Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 157

Discussion about article "Sex differences in medicine"
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sex differences in medicine/Archive 1, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So far, the only editor to show up from this WikiProject is pushing the POV that we should never use the words "woman" or "man" in medical articles, despite the fact that WP:MEDRS routinely use these terms to refer to the sexes. For example, search Google Scholar for "only in women" or "pregnant women", in quotes, and selecting "since 2021": This is on top of the fact that two editors who popped up there very recently, Sideswipe9th and Newimpartial, who mostly edit articles about transgender identity, are pushing the same POV. So, as I always worried would happen one day, the WP:RGW gender identity language crusade has arrived on Wikipedia. Woe for any article on women's health, which will probably soon be crammed with godawful euphemisms before long if this push is not stopped. Crossroads -talk- 06:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I do not understand why the issue of transgender people is so exigent, often more than not studies involving sexes (such as this one) stick to using sexes, and presumably lumping transgender men into women and transgender women into men. I would presume that this is done to avoid the whole schism around genders, and they also have a "not specified" category, presumably for intersex & other such peoples. It would not make sense for a study to have such a little sample size which will probably have little to zero statistical significance in the long run. Unless the article focuses specifically on the effects of something on people who have had sex changes (i.e. effects of hormone therapy on AFAM & AMAB), I do not see the reason to be so petulant (as evidenced in the degradation of formalities). The conversation seems to have shifted from meaningful discussion over a minor detail into just petty semantics, snide side remarks & veiled insults. I cannot say that I'm a linguistics professor nor a sociologist by any means but there's my two cents. Obama gaming (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Addendum, also per WP:MEDMOS, we are writing for the general audience, we are not catering to niche progressive democrats who only occupy a small fraction of the traffic that articles such as this receive, we are catering to an audience who quite frankly in my opinion, couldn't care less what words were being used as long as they can find what information they wanted and is there for them in a concise, detailed form. Context matters, if this were about a sensitive issue where light-footed language is necessary, then I believe editors would adhere what is generally accepted, except it isn't about a sensitive issue. It is literally comparing the differences between the female and male sexes. I understand that some people in society these days view gender as a social construct, hence why that article doesn't engage in discussion of that aspect, but we are looking at sexes, not genders. I think that's the distinction that some of these people are either struggling to understand or willfully ignoring in order to forward their own agenda/views, which quite frankly is a violation of WP:NPOV. I do not hold particularly strong (far right/left) political views both socially & economically but this sort of pedantry is just silly. Obama gaming (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "So far, the only editor to show up from this WikiProject is pushing the POV that we should never use the words "woman" or "man" in medical articles. Hi, I believe you are referring to me, and I would tell you that is exactly not what I believe or am advocating for in any way. I think when referring to "biological sex," (as in, chromosomal, gonadal, phenotypic) we should use the terms "male and female" and then when referring to "gender", we should use the terms "men and women." That's it, that's the radical conception. It's also the consensus opinion of the Institute of Medicine . — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for accidentally overstating it. It was early in the debate. However, there is zero justifcation in that source for what you are advocating. It nowhere says we can't use e.g. "women" in reference to sex. They themselves do so sometimes (see pages 120-121 for example: ) as do numerous MEDRS review articles to this day. The sources do not justify but contradict the sweeping changes you are asking for. Crossroads -talk- 21:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And now we have two more gender-identity-focused editors WP:TAGTEAM edit warring to include a confusing, irrelevant, and WP:UNDUE aside about "other genders" also getting diseases of the female reproductive system, even though the text spoke solely of the female reproductive system and didn't even say "women". But for some reason they demand we say that 'women and other genders' get it. There are almost no regular medical editors at this article; almost all of them have followed other editors here recently from gender identity articles. Crossroads -talk- 08:27, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The status quo ante has the wording about "other genders". This was introduced in February 2021 and not disputed for many months, so I think editors should respect that wording until an RfC can resolve things. Do alert us to the RfC when you get there. Bondegezou (talk) 10:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Writing a paragraph about this section is on the to-do list at WT:MEDMOS. Perhaps I need to prioritize this (unless someone else wants to draft a starting point?  Or at least give me some hints about what they think would be a reasonable proposal?).
 * There are several reasonable, generally accepted things that we can say. One approach is to respect the Sex and gender distinction:  "The leading cause of death in female humans is heart disease, not breast cancer."  Another is to talk about people:  "The leading cause of death in women is heart disease, not breast cancer".  A third is to choose the language according to the subject matter:  "Females are more likely to die of stroke than males" but "After half a century of breast cancer awareness efforts, American women fear breast cancer more than heart disease, even though they are more likely to die of heart disease".
 * Another consideration is whether the language should depend on the subject matter (e.g., gynecological topics use this style, non-gynecological topics use the other style). I suspect most editors agree that gender-neutral language is appropriate in trans-specific articles, although now that I think about it, that might not be preferred.  Some editors might think that we should talk about a gender-affirming "men" in Sex reassignment surgery (female-to-male) but a gender-neutral "people" in Ovarian cancer.
 * Finally, as a matter of collecting information, it's been my impression that the pressure has been strongest in the last year or so to remove "women" from articles (i.e., to use gender-neutral language when talking about people who were assigned female at birth), and that there is less pressure to make male-specific articles be gender-neutral. I'm concerned that my impression might be skewed by what's on my watchlist or which disputes appear in this page.  I would be very interested in hearing from other editors about whether their experiences are consistent with or different from mine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * My impression is that so far as such pressure exists, prior to this latest dispute, it came entirely from extremely inexperienced editors (WP:Student editors, IPs, and very new and/or sporadic accounts). And yes, it seems the push to replace "women" is stronger than for men. Crossroads -talk- 20:21, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * It is perhaps worth noting that the present dispute at Sex differences in medicine began with the efforts of a somewhat experienced, but controversial editor to replace the stable heading text " "female" with "women" and "male" with "men" rather than edits in the other direction. Newimpartial (talk) 20:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And yes, it seems the push to replace "women" is stronger than for men. What are you basing this on? — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * She asked for personal experiences and I gave mine. Observing many sex-related medical articles for a few years is what I base it on. Crossroads -talk- 21:33, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think for sure, any MOS entries we make about this should be equally applied to articles about males as they are to articles about females. But I would urge us to RfC between these several options. And my vote would, as it stands right now, be for the first option. And then, for it to be in context. I think most often, when writing this sentence "After half a century of breast cancer awareness efforts, American women fear breast cancer more than heart disease, even though they are more likely to die of heart disease This sentence is actually about gender anyway. So it would comport with option 1, respecting the sex/gender difference. When referring exclusively to people born female, we should use the term "female." But when speaking about everyone who "presents" as a woman, we would use the term "woman." And similar to how we would treat males vs men. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But perhaps this sentence is not about gender. Perhaps it is a statement about social effects that apply almost exclusively to biological females who still have their breasts.  Breast cancer does not appear to be a significant source of fear among trans women.  (Rationally, it shouldn't be; the risk for hormone-taking trans women is approximately a third that of cis women – a level at which cis women would be advised that routine screening mammograms would be unnecessary and even potentially harmful.)  The risk for trans men is also low, due to hormones and masculinizing top surgery.  So we could write about "women", but in practice, it doesn't apply to trans women, and we could write about "females", but in practice, it doesn't apply to trans men.  I don't think there is a perfect solution here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * There are a fair number of trans men who have not undergone gender-affirming "top" surgery, and are still at increased risk for breast cancer compared to their cis-gendered counterparts. Only about a quarter to a half of trans men in the US have undergone the procedure, for instance.  The risk in those who take hormones is understudied. It is likely lower than cis-women, but still much much higher than for cis-men. "cis-women" or "cis-gendered women" would be the phrasings I would suggest, to overall capture the citation we use in the article, though. (which does not account for any trans persons, as far as I can tell) —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Presumably the source cited in WhatamIdoing's thought experiment says nothing about "cisgender", as most don't. So if that's the case, would you be arguing that we need to speak in a way our sources do not? That is not only original research, but means adding WP:UNDUE emphasis on gender identity issues across numerous articles. It is writing articles as though the exception is typical. And it hypothetically could be done for all sorts of conditions. Crossroads -talk- 18:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether you are familiar with the explanatory supplement WP:NOTOR, but it is pretty clear about this kind of thing:


 * In other words, if the source uses synonyms for "cisgender woman", and those synonyms would be less clear to our readers than the plain English "cisgender woman", then we are supposed to paraphrase with "cisgender woman" rather than being enslaved to the language of the source. Pick whatever other example language you want, but the policy-based principle should be clear. Newimpartial (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Supplement pages carry no more weight than an essay. This is no mere "paraphrase" unless you think woman = cisgender woman. And more to the point, writing our articles in a way the medical sources do not is basically saying that we know better than they do how to cover the topic, which is very much OR as well as POV. Crossroads -talk- 19:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The nature and status of explanatory supplements isn't the same as essays, though. Per WP:SUPPLEMENT, information pages should supplement or clarify technical or factual information about Wikipedia impartially, rather than carrying a particular POV as essays do. And no, that is not what I think about "woman" - as I have said repeatedly, I think what "woman" means depends on context, so part of our job as editors is not to parrot the words used in specific sources but to convey their meaning to our readers. WP:MEDMOS also reminds us that we are writing for a the general reader and to avoid using jargon. I don't see anything in NOTOR that conflicts with other WP policies or guidelines; we are writing an encyclopedia, and writing our articles in a way the medical sources do not is part of our job, here as in any other highly technical or specialized area. Newimpartial (talk) 20:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Supplement pages say, This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.
 * Appealing to the general reader to override MEDRS usage discuss the subject is quite the argument. They all the more so simply use the words "man" and "woman" (rather than more complicated jargony constructions) to refer to male and female adults, as testified by any dictionary. Even you admit that the meaning can 'depend on context', so then let's accept that applies here as well. Crossroads -talk- 06:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Three distinct issues at that article
Things seem to have coalesced into 3 distinct disputes. From lesser to greater general implications they are (1), whether a particular bullet point about the female reproductive system should include a statement about trans men and other genders, (2) whether the article should be split up into separate parts for "sex" and "gender" and whether they even are separable, and (3) whether the article can use "men" and "women" to refer to sexes. Per WP:DUE and following the WP:MEDRS sources, my view is (1) no (2) no (3) yes. But the article desperately needs editors who are willing to stick to MEDRS and are familiar with medical topics. Crossroads -talk- 20:12, 21 December 2021 (UTC) (Addendum: point 1 seems to be handled now with a unanimous "no" on the talk page. Crossroads -talk- 19:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC))
 * I would fall as (1) no (2) yes (3) no. But the framing is also biasing. I would ask you the question (4) "should we use "male" to refer to people who present and look like "men"?" To which my answer would be (4) no. We should use "men." — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 20:35, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
 * In which case my answers would be: 1. no; 2. only as necessary (to the extent medical conditions can have anything to do with gender, that mostly belongs in a separate article, except where clarification is sorely needed, e.g. when it comes to hormone-linked disorders); 3. yes (following common usage in reliable medical sources – it is not WP's role to engage in language-change activism), but it is not always optimal; and 4. no, we should be more specific, e.g. "males and trans-women", "females and trans-men", or whatever is factually correct in the context (it might be quite specific, e.g. "males including most trans-women, as well as trans-men who are receiving androgen therapy"). Using "men" for 4 is pretty much  confusing to make a socio-political WP:POINT, given that we know for uncontrovertible fact that medical literature uses "men" and "males", or "women" and "females" interchangeably (except where boys or girls would also be affected, in which case "males" or "females" is more accurate than "men" or "women", and most medical writers already understand that).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would tell you that your #3 and #4 are contradictory as applied to these articles. We have a few reviews which use the gender-based and sex-based terms interchangeably, and then we have guidelines written by expert committees in professional organizations like the AMA and the Institute of Medicine (and many others) which tell us not to use "men" to refer exclusively to members of the male sex. That's the state of things. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The AMA says nothing of the sort (and I don't know what source you are referring to with "Institute of Medicine"). Here is what the AMA Manual of Style, 11th edition (2020), actually says under 11.7 Age and Sex Referents: Adults are persons 18 years or older and should be referred to as men or women...Whenever possible, a patient should be referred to as a man, woman, boy, girl, or infant. Occasionally, however, a study group may comprise children and adults of both sexes. Then, the use of male and female as nouns is appropriate. Male and female are also appropriate adjectives. Neither that nor 11.12 Inclusive Language says anything about not using "men" to refer to the male sex. And the quote from 11.7 implicitly supports use of "men" and "women" to refer to sex. The rule you are proposing goes far beyond what is actually said. This 2020 review in The Lancet which you just added to the article likewise uses "men" and "women" in reference to the sexes. Crossroads -talk- 23:15, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The Institute of Medicine source is the one we have been calling the "National Academy of Medicine" but it was authored by an IOM committee. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This 2020 review in The Lancet which you just added to the article likewise uses "men" and "women" in reference to the sexes. No, it doesn't. It says: In most diseases, efforts to separate the effects of sex and gender are still incomplete, so that we just refer to the differences among women and men. They default to discussing gender differences, because it's easier. And they know they're doing it.At this point, I find discourse with you to be profoundly unproductive, more interested in scoring "points" and cheap shots by trying to look through every source to find the tiniest place where they use the word "men" or "women". I have quoted to you from all of these sources the parts I find pertinent, and I do not think doing so again will be any more helpful. I, overall, do not think this conversation is conducive to ever building consensus and seems an awful lot more like we are each trying to win an argument than we are trying to building an encyclopedia. I would be happy to engage with you when/if we are able to discuss these matters with a less combative atmosphere. Until then, you may feel free to respond to my comments, I will not respond to yours. Have a nice day.'' — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 23:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said at the article, that National Academies source also nowhere makes the rule you are advocating for. They themselves use "men" and "women" to refer to sexes sometimes (see pages 120-121: ). I am baffled as to why you are claiming these sources make rules they do not make. You are free to write how you want in your academic writing, but here on Wikipedia, since anyone can edit, we have to follow the usage in the sources.
 * The Lancet article also says things like women have X chromosomes from both parents, which cannot have anything to do with gender.
 * I'm sorry you feel this hasn't been productive, but with all due respect, if someone is proposing a radical change to how Wikipedia covers such a huge topic, then people will look closely at how MEDRS in general talk about it. Crossroads -talk- 23:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Re: if someone is proposing a radical change to how Wikipedia covers such a huge topic... - it is Maneesh and yourself who have been proposing "radical changes" to the status quo at Sex differences in medicine, which is why I found your invocation of IMPLICITCONSENSUS in defense of those changes so baffling. Newimpartial (talk) 00:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a distraction. He used a word that was already on the page, and I noted at AE that was not an offense. That is not at all the same as new rules banning certain terms to refer to sex. Crossroads -talk- 01:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't see how pointing to the actual edits that gave rise to this discussion can be a distraction. On the other hand, I also don't see anyone advocating new rules banning certain terms to refer to sex - that looks to me like a straw goat, and a distraction in its own right. Newimpartial (talk)`

I started a straw poll for point 1 here. Hopefully this can get cleaned up so it isn't a distraction from the weightier matters. Crossroads -talk- 23:16, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the above split into three numbered disputes is helpful, particularly when respondents then start going on about option 2 or option 3 as though we were as familiar with option 2 and option 3 as we are with words like "American" and "European". If you think there are three separate disputes, open a section on each and discuss them separately. I'm uncomfortable that all three are closed yes/no questions for a topic that is complicated. Better to open the discussion for opinions than votes. More generally, I'm disappointed again that the politics of culture wars contaminates the discussion. Please can folk avoid putting our readers or other editors into derogatory boxes. Can we also stop repeating this nonsense that "it is not WP's role to engage in language-change activism". It might sound like a plea for neutrality but language change is an ongoing natural process. While not all changes get accepted or endure, change doesn't have to be rational or sensible to everyone. It occurs regardless. People will vary on their journey and acceptance of changes depending on their age, geographics, class, politics, etc. It is natural for one to think one's own position is a default. To consider those proposing changes that appear novel as 'activists'. And to view those resisting changes you agree with and are happy to accommodate or accepted long ago, as 'conservatives'. And you may have your own choice political insults for labelling either of those groups. SMcCandlish, by claiming Wikipedia doesn't do "language-change activism", you are, a bit arrogantly I think, speaking as though on behalf of a wide and diverse editorship, and implicitly claiming your own position in whatever discussion is at hand is a neutral middle ground that all reasonable people on this global English-speaking project would be happy to accept. Therefore, only unreasonable people disagree with SMcCandlish. A more humble less confrontational approach would be for discussion participants to accept that reasonable people take a variety of positions on these matters. To do more listening and external/expert viewpoint gathering. And a whole lot less original-research-opinion-ranting that seems to permeate these talks. It is possible to discuss language choice for particular articles/statements without making false claims about what "Wikipedia does/does not...." or making it clear all other views are unreasonable and stupid. Unlike facts, where we are tied to our sources, Wikipedians have the freedom to write how they see fit, and to write with consideration for others, including those who have views we may not understand or accept. Our sources can be a useful guide but no more. I don't for example think French Wikipedians would accept anyone insisting they use the terms and idioms of their mainly English sources. Where our source can restrict what we say is that when they talk about group X and group Y and some editors wish to use different labels than 'X' and 'Y' or to extend 'X' into 'X and W', then this may be veering into original research if it is not obviously equivalent. We face that challenge whenever we paraphrase a source. My suggestion is that if we are to have a productive discussion at WP:MED about this, then perhaps a new section dealing with some specific matter, and absolutely no personal attacks or political rhetoric or fairy stories about Wikipedia. -- Colin°Talk 15:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I decline to respond in any detail to this attempt to personalize both a style and a gender-and-sexuality discussion (both subjects under discretionary sanctions), other than to suggest that the above editor needs to re-read WP:NOT; and to make the should-be-obvious points that a) language changing over time does not mean that WP accepts every language change proposition (rather, our style is based on predominant style across reliable sources on English usage), and b) the positions various organizations advocate on such matters are all primary sources (organizational opinion about their internal preferences)  what we care about is usage across all the RS source material, not what this or that particular entity would prefer.  As to  matter, Crossroads has already poked various holes in the overbroad claims being made about such positions, above, so I needn't do it again.  Yes, pushing for unnatural English usage that does not comport with common usage in reliable sources is advocacy. Yes, pushing for WP to adopt such a pattern because some cherry-picked third party allegedly prefers it is advocacy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * User:SMcCandlish, I can't help that the words I disagree with are yours and hence singled-out in this particular case. I think some people in the language debate think there are only 'them', who they label 'activists', and 'us, normal reasonable people'. But to observers of these MOS debates, and observers of the wider culture wars, there are very much two sides. Both sides are using article talk pages and MOS talk pages to WP:SOAPBOX their personal opinions, though it is clear that the culture war politics, insults and rants do seem mainly coming from one side. The huge personal-opinion posts that regularly appear (from many editors) in MOS discussions fail WP:SOAPBOX regardless of which side in the political-social debate one lies on. My point is that 'activism' is in the mind of the writer, determined by their own 'default' and politics, and labelling 'other' people this way is a short-cut to blocking off viewpoints one disagrees with, rather than finding more constructive ways to consider, understand, and work towards consensus. Our style is not in fact entirely based on that of reliable sources: our articles do not read like medical journals or newspapers. It may be an oft-repeated claim in MOS discussions that we are slave to our sources when it comes to words, terms and idioms, but that argument is made when those sources happen to align with the viewpoint being argued. Other times those sources are dismissed as 'experts' or 'journalists' who have nothing to tell us about how to write an encyclopaedia. The truth lies in between. Our sources can be a very useful guide, and as I noted above, sometimes we must stick close to them for no-original-research reasons. The phrase 'unnatural English usage' just makes me shiver. The word 'unnatural' has been used historically to refer to white and black people marrying, or two men holding hands, and I guess a lot of people think being trans is 'unnatural'. It isn't a helpful word. -- Colin°Talk 09:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Just more socio-politically motivated tone policing. If you can't understand that "natural" in a linguistic context has a completely different sense that is in no way related to racist and phobic labeling of groups of people, then you are not WP:COMPETENT to be participating in a discussion about language usage.   are the one engaging in "othering" here, engaging in a blatant attempt to demonize your "opponents" for activistic reasons.  I'm simply not going to engage with you any further, other than perhaps open an AE request if this behavior continues against me or against anyone else.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you want a spade? -- Colin°Talk 14:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hear, here. "othering" people we disagree with is a great way to make a dispute go on forever, and all around to be a real jerk. I could not agree with this comment more. I would say that I do empathize with where some of the editors here come from, though I may disagree with their end-resulting opinion. It is undeniably true that trans persons are the very low minority. It is undeniably true that 99% of females at birth grow up to be women, and males men. But that does not mean we should write imprecisely or vaguely. And it does not mean we should mix and match terms in a way that is discouraged by professional medical organizations... That's my overall position, and it has nothing to do with "advocating" for any groups. I'm a scientist, and I think we should write precisely, in a way compatible with the consensus opinion of scientists. My guess is that others would disagree with me on what that consensus opinion is. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 15:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * And some humans are paraplegic or missing a leg. Does that mean we can't describe humans as bipedal? We have to word every article around the <1% of people with whatever condition that makes them an exception? Crossroads -talk- 18:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that depends on what the relevant authorities have to say in the specific case. In the instance of sexuality, for example, the move away from heteronormative language has been fairly decisive, I think, and wasn't based on any precise estimates of what percentage of the population aren't hetero. Newimpartial (talk) 18:46, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Colin's points notwithstanding, I just want to say that I appreciate reading an abbreviation here of what is going on over there. I am reluctant to wade in over there, but hope that if a decent RFC is formulated, we'll be made aware here. Not an insignificant part of not wanting to wade in over there (besides the usual polarization rather than focus on sources) is that I despair when I look at articles with so many issues, and yet, people arguing only about one part of an article with many other problems.
 * sex-related diseases, which are diseases that are more common to one sex ... how about conditions rather than diseases to account for male-predominance in things like autism and Tourette syndrome, which often never comes to clinical attention.
 * and diseases which occur at similar rates in males and females but manifest differently according to sex, ditto for above, eg, there is new research that TS manifests differently in females. (See which is a review.)
 * Why is the article titled in medicine, when it could be in health and medicine, which would provide a better anchor to WP:MEDRS and allow for conditions that don't come to clinical attention, like TS?
 * Ugh ... That said, both biological and behavioural differences influence human health, and may do so differentially. Such factors can be inter-related and difficult to separate. In the lead. How about ...
 * Biological and behavioural differences influence human health, may do so differentially, and can be inter-related and difficult to separate.
 * Screaming original research and UNDUE in the lead: As of 2021 over 10,000 articles had been published addressing sex and gender differences in clinical medicine and related literature.
 * Why are there access dates on journal articles, and why do the sources included editorials (eg ) in the lead, no less. And case studies, like . So often disputes can be avoided by focusing on cleaning up the sourcing!  Like adding a PMID at Hayter, SM; Cook, MC.
 * The lead has a More recently sentence that uses a 2012 source; see MOS:CURRENT. (I like the paragraph as it precisely describes what is going on with TS.
 * And after the lead, the article descends into indiscriminate lists rather than prose, when cohesive paragraphs could be written, grouping like topics, eg neurological disorders of childhood onset like autism and TS.

Sorry to dump all of this here, but similar is a big part of why I try to avoid engaging disputes over one issue at articles that need cleanup of multiple issues, that could partially help address problems. If a decent RFC is formed, please keep this page posted! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  19:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @SandyGeorgia I think most, if not all of these are good changes. I'll try to implement them when I get a chance, as they should be relatively uncontroversial and unrelated to the ongoing disputes.As an aside, are we not supposed to add access dates to journal citations? If so, I had no idea, and I'll stop doing that right away. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Journal articles that are indexed at PubMed aren't going anywhere anytime soon, nor is their content going to change :) Thanks in advance for doing that cleanup! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Each article is supposed to have an internally consistent citation style. Officially, any style will do, including one that puts titles in blink text and has access dates for paper-based books.  But we hope that you will use a sensible style that doesn't require a lot of unnecessary effort. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Access dates serve multiple purposes. Probably the most important one on WP is that it indicates the last time someone looked over the cited sourced and ensured that it actually is a source for the material in our article that we've cited it as the source for. So, yes, journal citations should still have access dates, otherwise access-date would not be part of .  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Access dates are pointless for journals, they have fixed-dated publications. They're sometimes kept when a url is given, mostly because it can be useful to look up dead link on a webarchiving service. But that you read a 1982 paper on 10 July 2015 or 9 September 2021 is useless information. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The clear and long-standing practice is established at Citing sources (which does not mention accessdates, and can be contrasted with Citing sources, which can and do frequently change and need access dates for that reason). The importance of access dates is relative to content that can change, and one of the most important functions of the accessdate is that it allows one to look up that version of a changing page at archive.org, as well as to see if the content has changed since the content was added to Wikipedia. That is why one of the only three times that our content guideline mentions accessdates at all (besides for web pages) is Citing sources. Journal source content doesn't change.  I have never, in fifteen years, seen an editor add or change an accessdate to a journal to indicate that they have checked that the text is verified. Nor am I aware of any editor who routinely adds accessdates to journal citations. Our guideline page, Citing sources, correctly summarizes the actual best practice. It also explicitly states that For web-only sources with no publication date, the "Retrieved" date (or the date you accessed the web page) should be included, in case the web page changes in the future. For example: Retrieved 15 July 2011 or you can use the access-date parameter in the automatic Wikipedia:refToolbar 2.0 editing window feature. I shudder to think of the mess that would be introduced if our densely-cited medical articles had access-dates on every journal citation. They would add precisely nothing other than bulk to the page.  may have something to add on this. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I concur with your explanation: they are not needed for journal articles, nor for that matter for books. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * We edit conflicted as I was adding that piece, which I'll go ahead and add. If we expect accessdates on published journal articles, why stop there?  Let's just demand accessdates on when you read a book as well.  It's the same logic.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  02:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Colin, @Crossroads, @Newimpartial, @SMcCandlish, @Shibbolethink, and anyone else (you, too, SandyGeorgia, though I know you don't care for being pinged): Let's move this discussion off this page.  Please join me at User talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox 4 and tell me what you think should/shouldn't be done.  I do ask that you find a moment to engage when you're not already stressed by something else, because I'm hoping that we can have a relatively tranquil discussion.  Specific "worked examples" would be particularly valuable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Watchlisted, and will weigh in after Christmas, as I have guests. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Stuff from the BBC today indicating how "cancel culture" works. Seems directly pertinant. -Roxy the dog . wooF 22:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think preliminary discussions of possible changes so major should be on a userpage; fewer editors will notice it and weigh in that way. I think that waiting until after the holidays for major proposals is a good idea. Crossroads -talk- 23:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO preliminary discussions of possible changes, which, even if a proposal actually results, might not be anything remotely close to "major", can happen anywhere. It is my opinion, however, that it should not happen here, because I suspect that most folks don't want to see this sort of contentious poking at other editors when they wake up each day, and also that this early stage would ideally not happen at WT:MEDMOS because there's already an unrelated sensitive conversation happening there.  So I invite you to User talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox 4:  Come and tell me what problems exist (or might exist) in articles, and how you would fix them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * IMO preliminary discussions of possible changes, which, even if a proposal actually results, might not be anything remotely close to "major", can happen anywhere. It is my opinion, however, that it should not happen here, because I suspect that most folks don't want to see this sort of contentious poking at other editors when they wake up each day, and also that this early stage would ideally not happen at WT:MEDMOS because there's already an unrelated sensitive conversation happening there.  So I invite you to User talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox 4:  Come and tell me what problems exist (or might exist) in articles, and how you would fix them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sex differences in medicine
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sex differences in medicine that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:50, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Find Medical Sources Icon
The findsources template will soon be updated to include a small icon. These are the icons that are currently planned for use for general, video games, biography, and medical searches:



Accordingly, the Medical sources notice template would look like this:



On an unrelated related note, the StatPearls link has been in the sandbox for a while. Assuming, there are no objections, we'll push that link live as well.

- Wikmoz (talk) 04:05, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * very good template--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I really like this! — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 13:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Use of primary sources
Thoughts welcome on the use of [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Molnupiravir#Phase_III_results_on_NEJM:_not_WP:MEDRS? primary sources for content in articles about COVID-19 medications]. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC notice
Firefangledfeathers 23:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Firefangledfeathers 23:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Political aspects in the history of the National Academy of Medicine
In Talk:List of members of the National Academy of Medicine, i conjectured (i'm quite sure) that we have an article about a blacklinked deceased member. The person was not a famous professor of medicine, but somehow a political activist. Contributions should be written in the Talk:List of members of the National Academy of Medicine page. Thanks in advance. --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly is your question here? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * briefly: Do you think i am right or i am wrong? (should we bluelink?) --Himbeerbläuling (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The only question relevant to "Should we bluelink?" is "Are they the same person?" The wiki page and the NAM website seem to heavily suggest the answer to the second question is "yes." So my answer to the first question is also "yes." — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Notice of WP:DS tags
Hi! I have added a bunch of gender and sexuality discretionary sanction tags to a number of articles, mostly in intersex-related articles and a number of sex/gender difference medical articles as well. Please see my contribution log to see which ones (this is a short, on-going process). Just thought I'd give a notice here. Feel free to discuss the merits of these actions in my talk page, as this has been a WP:BOLD edit and I am very open to discussing/reverting these changes. Santacruz &#8258;  Please ping me!  12:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That tag should only be added to articles which the Arbitration Committee has authorized. If not, you should remove them.  Clarification of whether a page is in a topic area can be requested at Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree with Gronk. The appropriate move here is to make a brief ARCA clarification request which asks: "are these pages covered under these sanctions?" — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 16:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

MRNA vaccine


FYI, there appears to be a slow-motion edit war going on at MRNA vaccine over whether the technology was first developed in 1978 or 1989. Materials referencing the 1978 date have been removed from the article, but it seems dubious to me that accounts of earlier work on developing the technology would not be covered. BD2412 T 22:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * its best to settle it on the articles talk...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

MDMA-assisted psychotherapy
The lead claims: "The research is controversial due to the risks of taking MDMA recreationally, made evident by the illegal and unregulated use of MDMA in the form of ecstasy[3] and also due to its unpredictable neurochemical effects.[4][5] There were 92 MDMA related deaths in England and Wales in 2018, up from 56 the year before,[6] and 10,000 hospitalizations for MDMA related illness/injury in 2011 in the US.[3]"

This is mixing apples with oranges. The fact that there are risks related to substance abuse involving MDMA says nothing about whether research on therapeutic use of MDMA is controversial. And thus unsurprisingly, the sources don't say that "the research is controversial".

The sources for fatalities and hospitalisations is an article from the Guardian, and this article makes it clear that these figures relate to substance abuse. It says in a quote "MDMA use under medical supervision is a world away from someone necking a load of pills at a rave". Likewise, the other two sources, one of which has been added yesterday, again, don't say that "this research is controversial", the effects they report again seem to relate to substance abuse, and it most cases, a mix of substances was to blame: ''On admittance, the intoxicated MDMA user is typically under the influence of additional drugs, and this observation has instigated controversies regarding the toxicity of MDMA alone. In a survey of 202 ecstasy-related deaths in the UK in the period 1996–2002, MDMA was the sole drug detected in merely 17% of cases [40].''

I have looked into several systematic reviews and clinical trials on the use of MDMA in psychotherapy, especially treatment of PTSD and they all unanimously conclude that clinical controlled use is safe and effective. I haven't seen any reputable sources disputing this claim. Therefore I do find the claim that it is "controversial" unsubstantiated and unwarranted. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 08:09, 31 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Two secondary sources have now been added. Issue settled. --Saidmann (talk) 16:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well... there is still the question of whether the current summary acurately summarizes the literature. And a question of nuance: amongst which people is it controversial. I care about controversy amongst practitioners rather more than controversy amongst lawyers and politicians.
 * On the question of the safety of MDMA, I think this has been reasonably well studied within the context of harm reduction. I remember an English drug policy advisor, David Nutt, being removed after making (research backed) statements about the comparative risks of horse riding and recreational drugs. Talpedia (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * "The research is controversial" refers to the group of experts in this field. This is now referenced by two secondary sources. Other groups (lawyers and politicians) can hardly be assumed even to be aware of usage of the drug in therapy. --Saidmann (talk)12:06, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not conviced that it's true that the researchers think their own research is controversial (or in wikipedia speak representative of a thorough reading of the best source summarized with due weight). But forming an opinion would require some thorough reading. Talpedia (talk) 18:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Is "the research" controversial? Or maybe it's "the conclusions" that are controversial?  For example, about half a century ago, there was some wildly unethical research into whether sugar causes tooth decay.  It concluded that if you ate extra-sticky candy and never brushed your teeth, you would have more dental problems than if you didn't eat sticky candy and did brush your teeth.  That "research" could be described as controversial, but the results are not controversial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the researchers are only a small part of the "experts in this field". The major part of this group are psychotherapist who are wondering if this drug might be a useful adjunct. They have widely different opinions about the question if it is a meaningful research subject. The reseachers just point out that this divide exists and that it is one of their incentives to do the research. --Saidmann (talk) 20:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a strawman.The sources you have added now do not back up the claim that the research is controversial because of fatalities and hospitalisations related to recreational use, and the source providing such figures explicitly says that recreational use and clinical use have nothing to do with each other. If there is a controvery, the actual subject of the controversy should be named. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 16:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * One of the two sources you added concludes: "In summary, MDMA-assisted psychotherapy is a promising approach to helping people who have experienced psychological trauma and who have not been able toresolve their resulting problems through existing treatment options. Research into its effectiveness, safety and long-term benefits is still in its infancy, however there is already a great deal of misunderstanding of its aims and findings in the academic literature. If this is to get the research attention it deserves, it is essential that we report this accurately and objectively. MDMA may provide a bridge to effectively overcome the gap between psychotherapy and psychopharmacology, thereby facilitating the integration of an exciting new holistic approach to psychopathology [53] and “...we must not allow preconceptions, politics or puritanism...” [52, p. 420] or misinformation to get in the way of this.
 * It literally says: the research is promising and we need more of it. How is this supposed to back up the claim that the research is controversial?--Johannes Rohr (talk) 17:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a bit of a nothing-y cliché, like FRIN. It doesn't really bear on the question of whether there's controversy. Alexbrn (talk) 17:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The question is whether it is more of a cliche than "controersial new treatment trialed by scientists" :) Talpedia (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * In any case, the attempted connection to ecstasy related fatalities and hospitalizations is misleading, as they are unrelated to controlled clinical use, which by the way, is exactly what the article says from which the numbers about incidents are pulled, so I would suggest that this has to go. --Johannes Rohr (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Markworthen, Casliber, other psych-related folks: Are any of you familiar with this subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Now you force me to quote from the sources:
 * The item in the text is this one: "The research is controversial"
 * First source: "MDMA is a unique type of drug with positive acute effects which led Alexander Shulgin to suggest that it might be useful for psychotherapy (Shulgin 1986). However, several issues need to be addressed before MDMA can be accepted as a safe co-drug for therapy. First, acute MDMA can stimulate the release of difficult feelings and memories, which may be distressing. Second, the emergent material can be susceptible to environmental influences and this also makes the MDMA-induced experiences difficult to control. Hence, there may be clinical reactions to this powerful and unpredictable drug (Greer & Tolbert 1986; Parrott 2007). There is also the issue of neurochemical recovery afterwards, when negative moods tend to predominate. This period of negative cognitions may be counter-productive, especially in psychiatrically vulnerable clients, for instance those with predispositions to anxiety, depression, or psychosis. For example, it could increase the likelihood of suicide in those individuals with strong post-recovery feelings of depression. (PMID 24830184)
 * Second source: "Small-scale studies have shown reduced psychological trauma, however there has been widespread misunderstanding of the aims and implications of this work, most commonly the notion that MDMA is a ‘treatment for PTSD’, which to date has not been researched. This has harmful consequences, namely dangerous media reporting and impeding research progression in an already controversial field." (PMID: 32435270)
 * Also 2nd source: "Research into the clinical use of illegal substances is highly controversial and misrepresentation of the research hampers progress in a field already fraught with legal and political challenges. MDMA was classed as a Schedule 1 drug in 1986 by the United Nations Convention on Psychotropic Substances of 1971 [28], meaning it is illegal and considered to be dangerous without therapeutic value, thus carrying out clinical research with MDMA is extremely difficult. Under the convention, the use of Schedule 1 substances is severely restricted." (PMID: 32435270)

It appears that the issue of this thread is now as clear as an issue can be. --Saidmann (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * FWIW the research is absolutely controversial. There is a concerted push to loosen/change restrictions to open the way for therapeutic use currently, which is engendering alot of discussion here in Oz and no doubt elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:53, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Source 1 is pretty compelling and not insanely old (2014) and provides a reasoning to "controversial", but controversial in a different way to that described in the current lede. 2 and 3 clearly say that this is controversial; but it's annoying that controversial is kind of "throwaway" statement here without much dicussion. Source 2 makes clear that research is made difficult because the drug is illegal, and that the research is misunderstood (MDMA is a therapeutic aid for talking therapy rather than a direct treatment for PTSD within these approaches).
 * It's kinda funny for me reading about all the "controversial" side effects in the "controversy" section because a whole bunch of them apply to antidepressants and some pain killers as well (see Pregabaline or Ketamine). Antidepressants are known to "trigger" psychosis. It's like we have a list of the side effects of some of the most commonly prescribed drugs that people use chronically (and often for the same conditions) and using it to say that something is dangerous when used once. Of course... I don't know whether a source will discuss this irony (added: and it is accurate that these therapies have risks that don't exist in talking therapies). --edited to fix up some grammar Talpedia (talk) 22:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Saidmann, the lead currently reports the number of hospitalizations due to recreational use. That seems pretty much irrelevant to me.  Then it provides an uncited statement that zero hospitalizations have happened as a result of clinical use.  This seems to confirm my feeling that these statistics are irrelevant to the subject of this article.
 * I notice, too, that the body of the article discusses nothing about recreational harms that sounds more serious than getting the munchies. Why are these statistics in the lead if (a) they don't apply to clinical use and (b) they aren't important enough to discuss at all in the body of the article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It was not me who put this stuff into the lead. I only added appropriate sources. Would it be ok to move this section from the lead to the body of the article? --Saidmann (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It's better than leaving it in the lead, but maybe it should just be removed entirely. There's a potentially serious WP:SYNTH problem in talking about how many recreational overdoses there are – rather like saying that we've got to be careful about medical use of a glucose-elevating agent, because eating too much sugar is unhealthy.
 * I also wonder if the "due to" wording in that sentence will hold up under close examination. I'll post more on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC on use of the terms safe and safety in connection with Abortion
Your participation is very welcome. Please see Talk:Abortion. NightHeron (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
 * commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Automatic behaviour
I'm not sure whether the content of the articles automatic behavior and Automatism (medicine) are referring to the same concept - they appear to. I would appreciate if someone with expertise could take a look. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that there is enough of a similarity to propose merging Automatic behavior (the more poorly-referenced and supported article) to Automatism (medicine). Klbrain (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * My impression is that although the 2 are similar in that they're automatic and subconscious, automatism is something you hear about in the context of epilepsy, whereas automatic behaviour is something to do with psychiatry as well as neurology. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

RFC on the use of WP:MEDRS sources on cannabis-related fatalities
An RFC related to a conflict on the use of WP:MEDRS sources on this topic has been posted at Talk:Cannabis_(drug). Please feel free to chip in, whatever your opinion. Finney1234 (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I've posted a recent (2021) review article that says there has been a reported death due to cannabis overdose.  I imagine that this won't be popular with some editors, as we have editors who have dedicated years to making sure that cannabis is positioned as something that's safe because all the deaths can be claimed to have some mechanism other than drug overdose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Pattern hair loss


Some additional eyes on recent additions to Pattern hair loss would be appreciated. The sources don't strike me as WP:MEDRS compliant, and I think there may be some WP:OR going on as well. MrOllie (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * will keep eye on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:05, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Red meat and cancer
There has been a decent discussion on the talk-page of the article red meat about the use of an umbrella review that looked at 72 meta-analyses related to red and processed meat intake and cancer but further input is needed so a consensus can be drawn. The abstract concluded that "Dose-response analyses revealed that 100 g/d increment of red meat and 50 g/d increment of processed meat consumption were associated with 11%-51% and 8%-72% higher risk of multiple cancer outcomes, respectively, and seemed to be not correlated with any benefit." . This sounds significant but according to a user who actually has full access to the paper "most studies included in this umbrella review were meta-analyses of observational studies, which are recognised as low quality in the grade of evidence. As a result, most evidence of outcomes was considered as very low or low quality with GRADE classification. Secondly, associations between red and processed meat consumption and cancer outcomes might be affected by several confounding factors". The same user also has noted that "The 51% increased relative risk figure in the abstract turns out to be one paper for endometrial cancer." The discussion on the talk-page has been about the GRADE system because on this grading system observational studies are considered of low-quality compared to randomized controlled trials.

Users have stated that the GRADE system is usually used for clinical trials and is not often used for observational studies which involve large populations. We have a Wikipedia article on GRADE explaining what it is The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The discussion between users on the talk-page has been about if the text on the article summarizing this umbrella review should mention the GRADE system or not which would obviously classify it as low quality but as another user pointed out this has not been done for other meta-analyses of observational studies that are cited on the red meat article or others. In conclusion there seems to be some mixed viewpoints about the review. As there has only been four users involved in this discussion (including myself) an expert opinion or different viewpoint from experienced WikiProject medicine editors would be of use so a consensus can be drawn up about this source and we should include it or not. Thanks. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks to the people who have started commenting there.
 * Reminder about MEDRS (at the end of the WP:MEDASSESS section: "assess evidence quality" essentially means editors should determine the appropriate type of source and quality of publication. Respect the levels of evidence: Do not reject a higher-level source (e.g., a meta-analysis) in favor of a lower one (e.g., any primary source) because of personal objections to the inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions in the higher-level source. Editors should not perform detailed academic peer review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You're invited! January 29: COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States Edit-a-thon / Translate-a-thon - Online via Zoom
--Wil540 art (talk) 19:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

New draft at Draft:David_Bennett_Sr.


Hi there, in the wake of the exciting news that the first xenotransplantation with a genetically engineered pig heart has occurred, I created a draft for the recipient of this medical first, David Bennett Sr. If anyone wants to add information or polish up the article in any way, all help is appreciated. Thanks! RFZYN SPY talk 22:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * it does seem important--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * And yet it has been deleted at the author's request... did you change your mind? --Gronk Oz (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The case is too WP:RECENT. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 12:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * yes your right, however if this is the way to go (alternate to a human heart) it raises among other things... bioethics/animal rights questions that are important as well...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose that case in any way. I'm just saying that I would give a bit more time for dust to settle. Feel free to add material on that. AXO NOV  (talk) ⚑ 17:55, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Please check Draft:Longevity Medicine
Hello, Please check out Draft:Longevity Medicine. How can i improve that? Please help Affi Ali (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Affi Ali, the comment from @Drmies suggests that you need to decide whether the subject of the article is "healthcare that makes people live longer" or "a class you can take". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Scientific American: ArXiv.org Reaches a Milestone and a Reckoning
"Runaway success and underfunding have led to growing pains for the preprint server

What started in 1989 as an e-mail list for a few dozen string theorists has now grown to a collection of more than two million papers—and the central hub for physicists, astronomers, computer scientists, mathematicians and other researchers. On January 3 the preprint server arXiv.org crossed the milestone with a numerical analysis paper entitled “Affine Iterations and Wrapping Effect: Various Approaches.” (The Library of Alexandria, for comparison, is believed to have contained no more than hundreds of thousands of manuscripts.)"

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:31, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to post this at WT:PHYS or WT:AST instead? &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The article calls bioRxiv and medRxiv "arXiv-inspired", so the sociological trend seems relevant here, too. -- 21:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Maria Bottazzi
Searching for Maria Elena Bottazzi, one of the two main developers of the non-patented COVID-19 vaccine Corbevax, under her common name Maria Bottazzi currently draws a blank (idem, the easy misspelling "Maria Botazzi"). Could a friendly stalker here perhaps kindly fix this with a couple of redirects? Thanks from this ip contributor, 86.161.190.114 (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This is ✅. Thanks for letting us know about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Your knowledgeable contribution to
Goldberg drum is urgently needed and greatly appreciated. thx! RZuo (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This looks like a piece of lab equipment from the 1950s, used for producing aerosols.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Would someone with knowledge please weigh in on this move discussion?
Talk:Alpha-thalassemia mental retardation syndrome ~  ONUnicorn (Talk&#124;Contribs) problem solving 15:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Medical care of trans teens
WPATH has released the latest draft of their guidelines, which adds a new chapter that recommends adolescents not be treated like adults. Reportedly, this is causing some consternation in some circles. I think, based on the little I've seen, that the main source of concern is WPATH is stating in Statement 12B that the "persistent" part of the "insistent, persistent, and consistent" mantra means several years for children and teens, which seems to be significantly longer than some would prefer. This statement is only about medical/surgical – not social – transition.

They are also recommending a "comprehensive biopsychosocial assessment" before starting medical transition. (I have seen this recommendation before, usually with the explanation that medical transition is hard enough on its own, so nobody should have to transition medically while also dealing with untreated anxiety or depression.)

All of which is to say: Expect edit warring and stressed editors in the trans-related articles this year. The updated guidelines are supposed to be released in a few months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Really appreciate the heads up, and I've seen these coming down the pipeline for a year or two. There's just too much controversy about reversion and increased risks of medical transition. We have a lot more data about the cancer risks, the psychosocial risks (namely, assault and murder), and the surgical/endocrine risks of transitioning. Frankly, from my perspective as someone in healthcare who has volunteered at trans health clinics, I feel these were a long time coming. There's just slightly too much risk involved for adolescents and teens to be going through this when they aren't really really damn sure its what they want.But it will be used as fodder for all sorts of POV warriors. Anti-trans folk will be foaming at the mouth to reference this as a reason for why transgender therapy is dangerous, even though this is showing that transition is safe when done appropriately (and the reversion numbers really are extremely low: ). Pro-trans folk will be livid at the implication of reversion and medicalization of psychiatric problems as reason for increased transition numbers (even though that's reversing the causality). But ultimately our encyclopedic job is just to represent these as a thing that happened. That did not actually change much about being a transgender person, but will be fuel to the fire of opinion and (often warranted, but also harmful) distrust of the medical establishment. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * the current evidence (that's a 2018 source) is quite a bit different. was just linked in an NYT article and places detransition at 13.1%. Jclemens (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Those sources are a bit apples-and-oranges in nature. The first asks surgeons how many people they've done top or bottom surgery for and how many people told them that they regretted it.  If you regret it and/or detransition without involving one of these surgeons, then your experience is missed by this survey.  The second asks current LGBTQ+ people about any type of transition, including social transition (e.g., a female who socially transitions to being a man, and then later "detransitions" to being non-binary).  If you detransition and no longer identify as LGBTQ+, or if you otherwise didn't participate in a survey that is marketed as being for trans folks only, then your experience is missed by this survey.  Neither of these sources are comprehensive; all of them will miss some people.  I wouldn't necessarily say that one is better than the other.  They measure different things, to the best of their ability. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Tangentially related: editors who are knowledgeable about MEDRS, current research on trans teens and medical transition, or both could likely be helpful at Suicide among LGBT youth. A somewhat dated, poorly-attended talk page dispute (I was a participant) was not able to reach any consensus on how to improve the section. Firefangledfeathers 03:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice
I have nominated Michael Woodruff for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit suggestions on Low back pain
Hi, an editor is looking for feedback on some proposed edits to the low back pain article. Talk page link. JenOttawa (talk) 03:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:24, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Would it be ok to add a second image field to Template:Infobox medical condition?
Hi all

Many templates provide a space for two images, I think this might also be useful for Template:Infobox medical condition. For example on the article for Lipoma there could be an image for a lipoma on the patient and one for a removed lipoma. If anyone knows how to add a second field for image and image caption that would be really appreciated.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * this would need to be changed...but it needs to be an administrator--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi John, I think that sounds like a good idea. I'm familiar with template programming and I'd be happy to help you, but as Ozzie pointed out, this template is protected so an admin needs to either do the edit or remove the protection. You could also submit an edit request here. Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much and  for describing how it can be done, I've made the request. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I've coded image2 &tc. in sandbox Template:Infobox_medical_condition/sandbox. Please take a look/check, see EditRequest for more info, tests, and the code diff. -DePiep (talk) 07:04, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * this looks great to me, thanks very much. Are you able to impplement it on the main template? John Cummings (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ by someone else (who has the right rights). Could you take care of adding these to the documentatrion? -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much and  it looks like the documentation has been updated as well (unless I'm missing something, I haven't done much at all with developing templates before). Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 12:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * my pleasure!  Paine  13:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Where readers are coming from and going to
Did you know...


 * ...that 30% of the people reading Propofol arrived there from a page about Michael Jackson?
 * ...that more people read about Oxycodone because of Dopesick (miniseries) than because of Purdue Pharma and the Sackler family combined?
 * ...that the most-clicked link in Nirmatrelvir is Ritonavir?
 * ...that the most popular link in Cannabis is Cannabis (drug), and the most popular link in Cannabis (drug) is Cannabis?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This is an amazing tool! (Though I'm currently having issues with it loading the overview, reader navigation, and sources of traffic sections -- it only wants to load the time comparisons, which fortunately still give lists of major sources.) What does an "other-empty" incoming source indicate? Vaticidalprophet 04:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is awesome. I've tried to track clicks before by linking to distinctive, otherwise low-traffic redirects, but that doesn't work very well. It's really nice to be able to see useful information about how readers actually use our articles. (Doesn't seem to work on non-article pages - dammit, I wanted to see the traffic for ANI!) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, this is awesome. and This is an amazing tool! Granted, I am not sure whether I like that so many readers of African humid period come from Richat Structure Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:40, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have wondered whether the results might depend in part on how prominent the links are in some articles. If the "obvious" source article is low in the list, then maybe it needs a more obvious link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The findings at Ojos del Salado do support that, but the issue with Richat Structure is that the link there is buried at the bottom of the page and yet it is a major contributor to African humid period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I played with this tool; it's quite fun. I found myself wishing I could understand where the external traffic came from in terms of google searches etc Talpedia (talk) 12:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, finding which sections people read and how that distributes between mobile and non-mobile users would probably be the next nice-to-have. Does anyone have a plan to make that? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * MGerlach (WMF) and Isaac (WMF) have considered a few expansions – adding the Portal: namespace would be handy – but I don't know if they've considered mobile vs non-mobile. Previous research suggests that mobile users are less likely to click any links at all (if memory serves, the typical mobile editor clicks on no links, and the typical desktop editor clicks on one).  WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:22, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Glad to see there is interest in this tool :) We are currently not actively working on any changes, but we are thinking about potential improvements for the future. If you have ideas, you can open an issue on the corresponding github-repo. Some of the data requests have also been captured on phabricator (e.g. T289532 or T296359). MGerlach (WMF) (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @MGerlach (WMF), is there a page with definitions? Vaticidalprophet asked what "other-empty" means.  I assume that's the category that I fall into when I'm hand-writing the URLs, but I don't know what else might be in there (and perhaps my assumption is wrong). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @WhatamIdoing Yes. You can find more information about the definitions in the meta-page for the Clickstream-project. The tool simply provides an interaction point with the dumps of the clickstream-data. So "other-empty" means that the referrer-field of the http-request to the Wikipedia-article was empty. MGerlach (WMF) (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Martin. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:18, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * very impressive tool --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Ozzie, that's the kind of result that could drive someone's editing priorities. I'm glad you decided to check that one.  COVID-19 pandemic by country and territory is the most clicked on link in the pandemic article.  Following the chain (you can click the name of any linked article, to switch the view to that article), you can see which countries readers are looking for.  Those track partially with population (US is more popular than UK) but not entirely:  Italy and South Africa are more popular than Canada. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

MGerlach (WMF), Isaac (WMF) WhatamIdoing, this is a fabulous tool for working with partner organisations who may be sharing images or their knowledge, I will use it a lot. A few requests:
 * 1) Most of the graphs give a percentage of views from certain sources, but do not give an actual page views number, it would be really great if this was given in all graphs so they could be used in isolation.
 * 2) Looking at very high traffic articles like COVID Pandemic with 694.9k incoming page views in a month. The incoming and outgoing pageviews list have some very big numbers, the smallest number of incoming is over 5000, it would amazing to have an easy way of seeing the long tail of articles, it would really help with partnership work, especially for me working in the UN working with many organisations working on many different aspects and impacts of COVID.
 * 3) The descriptions of the fields make a lot of sense except other-empty empty referrer, could you possibly expand the explanation of this one? Does it just mean unknown?

Thanks again

John Cummings (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I believe that all the underlying data can be accessed separately, outside of this tool, if someone wanted to download the raw data and analyze it independently. I'm not sure how images are handled in that data.
 * We should probably have an article/section redirect for empty referer; HTTP referer explains some of the background. I understand that when you visit a webpage, we think we're sending just " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine " to the internet, but the web browsers are actually sending more information in the background, such as the page we were reading when we clicked the link to this page.  That kind of information isn't present under some circumstances, such as if you visit a bookmarked link, hand-type the URL, or have a browser plug-in that prevents transmission of referers.  I think it could fairly be understood as meaning "we don't know where this reader came from". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

How to become a cardiology
Firstly what is cardiology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainul abideeen (talk • contribs) 05:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, @Zainul abideeen, and welcome to Wikipedia. Cardiology is a specialty area of medicine.  Another word for a cardiologist is "heart doctor".  A person who wants to become a heart doctor must first become a doctor.  After that, the doctor studies more about the heart. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Analysis of Wikipedia COVID-19 articles
Here is the abstract from a recently published article.

"Abstract

Background

With the COVID-19 pandemic's outbreak, millions flocked to Wikipedia for updated information. Amid growing concerns regarding an 'infodemic,' ensuring the quality of information is a crucial vector of public health. Investigating whether and how Wikipedia remained up to date and in line with science is key to formulating strategies to counter misinformation. Using citation analyses, we asked which sources informed Wikipedia's COVID-19–related articles before and during the pandemic's first wave (January–May 2020).

Results

We found that coronavirus-related articles referenced trusted media outlets and high-quality academic sources. Regarding academic sources, Wikipedia was found to be highly selective in terms of what science was cited. Moreover, despite a surge in COVID-19 preprints, Wikipedia had a clear preference for open-access studies published in respected journals and made little use of preprints. Building a timeline of English-language COVID-19 articles from 2001–2020 revealed a nuanced trade-off between quality and timeliness. It further showed how pre-existing articles on key topics related to the virus created a framework for integrating new knowledge. Supported by a rigid sourcing policy, this 'scientific infrastructure' facilitated contextualization and regulated the influx of new information. Last, we constructed a network of DOI-Wikipedia articles, which showed the landscape of pandemic-related knowledge on Wikipedia and how academic citations create a web of shared knowledge supporting topics like COVID-19 drug development.

Conclusions

Understanding how scientific research interacts with the digital knowledge-sphere during the pandemic provides insight into how Wikipedia can facilitate access to science. It also reveals how, aided by what we term its 'citizen encyclopedists,' it successfully fended off COVID-19 disinformation and how this unique model may be deployed in other contexts."
 * --Whywhenwhohow (talk)
 * very well done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:35, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This feels good :) @Alexbrn as the person who did the bulk of the work on many of these articles, I imagine you will appreciate this little shot of dopamine. :) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:29, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Mercury and autism

 * Talk:Autism and Jane Joe Public

Related to vaccine hesitancy, high open access fees, one group from Iran with these findings based on hair samples, and retracted indications of COI re mercury studies at. Not sure what to make of all of this, can’t find other reputable reviews of mercury and autism. Please see article talk discussion. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

AAPS review
Here's all articles that cite Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, or something hosted on their website. I went through a bunch and nuked about 10-15 crap citations, those that remain are less clear cut (in places like Model State Emergency Health Powers Act for example), but I figured I'd mention them here so they can get more eyes on them. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * 
 * Those will be flagged by WP:UPSD BTW. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ageometr(es)ia
There is currently a deletion discussion at WP:Articles for deletion/Ageometresia which might be of interest to this Wikiproject. Felix QW (talk) 23:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Early onset dementia
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_onset_dementia&action=history Needs attention (PubMed lists dozens of recent reviews); I can’t understand that redirect even for 2016, as plenty of high-quality secondary reviews were available even then (eg ). Maybe someone has time to start a correct stub. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  09:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was shocked myself to see that's a redirect; it's a subject I've been looking into lately. No consistent computer access right now, though, so not much writing. Vaticidalprophet 10:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Something of a set index article, to list all of the early onset dementias that aren't Early-onset Alzheimer's? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I started it-- not very good, but something. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:04, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Notability
Hi all. Just over from the Cricket Project. I'm just wondering if this guy is notable per your inclusion criteria, and if he is, if someone from this project would like to make a start on his medical career? He also played four first-class cricket matches for Cambridge, which on their own probably won't qualify him for an article by our project guidelines. Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * He does appear to meet WP:NPROF. I don't really do BLPs but perhaps someone else will be interested. Spicy (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Spicy...he is a notable prof. Will have a look.Whispyhistory (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your replies and . I have created a stub here. Please feel free to expand! Cheers, StickyWicket (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Spices and antioxidants
The spice article says:
 * Most herbs and spices have substantial antioxidant activity, owing primarily to phenolic compounds, especially flavonoids, which influence nutrition through many pathways, including affecting the absorption of other nutrients. One study found cumin and fresh ginger to be highest in antioxidant activity.

and cites one article entitled "Antioxidant capacity of vegetables, spices and dressings relevant to nutrition". That article simply measures "antioxidant capacity measured by the oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC)" for various foods. I see some problems here: I propose to remove this paragraph. Agreed? --Macrakis (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The original article does not support the claim of nutritional value.
 * It is only one article, not a review.
 * The article is mostly about vegetables and herbs, not spices.
 * @Macrakis, have you looked into whether (some of) these claims could be supported by another/better source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Macrakis, @WhatamIdoing: Hey folks. I am not sure if I agree with this "innocent until proven guilty" presumption for text that appears either unsourced, or source poorly, or sourced only by a primary source, on many levels. Reasoning for unsourced or poorly sourced is probably clear. With regard to primary sources, I would just point out the ease that there is in finding some primary source, published somewhere, that supports an opinion that an editor wishes to present (whether it reflects the preponderance of scientific perspective, or not). Too, there is an economic argument to be made—consider how much time it would take to review all STEM statements in WP now wither unsupported by a citation, or sourced to a poor or primary source. It is much easier to expect of the original editor that they comply with WP:VERIFY with regard to secondary and good sources, and not place material until a good secondary source is found. (If doing it at start, by the interested and hopefully informed editor, takes X amount of time, in my experience, doing it afterward, by a general and possibly less informed editor takes 5X or more time—especially if you follow WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT, and expect the incoming editor to really read the source being subbed in.) Is there not a better way to approach this, that sends the right signal—to not place text without sources, or text with poor/only primary sources in the first place? Maybe using <!-- to remove it from view, along with a clear edit summary of what was done, and why? 98.253.16.20 (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that whether we presume "innocence" or "guilt" should depend on the claims.
 * The biggest risk with this bit is the WP:SYNTH aspect. IMO this particular works something like this:
 * Most herbs and spices have substantial antioxidant activity – Probably verifiable, but IMO the more important question is whether antioxidant activity matters, not whether it exists.
 * owing primarily to phenolic compounds, especially flavonoids, – Unlikely to be unverifiable, but again, the question is whether this matters.
 * which influence nutrition through many pathways, – Hmm, before I agree to this, we need to agree on what both "nutrition" and "influence" means.
 * including affecting the absorption of other nutrients. – This is not a common claim, and needs a citation
 * One study found cumin and fresh ginger to be highest in antioxidant activity. – Unlikely to be wrong, but you can often find "one study" that says anything you want.
 * Overall I think this is likely to be "verifiable", at least in pop science sources (this is the Verifiability, not truth analysis), but if we want to know what's fair/neutral/appropriate to say, then it's more important to see what other sources say. I think Macrakis's solution is an improvement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are certainly lots of primary sources that claim health benefits for spices, but almost all I've found have been in vitro demonstrations of (e.g.) antioxidant effects. It also seems unlikely that all spices will have similar effects, given that they come from a variety of plant families. One recent review ("Herbs and Spices- Biomarkers of Intake Based on Human Intervention Studies – A Systematic Review") says "very few studies were performed with actual foods" and "given the limitations of the experimental designs... further work is needed". But I am not the best person to adjudicate WP:MEDRS issues. --Macrakis (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I found a systematic review article that concludes that health benefits are not documented (yet) and replaced the claim made by a single article with it. --Macrakis (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Citation template changes affecting MEDRS compliance
See discussion of recurring problems with changes to citation templates having broad affect across all articles, yet made by a few editors on very slim or no consensus, that has again impacted medical content at this awkwardly named section of WT:MEDRS: Please discuss there (one of the many/other issues with this recurring behavior is that discussion of it is spread all over creation over about a ten-year period.) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:19, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine).
 * Thanks for sharing here. I will take a look. JenOttawa (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The tile is misleading, MEDRS compliance is not affected by this in the least. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:30, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If I am understanding this correctly this may mean that in WP:MEDRS popular press articles need to be cited separately in the article, meaning that we could have medical content supported by a non-high quality secondary source. Please let me know if I am misunderstanding! JenOttawa (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It’s more of a situation of blurring the lines, by removing the possibility of adding a lay article only when you are already citing a journal article. The suggestion of the few who make these decisions is that we bundle citations instead, which means wrapping two citation templates in to one set of ref tags.  So first, much harder to use.  Second, no one who can’t add one parameter will know how to bundle citations.  And pretty soon, guess where this blurring of the lines eventually leads … we’re now told to cite the popular press directly via a citation template, and before long, that’s where we’ll end up (citing medical content to lay press). We had a working method of only adding a laysummary as an adjunct to a journal article; it stood for 13 years, unchanged at MEDRS, and that was removed for the only apparent reason of some data gatherers who didn’t like it (I’ve not yet seen a legitimate reason anyway). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the correction. I understand what you mean by bundling. If possible to revert, I think the lay-url template is more effective. JenOttawa (talk) 03:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, the editors who run these templates have essentially the power of the fait accompli and can’t just be reverted; there is some sort of deprecation of content editors and best practices in favor of the technical types and their desires, that can’t be overcome with anything short of a massive community RFC. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * lay-url and its companions is still there and still works. The only thing that is different is that it now adds a red error message at the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Journal of clinical microbiology
Anyone have access to this journal? I need https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JCM.02916-20

 Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 12:20, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Might I suggest the browser extension Unpaywall which checks for (legally posted) free versions of papers? It shows that the authors have posted a free PDF at their institution's website. Ajpolino (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem to be available through The Wikipedia Library. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the paper!  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 05:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:MED articles using lay-url=
Per by Editor SandyGeorgia, three lists from data obtained 27 January 2022:

FA-class articles:


 * Note, I have temporarily (manually) corrected Leech, Water flouridation, Tourette syndrome and Menstrual cycle, as well as Multiple sclerosis (sample of manual adjustment). For now, I will leave the others, hoping this issue will be resolved without the need for manual changes.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

GA-class articles:

All WP:MED articles:

These lists are not dynamic. If you need them to be updated to current data, let me know.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Just a note to anyone who wants to begin fixing these unforced errors. Template:Cite journal (after a poorly supported change to the citation templates, see Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 82 and discussion at my talk) recommends a disputed method of fixing these errors, but the template is protected and one cannot add a disputed tag to it.  Converting the lay-urls to full citation templates is not what we should be doing.  We don’t typically cite medical content to the lay press.  If you intend to start working on fixing any of these, one method is to do this.  Another thing to do is to weigh in on the citation discussion and hope this problem is fixed before any changes are needed. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  15:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I know that I am addressing a sideaspect, but the disputed tag should be put on Template:Cite journal/doc which is unprotected if it's needed. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jo-Jo, but as a perfect example of what regular editors have to deal with re citation templates, I invite you to drill down at that page and figure out how/where to add the tag; I can’t. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Now done (someone else got to it); thanks, Jo-Jo. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * For now, I am manually converting only on the FAs, to remove the error, and will remember to go back and fix them if/when this issue is ever resolved. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Dentist
Is a dentist a "medical professional" or a "surgeon"? Opinions at Talk:Dentist regarding this edit would be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 23:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * commented, thanks for the heads up. — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As a result of this, I have learned that the first sentence of Surgeon says "In modern medicine, a surgeon is a physician who performs surgery." I wonder whether that should be changed to something like "In modern medicine, a surgeon is a medical professional who performs surgery." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's debatable, sorry I totally did not see this @WhatamIdoing. I think in the US, most surgeons would say "I am a physician" and emphatically defend that fact. Of course, they would first say "I am a surgeon" but they would suggest the former is a subset of the latter. Historically the divide was much clearer, as physicians were more academic and surgeons were basically glorified barbers, like in the 19th and early 20th century when places like the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons were created. But in the 21st century, surgeons must understand physiology as much as anyone else, and the surgeon-general is often a post occupied by someone with no surgical training. The lines are almost completely blurred! This section really gets at the nature of this imo: Physician. There also are issues when we get into the weeds, as Family Medicine practitioners, as well as Dermatologists, Gynecologists, and Ophthalmologists all practice about as much medicine as they do surgery, if not more. It's really a very strange lexicography, I won't deny that. But I think in America at least, all surgeons are physicians, but not all physicians are surgeons. E.g. In England, the distinction is more clear, as non-surgical physicians are referred to as "Doctor" and surgeons are referred to as "Mister" or "Miss." As a holdover from the barber-surgeon. But of course all of these people in England typically have bachelor's of medicine and bachelor's of surgery (M.B.B.S.)  I think you could make a reasonable argument that replacing "physician" with "medical professional" in that first sentence could make the article less US-centric. But if you dig into the body, you'll see the term "physician" is used extremely frequently! Not an easy a thing to divest from. —  Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 00:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the first sentence in Surgeon was written from the American POV, which is not universal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * could we may be just say "clinician"? Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources
I want to add stronger warnings against the use of predatory journals / explanations for why those should not be cited on Wikipedia. Others disagree. Please comment. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * This is about a proposed change from:
 * "The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should at best be treated similarly to self-published sources."
 * to:
 * "The lack of reliable peer review implies that articles in such journals should at best be treated similarly to self-published sources, given that many submissions to these journals will be by scholars that a) cannot get their theories published in legitimate journals, b) were looking to quickly publish something to boost their academic resumes, or c) were honestly looking for a legitimate peer-review process to validate new ideas, but were denied the feedback by fraudulent publishers." WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC re: is addiction a "biopsychosocial disorder" or a "brain disorder"?


New RfC on the talk page for the article, Addiction: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Addiction#RfC_re:_is_addiction_a_%22biopsychosocial_disorder%22_or_a_%22brain_disorder%22? RfC re: is addiction a "biopsychosocial disorder" or a "brain disorder"?] Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 22:32, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

TFA nomination for Chagas disease


I have nominated Chagas disease to appear as today's featured article for an unspecified date. Please click here if you would like to join the discussion. Z1720 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing on the Circumcision article
There are some concerns over at Circumcision about how to properly summarize sources, particularly a Springer book that gives an overview of the positions of various medical organizations. More eyes and voices would be very much appreciated at Talk:Circumcision. - MrOllie (talk) 13:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks to MrOllie for bringing other editors eyes to the problem. If you don't object, the quick summary is that the source states "all policy statements reviewed, regardless of its position on circumcision, have made allowances for parental choice in support of their cultural or religious preference" and the article's text states "There is a consensus across all major medical organizations that the elective circumcision of minors should be legal, within the purview of medical professionals, and to some extent should yield to parental choice". Thanks.Stix1776 (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This appears, in the end, to be a debate over whether Royal Dutch Medical Association should count as a "major medical organization". If it is, then they can say "all major medical organizations except RDMA", and if it isn't, then they can say "all major medical organizations".
 * WP:MEDORG does not name any physicians' associations as examples of major health organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not just about the Royal Dutch Medical Association. The source in question doesn’t say “major medical organizations” or “consensus”, so there are WP:OR concerns with the current wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prcc27 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not entirely accurate. Bolnick et al. says that it will 'outline the current recommendations from the major medical organizations' at the beginning of the chapter, and at the end of the chapter discusses what was common between the policy statements that were reviewed. Also, the RDMA has stronger words than most, but even they don't support banning it outright. - MrOllie (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I've sort of lost the stomach for the circumcision article, having edited for years - which mostly consists of pushing back against tenacious activists. As I recall, the Royal Dutch Medical Association made some anti-circumcision comments a decade or so ago and so there has always been a push to showcase these with loving care. As a physicians' association their view is probably undue. Alexbrn (talk) 19:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd really appreciate if someone could decide if the article text is OR or not. I feel like the Dutch thing is a bit of a distraction. Stix1776 (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It might be a distraction, but it is a perennial distraction, and permanently resolving that question might solve several others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Well I appreciate any advice and opinions you give on the matter. Stix1776 (talk) 02:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)