a severely distressing event. Trauma is often the result of an overwhelming amount of stress that exceeds one's ability to cope, or integrate the emotions involved with that experience." Many people with phobias experience that as a result of their phobias. And as the sources make clear, some people with trypophobia respond with enough excessive and distressing fear that it can be accurate to call trypophobia a real phobia in those cases. Even just the disgust is distressing enough for some people, with the imagery repeating over and over again in their heads.


 * As for slang, I stated "slang-like." It's my personal preference not to use "triggered" without context in a case such as this or as if someone on social media referring to "triggered social justice warriors" or something similar. It's just not that encyclopedic to me without a link, although I'm sure people will know that we mean "'elicit." I could go ahead and create the Psychological trigger article and link that here, but I don't create Wikipedia articles often (I mainly work on improving existing ones), and "psychological trigger" has overlap with "trauma trigger." Really, the Trauma trigger article could be titled "Psychological trigger," but we should go with the more common name for the topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:04, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * And, oh, per phobias like the fear of heights and the fear of snakes, phobias can also be thought of as innate (that rhymes). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:17, 21 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I concur with Sangeboeuf, but since using the word "trigger" is automatically going to [ahem] trigger people into linking Trauma trigger, we should just use a different word from Sangdeboef's list. First rule of MoS: see if rewriting around a dispute will make it go away. And we do not need "trigger warning" posts about this article or any images in it. Patterns like this exist everywhere in the world around us, and people who find them squicky have to deal with it all day every day. If they're going to freak out when the see a picture of a plant pod with some holes in it in an article about the alleged condition itself, then they are not competent to edit Wikipedia, since they may encounter such an image at any time in any context.  We have images that relate to damned near every DSM-recognized phobia there is yet we do not suppress them or warn about them.  Cf. WP:Wikipedia is not therapy, WP:NODISCLAIMERS, etc.  I also have to point out that all these OR assertions that try to tie trauma trigger research and phobia stress science to something for which science has not come to a consensus that it's a phobia or traumatic, simply highlights why MEDRS applies to this topic, even if people weren't sure whether it did when looking at an early draft of the article.  Some of the above is also distorting the science, seemingly just to try to win an argument.  Humans (and many other animals) have innate but entirely manageable and even invertible aversions to heights and to snakes, but these are neither acrophobia nor ophidiophobia. Those are extreme and irrational fears that interfere with the activities of everyday life, often by invading one's thoughts pervasively and lingering despite any actual risk or even presence of the object of the fear. Phobias are not innate, even if a few of them relate to and are reinforced by traits that are.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * SMcCandlish, I agree with using a different word. But like WhatamIdoing stated in the debate about whether or not to use the lotus image, we don't actually see images like that every day. Like I stated on my talk page, I've had trypophobia all my life, but that lotus image caused trypophobic reactions that I usually don't have. I actually think there is some level of conditioning since I used to not be sensitive to the sight of bubbles at all, but now, after immersing myself in the topic after stumbling upon this article in 2017, certain bubble patterns make me think of trypophobia and then cause me to get goose bumps. But then again, what incites trypophoba is not the same for every person. If a trypophobe has an aversion to bubbles, they have to deal with trypophobia every day or just about every day. As for the rest, WP:OR doesn't apply to talk pages (as I think you know), and I'm basing my commentary on trauma trigger and the trigger term by itself in the medical literature on what I know on the matter. I'm not some undergrad student spouting nonsense. I'm not distorting the science, and certainly not to win an argument. If you look at the research on acrophobia or ophidiophobia, yes, there are scientists that state that the phobia itself is likely innate and is an evolutionary thing. They are not stating that just a general fear of heights or a general fear of snakes is innate. For some people, the fear rises to the clinical level of a phobia. But researchers aren't stating that a fear of heights or a fear of snakes is only innate in those who don't have the phobia and that the phobia is more so a learned thing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Taking this to user talk.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  07:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed "trigger" and "triggering." I'm not strongly opposed to using those words in the article, however (with or without a link). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:07, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Cleanup
A whole bunch of popular media sources were added to the sections with biomedical information; i've removed them, and also cleaned up the prose. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Jytdog, like I stated with this edit, that type of sourcing was already in this article. Back when you were mainly editing the article. Why we are just now removing it, especially when research on this matter is so limited? Like I told SMcCandlish above, with regard to WP:MEDRS, WP:Med editors weren't treating this topic as a topic that needed to comply with WP:MEDRS or strictly comply with it anyway. This is because enough editors viewed it as something that does not exist or does not clinically exist, and so the editors stuck to primary sources and media sources for the topic. This can be seen in the RfC about the lead image. And this was the state of the article before I expanded it with some book material (and other material). The books I've used are WP:MEDRS-compliant. In the section above, I noted that I expanded the article, and Doc James was fine with it. And, yes, I expanded it with some media sources because the article was already using media sources and those media sources directly concern experts on the matter, and this condition is not officially recognized as a medical condition or a mental disorder. As far as scientists are concerned at the moment, it's just an aversion -- one that might be able to be classified as a phobia. I see no valid reason to have this article so strictly adhere to MEDRS, and I think some or most material you removed should be added back. As seen at WP:MEDPOP and WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), MEDRS doesn't even completely shun media sources.


 * Like I also told SMcCandlish, at the time I expanded the article, trypophobia was getting more attention from researchers and still is. See Talk:Trypophobia/Archive 3, where med editor Yobol pointed to sources that were "not exactly NEJM (or even MEDLINE indexed...), but certainly could be incorporated into the article." The review QuackGuru added seems to be the latest academic attention the topic has gotten. Because research on trypophobia is still new and there aren't as many reviews as there are primary sources for it, it falls under what WP:MEDDATE states about the matter with the following line: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * On second thought, Jytdog, mainly keeping media sources out of the article, except for the Society and culture section, is probably a good thing for the article's quality, although it will mean documenting less about the topic. Plus, as can be seen, there are now more solid sources on the topic, compared to 2015 when med editors allowed media material to document the topic. I know that you didn't get involved with the article until 2016, though. And the condition's status as a phobia (at least with regard to some people who have trypophobia) has more traction now. I was mainly worried about the Causes section being cut so significantly. But I will add some material from the review about the suspected causes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * There appears to be ref spamming and failed verification in this article. I think one citation after each claim will slow down the policy violations. WP:MEDDATE and other parts of MEDRS are applicable for a topic with such limited sources. I can usually find plenty of sources. QuackGuru ( talk ) 03:52, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Where does each additional source verify the part "The extent to which trypophobia exists in the general public is unknown, but..."? Each source must also verify the part "but". If verification is not provided then I will remove the ref spam. It also decreases the readability of the article to add the additional citations. Only the first citation verifies the claim. QuackGuru ( talk ) 04:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not this again. We've been over your views at Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill. I reverted you on removing the additional sources because each of those sources make clear that aversion to trypophobic imagery is common. That's what the additional sources were there for. It's not "ref spam." There are two parts to the sentence. If, per WP:INTEGRITY, you want only the first source moved directly after "The extent to which trypophobia exists in the general public is unknown" part and the other sources to support the "common part," that is easily done. I will do it now, but it is quite unnecessary and will cause clutter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * And it is completely false that "each source must also verify the part 'but'." Your odd view on summarizing/paraphrasing is what has people disagreeing with you above. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree this is not strictly medical. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You stated "Your odd view on summarizing/paraphrasing is what has people disagreeing with you above." See WP:FREECOPYING and WP:Compatible license. There is broad consensus to copy content under the CC BY 4.0 license without putting the content in quotes. That's not an odd view and the RfC is vague and poorly framed. Do you understand content is free to copy under the CC BY 4.0 license? QuackGuru ( talk ) 14:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You wrote "And it is completely false that "each source must also verify the part 'but'."". You think the two additional sources do not need to verify the part "but" the available data suggests that having an aversion to trypophobic imagery is relatively common.[1][3][8] Verifiability does not state only part of a sentence should be verified and the other part is okay to fail verification. Citation overkill allows excessive citations after each sentence without taking into consideration the readers. Citation underkill suggests only one citation per claim and supports only content that is verifiable. It looks like Citation overkill supports ref spamming. Ref spamming disrupts the flow of reading. The additional citations can be removed or at least commented out. What about the readers? We should avoid clutter. QuackGuru ( talk ) 14:58, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No matter how much you repeat that you are free to plagiarize, you are not. Different editors have told you this, and you are being stubborn about it. That the RfC has been called "vague and poorly framed" by one editor has not stopped others from commenting on your inappropriateness, and commenting on your inappropriateness is exactly what I wanted. I have come to the conclusion that you simply do not know how to put things into your own words and that if things are put into one's own words, you call it WP:OR or failing verifiability. For example, now you are insisting that I can't summarize with "but" and that the sources must state "but." That is asinine. And as seen at WP:INTEGRITY, a sentence may be made up of two parts; what matters is that each part is verified. This does not mean that each word must be in the source. WP:INTEGRITY also shows a "but" example as correct. Each part of the sentence you are now contesting is verified with reliable sources. And editors use two or three citations all the time. WP:CITATIONBLOAT is your contested essay. It holds no standing whatsoever. WP:Citation overkill is also an essay, but it's cited more/accepted more than your essay, and is clear that two or three references may be validly used in cases. If you keep going the route you are going, you are going to find yourself at WP:ANI. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why "this condition is not officially recognized as a medical condition or a mental disorder" keeps being trotted out. This is still making medical claims about it; the fact that RS mostly don't support this being a medical condition is a problem, not an escape clause. As I suggested in thread above, some section on the social-media and pop-culture view of this subject seems reasonable, but devoid of and divorced from medical claims. A long string of such medical material presently dominates the article. Classification, Signs and symptoms, Causes, Treatment, Epidemiology – none of that can come from pop-culture sources or be commingled with them. That's all psych-med material. As long as that commingling is happening, people are going to continue to dispute. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:30, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It was trotted because there is no need to be as strict with the sourcing for this topic as, say, we would with the Cancer article. But like I stated elsewhere, the article has undergone recent cleanup that has it mainly sticking to WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing with regard to its overall design. The article does not call trypophobia a phobia, and instead notes that it may be classified as a specific phobia under certain circumstances. The sections are appropriately sourced and use appropriate language. For medical articles, our Society and culture sections usually do not need to strictly adhere to WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Considering that, with the exception of the Society and culture section, the text is supported by book sources that are indeed MEDRS-compliant, two primary sources (primary sources are not completely rejected by WP:MEDRS as long as they are used with caution and sparingly), and one review, the sourcing is fine. It was my idea to design the article based on the WP:MEDSECTIONS format since it is about a topic that is considered a phobia, or one that closely resembles a phobia (because of the fear and anxiety it induces in some people), without officially being recognized as a phobia. Yes, in my opinion, it is the best format for the article. Editors can challenge the existence of trypophobia if they want to (as they did in the aforementioned image debate), but we go by what the sources state. The sources are clear that trypophobia exists. Whether it should be classified as a phobia, however, is up for debate, and the article is clear about that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The whole point is we do need to be strict with sourcing on the med/psych claims. Lack of scientific consensus on how to classify this doesn't make that responsibility go away, and arguably increases it, because there's heightened risk of iffy primary-research claims being mistaken for "proven" facts with broad sci. consensus.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand what you are stating. I think at the time, back in 2015, editors considered this topic similar to something like vaginal steaming in its coverage. If a topic is WP:Notable and borders the line of medical and something else, but there aren't any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for it or there are few WP:MEDRS-compliant sources for it, then how do you handle it on Wikipedia? As you see at Talk:Vaginal steaming, whether to apply WP:MEDRS was discussed with regard to that article. I see Tryptofish commented there too. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How? You make no medical claims about it whatsoever, and do not create sections that virtually force the reader into interpreting them as medical claims. You can say something like "proponents like [insert notable believer here] claim it is a treatment for gout [cite something that is such a claim to prove that the claim has been made]. However, according to a 2017 [major news source here] article, [famous researcher] of [big university] says there is no scientific basis for this idea. A 2017 primary research paper in [medical journal], as reported in [secondary source – this part's important], found no evidence to back the claim, and suggested that further research is needed to be certain."  For a case like trypophobia, the overall framing of this article should be similar; it should be about claims and counter-claims, as covered in secondary sources to the extent possible, and framed as public debate like creationism or climate change or whatever; include that the lack of evidence is an issue when sources tell us there's such uncertainty. Let the article become more "sciencey" and certain, organically over time, as sources surface. I realize that following the psych-med article layout was a good-faith endeavor, but it's a poor idea at this article in 2018.  Maybe by 2020 there'll be a whole slew of new material out there and the condition will be better understood. WP:THEREISNODEADLINE. :-) PS: Thaaanks, now I'm going to have "steamed V" on my mind all night. Heh.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Medical claims about vaginal steaming or trypophobia cannot be completely avoided. For example, there are health risks to vaginal steaming, which is why there is currently a Risks section in that article (although it's currently only sourced to media sources despite the academic sources noted on its talk page). For trypophobia, there are health/psychology/cognitive science aspects to it with regard to responses people have to trypophobic imagery and the theorized/hypothetical causes. Formatting the article in another way will not remove the health aspect to the topic. Formatting the article in the way you proposed would open it up to all the media sourcing type of content that the article is best left without, partly for the reasons you stated in the section below. The researchers aren't debating the existence of this condition; so it's not like creationism. They wonder if the condition is better classified as a phobia or as an aversion due to evolution. So taking all of that into account, whether the topic has a WP:MEDMOS format or some sloppy format, it is still within the realm of WP:Med/MEDRS. WP:Med editors will still want WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing for the topic. And all of that is why I still think that the current format is the best for the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Sourcing-wise, I really do think that the aforementioned cleanup of the article was best. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)