Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 146

Update tag on Huntingtons
Not sure why, but figured I'd drop a note in here as a reminder that Huntington's disease has had an update tag on it since March. Folks want to make any adjustments necessary? HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this note. Since there are tens of thousands of articles, there are usually hundreds that are tagged as needing an update.  Here's the current list, if anyone wants to look for a favorite subject.  Some of these are general requests, some are inline (⌘F for the word 'update'), and some requests are themselves outdated (in which case, please remove the tags).  Everyone is welcome to help out – even small efforts can make a big difference.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

A link to a DAB page
I said I'd be back next year, but I didn't expect it to be this early...

I'm bringing in Douhua because (1) it contains a link to a DAB page and (2) the whole section set off my rudimentary WP:MEDRS alarm. Narky Blert (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done the dablink as that was straightforward. And I agree with your MEDRS concerns. I feel that we probably shouldn't keep that section on the strength of that one source, if at all. Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the section. While soy is a generally healthy food, it's unlikely that any of them are specific to this particular tofu dish. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I should have said, my alimentary WP:MEDRS alarm. Narky Blert (talk) 19:20, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

MOS:MED edits to consider
Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:05, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS check at Hematocele
I removed a bunch of information sourced to predatory publishers at. Some of it could be sourced back I'm sure. There remain much content sourced to cases studies in there too. Passing the ball to this project, because I can't do anything here except flag the issues.

&#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Helping new editors: Learn Wikipedia's unique culture


I recently suggested to a new editor (a medical student) that he/she/they seek to understand Wikipedia's unique culture. I wrote: I suggest looking at Wikipedia as you would a patient and his/her/their family who are from a completely different culture than your own. Different religious background, different beliefs about health and healing, different gender role expectations, different language, etc. If you are the physician such a patient sees, you have to do your best to understand your patient's cultural background so that you can communicate effectively and treat them with respect and dignity.

Wikipedia is like such a patient because Wikipedia has its own culture, traditions, policies, and procedures. I can rail against the stupid ways things are done here (and there are a few ... ;^), but that's analogous to chastising a patient for "not doing what I said" when I didn't take the time to understand them to begin with.

So, I encourage you to look at this as an exercise in developing cross-cultural competence. You might decide you don't want to invest your time and energy in learning Wikipedia's culture, which is fine. But if you do want to improve the accuracy of Wikipedia articles, understanding this unique, kind of wacky culture at Wikipedia is an important first step. I'm sure I am not the first Wikipedian to think of this approach. Are there any essays, guides, etc., that discuss this idea? I want to provide the most helpful info to new editors. Thanks! Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 14:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think that WP's culture is either unique or wacky. Yes of course we have some odd, even inexplicable, rules; all societies do. I'll give a different analogy: our duty as editors is like that of the expert witness, whose duty it is to give impartial evidence to the court. I could easily cite several cases which went the way they did because the judge concluded that (apart from himself, of course!) there was only one honest person present. Narky Blert (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see how "wacky" might offend, so let's remove that adjective. I still believe our culture is unique, and more importantly, it is different compared to what potential new editors from academia, healthcare, etc. are accustomed to. My aim here is to retain new editors who show an interest in regular editing. (I assume that attracting and retaining productive new editors is a shared desire, but perhaps I am mistaken?) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 01:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The English Wikipedia does a poor job of retaining new editors, and I think that there is a minority of established editors with a bit of a "pull up the ladder behind me" attitude. The idea that new editors are bad editors is both true and bad.  We are more short-sighted than many of the other Wikipedias.  If you look back at any of our early edits, you'll see how much help we all needed and how we screwed up.  A few examples:  I thought that  and   were two interchangeable ways of writing the same thing, so I "helped" by randomly removing either the navbox or the category.  The first article I wrote (which was about a highway?!) was partly sourced to a personal website.  I once carefully merged two articles that had similar names but that were actually different subjects.  Someone else had proposed the merge, nobody had commented, and I thought I was helping by implementing the stale request, until another editor (one of our physicians) noticed what I'd done the next day.  But now that we're here, quite a number of us don't extend the same grace to the people who make the same mistakes that we made.
 * Some of this is the sort of difference you can explain: Academia may want you to cite the original or more authoritative primary source; we want you to cite a medical textbook or the most recent review article in a decent journal.  We have some of those explanations, e.g., at Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia.
 * We have our quirks, such as barnstars and pretending that reputation doesn't matter (True story: Last month, an editor suggested last month that there could be an optional feature that he could use to hide everyone's usernames on his own screen.  Some prominent editors told him that Wikipedia's principle of "transparency" required him to look at their names.  That's not "transparency"; that's demanding that we maintain a system that gives me more power than 99% of editors).
 * We also have our problems. For example, we have editors who remove all articles from any journal that Jeffrey Beall considered, however briefly, to have a borderline publisher some years ago, and without noticing that some of them (e.g., Frontiers in Plant Science) are currently ranked in the top 5% of journals in their field now.  I think that this is better understood as a cultural situation:  We think it is so very important to show off our anti-woo, pro-science POV that we are willing to remove review articles from top-ranked journals that meet every written rule in the policies and guidelines.
 * Then there are the things that I don't know how to classify. We are largely an inhuman site.  We expect you to work like a bot that happens to have very clever language skills.  We yell at people for normal human behaviors, like making small talk or asking to connect on social media.  We think there is something wrong with you if you react to a tersely worded warning as if, well, as if I'd given you a tersely worded warning.  You're supposed to think that I was being helpful if I write something formal like "Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted" on your talk page.  That's ...not how humans work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't claim to know a great deal about wikipedia culture. I'd note that some of the guides present a bit of an idealized vision of how things are, rather than how things actually are. I also get the impression that their can be a little "internet larping" going on at times. I would point at the existence of this book - old and getting a bit long, but still interesting. I'd also note that sometimes more knowledge doesn't help exactly. I remember an experience on some question and answer sites where I would go out of my way to "preanswer the stupid questions" and found that the response was "it s too complicated", sometimes you just have to let a process play out. I sort of think about Mill a bit when I think about this, and some lectures by Jonathan Haidt about values and the academic system. Also see WP:Expert  Talpedia (talk) 18:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Try, as that briefly covers the important of secondary (rather than primary) sources, or one of the other welcome messages on their talk page.Klbrain (talk) 22:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's a really helpful way of looking at it. I've seen several academics and a few clinicians jump into editing with a certain idea of how things should work around here (based, I assume, on the culture of reading/writing they're steeped in professionally), then leave just as quickly when they come up against some resistance. The one I see in academics the most is thinking that writing a Wikipedia article is the same as writing a review article, i.e. they use their personal knowledge of a field to decide which primary sources ought to support content. Slapping a banner on their talk page that links to MEDRS is something I find to be generally unhelpful. Without the cultural explanation, they tend to walk away thinking we're self-important idiots. For the newer editors here (or the more established editors with better memories than me) do you remember particular barriers or surprises that the rest of us should be aware of? I accept that onboarding new editors will always be a challenge, but anything we can do to improve that process could do our project a huge service. Ajpolino (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not a medical editor per se, but I find that I get much better engagement from new editors in most spheres when I leave a short, casual, human-sounding note at their talk page rather than a template. People are just hard-wired to ignore boilerplate-sounding messages, especially if they're loooooong and technical. "Hey, I removed the edit you made at Some Article because An Extremely Short Explanation. Let's have a conversation before you add it back, okay?" Something like that takes a minute to type out, and the return on time investment is typically much better than reverting and templating repeatedly. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 01:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We do see a few people who expect their real-world status to transfer over, and they are sometimes surprised or disappointed to discover that it doesn't. Some quit; others (maybe even most) come to appreciate it, maybe because they understand that On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog (or a PhD).  In the situation you describe, I tend to take a "Sorry, I know it's weird, but..." approach.  It's not bad to write a review article; it's just not how we (should) do it here.
 * Let's see what some newer folk think. GPinkerton, Wname1, Danende, Jaredroach, Velayinosu, DrVogel:  Your accounts are all less than three years old.  What sticks in your mind as being strange, difficult, or wrong about editing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've actually been around for a decade or so, but don't edit very much. The culture has changed a lot. It used to be that Wikipedia came across as repository of all knowledge; if there was an arcane subject, one could write an article about it. Now the emphasis on article creation seems almost more about what is NOT in Wikipedia than what belongs in Wikipedia. I am also surprised by how protective the culture is of the male dominated and crude language that seems to grip those who are most in control. Given the attention to diversity in the world at large, it would be nice to see Wikipedia move in that direction as well. Jaredroach (talk) 08:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I seen a reasonable amount of bluntness, indifference, ani threats, and personal attacks, but not really crude language (in the sense of swearing / metaphor). What aspects of wikipedia do you consider to be male-dominated. Talpedia (talk) 11:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I must admit that as a man I often do not recognize the traditional masculine ethos that permeates Wikipedia. The fish who doesn't see the sea and all that. The following article helped me comprehend and discern the problem more fully. Some might characterize this article (below) as recondite, and it is certainly deep, but it's not inaccessible or exceedingly obscure. After I granted myself sufficient time to understand unfamiliar words and concepts, I began to appreciate the authors' astute, erudite, and profound arguments. I highly recommend taking the time to read this article and to ponder its implications for Wikipedia moving forward. "Menking, Amanda, and Jon Rosenberg. 'WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, and Other Stories Wikipedia Tells Us: A Feminist Critique of Wikipedia’s Epistemology.' Science, Technology, & Human Values. Published ahead of print, 13 May 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243920924783 (Open access). https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0162243920924783 (PDF)." Sincerely - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 17:45, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here are some characteristics associated (rightly or wrongly) with masculine communication and that we see at the English Wikipedia:
 * A strong orientation towards Us vs them – this goes along with black-and-white thinking. Either you are a good editor, or you are an inappropriate self-promoting newbie spammer.  We are in charge, and they are nothing.
 * Independent action is valued – just Be bold. Don't bother us with questions about all the complicated rules.  There's plenty of time to yell at you later if you screw up.
 * Content is more important than contributors – it's okay if we destroy your love for Wikipedia, as long as we get the content right. Please be sure to get it right on the first try, because I'll just revert you instead of building on your contribution if you get anything wrong at all.  Snarky comments in the kick-him-while-he's-down range get thanked.
 * Winning matters – we talk a lot about consensus, but we don't reward or honor people who compromise to find a wide consensus. You need to win, and the other side needs to lose.
 * Direct, blunt, instrumental communication is normal and encouraged – look at the conversations around user warning templates. "Clarity" is a key concern.  Encouraging people to grow into productive contributors is not.  (How helpful do we think those really are?  The editors who write them and use them the most also tell you that it's disrespectful to post those templates on their own talk pages.)
 * There are also positive aspects: Being detail oriented makes for precise, accurate articles.  We are loyal to our friends.  If your problem can be solved by providing information, then we will provide that information.
 * And, of course, these labels don't map neatly to every person's gender, nor are they absolute. I'm a woman, but I have a somewhat masculine communication style, and almost all of us use both "masculine" and "feminine" styles in different situations.
 * Now I'm going to go read Mark's linked paper.     WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I had a read of this. I think I agree with the content of article itself - I've partaken of the epistemic injustice koolaid before, so can follow the terminology. I'd note that the article itself does not show evidence that women are excluded - but provides some citations that I am yet to read. There's a question about what level of representation you need to get "group objectivity", it may well be less that proportional representation of a group - or in some cases more, and one needs to think careful about trade offs are values of the things that might prevent proportional representation (though of course, all things being equal, if any impediment to involvement can be removed with little cost it should be). I also only really ascribe to "weak epistemic relativism": unique perspective can provide valuable critiques that should be considered rather than objectivity being impossible (though as you walk into sociology epistemic relativism becomes more and more true). I also have my concerns that for critique to be functional it must be possible in some way to argue against the critique - such that it provides a more complete truth Talpedia (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One of our best editors got started back in the day by basically adding fun trivia to medical articles, such as a particularly cool paper about some minor detail (not key content such as whether a drug works, but little things that might illuminate a mechanism or take a different approach). For the last several years, that kind of content has been reverted on sight because "MEDRS says absolutely totally no primary sources no matter what I don't care I can't hear you". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback and ideas thus far. Very helpful! Talpedia - Thank you for the essay, WP:Expert - I had not seen that before (or I had forgotten it). Klbrain - Great suggestions. I often leave welcome messages, although following PMC's advice, I will endeavor to add a personal message. And I've seen before, but I haven't used it very often, but I will now. :0) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for a fascinating discussion. I'm afraid I struggled with the linked paper: I'm sure most of the comprehension issues I had were due to my small brain and lack of experience reading that domain, but I also found it ironic that a paper discussing problems with Wikipedia should itself be inaccessible to the "general reader". I also struggled a bit with the references to other papers, cited as though those authors had established hard facts, or even consensus opinion, rather than just expressed random other opinions about Wikipedia. Anyone want to take a stab at summarising it? Or is it too complex a thought piece to summarise?
 * In contrast, I was able to follow the discussion here (I think), and found myself nodding many times, particularly WhatamIdoing's thoughts. But what is to be done about it? We currently have a huge and prominent sub-topic of Medicine, where new editors who put the wrong thing between the   tags, and who exhibit normal, expected, albeit imperfect response-behaviour to being reverted, are, within minutes of dipping a toe in the water, given a final warning that they face being topic banned from all of Medicine, blocked from editing Wikipedia, and their name added to a "sanctioned users" wall of shame. Sorry for the length of that sentence. Perhaps WP:MED has improved: previously there was more of the pile-on of people kicking the newbie/unbeliever in the kidneys, and heaven help them if they went to ANI to complain. But I feel there is still a lot of turning a blind eye going on. A talk page "welcome" message isn't surely all we can do. -- Colin°Talk 21:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess my summary of the paper would be that wikipedia should pay more attention to building a community and a process that produces good quality material, rather than just the content of the pages itself, and that key to having a process that can produce a community is diversity because no individual is capable of being aware of their blindspots. To me the distinction isn't exactly male / female more "high-trust ongoing versus low-trust short term" interactions. In the former you make sacrifices for long term interactions (a.k.a politeness / morality) in the later not so much. From my experience using "high-trust" behaviours in "low-trust" environments doesn't necessarily work that well for your well being, you can end up feeling repeatedly taken advantage of by people who don't "play be the rules". The thing is that wikipedia does get some value from "low-trust / drive-by" editing - particularly of the "someone of the internet is wrong variety". I'd also note that "us versus them" is more of a high-trust relationship phenomenon than low trust. I'd also note that some conflict is of value for "epistemic objectivities" and high-trust interactions make conflict difficult, in a sense you want an environment with friends *and* nemeses. There are probably metaphors to your supervisor / external examiners in a PhD or your company versus "the economic world" here. Talpedia (talk) 00:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm very much in agreement with your first sentence, and I hope WP:MED is getting better and has learned from past mistakes. I'm less confident in my ability to understand or characterise the behavioural good and bad qualities of the project in fancy language, only in simple terms: kindness, goodwill, collaboration, openness, listening, respect vs hostility, bullying, ownership, cliques, shouting, dismissal. -- Colin°Talk 10:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So I used to internally call this sort of viewpoint "more goodness". The thing is that there are ands and versus there. goodwill versus truth, kindness and cliques and dismissal, openness versus collaboration, listening versus kindness, goodwill versus openness, goodwill and cliques versus shouting and openness. The desire for simplicity is the refusal attempt to understand these trade offs and a willingness to potentially create a *lot* of the bad in exchange or a little of the good, either through the bad not being visible to you or because you choose to not think about it or willingly ignore it. This viewpoint can be equally or more prejudicial than an approach that uses fancy language because the fancy language is hopefully there for nuanced thought rather just or its linguistic effect - your humbleness comes at a price to others often mediated by your prejudice. Of course, many situations are simple enough that the fancy language does nothing for you and elbow grease and conspiring to avoid the situation that requires the nuance sources can work quite well - maybe you can have you cake and eat it - maybe it's more important to solve the simple problems first. Talpedia (talk) 11:13, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite following your reply. I don't doubt that it is important for folk having deep thoughts about this to use very precise terminology and the jargon of the field. I'm not trying to dismiss it as just a lot of fancy talk. And I'm sure these things are not entirely reducible to simplistic explanations without losing vital elements. Ultimately, though, it still comes down to: what are we going to do about it. -- Colin°Talk 11:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with the last part. I guess I felt that there was argument along the line of "the fancy speech is there to justify nastiness" - which I tried to address Talpedia (talk) 11:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that wasn't my argument at all. I genuinely founding it somewhat impenetrable. However, I am probably prejudiced about external publications analysing Wikipedia because I have seen so few that didn't make me want to sigh, but I hope that was offset by Mark's recommendation. As an aside, I counted the editor that the paper is dedicated to, Adrianne Wadewitz, as a wikifriend: one of the very few academics who understood how Wikipedia worked and thus was able to successfully run class assignments on it. -- Colin°Talk 15:11, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is another side to that image. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Coming late to this conversation, so I'm not sure where to best intersperse my comments, and will add it all at the end. I like Mark's general notion, but suggest that to avoid yet another page of instructions and descriptions and links and templates that never get read, that if he wants to do something, he might think about keeping it strictly focused on the researcher or practicing professional who has a hard time understanding the differences in Wikipedia writing, as the issues there are quite different than the issues, for example, with student writing. I reject any notion that gender issues are somehow related; perhaps that I studied and worked in male-dominated fields, where I was usually the only female, means I just don't get it, because I don't. I think digressing into that usually takes our eyes off the more important balls, which here, are problems in how we treat newcomers. Ajpolino asks if any of us "remember particular barriers or surprises that the rest of us should be aware of". I recall that it was very hard to figure out how to use Wikipedia (for months, I had something on my user page about "where's the instruction manual for this thing"), but the helpme template on talk always got a speedy response. More relevant to us here at WP:MED, the "anyone can edit" aspect for me, at first, generated disastrous results. I was trying to write Tourette syndrome, and no one at WT:MED knew anything about it, so that each time I came here with a question, I actually got bad advice (one physician telling me they couldn't believe that X was the case, since TS was a very rare condition is one example I can remember), so that I gave up on WP:MED at one point early on. tells us very clearly that the use of rollback and quick deletions is very offputting. And he put his money where his mouth is, and tried very hard to get something going (see User talk:SandyGeorgia/arch109) to address that. I am concerned he may have given up, dejected. As long as we have colleagues willing to accept whack-a-mole deleting and rolling back, we should expect to have a recruitment problem, and we should all reject that kind of editing, which often occurs as a misunderstanding of what MEDRS supports. I am also curious about why some editors, even with a research writing background, seem to fit in seamlessly (Ajpolino, Berchan), where others seem to struggle no matter how much I/we try to mentor and instruct (and I have spent an inordinate amount of time in that realm). Also, we have SO many articles unnecessarily semi-protected, that how are we to recruit new editors, who may want to first edit as an IP? The treatment of IPs and "newbies" is often horrific ... see a thread on this page now maligning a long-term and knowledgeable IP who routinely posts here. We seriously need to deal with this mentality, and move beyond the whack-a-mole mentality. I think we have so many ways that we need to get our house in order, regarding how we bring IPs and new editors in to the fold, that I wish we wouldn't see yet another conversation digress into being all about gender. We have problems equally at prostate cancer (one in six men) and osteoporosis (one in six women), and at times we give too much focus to niche topics, and neglect our highly viewed pages and core content. We give the impression of a group with odd priorities. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To address just a tiny part of your comment, was kind enough to give me a list of all protected pages under WP:MED. I dumped it all in my userspace and am hoping to clean up this list a bit and bring it here for discussion in the new year. Perhaps we can all pick a few to adopt and trial unprotection. It's not going to suddenly solve our recruitment woes, but I think bringing protection levels down to the lowest level necessary is a worthy cause regardless. Ajpolino (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Saw the ping and figured I'd respond since I have a bit of time... it's not so much that I gave up, more so that IRL has been... hectic? busy? I'm not sure there is a word for it. I agree with your summary of my view - rollback, deletions, undos, etc are very off-putting to many new editors. My sandbox pages (linked from my userpage) for new-user welcome and info page are open to all to use/edit/improve/work on - and I think it's honestly a documentation and "catching them before they leave" problem. I was lucky in that I had seen WP:MED in some news stories so when I was confused or shy at the beginning I knew where to go - most probably don't even know that a "wiki project" exists. If we can catch them before they give up and leave altogether, and "mentor" them to be good editors, that will help. I know the word mentor is scary because it implies a lot of time, but just a simple message of "hey, we were all there once, and I'm going to try to help you" is what I'm referring to. Give them some names to ping when they have problems - I was blessed to have SG and a few others who reached out and I could ping when I had concerns/questions and they answered them. On that note, I'm about to go give another few hundred shots probably.. and myself am dealing with a bit of malaise after getting the first dose of Pfizer on Monday, so I will likely not be available for any in-depth conversations.
 * My suggestion is this: new editors that are struggling should be encouraged to work on a new article (or expanding a stub) before they get into more developed articles. For me, this was injector pen or depot injection, and the process of developing those made me learn the policies/procedures very well. If new editors are struggling on articles that are already written, having them work "from scratch" may help. Feel free to ping me for any more discussion, but I can't promise quick replies. I'm more likely to respond quickly to emails or in the wikiproject-medicine channel in the Wikipedia discord server - both of those notify me immediately but I hardly open Wikipedia once a day if even that nowadays...
 * Hope everyone's staying safe and well and happy new year to everyone. Once my work dies down I'll be back and already have my next few improvements planned (subcutaneous injection being one I started on but haven't had time to dive into since the vaccine(s) were approved). Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Two points. I wonder whether there is a "vicious cycle" that pushes editors into not being good editors (e.g. the first conflict => conflict mindset => escalation. I guess looking at case studies would be useful) - they alternative is to assume that there is some very difficult to change property of editors that don't stick around. I wonder whether there is an alternative to editing (such as reviewing pages / suggesting sources / reviewing / wikignoming / linking) that could somehow relax the learning / conflict curve and give people the time to both have some good experiences before their first conflict and osmose some culture early on. Talpedia (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Interesting thoughts. As to first conflict --> mindset, I know that as a recently established and productive editor, I had such a horrific experience with an admin cabal that I wrote off adminship permanently, and still abhor the idea, in spite of now knowing scores of very decent admins, and in spite of those who attacked me being sanctioned.  My mindset against ever wanting to be in the "club" was permanently set by an early negative experience, that has not been erased by subsequent positive experiences.  Negative experiences imprint deeply.  Perhaps WAID knows how we can activate some of your alternatives to editing to engage IPs.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Talpedia, there are some difficult-to-change things around editors, but the odds can be changed. Typical numbers (noting that the English Wikipedia's numbers are worse than average) are something like this:
 * 10 editors create an account.
 * 3 of them manage to make their first edit.
 * Only one ever edits again (e.g., on another day, and even that person is unlikely to make 10 edits this year).
 * One common story is that if your first contribution gets removed entirely, you shrug your shoulders and say "I guess I'm not good enough" or "I guess Wikipedia doesn't want me". Looking at some editors who appeared in Special:RecentChanges about two hours ago, about a third of the contributions will get reverted within minutes.  In my small sample (n=10), I found three already-reverted edits (including an edit war over Functional medicine that may indicate that there are multiple separate things that use the same name, or that we've got a WP:YESPOV failure), an under-sourced but (I think) accurate update to an anatomy article, someone adding a ref, and the rest where either uncontroversial edits (e.g., adding missing punctuation) or likely to survive (e.g., updating a sports table).  But if you look at our three new editors and think "one gets reverted instantly, one gets reverted eventually, and one survives", then you might have approximately the right feel.
 * Our response to newcomers overall is poor. This isn't always because someone's being mean to the newbie; it can also mean that we're throwing people in the deep end and then needing to send lifeguards after them.  Rational people might give up on swimming when their first experience produces all harms and no benefits.
 * On the gender question, our overall-poor response has a disproportionately discouraging effect on women and on Asian and African people. There are different cultural ideas about what it means when I treat a stranger and a newcomer like "that".  If you're, ay, a stereotypical American netizen, then personal conflict can be an engaging source of entertainment and an opportunity to win.  If, on the other hand, you're a native Japanese person, you would have a very different reaction.  It's hard for the first group to interact in ways that encourage the second group to continue editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just saw this! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schizophrenia&type=revision&diff=997891092&oldid=997845457&diffmode=source Talpedia (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, no sig on the post above, but I'll bite-- what's wrong with that edit? Rollback was not used, there is an edit summary, and best I can tell, it's correct.  What am I missing? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think its just that that edit and the previously linked comic both dealt with the terminology of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, correcting the phrasing "Nobel Prize for Economics". TompaDompa (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops that was me. Yup. I was interested to find that precise piece of pedantry / precision on my watch list a few hours after that cartoon was linked to Talpedia (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, no sig on the post above, but I'll bite-- what's wrong with that edit? Rollback was not used, there is an edit summary, and best I can tell, it's correct.  What am I missing? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think its just that that edit and the previously linked comic both dealt with the terminology of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, correcting the phrasing "Nobel Prize for Economics". TompaDompa (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Whoops that was me. Yup. I was interested to find that precise piece of pedantry / precision on my watch list a few hours after that cartoon was linked to Talpedia (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

By the way, speaking of promising newish editors, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ideas that would require broader community consensus and I don't have time to flesh out or even verify if they're possible right now (don't ask how many vaccines I've given in the past week.. please just don't) - if editnotices can be limited to IP/non-autoconfirmed editors, an editnotice on all pages which are in large part subject to MEDRS requirements suggesting people post here for help. A change to the new account screen that would add a section either asking people what topic they're interested in or providing links to wikiprojects (ex: "Interested in medical topics? Go introduce yourself at this page to be introduced to people who can help you get started!" and similar for other major projects). Change the "standard warnings" available in Twinkle/etc to have a "medical" welcome by default if the warning is for a page in a medical category that links here. I agree that the biggest thing is probably getting them before the conflict that inevitably comes with being new forces them away. We won't ever stop people unfamiliar with medical articles just doing the "page patrol" and antivandalism reverting warning levels 1 to 2 to 3 to 4 to reporting to admins... but maybe we can at least make Twinkle or the warnings themselves nudge/push people here so we can try and catch them? Regards -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've created Template:Unconfirmed only that displays its contents only to unconfirmed users, so you can implement edit notices that will show all or part of their message just to them. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I know the snake on a rod is the symbol for medicine... but does it have a secret meaning here... Talpedia (talk) 22:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really (just exactly what you indicated, symbol for medicine)Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

help with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_talk:Medical_Women%27s_Association_of_Nigeria
Please Textor Alector (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Textor Alector, has the copyright violation been resolved? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It looks like a decent article to me, was kept after an AfD, but for some reason gets rapidly declined again and again based simply on en.wiki users not AGFing or recognizing that Nigerian English is not quite the same as American English. It's what I would say should be published on WP without problem, and people will quickly work to bring it in line with standards. It's a shame the editors have had to struggle against an unforgiving current this long. Do I know WHY every Nigerian in the world will always explain "I live in Lagos which is one of the eight largest cities, the other 7 cities are..."? No, I definitely do not, maybe it's just their regional variation on a subconscious torilla tavataan, but that's just how they speak. Will go help. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for helping out with that. Wikipedia's history indicates that we can additionally be suspicious of sexism (the average organization open to anyone gets less scrutiny than the average organization for women), but most of this is probably just that we hate "spam and self-promotion", aka all articles about any businesses and organizations that we haven't personally heard about, especially if the article contents aren't primarily about scandals and lawsuits (because neutral content is "promotional"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Only complaint against AfC was "notability" for decline, which overlooked that an MfD already had been held and determined notability was valid. So I'll call that an "error", and move the article to mainspace. Congrats to Textor, it's a good article. HLPD (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Popular pages
Hello. In https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages, the link to "Top 5,000 most viewed medical articles in a given week including mobile and desktop" refers to a nonactive list. Is there a way to get more than the top 1000 popular pages, as I need a more extensive list for academic purposes? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LProlog (talk • contribs) 03:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That depends upon how technical you are. The code for User:Community Tech bot is on Github and linked on the bot's page, and doing it yourself is always the fastest and best way to get what you want.  If you don't have any idea what Github is, then you might try:
 * seeing whether you can get what you want out of https://pageviews.toolforge.org/massviews/
 * contacting User:West.andrew.g (who did the 5,000-page-long list in the past), or
 * asking User:MusikAnimal (WMF) whether he could point you in the right direction.
 * I recommend that you look at the list and see whether its contents are what you actually want. You might want to exclude all of the people, businesses, laws, etc., that are (or should be) in Category:Society and medicine task force articles and its subcats or any similar categories (e.g., Category:Science and academia work group articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you help. LProlog (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2021‎ (UTC)

African humid period/sickle cell disease take 2
A while back I asked if this publication justifies mentioning sickle cell disease on African humid period, given that it is not a WP:MEDRS-compliant review. Since then it looks like it's been picked up by other sources, including this review article. Is that indicative enough to discuss a mention? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Jo-Jo Eumerus, sorry for the slow response. I'm not sure I fully understand what you're asking. Also I don't have access to that review so apologies if that would've clarified. You asked if the source justifies mentioning sickle cell disease at African humid period. First, I think this (how many thousand years ago a disease-related allele arose) is outside the spirit of MEDRS, which is meant to guide editors away from providing misleading medical info to readers. So if you're asking if the sourcing is sufficient to "allow" you to include the factoid, I'd say sure. If you're asking if someone with biomed interest/experience could take a look through the papers to let you know if we think you're interpreting them correctly, I'm happy to do so; just let me know. If you're wondering whether the sickle cell allele originating in a given period is important enough to merit mention at that period's article, I don't think I'll be able to help since sadly I know next-to-nothing about the periods of Earth's climate/geologic history. If I'm totally missing your question, you'll have to guide me accordingly. Thanks and I hope all is well. Ajpolino (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input, . I was indeed asking about MEDRS stuff ... but the point that whether the sickle cell allele originating in a given period is important enough to merit mention at that period's article is a good one. None of the sources discusses what the relationship between AHP and SCD is beyond mentioning that they chronologically coincide. Probably best to wait until a source arises that draws a more explicit connection. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft:The Biber Protocol
Please take a look at Draft:The Biber Protocol and advise whether it should be considered for promotion. thx. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to ask why this article is being considered as possibly promotion. It is explanation of a protocol that is used in treatment and I don't see it as any different from articles you have describing other medical treatments or procedures. I would appreciate a discussion about this before you would decide to delete it.24.45.78.58 (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A filtered search on PUBMED appears to find no secondary sources, which is not promising. Sources are available for neuromuscular electrical stimulation, but we already have an article on that. The use of the &reg; symbol for every mention of The Biber Protocol&reg; is a bit of a tell: looks like UPE/PROMO to me. If there's any well-sourced content on NMES, it should probably be added to the existing article. Alexbrn (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

help with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Penumbra_(company)
I would appreciate it if someone could look at the page to check that what I wrote looks good. Thank you. Adamreinman (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Adamreinman, why are you using the AFC process at all?  WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems people didn't like their UPE? Natureium (talk) 23:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Article doesn't look like an ad or written informally ill-befitting an encyclopedia, not sure I can spot what's wrong at a glance or why it would be declined as a Draft; the "This User Would Like to be an Administrator" who rejected both this article and the one above is now officially raising my eyebrows ^.^ Anyways, at most I would be concerned we might have WP:UNDUE on the recalls/criticism so would suggest adding some positive details about the company so our article doesn't affect public confidence in their company. HaltlosePersonalityDisorder (talk) 23:24, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The first draft didn't have the lawsuits, and was rejected because all normal content about businesses is obviously self-promotional. Then he added the lawsuits, and got accused of being an undisclosed paid editor and not knowing what he's talking about.  The unsubstantiated claims about being a paid editor were denied and then removed from the page.  This is not really one of Wikipedia's finest moments.
 * This is a very difficult area to work in. WP:AFC reviews are really just one editor's personal opinion.  We praise and reward people for declining articles (even if they're wrongly declined), and we punish them for approving 'bad' articles (with an ever-higher standard for what's good enough, so the article you approve as good enough in January might well be the sort of thing that you're declining as too poor by December of that year).  This old thread at  User talk:Iridescent/Archive 31 summarizes the problem fairly well; look for the 'parable' that says "The volunteers became increasingly worried about the risk of being the one that let something inappropriate through, and more and more legitimate profiles started to be rejected." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Thank you very much for your detailed description and analysis. This article has been much harder than I expected. But, I am learning a lot in the process. Do you think I can submit it for publicaiton now? Or, should I wait until there are more third party publications about the company? Adamreinman (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's already "published"; the public has access to it. If you mean whether you should continue trying to get a volunteer at Articles for creation to approve its move to the mainspace, I don't know.  Why are you using AFC at all?  You've made more than a thousand edits over the last seven years.  You don't actually need their approval.  AFC is only necessary for people who have brand-new accounts with fewer than 10 edits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:15, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * In the spirit of BEBOLD and BREAKALLRULES I just went ahead and just created it at Penumbra (company) - we'll see what happens, it looks at least as good as the average new creation if not better. Shouldn't be complaints :) All credit is to Adam. HLPD (talk) 04:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * just a note, please use the move function to move pages instead of copying and pasting the article content - the latter removes attribution to the page creator and anyone else who might have edited the page, which is required for copyright reasons. I've requested a history merge to fix this. Spicy (talk) 17:57, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've done a history merge. Please check that the current article is what you wanted (categories, etc.). Feel free to ping me if you need further assistance. --RexxS (talk) 19:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Rexx, I don't see a move function on my sidebar or anything - but I'll keep it in mind for the future so I don't repeat the error - glad there is a system in place for it. HLPD (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * HLPD, assuming that you're on the desktop site, the page move feature is often hidden in the  menu, which is between the watchlist star and the search box.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I see I am late to the party, but I was going to suggest Penumbra (medical company) instead, because there is a notable Penumbra theatre. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It sounds like Penumbra (disambiguation) needs an update. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for spotting that. I agree 100% and I've moved the new article to Penumbra (medical company), I've also updated the dab page and fixed the redirects. Penumbra (company) now points to the dab page. Hope that's okay, but please let me know if I need to fix any of it. --RexxS (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone for your help. I learned a lot about how to be a better editor on Wikipedia from this. I will also focus on easier articles for now on - so I don't "bite off more than I can chew". HaltlosePersonalityDisorder I was using AFC because I hought I still needed it. Spicy  RexxS  WhatamIdoing  Thank you for the technical additions. I don't understand the nuances of what you did, but I am going to try to learn from what you did. Adamreinman (talk) 23:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd say you're fine without using AFC - just create articles on your own in the future and be prepared that people might start processes to delete them...which will just speed up the need to get them to "bare minimum" standards (hint: throwing stub on a small article often makes the delete-hounds skip past it). If you have trouble in the future, feel free to hit up my talkpage, I'm generally a "Keep-ist" for all but the most obvious propaganda or small-time news and don't mind helping out if necessary. HLPD (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly controversial question
I've noticed that a lot of the medical articles seem like people are on a mission to make sure nothing even slightly "alternative" is ever suggested to be okay. I found some obvious examples on the page for alternative medicine. Like this: "Alternative medicine is any practice that aims to achieve the healing effects of medicine, but which lacks biological plausibility and is untested, untestable or proven ineffective." It just seems very opinionated. Does it need to lack biological plausibility? It seems like it is just not proven to be effective. And is this a real definition or something someone editing Wikipedia decided?

I'm wondering if this is intentional or if I can assume some nuance is allowed on subjects where insufficient evidence exists. With newly recognized, underrecognized, or rare conditions, sometimes there is insufficient evidence in general and sometimes the medical consensus does not reflect the reality of a particular condition. For example, I imagine the consensus opinion is that you need to have been in a car accident to sublux your hip. However, joints do not follow the normal rules when the connective tissue holding them in place is weak. In a case like this, there is the general medical consensus about how hips work and then there is the consensus among medical professionals who focus on connective tissue disorders about how hips work in connective tissue disorders. Most of the medical field has never thought to wonder what would happen if ligaments ligaments supporting the hips were weak and people being the way they are, some would argue their position strenuously without understanding the particular circumstances.

I noticed this pattern with the article on Mast Cell Activation Syndrome. Someone working on the article deleted everything that cited an article coauthored by Dr. Afrin as well as a whole chunk of the article, saying this "this entry includes references to unreliable sources, including those by Lawrence Afrin (a practitioner of "integrative medicine" pseudoscience), and a non-expert advocacy group called "Mast Cell Action". Reliable sources such as a recent consensus document should be used instead. The consensus document warns against sources like Afrin." The point about Mast Cell Action is legitimate.

However, this is one of a number of things that some set of authors has called a consensus document and it doesn't actually say anything about Dr. Afrin. The diagnostic category was invented within the past 20 years and the controversy (the reason for the multiple papers by different authors claiming there is a consensus when none exists) is about whether to prioritize sensitivity or specificity when you can test for one mediator, which is only elevated when mast cells are overactive but is not always elevated when mast cells are overactive, or whether to test multiple mediators, some of which are produced by multiple cell types but in aggregate may capture cases that the prior method would miss. The bottom line is that people in the field have strong opinions and the whole topic will be irrelevant when the testing improves. Dr. Afrin unfortunately chooses to associate with people who practice integrative medicine but has worked primarily in the mainstream medical field.

Dr. Afrin is on the allergy and immunology subgroup of the International Consortium on EDS and HSD," along with one of the coauthors on the paper that the original author cited as being the correct view. Whatever his personal failings, they do not appear to affect his research.  If you decide that everything Dr. Afrin has ever said is wrong and insist on only mentioning things that have been been proven in multiple reliable trials, you can't even write an article about the syndrome.

RareDiseaseWikiFacts (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:YESBIAS and WP:YWAB. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry; ignore this. Not sure how to delete it... RareDiseaseWikiFacts (talk) 06:32, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * A script will come by next week and automatically move it away. There's no need to do anything else right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Watchlist request
If you use your watchlist regularly, please put Vaccine safety on your watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't this be at WikiProject Vaccine safety? Vaccine safety makes it seem like we have a policy or guideline on vaccine safety... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 05:28, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be more typical, but there's no requirement to use that convention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS check at Wuhan Institute of Virology's talk page
We are gathering MEDRS for a discussion on a controversial topic about SARS-CoV-2 origin (the lab leak conspiracy theory), and this source has been challenged: The challenge was this one: Please comment, thanks Forich (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PMID 33105685 is an editorial, in a MDPI journal - avoid, powerfully


 * Talk:Wuhan Institute of Virology/Archive 3 appears to be the relevant section on the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Is the source below considered MEDRS?: Forich (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * @Forich, it's an excellent journal – one of the best – but it's a primary source, which isn't ideal. You'd have to be careful how you used it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:16, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Management of multiple sclerosis Featured article review
I have nominated Management of multiple sclerosis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Cleanup
Hey guys. I think somebody need to do something about Convulsion. CyberTroopers (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the note, CyberTroopers. I've cleaned it up.  Please feel free to WP:Be bold yourself, or to let us know if you run across anything similarly bad in the future.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great. I would like to but currently have limited access to my device. Thank you for helping. CyberTroopers (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Two COVID-related RFCs open
Opinions are wanted at Talk:Ivermectin, which is about whether to include a date on a guideline (would that portray it as being out of date/wrong?), and at Talk:Variant of Concern 202012/01, which is about whether/how to name the Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant that's been in the news recently. If anyone has opinions about either subject, then I'm sure the organizers would be very happy to hear them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All this talk did make me look, for anyone interested there is a WikiProject COVID-19 which might be of interest for the future. The first one there is an interesting question. HLPD (talk) 04:45, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * In fact, if there's anybody left here with spare cycles, I'm just about burnt-out on the ivermectin article (currently running at > 10,000 views/day). From the sources, this seems to be a drug which has an evangelical following for its supposed effect against COVID-19, despite a lack of high-quality evidence. The quickest way to get up-to-speed quickly is probably this news piece. Extra eyes would be welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding the ivermectin page—and, particularly, the Ivermectin section in COVID-19 drug repurposing research—I am baffled at this insistence on RfCs instead of regular discussion and even more perplexed at the adding dates/direct quote thing. This is pretty much the opposite of what Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles would have us do. I'll have a look and drop in on the Talk pages. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 07:21, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Right. It's become an enormous time sink because of the constant push to promote ivermectin. There's been agitation off-wiki as well. The dates thing is to try and create a narrative, like this just happened - and never mind that WP:V is not satisfied. Alexbrn (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's also a general misunderstanding about how RFCs work. They are normal talk page discussions with an advertising mechanism.  Back in the day, RFCs were literally just a list of links to discussions (example).  But in the early days of the COVID lockdowns, they were very, very frequent, and they often morphed into votes (not discussions) that established binding rules that applied to all COVID-related articles.  We now have many inexperienced editors who think that the majority vote should win and that if you can't get everyone to agree within one or two days, then you should start yet another RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * I wonder whether we should be thinking about some WP:NOTHERE blocks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note I have just answered this edit request, which is further evidence of an issue. Alexbrn (talk) 21:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it's time to lean in harder against this sort of shenanigans. We have plenty of evidence—clinical practice guidelines (WHO, IDSA, NIH), recent systematic reviews (*actual* systematic reviews, not the McCullough et al. type), the SOLIDARITY trial, recent NEJM publications, etc. Maybe revamp the "Treatment" section of the main article?
 * And start considering topic bans/partial blocks for editors who are not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to advance a POV. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:56, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Time was, I would have been more than happy to give strong warnings and even apply sanctions if that failed, but recently an attempt to give a warning was immediately undermined by Colin who simply contradicted me. I don't need the hassle, so I've stepped away from doing that. I wish you better luck, . --RexxS (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * From the perspective of a non-admin, I think it is vital that admins are proactive in their application of the general sanctions for COVID topics, otherwise the sanctions have the effect of tying the arms of cautious/diligent editors behind their backs, while more incautious/problematic editors go on the rampage. Alexbrn (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not bite the newcomers is a community behavioural guideline. Just because the covid sanctions permit an admin to block and ban doesn't permit them to forget that this is the encyclopaedia anyone is welcome to edit, nobody is perfect to begin with, and admins are depicted with a mop, not a flamethrower. RexxS threatened to topic ban an editor from all of medicine who had only made a few edits one evening, and a single revert, to a single article. RexxS escalated conflict rather than seeking to calm things down when he found himself reverted. RexxS threatened to be the blocking admin of an editor he was involved in (the early stages of) an edit war with. And then RexxS made hostile personal attacks on editors who disagreed with his approach. Recognising when an editor is here in good faith and making newbie mistakes while citing sources much of the rest of Wikipedia would find perfectly acceptable, or when an editor has spent the last two weeks single-minded in pushing a controversial topic that is not accepted by experts, is not exactly rocket science. But if some admins find that difficult then stepping away seems a wise decision. -- Colin°Talk 12:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Colin. For heaven's sake could we deal with the issue at hand. We are dealing with an inexperienced editor yes; he has been asked multiple times to review the policies and guidelines. Editors are tired out trying to deal with this editor and other editors who are editing articles related to Covid and this is not going to end soon. I and others have spent a fair amount of time explaining policy to him and I am hoping he will begin to understand. The time for "don't bite the newbie" is past and the time for criticism of a past situation is past. If an admin feels he can't act in this situation now, fine, that is pertinent to how we deal with this now, and that's his business, but could we please not go back to something that has no bearing on this situation now. We need to clarify and shorten not extend. Littleolive oil (talk) 19:46, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Littleolive oil, it is my understanding (but with convoluted threading, I could be wrong), that Colin was responding to a post from RexxS that referenced a completely different case. I have threaded your commentary; my apologies if I got it wrong. Could we all please stay focused on this case? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Littleolive oil, I think you got the wrong end of the stick here, as Sandy explained. -- Colin°Talk 10:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Trying to have it both ways is pure hypocrisy. You complain about editors not meeting MED guidelines but then undermine the message when they are warned. An editor made edits that contravene MEDRS, was reverted for that very reason, and promptly re-inserted their edit. My response was to warn them that I was willing to topic ban then if they persisted in that behaviour, and your response was to tell them they had done nothing wrong. If you're unable to understand the difference between warning an editor of the consequence of repeatedly inserting unacceptably sourced content, and taking action against chronic bad behaviour, then you should not be involving yourself. Making admin judgements is always difficult, and it's not helped by your arrogant attitude that you always know best. You don't. --RexxS (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I am strongly supportive of the proposals for monitoring of Wikipedia content. As admins probably realize, maintaining standards of neutrality is a challenge. A good starting point might be Coronavirus disease 2019 (see Talk - Ivermectin section)--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * No. There are no proposals for monitoring Wikipedia content. There are policies and guidelines which editors adhere to to edit Wikipedia articles. You are not using Wikipedia's policies and guidelines when you call for neutrality, but your own. Several editors have attempted to explain to you that your understanding is not based in Wikipedia and I have asked you to review Wikipedia especially WP:NPOV. Alex explained in a very thorough clear way here what WP:MEDRS is and I have asked you to review policies and guidelines. You still seem to misunderstand neutrality despite requests to review it. Here is what neutrality means: Editors can add content that is verifiable and reliable based on the mainstream sources on that topic. More RS for a topic and more content is possible. Topics that may be considered necessary for an article but are on the fringe of the topic in terms of reliable sources may be mentioned but that mention must be in terms of a general ratio of that fringe content/sources to the mainstream content/sources. Health/medical related articles require more reliability in terms of sources because peoples' lives could depend on what we post. Therefore as an encyclopedia, that is, an online collection of RS content which usually means published, MEDRS related articles require secondary sources except in very rare cases. Those sources are systematic reviews, sometimes textbooks, not partial reviews, not single studies, not lectures or speaking engagements. Systematic reviews mean research has been replicated or reproduced. For Ivermectin there is a simple, update on the drug on the NIH webpage. That's all we get to say in the article. One line, a few words, is an appropriate length for information that is fringe to the mainstream information on the article as a whole Coronavirus disease 2019. You are pushing fringe information, and pushing for content that is not explicitly in the source. Explicit is necessary in an encyclopedia otherwise you are synthesizing content from multiple sources a big no no, or extrapolating based on your own reading of multiple sources or lines in any one source WP:OR, another no no. You are an inexperienced editor; Wikipedia is a complex system for editing which takes time to learn. I have been here a long time but am still learning. You are bucking very experienced editors and seem to be either misunderstanding what you read or have not read or re read policies and guidelines. I reread these frequently to make sure I am understanding nuance. I suggest you do the same. There is no shame in rereading multiple times to figure out how Wikipedia functions. I suspect most editors whatever their experience do. When multiple editors are saying the same thing that's often a sign that one is misunderstanding. Littleolive oil (talk) 21:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what you are saying. I'd just add that this point here is subtle . Wikipedia necessarily synthesizes *content* because no one source adequately explains an issue, and there mere combination of relevant material will induce the the reader to construct theories explaining facts when there are no well tested scientific theories. I guess the problem comes when the literature is silent on theoretical topics, or when the combination of information seems to suggest the *text* is giving the interpretation rather than the reader themselves through thought. While the issue has subtleties it's still possible to do this blatently Talpedia (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I will take your views into consideration. I am still very much interested in the question that I posed to you in Talk at Coronavirus_disease_2019.--Vrtlsclpl (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoingalso suggested you familiarize yourself more with how Wikipedia runs. She says here on your user page, "I'm concerned that you don't understand Wikipedia's core content policies." Please take these suggestions seriously. Littleolive oil (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Apologies. I saw that you did respond at Coronavirus_disease_2019. The formatting was a little weird. --Vrtlsclpl (talk) 02:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I do think with this mainspace edit, a line has been crossed. I don't see how repeatedly inserting WP:SYNTHESIS and misleading medical content is compatible with the heightened need for care in this subject area. (Add: now this) Alexbrn (talk) 16:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree Alexbrn. I think they've been warned enough about pushing this and editing without consensus to restore that. -- Colin°Talk 16:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not a fan of the ANI circus board, but perhaps we have reached that point. I'm seeing quite a few editors here trying to explain policy and guideline, to apparently no avail. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Again? I've followed up on his talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, again. Per WP:GS/COVID19 any uninvolved admin may impose sanctions. ANI will just result in even more community time being wasted on this, I fear. Alexbrn (talk) 17:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Times for a vacation. ....editorsimply here to advocate to the detriment of our readers.-- Moxy 🍁 17:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * who sometimes deals with such situations. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * JzG has temporarily given up his admin tools, and who could blame him? If I have to keep putting up with the sort of shit that Colin throws out, I'll be the next. --RexxS (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * RexxS, admins have to deal with being held accountable when using and threatening to use the tools, and stay cool when the situation is hot. I am not the only editor who has disagreed with your approach and aggressive style. There is no need to use this sort of language, and it doesn't do you any favours. -- Colin°Talk 10:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Bummer. (No personalizing, RexxS :) Perhaps it's off to ANI we go on these edits, then?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Boing! said Zebedee has dealt with this:  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Boing has issued a warning only, so far. Sandy, my comment to Colin was to ask him to not bring into this discussion that which is is off-topic. I'm off-Wikipedia for now so no reply necessary. Littleolive oil (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm not sure about the logic of "you can't compare two things you need to get someone else to compare them" on that page, seems a bit of a stretch to me. The issue seemed to be more to do with the fact that a whole bunch of context was missing. You could just write "On X Y said Z. On X' Y said not Z" But I'm not going near that on the talk page because drama! Talpedia (talk) 21:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia doesn't create a "log" of position changes from health orgs. That would become very unwieldy very quickly. Per WP:MEDRS health information should be up to date. If some change of position is truly noteworthy, there would be some decent source mentioning why, which could then be used. Alexbrn (talk) 06:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * :/ I agree that reporting all changes to position would be unwieldly. But the motivation and justification here seems more to do with WP:Due and synthesis than original research, when confined to "not being able to infer that something has changed yourself". Though... I guess if a change *is* noteworthy someone will probably have spoken about it. The example that comes to mind is something like ECT. That this could be given without consent and no longer can seems significant - but there is probably a bunch of writing on the topic. I suspect if the description of the change was made in a balanced way with context of the ivermectin page (rather than the covid page) it might have been allowed to stand Talpedia (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the motivation is to try and create a narrative of "upgrade", aligned with the advocacy "out there" on the web. Reading the full NIH guidelines they do in fact give a bit of detail about what's changed (p.4) :
 * But I don't suppose this is the way the now-topic-banned editor wanted it presented. Alexbrn (talk) 09:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you are probably correct about you diagnose of intent, difficult as these things are. I had a look at the source showing the change and was sort of suprised when it basically said "there is insufficient evidence to justify ivermectin's used" when the comment said "ivermectin was approved for trial". I found the comments about "the same approval as X, Y and Z" a bit weird as well. Yes... but also the same level of evidence as topical antihistamines, cold showers or anti-anxiety medication. I'm mostly just doing "wiki-legal-analysis" here because... I don't quite know. Talpedia (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The "same level as" wording is the same as the (not really true) talking point adopted by the advocates. See here where is says "Their recommendation has now been upgraded to the same level as those for widely used monoclonal antibodies &amp; convalescent plasma". I think it's been fairly clear what's going on here. Alexbrn (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose. I guess the difference between POV-pushing and having an interesting perspective is being willing to read the sources and follow the rules, and most fringe positions have a plausible moderate alternative attached to them. That said ivermectin isn't exactly "niche". Talpedia (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I suppose. I guess the difference between POV-pushing and having an interesting perspective is being willing to read the sources and follow the rules, and most fringe positions have a plausible moderate alternative attached to them. That said ivermectin isn't exactly "niche". Talpedia (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The admin efforts are appreciated but I'm not sure they go far enough: the community is now faced with a RfC on whether Wikipedia has "legal exposure" over its (correct) ivermectin coverage: Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019. Really, a TBAN is required to stop this. Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Done, per Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  07:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * tban for 1 month. Not convinced it's long enough but it's a start.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * And now the socking. Alexbrn (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it. So, Alexbrn, what are you waiting for, anyway?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Now indef blocked as well.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm reminds me of this WP:Go ahead, vandalize. It's quite helpful when people make things quite so black and white.... Talpedia (talk) 04:29, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * It's happening again, with a newly-reawakened account thrice adding about the "upgrade" from NIH. The talking points in the edit-summary are familiar. Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Shall we take the whole lot off to WP:RFPP? @DMacks put Ivermectin under semi-protection, and we might need to consider Extended confirmed protection while this guy is socking.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Please watch WP:MEDRS
An IP made this edit. His response to getting consensus for the edit is this on my user talk page here. I'm going to disengage given the quality of his posts but others should probably keep an eye on MEDRS for any non-consensus, problematic changes. I reverted him twice but should not revert again. I'm not concerned about my user page, just that changes could be made which change meaning. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

medical editor
User talk:Flyer22 Frozen should anyone wish to leave a message--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Please wait for confirmation. Flyer's alleged death has been reported multiple times over the years, and there is a chance that this is yet again just someone's sick idea of a joke. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's apparently been confirmed by ArbCom. Very sad news. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Before anyone's unmentionables get in a bunch: some time ago a third party used a throw-away email address to circulate "news" of Flyer22's passing (I've seen it myself, via WhatamIdoing), and Flyer22 has long had a criticism page at one of those sites devoted to venting about and trolling Wikipedia. This time, the actual news was from her brother, and previous correspondents confirm it is from the same e-mail address used when he has contacted them from his account here via "Email this user", so it is not a hoax.  Flyer22 has been openly concerned about her health in postings here since at least 2013 (e.g. one of her user subpages has some ruminations about maybe writing an editing guide before her time is up), and several of us knew from personal communication that she was not doing well toward the end of 2020.  It was reasonable for WhatamIdoing to wonder if there was confirmation. So, please do not let any dramatics erupt here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  15:26, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Like SMc said. We also know that Flyer had some username changes, including Flyer22reborn, which was a tongue in cheek renaming where she was putting some old history behind her. Real people are having tough times, let’s keep it cool. Montanabw (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sad news. I only worked with Flyer a few times and my impression was she was always doing good work to keep articles in shape, in some difficult areas. Alexbrn (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Concur. This is really sad news. Ran across her numerous times in hormone and sexual development articles and was really impressed with her depth of knowledge and her respect for the facts.  This is really a loss for Wikipeida. Boghog (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Prostatorrhea
Can anyone have a look at Prostatorrhea and evaluate it for the usual "should this be deleted, upmerged, or kept and expanded"? I found one modern one source, but every other result I turned up was from the 1800s, so...I'm dubious. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Google Scholar shows 100+ academic papers on it, so I'd assume it's legit. That said it looks like possible an upmerge to prostatitis and make sure Prostatorrhea is on Wiktionary? HLPD (talk) 05:35, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Premeditated Chaos should you initiate the discussion, I think merge to prostatitis. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The source I cited mentions it appears unrelated to prostatitis, are we sure that merging it there makes sense? Are there other sources that contradict that? (I just don't want to go merging something in error) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , first, we should have more opinions. Second, this is concerning.  Both said, we can still discuss it under Differential diagnosis at both prostatitis and Dhat syndrome (that is how I see you can preserve content about a dubious entity via a redirect, while putting it in DUE context relative to what the source says— remembering that it is not a review source). Just my opinion; wish we had others.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  22:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a dictionary definition here, and an ICD-9-CM code here, but mostly it doesn't seem to be a modern 'thing', and a glance at the century-old sources suggest that it might be prostatitis (or even a urinary tract infection). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Investigations into the origin of COVID-19
The new article Investigations into the origin of COVID-19 may need some attention from experts. It currently gives a lot of weight to the lab leak hypothesis, with statements like Two conflicting theories have gained prominence since the first cases were detected: natural accident and laboratory accident.. The article's author is ScrupulousScribe. – Novem Linguae (talk) 06:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm doesn't look massively unbalanced to me. From the title of the source used for that reference, it seems likely to be an accurate summary of the source. One thing I would say, is that it would be nice to include what *science* has to say on the topic - the piece focuses on government investigations. I've found citing "scientific consensus" difficult in the past, so I'm not very hopeful we'll be able to find anything showing "most scientists reject the lab hypothesis". There were a couple of papers on the lab-leak hypothesis / the source of the virus, some were very skeptical, another quite recent one less so. It might be good to include those, I also wonder if the lancet commission has anything interesting to say as well. There was some interesting genetics on the topic as well... though some of that potentially walks us toward conspiracy theory territory because it has a lot of "degrees of freedom" Talpedia (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * One question is how WP:MEDRS we want to be on the article. I would note
 * And the rationale of "bad medical advice can place readers exist" does not necessarily apply to research into the source of a virus (though clearly, if we were to claim that the virus does not exist or is conflated with flu etc then it does become a problem)
 * Talpedia (talk) 07:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 15 January, from Secretary of State US gov.comEnsuring a Transparent, Thorough Investigation of COVID-19’s Origin...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Until the CCP allows a full and thorough accounting of what happened in Wuhan, it is only a matter of time until China births another pandemic and inflicts it on the Chinese people, and the world. The tone of that piece is interesting. Not what I would normally expect. – Novem Linguae (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah because politicians would never promulgate conspiracy theories, would they? Alexbrn (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that a sentence such as "two conflicting theories have gained prominence, A and B" is unbalanced when the two theories are not equally prominent. I believe that a more typical balance would sound like "Science says™ that it was a natural occurrence, but politicians and other people have speculated on whether it could have been a lab accident, bioterrorism, or other man-made disaster". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "The "lab leak theory" has become increasingly difficult to ignore in light of the coincidences and circumstantial evidence that continue to accumulate"?! WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a new addition . I'm not a fan... Talpedia (talk) 18:53, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed it but was (not unexpectedly) reverted. What does increasingly difficult to ignore even mean? It's astonishingly vague — all sorts of garbage becomes hard to ignore when it's repeated loudly enough — and has the distinct feel of Just Asking Questions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a direct quotation from the cited Cnet article, so I guess it means whatever the journalist wanted it to mean.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wonder if we could find a better source for the "prominence" of the lab leak hypothesis. I thought about looking in broadsheets, aad has having a read through of the lancet publication as I thought I might have some context. Talpedia (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like two-thirds of the current version has been written by the editor who added that "increasingly difficult to ignore" line. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems all-too-easy to ignore/dismiss in the WP:BESTSOURCES. As for any conspiracy theory, by contrast there is a stack of stuff out there in middle-brown sources (and lower) wondering about this mystery: maybe there's something in it? And here we have some editors extremely keen to advocate for it. Alexbrn (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * An unmarked direct quote should be deleted per WP:COPYVIO. Though in this particular case, it reads more like an ex post facto justification for some synthesis: scrape together marginal sources to support a conclusion, and then slap on another footnote to make that conclusion not technically original. And, really, CNET? The consumer-electronics website? Even if the origin of a disease somehow weren't a scientific question, I wouldn't be going to get my news about it from people whose latest story is "HBO subscribers: Watch Wonder Woman 1984 for free with HBO Max before it leaves Jan. 24". XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * An unmarked quotation is not automatically a COPYVIO. (Might be Plagiarism, though.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * An unmarked quotation is not automatically a COPYVIO. (Might be Plagiarism, though.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Noting that some related noticeboard discussions are:
 * (Special:Permalink/1001661263)
 * (multi-subtopic Special:Permalink/1001678492).
 * — Paleo Neonate  – 19:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, in which the editor who gave us the line about "coincidences" being "increasingly difficult to ignore" declares that simply removing sentences such as "The hypothesis was one of several possibilities being pursued by the investigators" is bad-faith sneaky vandalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

MEDRS at RSN
Please see Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This is part of a larger discussion: Reliable sources/Noticeboard and related to a edit-warring dispute at ANI involving Investigations into the origin of COVID-19. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Nostradamus Featured article review
I have nominated Nostradamus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Would animal assisted therapy qualify for this project?
I have been working on this draft Draft:Thunder_%26_Bolt_Therapy_Pigs and could use assistance of more experienced editors and I am wondering if it would qualify for the project. Thank you Mlepisto (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe. This is really about an animal instead of a medical subject, but it's not a bad match for our scope.  After all, we sometimes tag articles about people who happen to be medical professionals but are notable for some unrelated reason.
 * @Dan ardnt, the article cites two articles in a high-volume national magazine, one of which contains hundreds of words about the subject, plus at least six local news sources. If this turned up at AFD, what do you think it's odds of survival would be?   WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I will give it a go and see about listing it (never tried before) and won't take it personally if it gets removed. Much appreciated! Mlepisto (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I pinged the wrong person. I meant to ask User:Dan arndt. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine candidates at AfC
Hello, I've been doing some AfC reviews and found three draft articles on the topic of CoVID vaccine candidates (they've all been submitted around the same time by the same anon). Whilst they appear to be notable and reliably sourced to my eye, I think that they should be viewed by someone with knowledge in this area before being accepted into mainspace. They are: · Draft:ARCT-021 · Draft:Zorecimeran · Draft:CoVLPWould someone here be able to pick these up? Thanks, --Paul &#10092;talk&#10093; 10:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * @Paul Carpenter, I think these would survive WP:AFD. The only thing that you might want to check is whether editors have established a rule of thumb for having separate articles about each vaccine being tested vs merging them to a larger article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Short tasks?
Hey all. I haven't been around so much (and haven't done any major content writing) since I have been horribly tied up IRL with the massive amount of COVID cases on one side, as well as being part of the mass vaccination effort on another... leaving barely any time for a few microseconds of sleep/rest (I kid, but more than 5 hours has not been had in the past month or so for me). That being said, I've been able to watch things on my watchlist and pop in occasionally, and with the processes re:vaccination getting more streamlined and it not being the "first rodeo", I suspect that I'll continue to have a few 5-10 minute breaks during the day free, as well as some time in the evening I may be able to dedicate to some small tasks. If anyone knows of anything that can be gone through over time related to medical articles, and/or has any discussions come up that don't take a ton of time to research but would benefit from another opinion, please feel free to let me know. Hope all of you are safe and well, and I just want everyone to know that I fully intend to resume working on injection-related articles when I have more time to dedicate to WP :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great to hear from you, and hope you stay well! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  10:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Berchanhimez, taking you up on the offer, if you ever have that 5 or 10 minutes, hemothorax would use some eyes as to quality of prose for WP:FAC. Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:39, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, thanks for diving back into Circumcision and HIV. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Apetamin
I've created a stub for Apetamin, a dangerous weight-gain syrup being sold on social media to gullible women and girls. Please take a look at it and see if I've overlooked anything important. Thanks, Abductive  (reasoning) 03:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So that's where those odd bodies are coming from; that is really sick news. Others should look in here; there is only one PMID-indexed article, which is a case report, but there are lots of news reports. My take on subjects like this is that it is better to offer something on the subject than not to, but others may disagree as to NOTNEWS and notability.  More opinions needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:47, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Originally, I looked at this and thought it was woefully undersourced and may not meet notability, but I am going to try to play "devil's advocate" because I agree with Abudctive in that it may very well be notable not as a treatment, but simply for the coverage it's gotten in media regarding its dangers/abusive practices. Some sources that may be useful for expansion/meeting GNG (but cannot be used for biomedical/MEDRS information) include: Jamaica Star 1, Jamaica Star 2, News24 (South African news website), Healthline, MedicalNewsToday. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any mention of this in any major US news source, even those paywalled ones I have access to. Personally, I think the best thing to do at this time may be to redirect Apetamin to cyproheptadine (which section doesn't exist at this time), that way the biomedical information regarding side effects can be covered by the sources already present in that article, and the information about apetamin itself can be limited to non-biomedical and non-MEDRS information such as its composition, legality, etc. Regards, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll also note that Apetamin-P is an approved brand name of cyproheptadine (by itself) in Sri Lanka (verified here) - made by the same manufacturer, but with no mention of the vitamins/other ingredients. I can't find any (english) government/other site from Sri Lanka which discusses any form of "approved uses" for this, but it is an approved brand name of the drug cyproheptadine (at least by itself) in Sri Lanka. Not to mention that cyproheptadine by itself is used off-label in the US for appetite stimulation in adults, and children (which curiously isn't labeled as "off label" on lexicomp, but I'm pretty sure it is) - so that will conflate matters as this product itself and its marketing is the problem, not necessarily the cyproheptadine component. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:13, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Victim mentality
I don't like this piece. Victim mentality seems to be one of these "novel" psychological constructs that runs parallel to, but simplifies concepts that exist elsewhere things like agency, trauma, victimology, ptsd, learned helplessness and locus of control but terms them into a particularly judgmental and absolutist mix. It seems to be popularized by self-help books by certain psychiatrists. I believe it has risks of being particularly harmful as a form of internalizing and generalizing behaviour: instead of having the ability to apply more agency in one area you are "suffering from a victim mentality".

This concept has gained some traction in the "pop science space", I think because it appeals to certain conservative political leanings, and fits into some of the debate. Some therapists and "pop therapists" have started adopting this concept. See in particular this youtube video, where a youtuber is quoting this wikipedia page in order to "diagnose" an obes named third party with victim mentality. I presume people understand the issue with this.

The standard issue arises here, as with pseudoscience - though I wouldn't call this pseudoscience exactly - that this has a parallel and separate literature that does not intersect with much therapeutic or research psychology. It's not even accepted enough for anyone to critique it. Does anyone have suggestions here - I'm kind of hoping I've missed an obvious paper somewhere. What I really want to write is "Victim mentality is a novel and unacceptabled diagnosis that bears some similarity to several more accepted concepts in psychology [list concepts]. It is mentioned in these popular therapy books" but that would be WP:OR.

Any suggestions? Talpedia (talk) 22:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * That title used to redirect to Victimisation. Do you think that the subject would be more manageable in that context (or maybe a section in a different article)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's an interesting idea - link this in to existing literature by making it link to a section of another article to provide context. The argument for this would be a stretched WP:DUE argument, that in considering this you should be aware of the literature on "victimhood and the victim label". It does feel like a bit of a cheap trick though. I do think the concept of "victim mentality" in the sense described by this article is notable: it's on youtube; I think it gets used (badly) therapeutically; it shows up in a bunch of reputableish therapy services pages, so we probably should not delete it. "POVishly" I *want* wikipedia to address the topic if it exists in pop psycholgy. I don't think any of the source regarding victim mentality in the article are WP:MEDRS though, perhaps one of the books might just scrape into MEDRS. One this about this article is that they frame "victim mentality" as a personality disorder that can occur without a trigger rather than a response to events / trauma, which might be an argument against putting it this in something related to victimhood or trauma. I sort of want to make a page titled "Niche personality disorder diagnoses" and put this there together with a few other pages. Talpedia (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Something like Personality disorder not otherwise specified, only with a little information? You could take a WP:SUMMARY style that puts the main information elsewhere, and then put a brief summary with Main or See also in your central article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That could work quite well. That specific page is quite linked to the ICD-10 category. It would be a little OR'y because I'm sort of implying that the diagnosis is not "mainstream" through editorial. I'm thinking of just emailing psychologists / organizations until I get someone to write a blog post somewhere officialish and then using WP:PARITY to include this and then link victim mentality to the body of mainstream literature. Update: I've emailed the APA and BPS to request that they consider writing on the topic, we'll see if they get back to me. Otherwise I'll start going down the authors of books related to trauma or personality types. Talpedia (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Augustine blood group system vs Equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1
I just created a stub for Augustine blood group system after seeing it as a redlink. Once I published it, I realized an article already exists for the protein in question at Equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1. That article makes no mention of the protein being part of a blood group system, which makes sense as the article hasn't been significantly edited since before the blood group system was established in 2015. I'm coming here for help because I'm not sure what to do now—should the blood group article be merged into the protein article? And if so, would someone make a redirect? I'm not sure how. Thanks for your help! Igarnish (talk) 02:46, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm, it seems that the more well known groups (Duffy, Kidd, Kell) use one article to describe both the protein and the blood group, while the "small" ones (e.g. Diego/Band 3 anion transport protein, Lutheran/Basal cell adhesion molecule) have them separately. So is this even a problem? Igarnish (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Welcome, @Igarnish. Thanks for bringing your questions here, and for using recent review articles for that article.
 * In principle, there is nothing wrong with having two separate shorter articles, rather than one longer one. If you want to merge them together, then Merging has information about the process.  This would be considered an uncontroversial merge, so if you decide that you want one longer article, skip straight down to the "How to merge" section on that page and follow the directions.  If you don't want to merge, then that's fine, too!  In that case, you'll want to WP:Build the web from each article to the other one.  (It's okay if some content is duplicated.)  Either approach is "correct" and valuable, so pick the choice that you think is best, and then don't worry about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much! This is really helpful. I think I'll leave it as is as two separate articles and just leave a link in the ENT1 article to connect then. Igarnish (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox at Cloacal exstrophy


This is a low priority issue involving alleged topic synonyms in a stub article's Infobox, but if you have a moment, your feedback at Talk:Cloacal exstrophy would be appreciated. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Cryotherapy chamber
This WP:FTN thread may be of interest to this project:. I considered boldly redirecting it with merge tags but thought it would be a better idea to get more input. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 17:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * PaleoNeonate thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

COVID vaccine dispute
FYI, the article COVID vaccine dispute has a poor title with a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:COVID_vaccine_dispute --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yuck. I don't think there's anything about this "dispute" that cannot be briefly covered at European Union response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Alexbrn (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Might be worth to check if we cite anything from those papers
From the abstract and paper:  "... plagiarism of Wikipedia in peer-reviewed publications has received little attention. Here, I present five cases of PubMed-indexed articles containing Wiki-plagiarism, i.e. copying of Wikipedia content into medical publications without proper citation of the source. [...] ... I subsequently contacted the authors of the three other Wiki-plagiarizing papers, as well as the publishers and Editors of the journals involved, to ask for an explanation, correction or retraction. None of them replied, despite the fact that these journals are members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). Of note, the article on exome sequencing was edited by the same author as the 2010 published paper. ... " The more we try... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 09:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)