Wikipedia talk:Medical disclaimer/Archive 1

Grammar correction
"None the individual contributors..." should read "None of the individual contributors...". Notice addition of the word of. Charm &copy;&dagger; 04:36, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)
 * Fixed. --Slowking Man 09:43, Jan 1, 2005 (UTC)

This disclaimer is fine. Axl 16:06, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Wikipedia contains general information only, as added by its editors and individual contributors whether medically qualified or not. Accordingly......" FT2 12:47, Jan 19, 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki link
Please add the following interwiki link: es:Wikipedia:Aviso Médico
 * Done. I also added pt: link. jni 12:28, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Please add a link to the Vietnamese page (currently being translated), by using the following code, since this wiki doesn't yet support Unicode:

vi:Wikipedia:Ph%E1%BB%A7 nh%E1%BA%ADn y t%E1%BA%BF

Thanks. – Minh Nguy&#7877;n (talk, contribs, blog) 03:30, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. jni 09:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please add category...
Please add to Category:Wikipedia disclaimers. Thanks! -- 01:25, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shortcut?
What would it take to get a shortcut link to this? 'D be nice to type WP:NaD (for Not a Doctor) or some such ... This isn't personal laziness; I can copy and paste a big long link as easily as anything. But having a shortcut might encourage the community as a whole to add these links where they're needed. eritain 17:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

How about WP:ND for (Not Doctor) which is a parody of MD or WP:PhD (if not in use0 (a common title for Doctors who are not MD's)?  BK2011 (talk) 03:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Please add interwiki...
... to de:Wikipedia:Hinweis Gesundheitsthemen and nl:Wikipedia:Voorbehoud medische lemma's. Thank you. RexNL 22:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Done! --Delirium 07:32, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Another one: sv:Wikipedia:Medicinskt förbehåll. Thanx! / Habj 19:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Also added. --Delirium 23:09, 29 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And this one please: tr:Vikipedi:Tıbbi sorumluluk reddi Zfr 15:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Another grammar suggestion
"PLEASE READ THE BELOW STATEMENT" may be correct in some dialects of English, but it reads very awkwardly in others. I would suggest "PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT". Kickaha Ota 16:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, it's awkward. Changed now.  &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 22:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Interwiki request
Please add intewiki link for Serbian language Wikipedia. The link is sr:Википедија:Медицинско одрицање Thank you. --Branislav Jovanovic 09:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Information can go out of date
"There is absolutely no assurance that any statement contained in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct or precise." Suggest changing this to "...statement contained or cited in an article touching on medical matters is true, correct, precise, or up-to-date."

Rationale: Consider e.g. Nonoxynol-9. If somebody had written the best possible article on N-9 in the year 1999, it would have mentioned that it is believed to protect against HIV infection, and included cites to studies showing its ability to kill HIV in vitro as well as public-health sites recommending its use for this purpose. Two years down the track, further studies pointed to the opposite conclusion. If the article had not been updated accordingly, a reader might well follow the cites in the belief that by doing so they weren't relying on Wikipedia's accuracy, while missing important material that had come out since the article was edited. --Calair 03:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes check.svg|20px]] Done--Konst.able 05:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Bulgarian interwiki
Please add the Bulgarian interwiki to the page: bg:Уикипедия:Медицинско опровержение Thanks, --Vanka5 03:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks, Graham 87 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please fix the Danish interwiki
The correct Danish link is now da:Wikipedia:Lægelige forbehold Valentinian T / C 19:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks, Graham 87 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Hu interwiki
Please add hu:Wikipédia:Orvosi tanács (hu:Wikipédia:Orvosi tanács). Thanks --Dami 23:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Picaroon 00:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

zh interwiki link
Just zh:Wikipedia:医学声明 is ok. :)--Simon Shek 18:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. I also unicodified the Vietnamese interwiki link. Thanks, Graham 87 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Polish interwiki request
Hi, can you add pl:Wikipedia:Zastrzeżenia dotyczące pojęć medycznych to the interwiki list? « Saper // @talk » 21:27, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks, Graham 87 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

ru/uk
Please, add ru:Википедия:Википедия не даёт медицинских советов and uk:Вікіпедія:Медичне попередження -- AS sa 14:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks, Graham 87 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Interwiki links
I have added all the interwiki links I could find. If any more need to be added, please use to request them. Thanks, Graham 87 05:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

french interwiki request
Please add fr:Wikipédia:Mise en garde médicale. Thx. — STAR TREK Man&#91;Space, the final frontier...&#93; 09:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ Graham 87 11:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge?
With the legal disclaimer?--Thanks, Ainlina(box)? 09:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the disclaimers are important enough that they deserve their own pages - to ensure that information isn't lost in the shuffle. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

suggest changing heading.
The heading of the disclaimer says "WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE".

This gives the wrong emphasis. The purpose of the current quote is basically "Wikipedia has medical information but we wikilawyer and we don't want you to accuse us of giving advice" yet the text following warns that the information may not be accurate (in part due to anonymous editing by anyone).

We should have the banner give the correct emphasis. To do so, move the "wikipedia does not give medical advice" to the body of the text. Replace the heading with "The accuracy of medical information in Wikipedia cannot be assured due to the anonymous and open editing policies of Wikipedia." An alternative is "The accuracy of medical information in Wikipedia cannot be guaranteed due to the editing policy of this website' or "Warning: Do not assume that medical information in Wikipedia is correct" 903M (talk) 04:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, the focus is correct. The primary concern is not that the information is false, but that we are not giving medical advice - even real medical encyclopedias where accuracy is not at issue have a legal disclaimer, the primary focus of which is "We do not give medical advice".  Its purpose isn't to say that the information may not be correct, but to state that the information that we have (including that which is correct) should not be construed as medical advice.  That focus is reflected in "Even if a statement made about medicine is accurate, it may not apply to you or your symptoms." and the following three paragraphs.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 05:36, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Giving medical advice is legally regulated in nearly every country in the world. This focus is here in part for legal reasons -- legal reasons of the "having to do a bunch of tiresome paperwork" kind, not of the "you have to be real dumb to trust your life to a website that is regularly vandalized" kind.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:47, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Add in legal reasons of the "I haven't seen you so I don't know what's causing those pains in your chest" kind and you've covered it perfectly. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 06:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki request
Please add  mk:Википедија:Медицинско одрекување  in the interwiki list. Thanks in advance :) Brainmachine (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC) ✅ Skier Dude  ( talk ) 00:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Greek interwiki
Please add el:Βικιπαίδεια:Ιατρική αποποίηση. Thanks. --Ferengi (talk) 08:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks, Graham 87 13:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

why not disclaimer template on the medical articles?
Hi, I noticed that EN wp does not anymore is placing a medical disclaimer template on the medical articles. Does anyone know how that has come to be? Coming from a wikipedia that does that it feels to me irresponsible to not use it. --Walter (talk) 12:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Every single page has an automatic link to the Disclaimers.
 * Do you honestly think that readers are simultaneously smart enough to use information off the internet to diagnose and treat themselves, but still stupid enough to trust a website that is obviously vandalized thousands of times each day? And if the readers are really that stupid, then do you think that a boilerplate note on each page would really protect them from their own foolishness?
 * More seriously, I think that Wikipedia editors have taken a more useful approach, which is constructing the articles so that they provide general information without providing instructions on how to diagnose or treat yourself. For example, articles on medications don't normally include information about the dose, which means that the reader will have to consult at least one other source.  This is probably more effective (and more encyclopedic) than writing "Ask your doctor!" at the top of each article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Basically, you claim that readers should be able to infer the content of the note, hence there should be none. This reasoning is a typical and terrible mistake in writing, as taught in courses on professional, non-artistic writing. If you want the reader to reach a conclusion, it must be part of the text.
 * A boilerplate note might not be foolproof but is still helpful for people actually reading it.
 * For a concrete and interesting example, take a look at Talk:Water intoxication/Archive 1: there's a comment at the end from a patient which is "so stupid" to take medical advice from Wikipedia and so savvy to be able to write in a talk page.
 * Finally, the Italian Wikipedia still has such a template, and I was looking for it. It took me ages to find this discussion - could this be made part of some FAQ?--Blaisorblade (talk) 00:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I think it would also be good to include a cyberchondria warning! --189.180.37.172 (talk) 08:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the inclusion of "Even if a statement made about medicine is accurate, it may not apply to you or your symptoms. The medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional (for instance, a qualified doctor/physician, nurse, pharmacist/chemist, and so on). Wikipedia is not a doctor." covers that.  --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:48, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

interwiki
Can an admin add the Maltese interwiki for this page -- mt:Wikipedija:Ċaħda medika. Thanks. Chrisportelli (talk) 08:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Graham 87 12:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki Request
Please add hi:विकिपीडिया:चिकित्सा अस्वीकरण to the list of interwikis. Thanks! -- Priyanka (talk) 12:13, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. Graham 87 05:19, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki link
please add following interwiki link: Achaemenes (talk) 07:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on....what is the official definition of....
Medical advice...????--222.64.28.225 (talk) 23:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Disclosure of psychological test methods: worth a sentence?
I've made some comments firmly opposing a failed policy proposal WP:IHC, but there might be some substance to one issue it raises. The general medical disclaimer warns of the risks of false information, but doesn't address the potential for true information to undermine the use of deception in psychological testing or disclosure of test methods as addressed by the APA ethics code. The foremost example of this debate currently regards the inclusion of images at Talk:Rorschach test, though I suspect that information that might be added to the text of other articles might be more of an issue.

I'm not suggesting that we should reopen here the debate of whether to ban this information - that is argued extensively at WP:IHC, Talk:Rorschach test, and Talk:Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure. But should the disclaimer be changed to better warn the public and protect Wikipedia? For example, we could say,

"In some cases readers may also encounter detailed information about psychological or other medical tests which could compromise the ability of a professional to obtain a naive response or to use deceptive means in examination ."

Now it may fairly be argued that other media do not issue disclaimers for the same result. For example at Talk:Rey-Osterreith Complex Figure I detailed four academic sources readily accessed in a Web search, none of whom issue such a disclaimer to the public. Nor do makers of movies such as Saw (film series) issue such warnings, though I suspect someone taking a Rorschach after watching that trilogy might have a somewhat skewed result. But we do want to be as fair as possible, and so I think we should try to disclose even an esoteric, improbable, and intangible risk of trouble. Would you agree? Mike Serfas (talk) 00:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would strongly argue against the characterization of psychological assessment methods as "deceptive." A less pejorative and more accurate wording would be more appropriate.  You're citing the wrong section of the APA code of ethics -- where you need to look is in section 9, which is about assessment.  The concept is about test security, the notion that prior knowledge about the content and interpretation methods used for a test has the possibility of invalidating that test administration. Mirafra (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I understand that this is a different issue than test security, but it might also be affected by the information provided by Wikipedia. However, it is a minor point, and if it seems objectionable, perhaps it is best to strike through the text as marked. Mike Serfas (talk) 02:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose Within the medical field (very broadly construed), this concern isn't limited to psychological tests. There are physical exams that you can 'fake' if you know that the physician expects a person with lower back pain (for example) to suddenly grimace and grab his lower back when trying to lean over to touch his toes.  The proposed sentence is not correct, because even vague information about a test can cause this problem, and because this problem also exists outside of medical issues (e.g., intelligence tests, safety tests, all kinds of things).  Many times, knowing how the test actually works will show ways to fake the results.
 * More importantly, the perceived problem is not appropriate for this page, whose sole purpose is to communicate "Wikipedia is not your doctor". Instead, it would belong in the Content disclaimer, whose purpose is "Wikipedia contains content that may be objectionable".  I happen to believe that this concern is already adequately covered by the current contents of the Content disclaimer (particularly under the third, fourth, fifth, and last items in the list), so I oppose its addition anywhere, but perhaps editors at the content disclaimer would have a different opinion.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is already covered in the risk disclaimer: "Some information on Wikipedia may create an unreasonable risk for readers who choose to apply or use the information in their own activities or to promote the information for use by third parties." Chillum  14:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The risk disclaimer talks of the risk for readers who "choose to apply or use" information. But you're assuming that the reader comes to the article knowing what the subject is.  What if the reader has no prior knowledge of the subject?  What if the health consequences are involuntary, such as the case with psychological tests?    What if the reader finds they have no choice in the matter?   Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you both for weighing in on this. I'm happier that the disclaimer doesn't need updating, if it means that Wikipedia is safe from trouble. Mike Serfas (talk) 03:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I think that the idea of just putting in a disclaimer certainly doesn't solve the underlying problem of how to deal with the test security problem. It seems that WP is violating NPOV by effectively endorsing the position that psychologists should change their professional practice. Mirafra (talk) 18:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not required to be neutral in its practices -- only in article content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WhatamIdoing. --LjL (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This argument seems to have a similar thrust as the argument for spoilers did and I think should be addressed in the same way - basically, people come to encyclopedias to get information. We provide a disclaimer to warn them that the information may not be correct or applicable.  But do we warn them that the encyclopedia contains information?  Of course not - that's why they came here in the first place! --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:40, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

link to the Foundation.
The link from the term Wikimedia Foundation is now to the article about the foundation. I think this should be changed to Home. --Aotake (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Any particular reason? I would have thought per the principle of least astonishment, most people would expect a link to a Wikipedia article there. I don't care too much either way about this, however. Graham 87 06:58, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Having looked at both pages, I agree that the current one is better. The article explains what the Wikimedia Foundation is for those who aren't familiar with the term, while its infobox provides the link to Home in the form of http://www.wikimediafoundation.org. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought mixing the information on using Wikipedia and the articles was in general not welcomed. --Aotake (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The worry about mixing links only runs the other direction: regular articles shouldn't normally have links to pages about using Wikipedia.  Pages in the Wikipedia: and Help: namespaces link to articles all the time.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki request
editprotected Please add gl interwiki: gl:Wikipedia:Aviso médico. Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toliño (talk • contribs) 16:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki it request
it:Wikipedia:Disclaimer medico is missing, please add. Thanks. --Achillu (talk) 09:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. Graham 87 12:32, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Veterinary advice
This is surely not the only example of this type of Help Desk or Reference Desk question. Would it be of value to add "veterinarian" to this page? And I modified the template used with the advice given for medical problems.

I didn't see anything like this in the regular template list.

User:Vchimpanzee/Template/Vet

Vchimpanzee ·  talk  ·  contributions  · 19:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Armenian
Please, add Armenian interwiki.Pandukht (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Done, thanks. I also added some interwiki links that were on the Armenian page. Graham 87 01:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

sk interwiki request
Please add slovak interwiki: sk:Wikipédia:Wikipédia nie je lekárske konzílium. Thanks. --Chiak (talk) 12:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. Graham 87 14:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Edit request
Request to add the following hatnote to the top of this article:

My reason for this request is that while WP:MEDICAL has always redirected here, WP:Medical (note caps difference) had previously targeted the WikiProject until I retargeted it for consistency. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki Turkish
Interwiki link for Turkish is wrong. It should be corrected to tr:Vikipedi:Tıbbi sorumluluk reddi.Hcagri (talk) 10:20, 14 October 2011 (UTC) ✅ --Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

replace 'qualified' by 'professional'
in the sentence '(for instance, a qualified doctor/physician, nurse, pharmacist/chemist, and so on)' replace 'qualified' by 'professional' doctor. Having a legal license to practice medicine does not make you a 'qualified doctor', only a 'professional doctor'. Reading wikipedia on medical topics has made me aware of this distinction... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokotillon (talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request
The fragment "cannot substitute for the advice of a" could be bolded, for the same reason it was done in Legal disclaimer: Thanks, Korg (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 11:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Legal or Medical advice
There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines that may be of interest.

It concerns requests for legal or medical advice posted to one of the reference desks.

I am posting this here because of a potential conflict between the talk page guidelines and reference desk guidelines --Guy Macon (talk) 06:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)