Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 149

Recent WP:PMID markup changes
Trivial I know, but yesterday I spent time trying to work out why inputting something like PMID ######### wouldn't generate the customary PubMed link on a talk page. Was it me getting my upper and lower cases confused or something? Or was it some recent change that had passed me by? After a while, I propended for the latter and, in one of those elusive aha moments, today I stumbled on this. Since I felt that a shiny new template might not be so convenient for rapid talk-page discussions, I went to what seemed to me the obvious forum (WT:PMID) to question the apparent loss. But when I tried to start a new section there, up popped a message warning me, ...etc.

Gosh, methunked, so where now? Hence, this semiserious patter...

On a slightly more serious note perhaps, I can well remember how impenetrable "Wikipedia processes and practices" first seemed to me (and presumably to many other newcomers). Sometimes, that still feels the case... So I can't help wondering whether - as far as talk pages are concerned - this sort of obligation to use a template where none was needed before is really an advance. And I don't even know where to ask. Maybe I should ping... But perhaps I won't... Cheers, 86.186.155.179 (talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * So have all PMID macros stopped working from previous discussions? This is just a change that causes damage/work. Idiots. Alexbrn (talk) 14:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * At first glance, no lonker lonked. 86.186.155.179 (talk) 14:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think you two are looking for Requests for comment/Future of magic links (from 2016). I believe that JJMC89 was involved in this.  The goal was to replace all of the magic links with local templates before changing the config. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Err, and by the looks of it the RfC came down against the change. This change is an act of stupidity. (And, checking out an old archive it seems all the PMID magic links have now gone dead.) Alexbrn (talk) 18:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a technical RFC. "Votes" and popularity are irrelevant.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @WAID et al: Hum, why does that RFC link seem to transport me to the start of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (the bit about the planning permission application being "on display in the bottom of...", oh never mind...)? Fwiw, I've been indecently tempted today to boldly revert the actual change, while providing a reasoned explanation on the relevant talk page, accompanied by a link to this thread. I almost unduly flattered myself that the fact that a mere ip contributoid feels that way might conceivably send a message to some educated people - maybe in the inner reaches of the local galaxy - that the technical side of building and curating Wikipedia isn't just some insider fix, however valuable that sort of input may be in the round. But hey, I'm a really conflict averse sort of humanoid life form (another reason why I'm just an ip around here anyway :) And I do still rather like those words "DON'T PANIC" inscribed in large friendly letters, 86.186.155.179 (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You might feel like you hadn't been told about this technical RFC because you're not reading Tech/News or the wikitech-l mailing list, where technical RFCs are normally announced. Or you might feel that way because you're not even watching all the major RFCs here, because if you were, you would have seen the "Future of magic links" RFC at Village pump (proposals).  (Notice that it begins with the usual comments about another community affecting us without acknowledging our primacy, even though we've said that's how it's supposed to work in our policy for longer than I've been an editor.  It also links to some of the prior announcements and discussions on our own wiki, which kind of undercuts the "nobody ever told us on our own wiki because we can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs" storyline.)
 * But the most likely explanation is: This movement is too large and too complex for anyone to read everything, much less to remember everything.  To give an example, a couple of years ago, on this page, we talked about redesigning WP:MED on this page.  Several editors participated in the discussion.  A couple of months later, someone made the changes.  Then one of the significant participants complained here:  Why didn't anyone talk about this first?  Well, we did, and you did, too.  It just wasn't one of the thousand most important things for you to remember.  Neither, apparently, was the discussion that we had on this page five years ago about the likely end of the magic links.  You'll find two other ways to link to PubMed via the id number in that discussion.
 * Changing the documentation doesn't change the software. AFAICT the "actual change" is this patch in Gerrit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, so now if I've understood correctly, these guys aren't just smoking some stupid stuff we can't get hold of here? Thank you WAID once again for your heroic megagalactic efforts to make the distant clunk of media and stories long ago appear a little closer to home (though I'm still unclear how EveryeditorTM could be expected to understand). So long, 86.161.190.24 (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the fish? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Fish? What... (ah, never mind ;-) 86.161.190.24 (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Disclaimer needed for the WHO's flawed credibility?
Yes, it's COVID-19 again, and yes it's the "lab leak hypothesis" again, but at there is a proposal about WHO-sourced content that may have wider ramifications of interest to WPMED editors in general. Alexbrn (talk) 20:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:RS/N
 * I commented there. I think it's honestly time to start seriously considering general sanctions applied to the topic area - such as one prohibiting editors who are not extended-confirmed discussing the origins anywhere on Wikipedia, as this is just a timesink at this point. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:49, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Even without them, a WP:TBAN for individuals who are Forum shopping is a possibility. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Chronic pain susceptibility
Looking at the talk page of our friend PainProf (last seen on this site in early September 2020 [?]|undefined), I stumbled on a bot-generated section from mid-February warning that this work-in-progress risks being removed due to lack of recent activity. Since I believe that - however incomplete with respect to PainProf's intentions - the current content of the draft could be of real value, I'm boldly wondering whether it might conceivably be appropriate for somebody experienced to move a somewhat condensed version into mainspace. Also very much hoping PainProf is well. Best, 86.161.190.24 (talk) 13:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * G13 may be best...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Is medscape a good source?
Sorry if this may come off as a dumb question. But I have interacted with other Wikipedians and they have told them there is a consensus that Medscape is a reliable source.

I’m not entirely sure if this claim is true or not, so I’m just asking. CycoMa (talk) 03:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It was discussed quite recently here. It's not WP:MEDRS. Alexbrn (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That discussion did not say it was "not WP:MEDRS". There was consensus that it was adequate for uncontroversial stuff, particularly if the editor doesn't have access to the quality stuff. It isn't a good MEDRS (your title question) but could be used for sourcing some medical content. See WAID's comment at the discussion. -- Colin°Talk 10:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think Alex means that it's not what MEDRS calls "an ideal source". A source need not be "ideal" to be "reliable", especially for uncontentious content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're both right. I should have said it's not a good MEDRS. Sometimes I call these kinds of sources "MEDRS of last resort" (everything is reliable for something). However, if the OP has been told plainly that Medscape "is a reliable source" in a blanket way, then that's wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 16:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Does this qualify?
I have a question do these sources qualify as MEDRS in the Circumcision article? These are both reliable, secondary sources one of them in PUBMED.

I'm asking to get this put in as opposed to the current source used in the PTSD section where the authors of the study have a conflict of interest statement which violates Bias under MEDRS. Dashoopa (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * is primary research from 2002. You are proposing replacing a 2019 systematic review with this source in tandem with another article  which does not even appear in PUBMED. I have already expressed a view on the wisdom of this on the article's Talk page. Alexbrn (talk) 07:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've already explained this, this is written from an extremely biased source with extremely biased authors and a lengthy Conflicts of Interest statement. I suggest removing the source we have now and not replacing it with anything for now until a better source is found. Other than that, the current one is undisputable an awful source. Dashoopa (talk) 22:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. The COI statement begins:  "The first author is a member of the Circumcision Academy of Australia, a not‐for‐profit, government registered, medical association that provides evidence‐based information on male circumcision to parents, practitioners and others, as well as contact details of doctors who perform the procedure."  The English Wikipedia is itself extremely biased towards providing evidence-based information.  Is that supposed to be evidence of a problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's a pro-circumcision website, it's about as "evidence-based" as Intact America or whatever else. Also, the other guy sells patented circumcision website so he profits off of the study. Again, anyone with a quarter-functioning brain can tell it's not an appropriate study to use. Dashoopa (talk) 13:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A medical association is not generally considered "a website". A review article is not "a study".
 * The point behind relying on review articles and textbooks and similar sources is that the format means that we end up with the results from a variety of studies, each of which is performed by a variety of researchers, and therefore with a variety of levels of biases, context, and competence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the peer-review and publication process is meant to manage/neutralize any taint of COI. The problem here (and it is a permathread on the circumcision articles) is that Brian Morris (biologist) is a hate figure for anti-circumcision activists who cannot abide him being cited. Right back from the time when the article went to GA under the guidance of the consensus has been that Wikipedia could not just jettison reputably-published systematic reviews (etc.) just because of editorial objection. So Morris is used but as a compromise if alternative WP:MEDRS are available they are used instead to try to dampen-down any drama. It is not as if the Morris source is even being used to source anything controversial here in any case, so I'm not sure there's any reason for the dramatics we're seeing from this latest drive-by WP:SPA. The "anyone with a quarter-functioning brain" comment reveals all. Alexbrn (talk) 17:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Neither the source currently in the article nor the source proposed to replace it look particularly good. Vaticidalprophet 08:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Dashoopa, that's a good journal, but for such a contentious area, you need to find a review article that was published during the last five years (i.e., no older than 2016). When you look at this article on the journal's website, it says "Research Article" at the top.  That means that the authors interviewed or surveyed men themselves to find out what the men thought.  That's not the kind of source that Wikipedia wants.  Wikipedia wants one in which the authors read all of the other researchers' research articles, and then sum them up into a conclusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing protected medicine articles
Hi all, I think at some point in the not-so-distant past we discussed reviewing the protection of medicine-related pages, with an eye towards reducing or removing protections that are no longer needed. was kind enough to provide a list of pages tagged with WP:MED and under some level of protection. You can see the full list here, but below I've pasted a trimmed version that doesn't include move protection (which I think is less of an issue), protected redirects, templates (here if you're interested) or covid-related pages (since those protections were placed fairly recently). For folks interested, please take a look through the list. If there are any that you feel are candidates for reducing or removing protection, let me know and I'll happily look into it. Bonus points if you can commit to watchlisting the article for a few months so we can easily re-protect if needed. Also, the list is from November 2020, so if you come across any that are no longer protected just remove them from the list. Happy to hear folks' thoughts! Ajpolino (talk) 14:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Table of protected pages
Feel free to annotate the "Comments" column for any you look into to avoid duplicating efforts.

Table of pending changes protection
Ah rats, just realized my initial list didn't include pages under pending changes protection. Generated a list with this PetScan query and pasted below. No expiration dates since it came through PetScan, but most pendingchanges protections I've seen are placed indefinitely (although there is an option to add an expiration date).

Discussion

 * The first thing I knew was going to be on this list was Triple X syndrome, an article I've been swearing to rewrite from near-scratch to a GA/FA level for years and haven't done. The problem is -- obviously -- the title. The issue is that there are at least two "common names" for this syndrome, that and trisomy X, and I suspect if the page were titled the latter there would be no need for semiprotection. I made a move discussion a few years ago that found consensus to move another page in the same family, but was split over trisomy X. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:42, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much for getting after this, ; we want more medical editors, and one way to get them is to actually let them edit! I can suggest three to start with, but want to take this slow to see if issues recur. Does someone know how to “pin” this section meanwhile, so it won’t archive too fast as we work through these? On the three (I believe?) that we have unprotected since I first raised this concern about a year ago, there have been no problems. So I can handle three more as a start on my watchlist. I can take on watching the following three, and suggest they do not benefit from semi-protection.

I will add more over time depending on how these go, so hope we can keep this list on the page. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Multiple sclerosis; I suggest removing protection, and I am willing to watch.  If that doesn’t go well, we can switch to pending revisions.  MS is no longer featured, and is completely dated, so we have no rationale for keeping out IPs.  It was indefinitely protected in 2012, and that was based on one or two problematic editors.history at the time We have other means of dealing with that.
 * 2) PANDAS has been semi-protected many times.  It is a contentious FRINGE-ish topic (for which there are reliable sources) that has been the subject of WP:RECRUITING coming from fringe-supporting parent advocacy groups.  It is possible (fingers crossed) that has died down, and if we can switch it to pending revisions, I can keep an eye on it and possibly later recommend removal altogether of protection.
 * 3) Parkinson’s disease like MS is no longer featured, extremely dated, and we have no good reason to keep out IPs.  Similar to MS, it was indefinitely semi-protected in 2012, in this case because of student edits, which we have other ways of managing.  Rather than keeping out all IPs, we can block classes per MEATpuppetry in cases like this.  Like MS, the article is so badly dated now that we should encourage edits by anyone.   I think this one could be unprotected and if that doesn’t work, we could move to pending revisions, and I will be watching.
 * Great! I've unprotected the two more-straightforward ones: MS and Parkinson's. I've watchlisted both, but if you start seeing vandalism that I'm missing, please let me know and we can figure out how to best address. Will look into PANDAS when I get a moment. Ajpolino (talk) 19:24, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * PANDAS switched to pending changes protection for now. If it seems calm for several months, perhaps we can try unprotecting. Ajpolino (talk) 23:16, 6 March 2021 (UTC)


 * 1) Healthy diet was autoconfirmed protected 23 May 2020. IP 70.98.10.197 and Ddp1991, the vandalizing editors, both stopped editing back in May 2020. Suggesting removing the auto.
 * 2) Potasium was autoconfirmed protected  12 May 2019. Crapholio, the vandalizing editor, has been indefinitely blocked. Suggest removing the auto.
 * 3) Vitamin was autoconfirmed protected 30 May 2020. Bshamahakanykasa, the vandalizing editor, has been indef blocked. Suggest removing the auto.
 * 4) Veganism was autoconfirmed protected 28 November 2019. The brown cows, the vandalizing editor, has been indef blocked. Suggest removing the auto. I will put this on my Watch list, as it has been semiprotected several times in years before the Nov 2019 decision.
 * 5) Miracle Mineral Supplement was Extended confirmed protected 15 March 2020. Not after vandalism. There was an edit war that ended with the contested content added by Eonds of Mollusk remaining in the article. It remains to this date. There is no subsequent vandalism or edit warring. Suggest removing the Extended.

None of these five show any more recent vandalizing by other editors. David notMD (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , they could not “show any more recent vandalizing” if they were protected :). Are you offering to watchlist all five in case issues recur? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:37, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Unprotected and watchlisted Healthy diet. For Potasium, will defer to for now, since they did most of the earlier protections and edit heavily in this topic. MS, thoughts on us trialing un-protection for Potasium again? Ajpolino (talk) 16:03, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * @ great idea to have a look at this. Quite a lot of the articles at first glance don't seem particularly contentious so might have related to a period of media interest or one-editor vandalism Is it possible to include the date that the restriction was placed? And would it be possible to do the same for anatomy articles over at WT:ANAT? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * it would be great to have the date restrictions were placed in that table, but sadly I don't know how to do it without manually adding for each (any takers?). If anyone speaks Quarry, here is Cryptic's query that gave me the table above. I assume some small tweak could give date restrictions were placed as well? For anatomy articles, I've just posted the analogous table at User:Ajpolino/Med_protection. Feel free to repost at WT:Anatomy or wherever you'd like, and I'm more than happy to help. As above, I removed move protections and redirects, but if you'd like to see those too check the page history. Also this made me notice that pending changes protection didn't show up in the original list, so I added them manually and I'll check the same for the MED pages above. Ajpolino (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If I can butt in here, a lot of these pages seem like they should stay protected. For the more controversial pages, I don't think it should just be up to us to lift protection. I think we should invite users from those talk pages to comment on possibly lifting protection. When you look in the edit histories and archives, you can see that some of the users have been with the pages for years, and so they have a better idea on whether the pages should stay protected. When the pages are unprotected, it's harder to get them protected again. I've seen complaints on talk pages that WP:Pending changes doesn't really help. I think whether the articles are rated good or featured on the scales isn't the only thing to consider. Cancer isn't featured, but I think we can all agree that it's a bad idea to lift its protection. Topics like rape and urination are vandal and POV magnets and should always be protected, in my opinion. Well, rape at least. Near the very top of the list, there are controversial topics like abortion, acupuncture and ayurveda, and all of them have a long history of disputes, and all should stay protected. Veganism may seem like a harmless topic to some at first, but it appears to be protected partly because of the FAQ at the top of its discussion page. Checking the archives, some of that was discussed recently too. A lot of politics with veganism. So some of the stuff I'm seeing in the histories of these pages tells me that these are case-by-case considerations. If a page has a long history of disruption without protection, it's a no-brainer that it will have a lot of disruption again once protection is lifted and that protection quelled a lot of that disruption. RandoBanks (talk) 01:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Page protection is normally set by a single admin, often without any discussion or at the suggestion of a single editor, and it's okay to remove the protection later. "Indefinite" isn't usually supposed to mean permanent.  We choose that setting when we don't want a vandal to make a note on his calendar that the article will be open on a certain date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:09, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Edit histories show that page protection is normally set by a single admin after the admin has assessed that the article is a vandal and/or POV magnet and/or after a user has listed a page at WP:Requests for page protection because an article is a vandal and/or POV magnet. You think we shouldn't heed the reasons why articles like abortion, acupuncture and ayurveda were protected in the first place? We should override the concerns of editors who think some of these pages should always be protected? Do you think a controversial topic like abortion will cease to be as controversial as it is any time soon? Lift its protection, and we know what will happen. It will need protection again within minutes or an hour. RandoBanks (talk) 02:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * First, Ajpolino did not offer an opinion about which do or don’t need to have protection removed; clearly, some controversial topics need protection. Second, Ajpolino can reinstate protection if vandalism returns just as quickly as protection was removed.  Third, pending changes works just fine if someone is watching the article, and is a good intermediate trial.  Yes, they are case-by-case consideration, and that is precisely what we are doing here.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:32, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ajpolino is taking suggestions about which pages to remove from the protected class. The discussion also tells us that a bit of it will be a testing phase depending on the article. My thought is that there are pages that shouldn't be removed from protection at all, especially if someone suggests removing it from the protected class and don't even watch after that to see if removing the protection was wise. RandoBanks (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we can trust Ajpolino not to do anything so stupid as to remove semi-protection from abortion or rape or sexual intercourse, much less without someone agreeing to watchlist and let Ajpolino know if vandalism ensues. He has removed semi-protection from three articles so far which I have promised to watchlist, and based on what I think is sound reasoning I provided.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:44, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * And for pages that aren't as obviously controversial as those? I wouldn't have even known about the disputes that have taken place at some of these pages if I hadn't looked. I guess you're saying that Ajpolino will do due diligence. As for removing a controversial page from protected status, users sometimes want to give it a trial run to see if things have changed. We see that above too. I'm saying the need for protection won't change for many of these pages. RandoBanks (talk) 02:53, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Given that four of the five I listed were only autoconfirmed protected, they could easily be vandalized even if that protection was retained. If this exercise is "What auto-protections can be removed, I would err on the side of more rather than fewer. David notMD (talk) 03:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I just read WP:Autoconfirmed. You say "only autoconfirmed protected" like that isn't what is usually requested and doesn't quell much disruption. Getting an account takes extra effort. Even with an account, there are thresholds to cross before people can edit autoconfirmed protected pages. Right now, I can't edit them. That's why "only autoconfirmed protected" is usually enough to stop disruption, most of the disruption, or cut the disruption in half. "Extended confirmed protected" is heavy duty. RandoBanks (talk) 03:30, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . My purpose in posting here is to identify pages that no longer need protection. Your concern that some pages still need protection, and indeed may always need protection is well taken. But the fact that Abortion is best left semi-protected, doesn't mean that everything else is best left protected as well. To Ajpolino will do due diligence, well yes of course that's why I'm posting here to garner more attention and opinions. But due diligence doesn't mean seeing the future. Some of these pages may return to being vandalism targets once we remove or reduce protection. If the vandalism is persistent, we will probably re-introduce semi-protection. That doesn't mean this whole experiment has failed, just that we were wrong in that particular case. With multiple sets of eyes on each article, hopefully we'll catch any "failed experiments" quickly. Your eyes could certainly help in that regard. Additionally if there are any pages in the table you look into and think "protection should definitely be retained here", that's helpful feedback as well. Ajpolino (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Ajpolino. Yes, I agree with "doesn't mean that everything else is best left protected as well." RandoBanks (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a general comment from someone who's answered several hundred edit semi-protected requests – it's disappointingly common for such requests to languish in the queue for weeks, and for perfectly coherent requests to be dismissed for being misformatted or other trivial reasons. I can only imagine how off-putting this must be to potential contributors. Reducing the number of protected pages is well worth the effort, as is watchlisting or otherwise monitoring Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 13:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

it is OK to remove pending changes from management of Tourette syndrome; I didn’t realize it was there. Of course I have that watched :). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * But now I am quite confused about what we have at Tourette syndrome?  I don’t know how to read the log, but it doesn’t show on your list.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:33, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Done! Yes, Cryptic generated the list for me in November, but I didn't get my act together to post here until now. So anything protected between November and now (include Tourette syndrome, in December) will be missing from my list. I figured that's good enough to find long-protected articles, though we could re-run Cryptic's Quarry query to generate a new list anytime. Ajpolino (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, I missed a step. I do not know why  reset Tourette syndrome based on one edit, when I was having no problem managing pending changes there.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:47, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When I come across PC with few to no accepted IP edits (generally either over a dozen ish IP edits or a few months), it's clear that it is not worth having and thus switch it over to semiprot. Primefac (talk) 17:07, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks . Ajpolino and you are sysops and know the policy, while this is above my paygrade, but I thought that Tourette syndrome was doing fine, I was able to manage, and the typical coprolalia or Tourette’s guy-related vandalism from a decade ago had died down.  On a coprolalia-related topic like TS, some ongoing vandalism is expected, but it seemed mild and manageable.  But I defer to both of you ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:24, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * faulty ping above. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:25, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Primefac, that's another thing I've seen on talk pages about pending changes. RandoBanks (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

This discussion has degenerated into whether to remove any articles from autoconfirmed protected, to what it started as, which was which to remove. In addition to the five I listed, many I looked at since then, I consider were over-reactions to one-time vandalism (by IP and autoconfirmed accounts!). If this exercise is to be useful, I suggest we persist at identifying articles to remove from autoprotected. Be BOLD. Many articles on the list already have watchers, so criteria does not have to be we add delisted to our own Watch lists (albeit a valid precaution). That said, I propose removing Calcium, Constipation, John Snow and Plant-based diet. The last has frequent reverts, but based on good-faith edits, not vandalism. Lastly, Kelli Ward is not a medicine article. David notMD (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m not entirely clear what you are saying about the discussion, but if we *don’t* agree to watchlist unprotected article, we are leaving the entire burden on Ajpolino. After he was kind enough to do the initial work here of providing a list, that doesn’t seem right. And constipation strikes me as a typical vandal-attracting topic.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:55, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually, diarrhea (also autoconfirmed protected, back in 2010) was much more vandalism-prone than constipation. Even after AP. I think because there are more diarrhea jokes than constipation jokes. To my argument in favor of removing autoconfirmed protected, my thoughts are that either Watchers have protection authorization, or can apply to have an article protected, so the burden does not all fall on Ajpolino. David notMD (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with SandyGeorgia about constipation. We can try lifting its protection, but I suspect it will need protection again sooner than later. RandoBanks (talk) 20:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The watchers list in the history of a page isn't always full of active watchers. I sometimes see vandalism or some other disruption in pages that have a healthy watchers list, but it seems the watchers are inactive or that few are paying attention. Those pages mostly count on the vandal fighters with those automatic warnings and varied revert capabilities to take care of them. RandoBanks (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

first failed experiment at Parkinson disease, probably needs re-protection, sorry my computer is in repair, iPad will not allow apostrophe in title, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * see post above, this looks like student editing. Do you want to try to reach out?  It is ridiculous that we have to semi an article because students descend.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I revdel'd the copyvios. I agree it looks like students. I'll leave them a note asking their instructor to reach out to us or to ENB. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's working so far! The problem at Parkinson's has resolved itself (by dealing with the students directly), so ... so far, so good on experimenting with lessening semi-protection. I suspect we will see increased problems at the end of university terms as students try to cram in edits, but even that can be dealt with via semi-protecting for a week (not indefinite). Other than the student editing, I have had no problems on those I am watching, and suggest we could cautiously try more.  I am not understanding the logic of  when they say that "we can all agree that it's a bad idea to lift ... protection" on certain articles.  User:Adrian J. Hunter points out the valid reasons that make it worthwhile to at least try.  The worst that happens is we revert and re-protect, while the best case scenario is that we might actually recruit or retain some new editors.  RandoBanks, are there no others on the list you might contemplate as worthy of a trial? On many of these, when you actually look at the history before the semi-protection, it turns out to be students, or one passing editor, or just not too much to deal with.  Or at least try. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  23:20, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, correct me if I'm wrong, but posts you made above me mostly show an understanding of what I meant. You expressed an understanding of not lifting protection on controversial topics, but I also commented on lifting protection on articles that aren't obviously controversial until the user does some digging into it. For example, the veganism thing has reared its ugly head again. Ajpolino understood my concerns, and I am satisfied with his reply. Primefac gave his experience with "pending changes" and you said something to David notMD, and both of these replies address my concerns about pages that may not be well-watched.
 * Suggestions from me? Hm, is it worth giving Asthma a trial? Is it really vandal and POV-prone? I haven't looked deeply into why it's semi-protected. RandoBanks (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When I said "I think we can all agree that it's a bad idea to lift its protection", I was talking about the cancer page. I suppose cancer isn't a controversial topic to some, but it's a big target for vandals and POV-pushing regardless. We could try lifting its protection, but I don't foresee any positives to doing that. RandoBanks (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, ; I thought cancer was a good one to explore re why you believe “it’s a big target for vandals”. I also wonder about others like Finnish heritage disease; it went along for most of its Wiki-life with no problems, and then got hit over and over on one day by some IPs, and is still semi’d almost ten years later ... so another to explore.  What is it about cancer that makes you reluctant or that make you consider it vandal prone? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The same reason I wouldn't want the protection at HIV/AIDS lifted. Both are contentious (aka controversial) topics, with many contested or fringe treatments that need to be refuted for the laypeople who just aren't aware (or who don't know what the contested or fringe things are). For cancer, the controversies include screening, clinical trials, survivorship, lung cancer, breast cancer, and so forth. There's also the alternative cancer treatments (one of the "and so forth" things to look out for) people sometimes consider. And like HIV/AIDS, the cancer jokes are plentiful. For some, the jokes or humor are said to help, but we don't need that in Wikipedia pages. Regardless, I'm not in your way if you and others here want to push forward with lifting protection on the cancer page rather than the asthma page, or if you and others here want to lift protection on both. RandoBanks (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, I've had less time to dedicate to this of late, and I see discussion has petered out. If no one objects, I'll move the tables to User:Ajpolino/Med protection, and allow this to be archived. Folks interested in helping with this medium- to long-term project can watchlist that page and continue to suggest pages to trial de-protection of. We'll de-protect in small batches over time and see if we can slowly identify pages that can be safely unprotected. Any objections to that? Ajpolino (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Merge discussion
Over the last days a big part of my clinical work has been dealing with queries around the AZ vaccine, which has been administered to 17 million UK residents. The relevant article is up for merge. While this is a rare phenomenon, there is already a teeming mass of sources (not all of which classically MEDRS, as this is a novel phenomenon).

Please consider !voting here: Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. JFW &#124; T@lk  12:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Challenged MEDRS at SARS-CoV-2 entry
In Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, Allam (2020) (a chapter from a 2020 book published by Elsevier) is currently the source for the "December 1 with possibility of November" date of the index case. Is it MEDRS? Forich (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @Forich, This is a chapter in a book published by one of the largest academic publishers in the world. Do you have any reason to believe that it's not a reliable source?  Unless you have a good reason to reject it, you should accept it and present its claims balanced in WP:Due weight with other sources that provide conflicting information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * @WhatamIdoing, MEDRS require comply to this rule: "Ideal sources for biomedical information include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." Allam (2020) fails to meet the criteria of being an academic and professional book written by an expert in the relevant field, because Zaheer Allam, the author of the chapter and book, is an architect that specializes in political economy.  He is neither a virologist nor an epidemiologist.  The book itsel is about the political economy of the pandemic.  Many wikipedians oppose to having non-specialists opine on the origin of the virus, for instance, when Yuri Deigin, an MBA who publishes in favor of the lab leak origin, the argument that he is an MBA comes as the main reason to discard his points.  If we apply the rule fairly and equally, the Allam (2020) needs to go. Plus, we got the official WHO report that has new and better quality info on the first cases registered.  I tried inserting that source but someone reverted it. Forich (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * the argument that he is an MBA comes as the main reason to discard his points &larr; that's not true, or at least I hope it's not true. It might be true if by "main" you mean noisiest - but the real objection to any source is rooted in the WP:PAGs, not (what Wikipedia editors take to be) the expertise of the author. Alexbrn (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Sources can be non-ideal and still be reliable. I think I'd accept this book as being "a" reliable source in general – it might, in fact, be one of the best possible sources for many of the articles listed at Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic – but I would not consider any book about political economy to be an "ideal" reliable source specifically for biomedical information.  If you have ideal sources at hand, I encourage you to cite them instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would in principle agree on Allam (2020) being RS, but it is definitely not MEDRS and, as you said, it should be considered non-ideal for biomedical information. Book chapters from respected publishers by respected virologists would probably start coming up in the following years on the topic of the pandemic, and then we will resort to them as MEDRS. Forich (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

RM, once again
Alerting WP:MED of Talk:Triple X syndrome for courtesy purposes. Vaticidalprophet 06:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Elongated labia
The artice came to my attention again when looking at my edit logs. It's still in the same questionable state with mostly outdated sources, one more recent one but that only links to those cultural depictions, then a possibly better source from the WHO but that is about labia stretching. Moreover, a 2019 suggestion on the talk page was to possibly merge it in the stretching article, which may be pertinent. I initially thought about posting this at FTN, but I suspect that WP:MED members may be more familiar with the related anatomic and medical literature, to evaluate what to do about this article. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 00:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding a point I forgot but that helps with the context: the claimed genetic basis has been challenged, versus the existence of the practice. — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:51, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Hemolytic disease of the newborn
There's this set of articles
 * Hemolytic disease of the newborn
 * Hemolytic disease of the newborn (ABO)
 * Hemolytic disease of the newborn (anti-Rhc)
 * Hemolytic disease of the newborn (anti-Kell)
 * Hemolytic disease of the newborn (anti-RhE)
 * Haemolytic disease of the newborn (Rhesus) → Rh disease

I'm not saying this is necessarily a problem, since the topic is well beyond me, but it seems weird to have so many articles on this. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * If the symptoms or treatments are different, then we'd want to have separate articles. @Snowmanradio would probably know, but isn't around much these days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Grump
Just noticed, that unlike with the good old PMID macro, the new mandatory template generates a link where the "PMID" text is a separate hyperlink. So:. The "PMID" is easily clicked and leads to PubMed. Surely in 99% of cases this will be a mis-click. One wonders if the developers of this site have any understanding at all of its users. Alexbrn (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That feels like a problem with Template:pmid rather than with the developers of this site. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with Alexbrn that "PMID" needs to be delinked in the output so as to avoid the unnecessary annoyance of having to avoid accidentally reaching PubMed. (It's already more fiddly to use than the late lamented 'magic link'; please don't make it doubly fiddly.) 86.177.202.244 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You could just make a direct interwiki link:   produces pmid:31496138, which should work like you expect it to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, thanks for that WAID. 31.50.193.212 (talk) 10:42, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Can we use this as a study?
I am wondering if we could add this cost-utility analysis about circumcision:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15534340/

It is a systematic review and meta-analysis as well that aggregates into a cost-utility analysis the risks, benefits, and costs of circumcision. The source is a little old (2004) but it is one of the most comprehensive reviews on the topic and published in a great journal with high-quality information.

Also, Alexbrn has been quite hostile, so generally try not to engage with him if he comes on. Dashoopa (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , As was already pointed out to you on the talk page, it is plainly not a systematic review or a meta-analysis. MrOllie (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is a systematic review and meta-analysis. I will read directly from the paper: "Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method) by the Mantel-Haenszel method...Articles addressing the impact of neonatal circumcision on health were collected by searching MEDLINE using circumcision as a search word, reviewing the citations in pertinent articles, and querying experts in the field. Articles published since 1900 were considered. Preference was given to the most current information."


 * It literally says in the paper that it is a systematic review and meta-analysis. This is not up for dispute. Dashoopa (talk) 14:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * But it was published way back in 2004 (cf WP:MEDDATE). Recent potential MEDRS include (a review published in a widely respected medical journal) and  (a systematic review published in "the official English language journal of the Chinese Cochrane Centre" - as currently cited ). 86.177.202.244 (talk) 15:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The first paper is not a cost-utility analysis and neither is the second paper, so it is irrelevant to what I am trying to put. Dashoopa (talk) 20:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dashoopa, a cost-utility analysis would normally be considered pa primary source (see WP:MEDPRI), and therefore inappropriate here. Both the suggested sources are scoped reviews containing content that is specifically pertinent to the matters you have wished to address. These two papers both seem to satisfy WP:MEDRS, whereas the one you are leaning on does *not* - per WP:MEDDATE, and also per other considerations, as outlined by Colin below. 86.177.202.244 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does it say anywhere on WP:MEDRS that a cost-utility analysis is considered primary research? Dashoopa (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * (Dashoopa, fwiw, I wrote "normally" because it's true that this study does aggregate sources. The key point here is it clearly fails WP:MEDRS per WP:MEDDATE. End of.) 31.50.193.212 (talk) 10:55, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dashoopa, the paper does not claim to be "a systematic review". These words appear nowhere in the paper. It is a Cost–utility analysis, though its data is drawn from previously published studies. The section method for those studies, which you quote above, would not qualify as a systematic review, which requires an explicit algorithm for choosing studies and is designed to minimise bias and be repeatable by other researchers. While the paper does claim to perform meta-analysis on certain aspects of their research, they appear to be doing so only to calculate a risk of developing HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases. It isn't like the conclusion of their paper is simply a meta-analysis of previously published studies. They take the existing data, and add in a huge dollop of their own assumptions and figures, and conduct original research to produce a novel conclusion. -- Colin°Talk 15:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Confirm Colin's appraisal of this dated paper. (Of note, this is an example of authors making exaggerated claims for their methodology mid-text). 86.177.202.244 (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I will read directly from the paper: "Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model (DerSimonian and Laird method) by the Mantel-Haenszel method...Articles addressing the impact of neonatal circumcision on health were collected by searching MEDLINE using circumcision as a search word, reviewing the citations in pertinent articles, and querying experts in the field. Articles published since 1900 were considered. Preference was given to the most current information." So, it does claim to be a systematic review and meta-analysis within a cost-utility analysis. Dashoopa (talk) 20:00, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dashoopa, please note that the fact that the authors claimed, inter alia, to have conducted "meta-analyses" (broadly construed) in the body of a paper that historically passed peer review does not mean that it fits currently accepted definitions of meta-analysis in the context of systematic review . 86.177.202.244 (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, not every meta-analysis must fall in line with PRISMA guidelines and there are thousands of meta-analyses we have cited that have not fallen under every PRISMA guideline. For example, it is not taken for granted to write systematic review and meta-analysis in the title whereas PRISMA guidelines explicitly outline so. If meta-analyses and systematic reviews are conducted within a paper, it is considered sufficient. Dashoopa (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A paper that is 17 years old is not "a little old". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What WhatamIdoing says. Given the existence of recent directly pertinent medrs, fails WP:MEDRS per WP:MEDDATE. Period. 31.50.193.212 (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2021 (UTC) [previously 86....]

Tetrasomy X peer review
Note for anyone of interest that I've made a PR at Peer review/Tetrasomy X/archive1 for a topic in this project's scope. Vaticidalprophet 07:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Experts needed on Martin J. Tobin (new article)
Is there anyone with knowledge of pulmonology who can help expand the career details of Martin J. Tobin? His research is way too complicated for me to do justice. His bio is a bit overwhelmed by the section on the Derek Chauvin trial. Thank you! —МандичкаYO 😜 13:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * User:Axl?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that I don't know anything about him, but I can try to find some suitable information. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 16:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * After searching for more sources, and reviewing WP:BIO1E, I am not convinced that Martin Tobin is notable in his own right. I don't think that he should have a Wikipedia article about him. <b style="color:#808000">Axl</b> ¤ <small style="color:#808000">[Talk] 17:24, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Nonverbal learning disorder
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Neurodevelopmental disorder § Nonverbal learning disorder. A new editor and IP (clearly the same person) is edit warring Nonverbal learning disorder into the article as a neurodevelopmental disorder despite the fact that NVLD has no official status with either ICD or DSM-5 and, in fact, has no well-established diagnostic criteria. Sundayclose (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC) Sundayclose (talk) 20:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I had a go at this article yesterday. I also archived the talk page, which was unusually complicated/hard to make sense of.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Smoker's paradox and COI

 * Articles for deletion/Smoker's paradox
 * Articles for deletion/Smoker's paradox

Hi all, I happened to stumble upon this article. It previously and to some extent is a stealth article about the health benefits of smoking and did use (and probably still has) some very questionable sources that give undue prominence to some (but not all) claims. Could I have some help cleaning it up?

I am also highly concerned based on the selection of sources and time it would take to collate them, and the fact this seems to be that editor's first article, that there may be a COI editor involved. I note also the article was rejected at AfD and then moved to mainspace without consensus by the author. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've removed the content sourced to articles that significantly exceed the recommendations of WP:MEDDATE, except for one that is partly used for historical purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Having tried to improve the page a bit, I've somewhat surprised myself by finding that I've (now) formed a surprisingly strong  personal opinion on the question of delete/merge/keep - haha, an obvious egocentric bias/COI which really makes me laugh. 31.50.193.212 (talk) 21:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The direction the article on Smoker's paradox is taking, as evidenced in the discussion page on its proposed deletion, may be considered controversial. Some more eyes, more experienced than mine on how medical sources are used, may be useful. NikosGouliaros (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok Nikos, I'll step back (or try to :-) 86.186.168.248 (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Since it is related to smoking, also linking that may be interesting to this project, — Paleo  Neonate  – 00:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Since it is related, also linking Schizophrenia and tobacco smoking, a page about another claim (cf 31135490) which may benefit from attention by an editor experienced in pruning. 86.186.168.248 (talk) 08:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * question would it be worth mentioning the "protective effect" of smoking with regards to ulcerative colitis? There are reliable sources for that. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Dr. Vogel, for now, I've added it to the list of miscellaneous claims. 86.186.168.248 (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

New viral vector vaccine article needs expansion
I've created a short article on Viral vector vaccine, a topic very important for COVID-19 vaccines. Please help expand it! If you contribute text in the next week, you will get DYK credit for it too. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * added--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Vaccine ingredients
Four months ago, we had a discussion about the List of vaccine ingredients article. We agreed that a prose article might be better than a list which was hard to maintain or be comprehensive, and which didn't offer any explanation as to why those ingredients were present. We debated ingredient vs excipient but I discovered most lay sources use "ingredient" and that word encompasses both active and inactive ingredients. So, after much gestation, I've moved my draft Vaccine ingredients to main space. who objected to the original list and for his expertise. Sources used include Plotkin's vaccines (Seventh ed.), the Electronic Medicines Compendium product information leaflets, and the excellent Vaccine ingredients from the Oxford Vaccine Group. The latter is, I have sadly to admit, so much better than my own efforts, and has been kept up-to-date with the latest information about the covid vaccines.

I wonder if people here could help with categories, templates and talk page stuff. -- Colin°Talk 18:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I added some categories, and I'll add a talk-page banner.
 * @Colin, would you like to send this to Did you know? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll look into it. I don't think I've ever done a DYK. I suppose I'd be interested to know what, if anything, readers here thought was something fascinating that they didn't already know.
 * Should Vaccines refer to this article rather than the List of vaccine ingredients. -- Colin°Talk 19:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Even though there's likely no copyright problem (CDC/FDA published information), I think any list of this sort likely violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. I agree prose would be better (and a move to, say, vaccine excipients) - and it should be pared back to only those ingredients that are encyclopedic - as an example, polyethylene glycol (due to allergic reactions), and the different types of "remnants" of manufacturing (ex: animal products, egg products, etc. for religious reasons). A good place to start prosifying this would be to separate it into adjuvants, stabilizers, preservatives, etc. - then sections on those can describe their use in multiple vaccines that use them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's great to see 's new article! I agree that the old list article is still problematic, but I'm not sure what to do. 's suggestions could give us a new useful article, but it would be quite different from what's there presently, which is largely - yes - an indiscriminate dump. Alexbrn (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a number of sources that discuss classes of vaccine ingredients generally. I think this article can stand as it is. It's hard to imagine an ingredient of a vaccine that is not also an excipient, except of course for the modified virus itself (or, in the case of mRNA vaccines, the synthetic RNA strand itself). BD2412  T 04:33, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps there is a bit of confusion . You seem to be suggesting something that already has been done. We already had a discussion about whether List of vaccine ingredients was a good list and wondered even if it should be deleted, reworded or made to redirect to a new article. We did think about creating vaccine excipients but that title has problems: "excipients" is really really obscure jargon, and other sources (including a professional textbook) used "ingredients". There are a large number of new web pages and news stories handling the question "what is in my vaccine?" for the covid vaccines in particular, and that question includes the immunogen as well as all the other stuff. So that's why Vaccine ingredients was created. -- Colin°Talk 07:57, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Btw, I'm not aware that polyethylene glycol is an ingredient/excipient in any vaccine. -- Colin°Talk 08:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If it's generally agreed that the new article can replace the "list of" at this point, can we not just redirect list of vaccine ingredients to the new article? I agree about "excipients" - but I think it should likely also be a redirect (it's at least somewhat plausible). And PEG itself isn't an excipient to my knowledge, but some vaccines (cough COVID-19 Pfizer and Moderna) use PEG-ylated lipids (which can produce an allergic reaction in people allergic to long chain PEG). So, sorry for the confusion, I guess my comments here amount to "I agree with this outcome". One note I have is that I'm not sure adjuvants should be classified as "excipients" or "inactive" ingredients - in most vaccines, the adjuvant is a necessary (but not sufficient) part, as is the active immunogenic substance - maybe that should be a level two heading of its own. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:25, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Berchanhimez I agree that adjuvants are an important component of the vaccines that contain them (and form part of the licenced product definition). The CDC Vaccine Excipient Summary includes adjuvants. The excipient article lists many purposes of excipients, including "to confer a therapeutic enhancement on the active ingredient in the final dosage form". For example, this article on excipients lists adjuvants. In contrast, some sources do say "adjuvants and excipients" as though they were separate things. My book mostly uses the term "additive" but for example, a table on p1088 has a heading "Excipients" which contains "Adjuvant", "Preservative" and "Stabilizer" as sub-headings. The excipient article also says it is wrong to think of them as inactive ingredients. Without the adjuvant, the vaccine would probably still have some effect, albeit weaker and shorter lasting, whereas only injecting some aluminium salts into your arm is likely to just make it sore for a bit. -- Colin°Talk 17:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seems like a more in depth analysis of how sources segment adjuvants (lumping them with other inactive ingredients, considering them part of the active ingredients, or in between) would be necessary. Either way is really fine - it's stylistic at best, not like any information is "wrong" presented as an excipient, so I'll leave it to you and the others doing the work on that article to decide :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:47, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts lists several DYKs at the moment (I skip, as usual, the ones about people and organizations):
 * 10 Apr 2021 – CT scan by Iflaq; see discussion
 * 10 Apr 2021 – Viral vector vaccine by John P. Sadowski (NIOSH); see discussion
 * 08 Apr 2021 – Safe listening by TMorata; see discussion
 * 08 Apr 2021 – Tetrasomy X by Vaticidalprophet; see discussion
 * 30 Mar 2021 – Smell training by RayScript; see discussion
 * 28 Mar 2021 – Friedreich's ataxia by Akrasia25; see discussion

Colin, I'd bet that any of these editors could help you figure out the process. I believe this is Ray's first DYK, and Akrasia's second. It's good to get new people involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Regarding DYK, This article is not a new article anymore. Maybe we can work to get it to good article first? What would be the goal of getting this article to DYK status? What HOOK do we want people to know? That vaccine ingredients are safe? That mercury (Thiomersal) is not used anymore? In the same vein, I think that the lead should mention Thiomersal and formaldehyde as that is what people are looking to learn from this article. I might make that edit when I have time.--Akrasia25 (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The DYK clock starts when the draft is moved to mainspace, and you have 7 days from that point to nominate it, so there's still plenty of time. The nomination instructions are at Template talk:Did you know.  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Akrasia25, I think that thiomersal is still used in flu shots. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think so too but it is not mentioned in this article.--Akrasia25 (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've expanded the thiomersal bit. You'll only really come across it in the multi-dose vial versions of flu jabs. The single-dose versions don't contain any preservative, though one (Fluvirin) may have less than 1 microgram mercury as a trace residual. The flu vaccine Pandemrix contained thiomersal, but that had its own controversy (narcolepsy) and isn't licenced any longer. -- Colin°Talk 08:14, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I've added A DYK nomination. WhatamIdoing, does it appear in that "article alerts" page automatically? -- Colin°Talk 18:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts is updated by a bot. I'm not sure if many people are watching that page, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Citing DSM V
Is there a preferred way to cite DSM V? My attempt to convert the bare url reference 6 at Intellectual disability using the cite web tool just created a mess. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The main thing to know about citing the DSM is that they are very, very assertive about their copyright. Don't ever quote the whole set of criteria in an article.
 * As for that book (which isn't the DSM itself), I clicked through to the "about this book" and found that it's ISBN 978-0-309-37685-3. You might have better luck with that than with the URL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Condolences
Thoughts here with Richard Lehman following the recent death of his beloved wife (see twitter). Richard, who is professor of the Shared Understanding of Medicine at the University of Birmingham, England (and a provocative columnist for the BMJ), is a close friend and supporter of Wikipedia Medicine, whom some of us have had the pleasure to spend time with at MED meet-ups and other WP events, where he generously shares his understanding, views, and analysis. All the best to you Richard - we need you here! 86.186.168.216 (talk) 12:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * IP 86, thank you for letting us know. Dr. Lehman, I am so sorry for your loss. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  12:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Bunch of new-ish MEDRS-failing predatory publishers added to WP:UPSD/WP:CITEWATCH, please help clearing them up!

 * Medip Academy:
 * Jaypee Publishers:
 * Intech:
 * IGI Global:
 * Cureus: (not predatory, but these typically not reviewed, basically it's like preprints that could get reviewed)
 * Canadian Center of Science and Education
 * OMICS:

If you see no results, someone cleared them. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * re IGI Global, International Journal of Web Services Research needs mention somehow. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:19, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

AZ vaccine deaths
There's a growing problem here with at least one editor wanting to stretch the well-reported associations between this vaccine and types of blood clotting into a certainty of cause and effect (which MEDRS sources seem careful to disclaim). More eyes could be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 21:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Placed it on my "eyes list" and warned for 3RR and reminded about GS. If they make another edit after this warning/reminder, next step would probably be a good idea to request a topic ban from COVID-19 vaccines - though without RexxS around anymore, I'm not sure if there's any admin who's willing/able to step in without a noticeboard discussion, so... I'll at least watch for continued edits against MEDRS and/or SYNTH violations, but I don't know if I can be the one to request the sanctions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events
I proposed that this be selectively merged back into the AZ vaccine article as there's little independent notability and it's quite frankly WP:TOOSOON at this time, any opinions (either direction) or improvements that would assist in keeping this as a second article (MEDRS compliance is hard at this point given very little peer reviewed papers on this, so it's currently sourced to primary [government] sources and news articles). Thanks -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 18:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It is appreciated it neutrals can be determined if this is capable of closure at this time. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the reminder. I've closed it as no consensus at this time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The main article
Could also use some oversight. There's a burgeoning problem with every speculative news story that appears instantly being crammed into the lede. Alexbrn (talk) 13:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I tried to do cleanup yesterday so that most of the material was in prose format (along with an added table for the agreed doses), but I got frustrated with how much crap I was just sifting through and decided it would be best to prose-ify it now, then we can all work on guiding it towards encyclopedic writing instead of simply being a collection of "one liners". I'll try to look at it more today or within the next couple. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It's a problem with a lot of the COVID articles which have been a sort of "daily dashboard" throughout the pandemic. There's going to be a boat load of cleanup to do once this is over (which, most likely, won't get done). WPMED might, anyway, usefully have a post-mortem on how well things were done. Alexbrn (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Bigger picture
This happens with a lot of things.. but would the general sanctions in place for COVID-19 articles help here? I'm not acquainted enough with them other than to know they give administrators leeway to topic ban editors who appear to be pushing a POV/etc, but would they also enable a stricter application of WP:CRYSTALBALL or perhaps even a restriction against adding attributed statements (i.e. one person's opinion or one primary source's opinion) prior to discussion on the talkpage? Perhaps a requirement that any editor who wants to add a statement that would require attribution (to a person, this wouldn't impact statements like "the EMA said" or similar) go to the talkpage first (and edits that don't comply could be reverted as a GS violation). I'm just trying to think of ways now that RexxS is gone and I haven't seen much admin activity on this or other articles that a GS could be implemented that provides a clear rule, easy determination as to if it's violated, and thus maybe more admins could step in and help as it would take less of their time. I think this would ideally be placed on any article related to COVID-19 vaccinations - but perhaps it should just be implemented on specific articles as the need arises? Or, I could be off base completely - comments appreciated -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Deep vein thrombosis listed for peer review
Hello all. I have requested feedback on how to improve the article DVT, which I've updated as of late, at Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive4. Thank you. Biosthmors (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for working on this, @Biosthmors. It got a big spike in page views a month ago, and again earlier this week.  I wonder if it's being driven by the COVID-19 vaccine news.  It's a good one to have cleaned up.
 * If anyone knows something about this, please give it a read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The ongoing discussion on COVID-19 vaccines is an important reason to pay attention to this article. I'm currently contributing to the review and invite more members of this Project to do the same. NikosGouliaros (talk) 07:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Omphaloliths / navel stone
This was brought up on pl wiki recently as a possible hoax, but someone found sources (google scholar search results for this). I am surprised we don't have an entry on this, but given the high RS standards in MED, and the fact that I am not a medical expert, I am hesitant to stub this. Perhaps someone would like to try? Seems like a mildly amusing topic, may even make a decent DYK. PS. Pl wiki discussion with an iwiki link if needed for when someone stubs it is here: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:04:06:Kamień pępkowy. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll have a go. Draft here. Please jump on :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. As my contribution, I volunteer to review it for DYK when/if it is expanded beyond the stub size (250 words of prose). <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I don't think there's enough in the sources to say much more than we've already said :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 09:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @Piotrus, the DYK length rules are "Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables etc.)". It has never been given in terms of word count.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I know, that's why I said 'if expanded'. Of course, we can just publish it as the current stub, if nobody thinks they can expand it further, it still is a good start. I am just saying if this is expanded, I'll review it. <sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I need help at true hermaphroditism
At the article True hermaphroditism I need help. I am the only person who edits that article and not many people Edit on their.

I have been doing research on this and I keep finding sources that contradict each other.

Like one reliable source would claim the there are individuals who are fertile as males and two sources that claim there are no documented cases of individuals fertile as males. CycoMa (talk) 08:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I feel like I need consensus or have another opinion by other editors when it comes to this topic. CycoMa (talk) 08:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Is GLOWN a good source?
I found this random site called GLOWN. I was wondering if y’all had any opinions about this site.CycoMa (talk) 04:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've not come across them before. They seem to be charitably-funded publishers of openly available (but copyrighted) textbooks which usually constitute tertiary sources. I don't think they would constitute a "respected publisher" per WP:MEDRS, but I have not come across an obvious source of bias in their funding etc. So their books would not constitute 'ideal sources' compared to say publications from international bodies or leading print textbooks, but they may be good sources where those are not available or suitable. |→ Spaully ~talk~ 10:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced since 2006: Stigmatic-eligibilic paraphilia
Found this in the unsourced listing. Read as much as I could just to figure out what it is. I'm a little wary that it's not up to snuff if it's a MEDRS kind of thing. I made a talk and some notes, but if anyone's more familiar with psychology/sexuality articles, I'd appreciate an opinion or two. Cheers, Estheim (talk) 02:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Proposed for deletion; unreferenced since 2006 and the talk page shows that people have tried in the past to find more to support it without much success. Klbrain (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's a bit concerning when "is this a hoax?" makes up the bulk of an article's commentary and then unearthing the rather controversial source origin. Estheim (talk) 17:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Brain size
I'm not in the mood to get in the middle of it, but I can see on my watchlist that there's an ongoing edit war at Brain size that could use some more eyes on it. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I undid the IP's last edit and semi-protected for a week under DS. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 21:15, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Dubious article - where next?
I recently came across Edward Tobinick, which is currently just a list of the author's patents. However, after digging a bit deeper, it seems to have survived AFD a couple of times, most recently deciding to keep this version, which was a very different article focusing on his (somewhat fringe) medical theories. It's in a bit of an odd situation - the AFD concluded there was some notability because of the contentious claims, but they're now gone completely. I don't know what the best approach here is - revert to the old version? relist for deletion in its new form? - but figured someone here would have thoughts. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Digging around a bit more, it looks like there are still half a dozen articles that reference his work with etanercept. Cerebrospinal venous system also looks a bit weird - it suggests that Tobinick coined the term, and searching only finds one or two authors using the term, but it's not clear to me whether it's a mainstream concept under a different name or not . Andrew Gray (talk) 14:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what's best, but I'd guess that relisting for deletion would be best. I'll note the existence of what looks like a single-purpose account to promote the subject: Special:Contributions/Tnfinfo. Biosthmors (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've boldly redirected to Etanercept, where I've put a sentence about the guy. Makes more sense this way, if any mention of him is due at all. Alexbrn (talk) 16:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that Special:Contributions/SKKB8 explains a good deal of what happened to the contentious claims. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at all the articles on Edward Tobinick produced by a Google News search. It is pretty clear he meets notability, if for no other reason than his notoriety. So there should be scope for creating a quality article that can survive the deletion consideration process. Jaredroach (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. Redirecting seems a better bet than an independent page. I've removed the reference from Dejerine–Roussy syndrome and left the others, as they seem a bit more muted. I'll list the CSVS article for deletion. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hmm. Having said that, this review published a couple of months ago seems to treat the CSVS model as valid, so not quite sure. It still seems off to me but I don't really know much about anatomy! Andrew Gray (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * With a surname like that perhaps you should . Alexbrn (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey Guys, I'm a scientist and I am familiar with the anatomy. Actually Tobinick did coin the term, and his original work has been cited in dozens of scientific articles, including the 2020 review that Andrew has referenced. The cerebrospinal venous system Wikipedia article merits staying where it is. 72.231.189.187 (talk) 20:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC)17 April 2021
 * After a second look, thanks to the comment from WhatamIdoing, I wonder what would be wrong with reverting back to this version before the article was "sanitized". Biosthmors (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Gentlemen, as I said above, I am a scientist and very familiar with the science relevant to this discussion. I am very concerned with the actions you have already taken with regard to taking down an article about an individual, redirecting it, and listing other related articles for deletion. All done in what appears to be a concerted effort to largely erase mention of that individual's scientific contributions, all done in rather cavalier fashion. As a scientist, the way this group has done this smacks of bias. Andrew, you quickly chose to "list the CSVS article for deletion". To your credit, you then reconsidered, admitting that you "don't really know much about anatomy," and then came up with an excellent 2020 review, "Revisiting the Vertebral Venous Plexus - A Comprehensive Review of the Literature," by Carpenter, et. al, written by experts in the field, that you said "seems to treat the CSVS model as valid." Yes, you are correct - not only is the model valid, Tobinick's work in this area has been seminal - in fact, Tobinick's 2006 review, "The Cerebrospinal Venous System: Anatomy, Physiology, and Clinical Implications," has 123 citations in Google Scholar, and is cited in the Carpenter review that you reference (a fact that you failed to mention). Gentlemen, we are talking about human anatomy here - there are not many fields in science or medicine that are less open to interpretation - anatomy, in general, is one of the most concrete of all disciplines. Tobinick's work regarding the cerebrospinal venous system has been recognized by an international group of experts, including anatomists and neurosurgeons - not just by Carpenter, et. al, but also by Nathoo et. al ("History of the vertebral venous plexus and the significant contributions of Breschet and Batson"), Griessenauer et. al. ("Venous drainage of the spine and spinal cord: a comprehensive review of its history, embryology, anatomy, physiology, and pathology"), and many other academic experts from around the world .The Wikipedia page, "The Cerebrospinal Venous System," merits continued publication on Wikipedia. You are on the wrong track here, starting with your characterization of this thread as "Dubious article." As a scientist, I am shocked and dismayed about what you have done, as none of it is in the public interest or consistent with Wikipedia policies. I have much more to say, but first await your response to the above, and your confirmation that you will leave the Wikipedia page, "The Cerebrospinal Venous System," in place.72.231.189.187 (talk) 16:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It's tempting to let you continue lecturing us, but you may want to create an account first, so that your geolocate-able IP address doesn't appear in every message. I do ask that you stop assuming that your audience includes only men.
 * At PubMed today, I find that a search on, limited to the last five years and to review articles, finds just three potential scientific sources.  One of those was written by Tobinick and the other two weren't.
 * But notability isn't exactly about popularity or whether the model is valid. It's really about whether we think we could write a decent, well-sourced article plus whether we think the subject is better handled by itself vs. in a larger context.  I firmly believe that An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing.   WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing: As a scientist I am pleased to read that you have presented further evidence of the validity and the relevance of Tobinick's work by acknowledging the existence of 2 validating independent review articles written in the past 5 years. I have some trouble following your train of thought in the third paragraph of your response, but I am concerned that you fail to acknowledge that you may have been contributing to what could have been deletion of a Wikipedia article that makes an important contribution to the public, and to Wikipedia. I simply cannot just sit back and let a significant and original anatomical article be carved out of Wikipedia without pointing out the improper nature of the proposed action. Anatomical advancements are few and far between these days; as a scientist working in this field I feel a responsibility to advocate for accurate anatomical discussion and anatomical history on Wikipedia. I am not lecturing; I am creating a record for the public, so that what nearly happened here, improper deletion of worthy content, will help prevent such a thing happening again. This will improve Wikipedia and is in the interest of the public and science. And, in direct response to your indirect implication, I am not the author of the Wikipedia page in question.I don't expect you to acknowledge the impropriety of your actions. But it would be beneficial to all if your group will confirm, considering our discussion here, that you will not delete the Wikipedia page, "The Cerebrospinal Venous System." Improve it if you can, but don't simply delete this article, that is, in my scientific opinion, significant, accurate, well-written, well-referenced and an important contribution to Wikipedia and the public. I would be remiss if I did not also mention, for the record, that none of your group asserted, or even implied, that the article was inaccurate, incorrect, or misleading in any way (which, of course, it is not).72.231.189.187 (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * "Notability" is our confusing jargon for whether a subject (e.g., a piece of anatomy) qualifies for a separate, stand-alone article (as opposed to, e.g., being on the same page as some other, larger subject). For example, should the subject of Cerebrospinal venous system be on a separate page, or should that information be placed in the larger and more popular article Cerebral circulation?
 * Understanding notability requires understanding that "gets its own separate page" is not the only way for a piece of information to be "in Wikipedia".
 * I'm not convinced that the existence of this article, as a separate page, provides an important contribution to the public.
 * I wonder whether, given a choice between having this information represented in another, larger article, and having this article on a separate page with a link to https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/enbrel-for-stroke-and-alzheimers/, what your preference would be.
 * WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It would be really bad policy to pledge to never delete a Wikipedia article. It also is not the end of the world should it happen to an article that is cherished. The article can be re-written and made better. Often such a cycle of purging and rebirth improves the product. One piece of advice is to create a local save of the raw source of any articles that are cherished, as once they are deleted, you may not be able to easily access that source, which can be used as the basis for improving the article. Jaredroach (talk) 17:13, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion of placing the Wikipedia article Cerebrospinal Venous System in the article Cerebral circulation is not suitable, and demonstrates your lack of anatomical knowledge. Scientists with expertise in anatomy are aware that an important component of the cerebrospinal venous system is the vertebral venous plexus, which provides venous drainage to the spine. The cerebrospinal venous system is unique, and it has important anatomical and physiologic functions. For example, it provides a unique anatomical route for the dissemination of cancer metastases to and from the spine. This is not just theoretical - the vertebral venous plexus division of the CSVS is the established route whereby prostate cancer metastasizes to the spine. These unique features and the important involvement of the CSVS in multiple disease states are compelling reasons, for an anatomical expert, to leave the CSVS article as a stand-alone Wikipedia article. As for your suggestion to linking the CSVS article to a page on a "sciencebasedmedicine" website, I don't understand your suggestion at all. As a scientist with expertise in the anatomy in question this page certainly meets the Wikipedia requirements for "notability". You say "I'm not convinced that the existence of this article, as a separate page, provides an important contribution to the public," but you have given us no reason to believe you have the training or expertise in the relevant anatomy necessary to make such a decision on behalf of the public or Wikipedia.72.231.189.187 (talk) 19:21, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the practical problems that we've had with this group of articles is that, although Tobinick himself might meet the minimum standard for a separate article on the grounds of notoriety, but when he is represented according to how he appears in reliable sources, someone comes along and whitewashes the article, to make him look "famous for important scientific discoveries", rather than "notorious for controversies". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My commentary is directed to a single article, Cerebrospinal venous system. This article has not been "whitewashed." It is an accurate, reliable, well-written article that meets the Wikipedia criteria for notability and has been published on Wikipedia since November 2012. The topic is the subject of multiple, published, peer-reviewed scientific publications, including at least 3 in the past 5 years, and has been discussed and cited by scientists, neurosurgeons and anatomists for more than a decade. It not only has scientific significance to anatomists, it also has practical significance to neurosurgeons and oncologists, who have cited to it in dozens of peer-reviewed publications, going back more than a decade. It is not controversial. As a scientist, I simply cannot understand where you are coming from.72.231.189.187 (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking at this source: makes me think an article on Tobinick is deserved. It could be used as a secondary source. Biosthmors (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Doctor/Bachelor leads
Please could a medical editor review recent changes to the leads of Doctor of Medicine and Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery? Thanks, Certes (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

redundancy
Sorry to be silly, but it's Friday and it's been a stressful week, and this made me laugh. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Maybe they can donate it to another article that needs one! 🤣 Mvolz (talk) 09:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Member list
I am confused between WikiProject Medicine/Participants and WikiProject Medicine/Members. What's the right list? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 03:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello, @Est. 2021. The new version is what you get if you click the blue "Participate" button at the top of WikiProject Medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, shouldn't you merge the two lists then? Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 12:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that anyone wanted to bother with it. It's a lot of work.  Even just making a list of people who are on the old list and still active, but not on the new list, is a lot of work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

2020 Top Medical Editors


When does the list for top medical editors of 2020 get released? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.76 (talk) 19:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Doc James use to do that--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * From a quick search, @Yair rand created the list for the English Wikipedia at User:Yair rand/TopMed 2017.  Edgars2007 left a note in a  task about Ladsgroup's 'editor count.py' in dexbot's folder at Toolforge.  It's possible that they could generate the lists for us.  Once we have the lists, it's just a matter of writing a message and finding someone to deliver it (any interested admin or one of the other Mass message senders). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm unclear why we remain interested in knowing who makes more bot and script-enabled edits, which is what these were ultimately measuring, IIRC (I may not). A measure of real content added and improved would be worthwhile. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Added" would overlook Alexbrn, whose net contribution in bytes is a negative number. "Improved" is difficult to measure without human judgement.  Number of articles edited still emphasizes gnome work.  I don't think we have the computing resources to calculate something like the number of refs added.
 * On the other hand, people who do GA and FA work get recognized separately, so maybe it's not a bad idea to have an award for page patrollers and other high-volume editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes to all of that ... because sheer editcountitis is fairly useless by any measure. (Remember that editcountitis counts my three typo corrections for each post :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:19, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The important thing is not the edit counts but the fact that the Cure Award barnstars were given out to thank the contributors for all the hard work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.130 (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)


 * while we're on the subject of members I though I'd bring up this discussion which didnt seem (to me) to have clarity as to doing/not doing...IMO (BTW its been listed for the last 6 years more or less)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you like to do it this year? We don't seem to have a lot of people champing at the bit to make the list.  Once we have a list and a message, then we could ask any of the Mass message senders to deliver it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * to be frank I dont know the first thing about putting such a list together, however Ill help whoever does know 100%--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've spoken with Yair rand, who will kindly do it, if we can provide an up-to-date list of articles. Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:27, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * good...I would imagine a search that includes, all articles that are tagged is needed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WhatamIdoing Yair rand was kind enough to help --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well done Ozzie10aaaa, you absolutely smashed it. Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * with your important help Dr Vogel, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Gender euphoria
Comments are needed at Articles for deletion/Gender euphoria. There is significant debate over the the meaning of WP:MEDRS and what kind of journal is reliable for gender euphoria and dysphoria material, in context of whether the content should be merged vs. be deleted. Crossroads -talk- 05:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , commented and tried to explain to people that while MEDRS aren't necessary to prove a term exists that it's necessary to support any material that would be merged. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this a good source? (Please ignore this one, I have linked to the wrong source.)
I found this book called The Encyclopedia of Genetic Disorders and Birth Defects.

https://books.google.com/books?id=0RYNTYWQEnoC&pg=PA243&dq=hermaphroditism+does+not+exist+in+humans.&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwixuMX_-5rwAhXXX80KHbbgALgQ6AEwBXoECAYQAw

Do you think it’s a good source? CycoMa (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That seems to be a link to an entirely different book (an older edition of this) based on a search for "hermaphroditism does not exist in humans". The complex question of this terminology is discussed in the intersex article. Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops sorry about that. It was an accident. I don’t know what happened. CycoMa (talk) 19:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * maybe--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:28, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * It is concerning that this is a search for a predefined question in a topic that the editor doesn't well understand, rather than a search for greater understanding of the complex relationship of the term hermaphrodite to intersex people. This is a form of bias, specifically confirmation bias. Trankuility (talk) 22:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * A small number of editors with similar predispositions are currently editing on a super narrow range of issues on the intersex and related pages, all focused on population figures, definitions and terminology. Raising this issue led to a flurry of posts on history, as a deflection. In this case, the user here found what he went looking for and added it saying "Thought about adding an opinion of a biologist with a PhD". A subsequent user with the same predispositions reinforced that with a claim that "What people thought in the 19th century is not relevant" - despite that thinking being relevant into the present century, and previously. Trankuility (talk) 22:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


 * okay look I have said I didn’t mean to link this source. I was meaning to cite a different source. It was an accident.
 * Also I’m not entirely sure how I am being bias, I have read throughout several source on this topic. Many of the things I have cited aren’t things I cherry-picked. The reason I bring up issues is because I have noticed reliable sources on certain topics have information that contradicted each other.
 * This is the same case for intersex related issues. It’s not my fault that experts don’t always agree with each other on some topics. I just need some help because honest to god I’m not a biologist, I’m not a doctor, and I’m not a sociologist.CycoMa (talk) 23:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this a good source?
Please ignore that earlier comment, I linked to the wrong source. I was meaning to link to this source.

Okay but anyway do y’all have any opinions on this?CycoMa (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I refer you back to your earlier post on this subject, and my comment about confirmation bias and misleading edit summaries on your talk page. Trankuility (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @CycoMa, maybe it'd be better to start with a general outline of what you're trying to accomplish.
 * I could tell you, for example, that the publisher is okay but not great, and that a ten-year-old book is kind of old, but whether it's reliable depends on how you're hoping to use it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Sex and gender on medical articles (again)
Recent ip find-and-replace edit-warring on Caesarean Section on when to use mother / birth parent / pregnant person etc. I've reverted the whole thing because refs and things were changed as a result and it was not done carefully.

I know we've had this discussion multiple times in the past; worth having again? Is there any official policy relating to this I can read up on? I've found one discussion here Talk:Polycystic_ovary_syndrome but that is old. I know there are multiple other ones I'm having trouble finding. Generally the discussions seem to end in "no, because the sources use other language," but I think will increasingly change as using gender-neutral language when talking about sex is becoming more common in English language sources. For example, ACOG recently used "pregnant individuals" in this advisory (which is otherwise unrelated).

Mvolz (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Every transgender person I've met has loathed such language use, so I suspect, like disability (where non-disabled advocates talk over disabled people to insist on things like 'person-first language' or that ordinary slang like 'stupid' and 'lame' is ableist), this is a topic where a lot of the activism is against the wishes of the group in question. Considering this and that the language isn't used in sources, I see no reason to contort ourselves into it. <b style="color:#000">Vaticidal</b><b style="color:#66023C">prophet</b> 09:44, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Vaticidalprophet, can we please not repeat the mistakes made at the recent MOS talk discussion, where strongly held personal opinions and claimed personal experience generated rants, personal attacks and unsubstantiated statements from some editors. WP:MED is an evidence-based project, so let's keep things that way. At this point, we have some IPs edits and a single message to the talk page. The edits were reverted, and nobody responded to the talk page post for 9 days. This doesn't look like an urgent problem. -- Colin°Talk 11:11, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Writing something down is on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles. Looking at some of those diffs, there's not only the question of gender neutrality, but also a question of whether a person who might or might not have given birth in the past should be considered 'a mother'.  Pro-choice groups prefer "pregnant woman" to "pregnant mother".  I'm not sure that it's really a material difference for an article about birth, but it's another point to consider. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Some pregnant women involuntarily fail to become mothers. Wiktionary defines mother as A (human) female who has given birth to a baby, and some readers would read "pregnant mother" as "woman who already has child(ren) and is pregnant again".  A term which avoids "mother" seems clearer to the layman, even if "woman" also has to be avoided.  Certes (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary also provides a definition that says "A pregnant female, possibly as a shortened form of mother-to-be." Some people who have experienced late pregnancy loss still feel like they were parents.  The terms are not absolute.  I do, however, agree with you about the phrase being potentially confusing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I note that:
 * NICE guidelines now state "This guideline uses the term 'woman' or 'mother' and includes all people who have given birth, even if they may not identify as women or mothers" (see Caesarean birth and Postnatal care).
 * The NHS Caesarean section article doesn't have any comment, and uses "women", though most of the text directly addresses "you".
 * The BBC consistently refer to women, mums, etc.
 * The Guardian Newspaper uses women/mother.
 * Full Fact: Has the government banned the term 'pregnant woman'? The article is the usual high-quality research by that organisation. It mentions a 2016 Guideline by the BMA, and which applies to BMA staff and writers for their publications, not to BMA members such as doctors. That guideline recommended "pregnant people" rather than "expectant mothers", with the comment "A large majority of people that have been pregnant or have given birth identify as women. However there are some intersex men and trans men who may get pregnant". The article mentions "two recent cases", which gives some perspective of scale (there are around half a million live births in the UK each year).

Previous discussions: -- Colin°Talk 10:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 8
 * Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 14
 * Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161


 * I looked for sources about this, and I didn't find much that wasn't UK-focused. (Apparently this was a big political thing a couple of years ago?)  A few articles (mostly written by or about trans men who have given birth) advocated for gender-neutral language.  The US CDC's website uses "pregnant people" when talking about COVID-19 vaccines and on a few pages specifically about LGBTQ health.  Otherwise, the phrase is outnumbered by "pregnant women" at a rate of approximately 1,000 Ghits to 1 on their website.
 * https://columbialawreview.org/content/pregnant-people/ is mainly about US labor law, but it goes into the question of gender-neutral language around pregnancy in surprising detail. For example:  Is a woman who wants to adopt a child (or who uses a surrogate) an "expectant mother" under the US Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, since she expects to be a mother?  Is the birth mother an "expectant mother", since she does not expect to be providing care for the baby after birth?
 * I don't think I can do justice to all of the ideas, but here are two quick notes about ideas that stood out to me, and perhaps might inspire you to read it yourself:
 * Society has done a poor job of separating what they call "the physical fact of gestation" from social expectations about which gender will do most of the parenting. For example, anyone caring for a newborn probably needs more sleep, and thus should ideally have time off work and especially away from operating dangerous equipment or any other situation in which the effects of fatigue on safety are significant, but the physical facts of gestation mean that there is a maximum of one person per baby who might be recovering from a C-section.  The person's gender identity or level of involvement in the baby's care do not determine how long it takes for surgical incisions to heal.
 * In the LGBTQ context, excluding trans men and non-binary people creates a lot of individual pain, but on a broader, societal scale, some people are also uncomfortable with men appropriating an experience that has historically been central to women's lives. As a result, some people worry that gender-neutral language could have the unintentional effect of re-marginalizing (cis) women.  But the analysis is not simple, because trans men are also a marginalized group.
 * Also, I noticed that several advocates are uncomfortable with terms like women's health or female reproductive system, but they seem content with the term gynecological, even though gynaíka literally means 'woman'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. There are political and legal considerations about the use of language that may be discriminating if terms like "mother" or "woman" are used, and such texts can use jargon or non-standard terms for precision, even if such language is not considered reasonable in other contexts. So possibly such text will see a shift to gender neutrality that may not occur (or occur later) in medical or social articles.
 * There is some conflict between feminism and trans activism that has resulted in the labelling "TERF", though this Guardian article suggests the conflict may be over reported. One of the problems with gauging opinions is that blogs or journalists who have a weekly opinion column generate readers by being highly opinionated. Their views may not be well considered or representative, but get cited on social media and entered into a feedback loop till people end up burning their Harry Potter books. -- Colin°Talk 11:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I noticed that several advocates are uncomfortable with terms like women's health or female reproductive system, but they seem content with the term gynecological, even though gynaíka literally means 'woman'. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. There are political and legal considerations about the use of language that may be discriminating if terms like "mother" or "woman" are used, and such texts can use jargon or non-standard terms for precision, even if such language is not considered reasonable in other contexts. So possibly such text will see a shift to gender neutrality that may not occur (or occur later) in medical or social articles.
 * There is some conflict between feminism and trans activism that has resulted in the labelling "TERF", though this Guardian article suggests the conflict may be over reported. One of the problems with gauging opinions is that blogs or journalists who have a weekly opinion column generate readers by being highly opinionated. Their views may not be well considered or representative, but get cited on social media and entered into a feedback loop till people end up burning their Harry Potter books. -- Colin°Talk 11:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 in the United Kingdom timeline
A discussion is taking place at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom about whether the timeline which is seen by some as being too long for the page should be moved to another article, cutdown or kept as it is. It needs a wider range of opinions to reach a consensus so feel free to add your view if you're interested. Llewee (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Research study on how Wikipedia has covered COVID-19
In Spanish (with English abstract): Saw it and thought people would be interested. Bondegezou (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Do you have a English version of this? CycoMa (talk) 15:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll translate some interesting quotes into English below:
 * Esta investigación presenta una hipótesis de partida: Wikipedia reacciona rápidamente como una forma de conocimiento de calidad, comunitario y libre ante la emergencia de la pandemia por la Covid-19, siendo creada y consultada masivamente, y generando un supuesto patrón de comportamiento entre los editores.: This investigation is of the hypothesis that: Wikipedia reacted with speed and quality as a free community in considering the COVID-19 pandemic, created and edited by large amounts of people, and with a particular behavior of editors.
 * La monitorización y los análisis reflejan que en las cuatro ediciones lingüísticas de Wikipedia estudiadas se crearon artículos sobre los dos conceptos de forma rápida y constante. Todos ellos se generaron el mismo día que la OMS nombró la Covid-19 (11 de febrero) y declaró la pandemia (11 de marzo). Solo en la edición inglesa se tardó un día en reconocer el último término por la comunidad.: Our monitoring and analyisis reflecting four Wikipedia languages examined shows that articles were created about the two concepts quickly and consistently. All articles were created the same day the WHO named the disease and declared it a pandemic. Only the English Wikipedia waited a day for the community to recognize the final term (pandemic).
 * Durante el mes de abril las cuatro versiones de este artículo tuvieron en su entradilla un aviso, a modo de alerta, recordando al lector que el contenido del artículo era referido a acontecimientos muy recientes. Es decir, la comunidad notificaba de la posibilidad de una sobredimensión de los datos de la actualidad. Esto se considera uno de los fallos de esta enciclopedia online, denominado recentismo: Through the month of April the four Wikipedias' articles had an advice banner or manner of alerting the reader that the content of the article referred to very recent events. This is to say, the communities notified the reader of the possibility of a over-representation of facts in reality. We consider this a fault of an online encyclopedia - termed "recentism".
 * Las cifras revelan una masiva participación de creación en inglés: se realizaron más de 7.000 ediciones en el término pandemia y este tuvo 1.644 editores.: The data reveals an immense participation in the English articles - more than 7000 edits for the "pandemic" term and 1,644 editors editing that term.
 * Si se consulta el porcentaje de vigilantes respecto editores (muchas veces el propio editor puede ser vigilante) vemos como este siempre es superior al 80% (salvo en el caso italiano) e, incluso, en portugués hay más vigilantes que editores.: If one looks at the percent of "vigilantes" (anti-vandalism only editors, from my understanding) compared to editors, many times the same editor can also be a vigilante, we see that this is always more than 80% except for in Italian. Also, in Portugues, there were more vigilantes than editors. (end translation) I think this is a very interesting fact.
 * The paragraph immediately following that quote explains how we put ECP on articles and in Italian articles weren't protected at all - another interesting fact. Este control, más la ya comentada presencia de los vigilantes, evita en estas tres lenguas el vandalismo o los posibles errores de usuarios inexpertos.: This control, along with the already mentioned presence of vigilantes, avoids vandalism and errors from inexperienced editors in these three languages.
 * There's a (long) paragraph explaining the differences in experienced, IP, and bot edits.
 * Es relevante señalar que parece existir una relación entre la no protección de estos artículos en la versión italiana y el mayor número de reversión en la misma: It's relevant to mention that there seems to be a relation between the lack of protection in the Italian Wikipedia and the larger number of reversions in the same. (end translation) This seems to indicate that they believe early protection was good in the English and other Wikipedias as it helped prevent errors.
 * They explain that in all languages, there were more edits to the pandemic article(s) examined than to the disease article(s) examined, attributing this to recentism.
 * The next 6 paragraphs discuss differences between languages.
 * It's a quite interesting read which seems to say overall that the Wikipedia model is good, and that having a large amount of editors and edits on these articles served to keep them up to date and correct. They discuss at length the concept of "recentism" but don't say that it's bad necessarily. Their conclusions state that many of the most prolific editors declared their medical affiliations IRL on Wikipedia while making no comment as to whether this was good or bad. To end, they state Por todo ello, Wikipedia ha mostrado una célere y gran capacidad de trabajo colaborativo y de calidad en torno a los artículos sobre Covid-19 y la pandemia generada por dicha enfermedad.: From all of this, Wikipedia has demonstrated a great capability of collaborative work and of the quality of the work on articles about COVID-19 and the pandemic it caused. (end translation). Overall, for anyone who speaks Spanish, the article overall is a very interesting read comparing English Wikipedia to other languages and overall saying we did a good job. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the interesting summary and translations, ! – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)