Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Edit with VisualEditor

See samples at High-dose_estrogen#Side_effects, breaching MOS:DONTHIDE. Permalink. Too many of these for me to fix. They shouldn't be collapsed, and they would probably be better if right-justified. They are all over the estrogen-related articles. They are being created by AmazingCosima and @Medgirl131:. They may also be using sources (primary) incorrectly (in this case, the template is plopping a primary study in to multiple articles and may need to be deleted.) Some of them may also be creating WP:NOT (advice) or WP:UNDUE issues. If anyone can take this on, we'll need a list. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I came across these lovely, no informative, no useful... okay they're just bad templates - when I was working on depot injection. They are so contrary to what Wikipedia is for - WP:INDISCRIMINATE applies here too I think. For depot injection I just pulled the references in those templates that I figured had information applicable to the article, verified, and "prosified" the information. Most of the information is not useful in articles, and it's definitely not useful as a template. The information should ideally be subst:ed into each article using it, and then immediately replaced with prose versions of only the applicable information to that specific article. I'm sorry to say, however, that after how long it took me to get through the Template:ATC navboxes project I had, I'm not really ready to take on another big project like this. Heck, even that project is never going to be truly finished, as there's probably hundreds of drug articles with multiple ATC codes that apply, thus needing multiple ATC navboxes, which don't yet use the wrapper (which makes it easier to see in the edit window as well, in addition to making the bottom of the article a little cleaner). I'll definitely continue to provide input here if I can, just can't see myself taking this on right now at least. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 20:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my, there are many many of these templates at Estradiol_(medication) and Estrogen (medication) now. I also feel they're not appropriate for encyclopedia articles. Most of them are tables of data that would be uninterpretable to most readers. Some are lists of products, dosage recommendations, et al. that should either be made into prose or are too detailed for the article they're in. For a particularly extreme example see Estrogen_(medication)#Pharmacodynamics. Ajpolino (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Estrogen (medication) is an example of how extreme this problem is; a whole boatload of hidden templates scattered throughout the entire article. I think all of these templates need to be sent to TfD, but I'm no good at AfD, much less TfD. Best I can do for now is remove them when I encounter them. We don't write articles this way; I wonder where Medgirl131 and AmazingCosima got the idea to do this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are about 169 such templates. They are here: Category:Medication templates. In my personal opinion, apart from "Don't hide", many of these templates are rich in content derived from primary sources, which I believe is likely to violate WP:MEDRS as well as potentially WP:NOT a directory / textbook. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We need to deal with these, they are out of control, I am encountering them everywhere, is anyone aware of any place where their use is appropriate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Every one of the 169 templates at Category:Medication templates that I have glanced at so far use primary sources. They are inserted into articles in breach of WP:DONTHIDE. And they are used in ways that are UNDUE and even off topic in most places I have checked. Their use is basically marring a huge number of articles. They are basically the work of AmazingCosima and @Medgirl131:, pinged several weeks ago to this discussion, but who have not responded here. Many of us here believe the lot of them need to go to TFD. Does anyone disagree? That is, can anyone locate a correct and well-sourced and DUE and appropriate use of any one of these templates? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a heads up - I have fixed a few Medication pharmacology articles with duplicate reference names like this. Such articles now rely on citations that are transcluded via the templates, so mass template deletion may produce a red "Cite error: The named reference (pmid…) was invoked but never defined" message in the ref section of those articles. CV9933 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:CV9933 - I'm not sure - would the anomie bot (or whichever it is that fixes orphaned ref names) be able to fix those if removed? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status update? If we're all in agreement that everything in that category needs deleted, and nobody wants to take it on, I'm happy to pose a batch deletion request similar to what I did for the ICD10 copyvio lists, and I can follow up on comments/concerns with individual templates thereafter. In fact, given how little time I've had to work on my pet project of injection articles recently (COVID is spiking here leading to a lot of calls/extra work for me), this may just be something I can handle right now. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:29, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunate that User:Medgirl131 is unwilling or unable to make a talk page comment here, as they are such a prolific contributor, and it is clear to me that a lot of effort has gone into creating those templates. However, in the absence of an explanation, we need to have assurance that they won’t recreate and implement them. I would say off to TFD with them, and article cite repair can be dealt with, as and when required. CV9933 (talk) 08:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Berchanhimez/HIDE - I'm using this page to record the results of my perusal through Category:Medication templates. If the template has only a few transclusions and/or is a blatant violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I'm removing them all. If it may have some use, I'm either fixing the templates so they aren't hidden, substituting them into the article (if it's only useful for one article), or leaving them in my various "holding pens". -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully nobody minds, but I formatted the categorization (to take a break from acutally categorizing/working on the templates) so it transcludes nicely here. Okay, so I fully understand the irony of using hidden containers to hold the template lists in... but they're huge. I was able to power through the A, BCD, and EFG sections a bit earlier. I tried to divide the category up into subsections of about equal numbers of templates, so that ideally if anyone has time they can assist in the process. I'm not starting TFDs or anything yet on any of the "can be deleted" templates, but just the sheer number of templates in that section should show how large this problem is - I'd really appreciate any help categorizing and delinking as appropriate that anyone feels they can provide. Thanks :) -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I've gotten through the ones starting with H as of last night.. but I can't bring myself to do any more tonight. I'll note that Medgirl131 has an editnotice on their talkpage that they prefer not posting on talk pages onwiki because of privacy concerns of some kind - so we should likely not expect a response here unless someone is able to start an email conversation with her. If anyone can assist with these templates I'd greatly appreciate it, especially with "final clean up" of the ones that are in "can be deleted" category. If not, I'll keep chugging along when I feel up to it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 05:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you scroll down to the ref section here it is turning into a sea of red as there are many named reference errors. I suspect that when the templates are substituted as they have been here, the corresponding cites (PMID1150068) for example, contain slightly different information. Of course it's fixable but I expect we are going to see a lot more of this. These errors usually flag up here CV9933 (talk) 21:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CV9933:I noticed that too... which is part of the reason I paused. I’m not intentionally causing more work, but it is much easier and manageable to do this repetitively if I move from one template to the next... if I stop and fix all the mistakes, then it gets much more annoying to do. This isn’t even to mention that as you say many of these errors are likely to crop back up after more templates are substituted/altered. I will be more than happy to go back and fix it all and in fact I do plan to, but I think it’s best in more ways than one to just wait until all templates that are taken care of are. This is compounded because substitution isn’t the only problem, I’ve also been fixing the references in templates that aren’t removed or substituted altogether - before, the references were “see template” and didn’t show in the articles it was transcluded in at all. Unfortunately, that also is going to make some of these errors fun to fix. I may be able to power through categorizing and “fixing” another section of the alphabet or two tonight, but if someone else wants to help it would be faster and greatly appreciated. Alternatively, if I don’t feel up to the repetitive work of categorizing/fixing I may just go ahead and try to look for and fix errors that arose, even if they’ll need more fixing later on. To note, there’s also been some orphaned names occasionally if I remember right, but anomiebot or whichever it is seems to have no problem fixing those itself. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort that you have put in. The problem is, when a bot identifies two ref-names with different content, it doesn't know which one is correct, so the fix requires a manual edit. I have fixed the errors I mentioned above and I will keep an eye out for any that crop up related to this issue. CV9933 (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have more than a thousand articles associated with the translation task force (link here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force). Full list here: [1]. These articles seem to be copied lead statements and most haven't been edited since creation eg here. This has come to my attention whilst doing my template survey (as many templates that have been discussed are used on those articles).

I have a number of concerns about these pages

• They are not maintained, meaning content can be inaccurate and out of date
• They appear to be part of our encyclopedia, when in fact they are unmaintained content forks
• They are indexed by search engines
• The forks are needless and redundant content forks (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) that are not temporary
• They are all titled "Simple", which is also a fork of the simple English Wikipedia
• They do not reflect our current consensus. For example Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/Simple Desmopressin and the recent drug pricing discussions.
• Content is copied and pasted without attribution to original authors
• Maintaining these wastes a lot of valuable editor time (particularly the gnoming editors updating templates, citation styles etc).
• They are out of date, often by some years, which poses a risk to the communities and readers of the non English wikipedias where they are translated into.

With regard to Wiki med translation task force

It's clearly a very worthy goal and a great effort has gone in. However, the translation task force really seems to relate to WP MED foundation which is a meta organisation and should more appropriately be based there, in my opinion. Additionally, the large amount of extra wiki collaboration which, whilst wonderful, means that is very difficult for our local English Wikipedia project per se to be that involved short of relying on the people who are making those collaborative efforts. To become involved at the leadership level will clearly require speaking with specific editors and forming off-wiki relationships with those organisations. This gated community / ownership model is, I do not think, compatible with a local language based WikiProject, which in my understanding are generally flat in organisation, composed of volunteers, and have work that goes on relating to their local language.

I have some questions for everyone:

• Are we as a local EN WP still maintaining this task force?
• Should this content be moved to WP Med foundation on meta?
• What should we do with these articles? (Should we deindex them from search engines, mark them as historical, or just delete them?)

I'd like to hear what other editors think about this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately both the editors who were involved in this work have not been editing for months - Doc James and CFCF. JFW | T@lk 08:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JFW, that isn't entirely true: James edited Ringer's lactate solution a week ago, and has made two dozen edits in August. He's also been active on Commons and Meta. I'm sure he is aware of this post by Tom (LT) and really should comment on it, since he created every single one of those 1200 pages and is still on the WMF board representing the English Wikipedia community.

As for "WP Med foundation on meta", the pages there have been snipped out and redirect now to Wiki Project Med Foundation on MD Wiki. The MD Wiki home page claims that wiki is "home to Wiki Project Med Foundation". The Meta pages are now just a shell. It very much appears that "Wiki Project Med Foundation" have moved off of Wikipedia to their own Wiki, and that the "Translation task force", which is a sub-project of that group, has moved too. As Tom notes, these "simple leads" do not reflect current community consensus on issues such as drug pricing, and it appears that one of the purposes of MD Wiki is to deviate from the Wikipedia community on areas such as drug pricing, drug dosage information, restrictions against -ND and -NC Creative Commons licences for media, and being open for anyone to edit. The MD Wiki site has now "limited visability of the article space" due to copyright problems with attribution, but if these "simple leads" have not yet been copied over, I'm sure they soon can be.

There seems to be no point to keep the content on en:wp. As Tom says, none of them were ever maintained wrt medical content but waste the time of wiki gnomes who go about fixing things and don't spot that these aren't actually articles on Wiki namespace. Readers may accidentally find them on Google. But most importantly, every single one of them is a copyright violation, including those created just last September. I suggest a deletion discussion is appropriate at this point. -- Colin°^Talk 09:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have received an email from DocJames that confirms these articles aren't in use by the RTT anymore. I've nominated five for deletion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force/RTT/SimpleAmoxicillin/clavulanic acid. If that set is successful I'll propose a second batch deletion of the remainder. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:12, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (LT), the MfD has now been closed as delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Premediated Chaos. I've created the nomination relating to all the articles here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Translation task force forks. Is there an automated way to tag all the articles? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser is probably the easiest way. There's a browser-based version atUser:Joeytje50/JWB, if you don't want to fuck around with downloading and learning a whole program. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking this on, Tom (LT). Considering the response from James, would it not be more expedient just to go ahead and have your MFD list all of them?

More importantly, at some point, WP:MED might hold a conversation about examining and re-aligning our goals and priorities back towards a focus on content ON the English Wikipedia (it had become too focused on spreading content OFF the English Wikipedia, while content ON the English Wikipedia deteriorated). This might entail some restructuring of the main page of the Project at WP:MED, and the ongoing new look at WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS; all three became a bit out of whack as WPMED became more externally focused, and there is much work to be done towards regaining a focus on improving English Wikipedia content, and reaching out to new editors, making our Project pages more friendly. Many of our FAs aren't, and I imagine most of our GAs aren't either, as too many topics went outdated as only leads were maintained for purposes of translation. I em encouraged by seeing good progress in all three of these directions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I am in a bit of a cautious Wikipedia mood at the moment and my overall feeling is that instead of expending lots of effort making large sudden changes, I prefer to expend an appropriate amount of effort to test the waters first.

With regard to your comments about EN WP, I do agree. A lot of really great collaboration has gone on, but I think the boundaries between off-ENWP collaboration (which really relates to WP MEDF) and our local EN WP has become blurred. WPMEDF does great work, and I think that there is absolutely room for both, but that having some clearer boundaries will also refocus discussion and attention locally on article space rather than the broader WPMEDF work.

Third comment regarding MEDRS and MEDMOS - as we've mentioned previously, I also think it would be worth making them leaner, and moving some content to explanatory supplements instead of the actual guideline text. Smaller guidelines are easier for editors to follow, and explanatory supplements are helpful to help newer editors understand the why and how a bit more. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When large numbers of pages are involved, then a smaller discussion at MFD is often helpful as a starting point. It helps people get oriented to the subject without being overwhelmed by the number of links or worrying that they'll miss something.

I'm not sure what kind of goals this group might set. It's possible that creating and maintaining FAs is not where the group's main interest lies this year, especially with this pandemic going on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the sort of thing we need to discuss :) Long story short, should I just run all the out-of-compliance FAs through WP:FAR and have them defeatured? I think not-- I'd rather see us build up resources and save a few of them-- particularly the high pageview ones, like polio and autism. But much more urgent is to get the WP:MED page to a point that it can actually be helpful to newbie editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recently read a book (Shockwave: Countdown to Hiroshima) which was good but didn't really say much about how the Bomb was designed. So I turned to the Wikipedia App on my mobile and spent a couple of hours reading articles on atomic bomb design. I learned about the two types that were developed and dropped on Japan, why one had plutonium and one had uranium, that a hydrogen bomb actually contains lithium and that most of the blast energy from it is from fission and not fusion, and so on. It was all fairly readable. Not perfect by a long way, and I don't think any were featured articles, though some may have been decades ago.

Wikipedia serves all sorts of purpose, from just answering a "What is X?" question to explaining to a parent about a disease that is going to dominate their family's life from now on. My wife looked up Mary Somerville after seeing her on a Scottish banknote, and ended up reading the whole article. I think we should aim to satisfy the reader's initial question that got them to English Wikipedia, and then to grab them and hold onto them to make them want to continue to read the article and related topics. I don't think our goal needs be more specific than that (e.g. 8 FAs per year). We can't force people to write about subjects they aren't passionate about, but we can create an environment where those that do are supported (e.g. peer review, copy editing, advice).

I don't think our aim should be to just continue dumping more low-quality factoids into articles just because we found a source that is free, online and contains 300 medical facts that we could add. That approach just leads to Wikipedia being a very low-quality resource for information, where people just read a few lines of the lead, or skim the article to try to find the information you were looking for among all the other random stuff, or read the other Google Search results that were written professionally. See Broken windows theory: an article that is just a random collection of facts about a topic just encourages more accumulation of random stuff and discourages quality writing. Like the student work, which is of variable quality, but worst when the students are adding more facts to an article that has already have several years of students dumping facts into it. We saw above a discussion from someone adding facts to an article full of unsourced or badly sourced facts and wondering why their fact got reverted and all the others kept. And I think the project got way way too focused on ensuring every article fit some straightjacket MEDMOS structure that our readers could not care less about. -- Colin°^Talk 10:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone think we might prevail if we suggested to the Wiki Ed people that they might re-orient student editors towards working on articles and lists supplied by us? That would be so much more helpful than cleaning up after students who drop less than useful content into articles on obscure niche topics. Imagine if we could ask a course to upgrade all the primary sources in article X to secondary, or write an epidemiology section for article Y, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it might be worth a try. Of the recent student edits I reviewed, Infant mortality is the one that has had six student classes in the last three years, and each class dump more into it. The coronavirus section is particularly desperate. That important subject needs the article quality improved and shortened. In contrast, the students took Epignathus from this stub to this modest article. The result isn't going to pass any award but is a very good first attempt. And while the topic might be very rare, it is going to be really important to some unfortunate family.

I have mentioned before in an email to someone, my thoughts on the Commons Photo Challenge. Sometimes people request topics that they feel Commons lacks images or concern some issue of great importance to them. Other times the topic is wide open, merely suggesting "rural decay" or "shadows" for example. The ideas are discussed and voted on and the person running it picks some each month. This month's challenge shows the difference in approach with themes on "Mobility aids for the handicapped" and "Nature's blues" and you can probably guess which topic will get the most and best entries and that people will really enjoy reviewing and awarding points for. I'm not saying PC shouldn't have a "mobility aids" challenge, but if it was all that sort of "worthy" approach, then the challenge wouldn't have been popular for seven years and attract a lot of newbies to Commons. I wonder if "infant mortality" is falling into the "worthy" trap, with mediocre results, and "Epignathus" was more of a serendipitous find.

I think the students (and their teachers) do need directed better to what to pick but should we be the ones choosing or would it be better to provide some guide on "How to pick an article subject for students" with general advice? -- Colin°^Talk 16:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have tried over and over and over to improve our guidance to students and profs, and neither seem to read it. More is not better. Time to try something new.

Back to the subject of why I keep harping on FAs, is the autism example. Autism and Asperger syndrome are among our most highly viewed medical topics, and for over a decade after cleaning up a significant walled garden with Eubulides, we maintained the suite in good condition. Now the entire suite has fallen prey to advocacy editing again, and no one seems to care. When we lose Featured articles, the entire suite goes to heck. I don't keep bringing up FAs because they matter more than other content, but when the best quality and lead article at the autism suite goes, they all go. The entire suite is going back to the advocacy walled garden it was before Eubulides brought them to top status. WPMED has ignored the suite, and advocates are creating an UNDUE mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you care about page views, then we should be working on pandemic-related articles (and Suicide methods). Autism is #105 on the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages. The article about COVID-19 in the US, which is #3, gets 10 times as many page views each day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather encourage students to work on an obscure article than try to edit articles like Eating disorder or Abortion.

There's another science writing class starting, and I am almost tempted to ask them to work on cleaning up the country-specific COVID-19 articles, which need both updated sources and copyediting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Highly viewed" is only one aspect of an article that might guide someone to focusing their attention and care. The list is a little bizarre with Stella Immanuel at #12 who only got an article on 29th July and notable for one weird event and will likely drop off the chart completely in September. Many of the top entries are more about people in the news or current affairs (coronavirus in the UK/US/India/etc) which is more politics than medicine. COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is really not imo a Wikimedicine article. All the sources are journalism. That article is more akin to 2020 United States presidential election and 2020 United States Postal Service crisis. Asperger syndrome is pretty high up at #27 for a disease that doesn't officially exist any longer. Lung cancer is at 994 yet is the biggest cancer killer in men and #2 in women. So, really, lots of these topics are "highly viewed". Btw I followed the link to User:West.andrew.g/Popular medical pages and this doesn't seem to be updated past Jan 2020. But the order of entries is very different, suggesting quite a "hot topic" effect on the list, which isn't necessarily the way an encyclopaedia should focus its effort. -- Colin°^Talk 17:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had removed the west.andrew popular list from our mainpage here, and added a more current list? The west.andrew version is no longer maintained. I have avoided our COVID debacle as much as possible; agree, they are mostly laypress, not medicine, and wish most of the lot could be deleted per NOTNEWS and all of the non-MEDRS content dealt with. I sincerely regret that any person is seeking COVID information from Wikipedia. Ack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Wikipedia's coronavirus coverage has been widely praised. "Wikipedia has received numerous fawning headlines for dealing masterfully with the proliferation of coronavirus information." Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:24, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

very good --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a whole lotta commentary on that article, and now it won't let me see it ... paywalled after first view. Anyway, my summary was, not a lot of factual reporting, mostly regurgitating what his/her interviewees believe to be the case. Most of our COVID coverage is not medical, and most of it is not by medical editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, wrt the science writing class, the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States is probably more of a social science topic or a politics topic with a medical flavour. It depends what the class is hoping to learn about. If they are hoping to write about something medicine or disease or biological science, using appropriate MEDRS or professional textbooks, then those are not the articles they want to touch. On the other hand, the top coronavirus medical articles (disease, virus, etc) can be a battleground that I wouldn't steer any newbie towards unless they want to have their Wikipedia experience abbreviated by a hot headed admin applying their idea of arbitration enforcement. I don't have a strong opinion about the coronavirus articles on Wikipedia. I think they need/attract the kind of editor with more time on their hands than I have. For what it is worth, I have never once felt the need to consult Wikipedia about anything coronavirus related. Like everyone else here, I have lived with it dominating our lives for nine months. I get reliable news (half an hour of BBC news at 10pm and subscription to The Guardian) which keeps me up-to-date with more than enough information. I have colleagues and friends to chat with about it and family members who are involved up to their eyeballs in a professional medical capacity. I suspect are probably kidding ourselves that those who get their news from Facebook and follow Trump on twitter are going to get properly educated about it on Wikipedia. It is important, but in terms of deaths in the UK, so is stroke and so is lung cancer, and both of those will continue to be important causes of death in 2021 and 2022 and 2023... -- Colin°^Talk 09:50, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that if you want to write about biological subjects, then learning how to accurately and precisely explain the various statistics and epidemiological concepts would be a valuable educational experience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But learning to or assessing if a student can "accurately and precisely explain the various statistics and epidemiological concepts" doesn't require Wikipedia. At least with stroke and lung cancer, your incidence and mortality figures are likely to be accurate for longer than 24 hours. If you want student editors to feel like their contribution mattered, then steer away from "in the news" articles. In the UK, we have a saying that today's news is wrapping tomorrows fish and chips. -- Colin°^Talk 21:35, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do we actually know what the goals of any of the profs are when they choose medical topics ? I wonder if Wiki Ed even does. At times, it's a prof pushing a personal agenda. At times, it's a prof using Wikipedians as TAs to teach students better writing skills. At times, it's unclear. Maybe we could get a better sense of how student medical editing could be less intrusive and more beneficial if Wiki Ed could give us some insight into the goals of the profs, other than getting a whole ton of free teacher assistants to do their correcting and instructing. It would be wonderful to see good student editing, and to see student editors stick around to learn from all the effort we have to put into correcting their articles. Keep your eyes on Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/University of Minnesota/Geomorphology (Fall 2020) by Awickert, who has three FAs and is an awesome Wikipedian. He could give us some ideas, but he is not by any means a typical prof ... he will be one of two highly prepared and knowledgeable profs to take on student editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the University of Edinburgh are to run a Wikipedia research session for Honours students on the Reproductive Medicine BSc course on the mornings of 23rd and 30th September 2020. The course leaders have identified the following reproductive medicine topics they would like the students to work in group to research and help improve/add to Wikipedia:

• Horse ovary
• Artificial ovary
• Testis organoid (although potentially there maybe currently too little secondary literature)
• Luteolysis (in human, sheep and cow)
• Bisphenol S (page exists (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_S) but could be expanded: comparison to BPA could be made more clearly and the extent of its role as an endocrine disruptor can be expanded, a quick search has brought up at least 6 review articles.
• Endogenous ovine jaagsiekte retrovirus (new page to link to Jaagsiekte retrovirus)

If anyone has time to comment on these selections just to review they would make sense or have suggestions about the approach we are taking and the best way of curating this content also then do let me know. Many thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 10:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for working to build new content. Some comments regarding the new page proposals; regarding:

• Horse ovary, why not build a section in Ovary#Other animals then split if the page becomes unbalanced?
• Testis organoid, why not build a section in Organoid#Types, as is the case for Gut organoid and Lingual organoid
• Endogenous ovine jaagsiekte retrovirus, why not build on Jaagsiekte sheep retrovirus?

Klbrain (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Klbrain, have passed this feedback on! All very useful pertinent points. Cheers, Stinglehammer (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope I'm not stating the obvious, but have you looked at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Education_program/Educators ? --Talpedia (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, assuredly. In addition to above pages we also are looking at working on the following:

• Endothelin 2 - Currently very short page - to be expanded - secondary literature available.
• Testicular Tissue Cryopreservation - suggest generating a new page for this, as has been done for "oocyte cryopreservation", "ovarian tissue cryopreservation, and "embryo cryopreservation".
• Nanos Gene Family - Currently no page.
• Reproductive toxicity – there is a wiki page but it could do with considerable updating/expanding.
• Germ Cell Migration - there is some information on this under the ‘germ cell’ wiki page but there are a lot of citations missing and this could be expanded upon quite considerably, possibly in its own wiki page?
  Any thoughts on these suggested pages to work on are very welcome. Thanks, Stinglehammer (talk) 14:46, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couple more suggestions too...

• Resumption of Meiosis - either stand-alone or under Meiosis
• Expand the 'Fertility' subsection of the Centriole page. Currently just two sentences. Any thoughts on above then let me know, Stinglehammer (talk) 15:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. Can you tell me if IHME is a reliable source? The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation model has been used along with dozens of others by the US government to project outcomes. It has been widely cited and widely criticized. This is for COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. I did not find it listed in the archives here or at the reliable sources noticeboard. Thank you in advance. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusanLesch, I think the answer to the question you asked is "it depends". Is this maybe more of a WP:Due weight question than a verifiability one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe so. It is clearly not a source of fringe theory. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Due weight" is always a more complicated discussion than verifiability. It works best when everyone in the discussion has read all the sources, but there's no way to make editors do that.

Looking at the COI allegations on the talk page, I wonder whether the rejection of IHME might be a more suitable discussion for someone who hangs out at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. Posted at fringe theories. -SusanLesch (talk) 19:42, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SusanLesch- It depends on what you mean by reliable. Their projections are generally not considered *scientifically* reliable because they essentially do curve fitting which is a pretty naive approach that would never make it into a peer reviewed journal. They are however a legitimate organisation, it's just that they hired programmers and tried to get them to do epidemiology, instead of trying to get epidemiologists to make websites. Ah well :). If you're trying to solve a scientific question, I would not put them on the same level as any academic source.Mvolz (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've proposed changing the page name of Paediatric multisystem inflammatory syndrome to Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children. Since I've no idea how controversial this suggestion may prove, I've also set out my reasoning in some rather tedious detail, along with a straightforward tl;dr. Opinions welcome here. 86.190.132.245 (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Course: Keene State College/PSYC 345 Abnormal Psychology (Fall 2020)

Dates: 25 August – 4 December

Just getting started; only these assigned so far:

• Atomoxetine
• Body dysmorphic disorder
• Major depressive episode
• Phobia
• Separation anxiety disorder

Mathglot (talk) 08:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This one is huge already: Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Northern Arizona University/Writing in the Biological Sciences 006 (Fall 2020).

(Ian (Wiki Ed) Dengue fever is an FA. It is outdated, so if they plan to specifically deal with the outdated portions, good, otherwise ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak and Casliber: you might want to watch some of those articles, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And there are many more Fall courses by the same professor; click on her userpage. Memdmarti one for you at Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Northern Arizona University/Writing in the Biological Sciences 011 (Fall 2020). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, SandyGeorgia! I left User talk:Jdp443 a message Diff. OK?Memdmarti (talk) 03:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SandyGeorgia et al. Helaine spoke to the instructor about this when her students started assigning themselves obviously unsuitable articles, and they instructor said that they were doing this as part of their evaluation exercise. This is obviously not what the article assignment tool is for since (a) it makes it really difficult for me to catch the actual inappropriate assignments, and (b) since it tags pages, it's going to mislead people and waste volunteer resources. I should have posted here about the class (and I apologise for not thinking of that). I was off for a few days, and I'm playing catch-up.

It was already on my agenda to follow up with the instructor today or tomorrow. Thanks for the ping. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Fixing my broken ping @SandyGeorgia. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks, Ian (Wiki Ed); please note that I have also fixed a typo in this section heading, in case you have referenced it anywhere. I have reviewed some of this course's past work, and am concerned. It involves, once again, a professor who has not once, ever, edited a Wikipedia article, teaching large numbers of students affecting large numbers of articles. There are now eight courses from this professor listed for Fall 2020 at User:Asinger333; how many students overall will be involved, and once they get the article links corrected on their course pages, how many articles will there be? Is this institution switching to more online courses just as Wiki Ed staff has been reduced, and how can we handle this kind of volume with reduced Wiki Ed staff? I am already seeing more than WPMED participants will be able to help you with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia: Given our obvious limitations, we're supporting fewer classes, and asking quite a few instructors to have their students keep their work in their sandboxes, at least until it can be reviewed by me. Given the number of students in this class, and the fact that some of them were interested in working on medical topics, this is one of the classes we've asked to stay in sandboxes.

I expect that some students will make a few small edits in mainspace, but not their main contributions. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian (Wiki Ed): thanks for all the work you did to clean those out, but they are starting back ... see dengue fever. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:46, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This claim is not supported by WP:MEDRS. Could perhaps someone help out in this conflict? Thank you. --Saidmann (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where is that quotation from? MEDLINE indexing is not absolutely required, although its absence can be indicative of a less-than-top-tier source which might need be to used (if at all) with care depending on what text it is being cited for. Things like treatment efficacy, for example, would likely raise a WP:REDFLAG is this was the only source that could be found making a claim. Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I re-wrote the symptoms section of Coronavirus disease 2019 a while ago. I'm willing to do another section, but I'm having trouble settling on a section, and there are So. Many. Sources. Does anyone have any recommendations? It was super helpful last time to get a short list of good reviews. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend UpToDate. You'll typically need to access it through a library that maintains a paid subscription. Most Medical School Libraries have one. Jaredroach (talk) 16:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is with regret that MEDMOS is again being mis-cited as a rational to arbitrarily re-order sections in articles. MEDMOS states "The following lists of suggested sections are intended to help structure a new article or when an existing article requires a substantial rewrite. Changing an established article simply to fit these guidelines might not be welcomed by other editors." Today the cosmetic/fashion article Moisturizer was re-ordered with "MEDMOS" given as the edit summary. MEDMOS has always discouraged reordering article sections in existing articles. Further, the vast majority use of moisturiser is as an everyday skincare rather than medical treatment. The reorder didn't make any sense, with the article's present form since a rewrite in 2018 having a "Description" section up-front. The article isn't great, but it requires more effort to improve it than just reordering and renaming section headings. The MEDMOS sections are intended to guide (not require) authors when writing new material, and not to authorise editors to chuck the article content in a tumble-dryer and randomly reorder things. Please, lets not have any more of this disruptive and non-consensus approach to editing. Editors making major changes to articles, such as a reorder, should first seek consensus on the article talk page. -- Colin°^Talk 20:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Colin! Is the added section separation at Diff OK? -- Memdmarti (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you're keeping up with your watchlist these days, please put Talk:Intravenous sugar solution#This page, as written, endangers the lives of patients with an IgE-mediated allergy to corn; and should be removed or edited. on your watchlist. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At True hermaphroditism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), CycoMa wants to use rarediseases.org as a source. And I see that it's used in other medical articles.

Thoughts? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC) ‎[reply]

There's links at the bottom of the article to its references - which at first glance at least a couple look like they'd be solid MEDRS's - let's encourage that imo. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t think I don’t see you mentioning me. CycoMa (talk) 02:39, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CycoMa, of course you see this. Flyer pinged you so that you would see this discussion.

Flyer, NORD and Eurodis are the two most important organizations for rare diseases in the world. You can use information from either of those websites to support basic, non-controversial descriptive information about rare diseases. I suggest treating them like you'd treathttps://medlineplus.gov. They're not the single best or "fanciest" source in the world, but they're good enough for most purposes. In particular, I'd have no qualms about citing them for whether something's rare disease (correctly identifying that is core to their work) and whether it's genetic (vs acquired). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't use either NORD or the source mentioned in the section immediately below this for material like "signs and symptoms" or "causes." And we can see what these sources were used for in the True hermaphroditism article. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 15:59, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is one of those cases in which, if you want an "ideal" source, then you need to swap in a better source instead of blanking content. For example, PMID 25105460 also mentions that 500 cases have been reported. The point of MEDRS is to get the sentences right, not to have fancy citations that 99.7% of readers don't look at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not wanting some low-quality source for "signs and symptoms" and "causes" information is not about wanting a fancy citation. I have used WebMD and MedlinePlus sources in articles in the past, and I'm not strongly opposed to using such sources (for basic facts). As you may remember from the WP:MEDRS talk page, I've pointed to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources in support of using WebMD. But I'm not going to use MedlinePlus and WebMD for "signs and symptoms" and "causes" information, especially given that I'm more experienced at editing medical articles (and in general) than I was a few years ago. You mentioned "non-controversial." I don't consider "signs and symptoms" and "causes" (especially "causes") information non-controversial. And either way, whether NORD can be reasonably compared to MedlinePlus and WebMD, we should not be settling for such sources for information like that. We also shouldn't be encouraging newbies or other relatively inexperienced editors to state "Hey, I'm adding this source. And if you want it gone, then add a better one." We should be encouraging newbies or other relatively inexperienced editors to do better. Pointing them to the part of WP:ONUS that states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." and asking them on the article talk page (or here) to look for better sources with respect to WP:MEDRS is a start. If they can't find them, then maybe the lower-quality source(s) should remain in the meantime. The point of MEDRS is not simply to get the sentences right. WP:MEDRS doesn't even focus on getting sentences right. And it's not like we go by WP:Truth. One point of WP:MEDRS, made clear right in its lead second paragraph (and then throughout), is to use quality sourcing. Not unnecessarily settling for lower-quality sources is one way I improved as an editor. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree that it's a "low-quality source".

I also don't agree that ONUS is meant to apply to situations in which the source is "reliable" but not "ideal", and you want "ideal".

Wikipedia has a very strong consensus that there should be information about symptoms, causes, and epidemiology in articles about medical conditions. If someone's doing his best to get that information in the article, and your only complaint is about what's between the ref tags, then I encourage you to swap in a citation that you find more satisfactory.

Now if it's more of a WP:Due weight situation (e.g., one source says the surprisingly high rates in people of African descent is probably genetic and another says it's probably due to environmental factors), then the relative quality of the citations matters. But when it's a question of "500 reported cases [ref 1]" vs "500 reported cases [ref 2]", I don't think that removing the "500 reported cases" part is the correct response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I stated I also stated "lower-quality source." Compared to what WP:MEDRS outlines in its second paragraph, it is a lower-quality source. But as for it being low-quality? I'd call it that as well.

WP:ONUS absolutely applies in this case since the content is disputed. WP:ONUS is not about allowing content as long as it's reliable (borderline or otherwise). In fact, it makes abundantly clear that it's not about that. And I was already clear that this matter isn't about wanting an ideal source. Not solely about that anyway. I was concerned about a poor source being used. While we can debate whether or not these two sources are poor, they are lower-quality sources. Should an ideal source be used instead? Well, like I stated, it depends on what is available. Also, what is an ideal source can be subjective even with WP:MEDRS listing more than one type of ideal source. Some editors will consider a review ideal, but not an academic book source. Others will state that, while review articles are higher-quality sources, a systematic review is ideal for whatever being discussed. My point is that we should at least do better for information about signs and symptoms and causes. Information about what causes a disorder, disease, or other medical affliction, are often controversial, as is clear by the recent debate that took place at the Suicide article. WP:MEDRS doesn't at all state, "Oh, just go with the poorer source for no good reason." It has exceptions for going with lower-quality sources. It doesn't at all encourage editors to settle for the lower-quality source. It doesn't encourage editors to do just enough to get by. It validly encourages us to look for ideal sources. Editors commonly point out that WP:MEDRS has a higher standard for sourcing medical information. This is true. And for good reason. If we want to relax WP:MEDRS on that matter, then let's go ahead and do that instead of telling editors, "You just do you. If a significantly experienced editor challenges you on that, just thumb your nose at them and tell them to add better sourcing themselves." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with WhatamIdoing. The text added seems uncontroversial and the source used is absolutely fine: written by an expert in the field, citing sources used, and published on a website with a reputation for being reliable. If you were aiming at FA then perhaps you'd want something else, but only to avoid nit picking. I certainly see no reason to revert or edit war over this. Wrt reverting other people's good faith edits and acceptable sources, "I wouldn't use" is not a consideration. -- Colin°^Talk 10:52, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You stated "seems uncontroversial." But, again, signs and symptoms information, and especially causes information, is often subject to debate. And I've seen low-quality sources like this get those matters wrong or simplify things to the point where they are not relaying the matter as accurately or comprehensively as they should be. And low-quality sources like this get things wrong more often than high-quality sources do. And on top of that, as seen here and here, this editor has shown to not fully read or comprehend the sources they are adding. I don't even think this editor understands what is controversial information as far as medical content goes on Wikipedia. Plus, editors sometimes disagree on what is or isn't controversial information (medical or otherwise). As seen here, this editor just used a MedlinePlus source to add "Hormone replacement therapy can also reduce the likelihood of osteoporosis." Is that contentious enough to seek out a higher-quality source? Do we call that just a basic fact? A higher-quality source goes a long way in cases where what is controversial is contested. And even with this editor lacking an understanding of sources they add, I don't think the solution is to say, "Instead, go ahead and add those lower-quality sources you understand...or sort of understand." You call these two sources acceptable sources. If the sources are "just acceptable" (meaning borderline okay), we should only default to "acceptable sources" under certain circumstances. And stating that the content in question is non-controversial, and so these two sources are okay for that content, is obviously something we disagree on. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In particular, I'd have no qualms about citing them for whether something's rare disease (correctly identifying that is core to their work) and whether it's genetic (vs acquired).
  The National Organization for Rare Disorders was founded around Tourette syndrome (TS) and the Orphan Drug Act, by the mother of a child with TS (even Wikipedia knows that), so it may not be surprising that I have an opinion about their accuracy. They are also located in Danbury, CT—less than an hour from the premier TS research group in the world, the Yale Child Study Center, so they well and good should know if TS is a rare disease.
  But NORD is a 510 (c)(3) advocacy organization that depends on donations. And although it was well known by the turn of the century that TS was not a rare disorder, and it is often referred to in high-quality literature as "common", NORD continued to list TS as a rare disorder until at least May of 2019. Hallelujah, two decades (at least) after it was known that TS is not rare, they have finally removed it. I wrote the TS article in 2006, knowing then that TS was not rare, so they were 14 years behind even Wikipedia.
  While it pains me greatly to disagree with my esteemed colleagues, NORD cannot be trusted even to identify what is a "rare disease", which is their core mission. They are a biased advocacy organization driven at times by fundraising issues, and I would use them as a source only VERY cautiously to NEVER. Is TS an exception because of the founder effect, where they did not want to offend her? I don't know. But Meyers retired in 2007, yet they still did not update their database. I wonder if it was a residual fundraising issue. But their information on TS was compromised for at least two decades. They are no more trustworthy than any advocacy org in my experience.
  That said, the removed text could have had just the citation removed and replaced by a medical citation needed tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. This is exactly why we should be using higher-quality sources for material such as this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's one disease and one example, which is not really a fair test of a website holding information on, I don't know, thousands of diseases. Each written in collaboration with different experts. I've just read their Tuberous Sclerosis page (another TS!) and frankly, I wish I could copy/paste the text into Wikipedia and I'd be most of the way towards an FA. It is comprehensive and accessible, despite an avalanche of specialist terms needed for this subject, and it seems pretty up-to-date. One might double-check a few of the prevalence figures or want to take the treatment section away from being so United States oriented, but it is really very good and makes me feel really bad about my own efforts on that topic. In contrast I've read plenty low-quality review papers that use out-of-date terminology or are unaware of recent diagnostic or neurological discoveries.

It is all well and good to have a TS lay-expert (either TS) on wiki who is already emersed in the quality literature. For the rest of Wikipedia, we do not have editors who have a special interest in the subject. And plenty editors do not have journal access or a library of professional neurology textbooks to draw on. Another big advantage of an editor using a reader-accessible source like rarediseases vs using a journal article written for neurologists, is that, unless you are a neurologist, then you are going to have to work hard to (a) understand what it is saying and (b) translate that into lay language for our readers. We've all seen student edits where they are using journal papers and clearly don't understand the first word of what they are reading.

Frankly, I smell elitism here, especially that the above comments descended towards personal attack to try to rubbish the ability of another editor. Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia anyone can edit, and if the edit improved the article text, which it did, then I see no reason to remove it just because any one of us here might personally have used another "better" resource. The approach where we revert-remove essentially correct content created in good faith by editors less perfect than ourselves will only end up with a medical Wikipedia edited by one person who thinks they are perfect. Let's not do that. -- Colin°^Talk 10:18, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of that (and recognized that TS may be an exception because of not wanting to offend the founder). But I should also mention that the 2019 archive.org version of Tourette syndrome that I linked above indicates that their content was GROSSLY wrong and outdated as well ... and by more than a decade as well. It reads as if they did not update if for more than ten years. Look at the paragraphs devoted to autosomal dominance (80s to 90s thinking that didn’t pan out), dated thinking on specific genes, grossly off information on medications, and OMG use of the word “uncontrollable”, when suppressibility is part of the TS definition, hence the word unvoluntary. I could go on. We should view this source with caution. Which does not mean we automatically revert anything sourced to it, rather, we look for better sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:22, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw these replies on Tuesday night, but then a hurricane hit just as I was replying. So here's my reply now:

Pointing out that an editor is a newbie or otherwise less experienced and needs more experience editing articles, especially medical articles, is not a WP:Personal attack. It is not "[trying to] rubbish the ability of another editor." It is not any more that than when we comment on this talk page about issues with student editors editing medical articles due to their inexperience. It is not any more a personal attack than an editor noting issues with the editor's edits. I do not think I'm perfect whatsoever. I was clear that "Not unnecessarily settling for lower-quality sources is one way I improved as an editor." I am always improving as an editor, which wouldn't if I believed I was a "perfect person/perfect editor." It is your opinion that the edit improved the article text. But we aren't talking about just one edit anyway. As for the rest of what you've stated? I clearly noted that I've used sources such as WebMed and MedlinePlus. I've supported these types of lay sources for reasons you've stated. Nowhere have I stated that we shouldn't use sources like these for basic facts. But do I think that these sources and those like them should used for "causes" information or any other information that may be subject to debate? No. The NORD link that SandyGeorgia pointed to relays that "The exact cause of Tourette syndrome is currently unknown." And Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources states, "Medical information resources such as WebMD and eMedicine are usually acceptable sources for uncontroversial information; however, as much as possible Wikipedia articles should cite the more established literature directly." So would I use NORD for information about the causes of Tourette syndrome? No. For a debated topic like that, I'm going for the higher-quality source.

If understanding the literature were so hard when reading higher-quality sources, then we wouldn't encourage using higher-quality sources. Academic books are often high-quality sources, as noted by WP:MEDRS, and it's not like they never explain a topic in a way that laypeople will understand. We do not need to settle for lower-quality sources just to understand what we are relaying. I would hate to think what the Circumcision article would look like if editors there simply settled for lower-quality sources. But, thankfully, we have editors like Alexbrn and MrOllie looking out for that article. And, really, per the WP:Competence is required essay, which is often given as a reason by admins for some blocks, an editor meaning well on a topic they do not understand is not always good enough. We do take into account editors' abilities and whether they are editing outside of those abilities. Just because this is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit does not mean that anyone should edit an area they don't understand. I don't care how well-meaning I am, I'm not going to edit a topic I don't understand and muck up the article. That's not about me succumbing to elitism. It's about common sense.

Right now, CycoMa has not a clue what is a good source to use for medical topics, even after being pointed to WP:MEDRS. And the lax approach to his edits displayed in this discussion isn't helping since he often just scours the Internet for whatever it says about a topic. What the lax approach has done has made it so that CycoMa thinks it's fine to add poor sources like this and then ask others to do the work for him if the source doesn't cut it. The editor should be encouraged to do better from the start. What the hell is pathologyoutlines.com, really? Encourage newbies in whatever way you want. Encourage CycoMa to add sources like pathologyoutlines.com. I'll be taking the True hermaphroditism article off my watchlist. And maybe a couple of other sex articles he keeps editing. Others can deal with the cleanup. I've successfully guided plenty of newbies (including student editors) to do better. And I'll stick to doing that since it's worked many times over. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see that the True hermaphroditism article isn't on my watchlist. Good. I won't worry about it anymore. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see several big differences in the examples you've given above.

First, when we discuss student edits, broadly, on a WikiProject page, we are a) often mostly critical of the professor for knowing nothing about how to edit Wikipedia but offering a course on just that; or b) worried that WikiEd doesn't have enough staff to deal with the effects of student editing; and c) discussing edits in broad general terms by what often amounts to paid editors, who almost never know how to or care to follow the broader discussion or return to Wikipedia to repay the favor of our tutoring them. That is, we aren't typically directly impugning a specific editor for not editing at an expert level, as has been done here with CycoMa.

Second, the TS example I give above is not and does not mean NORD does not meet MEDRS for some circumstances. I gave it as an example to counter the notion that it is a superior source, explain that even superior sources are often wrong (I have an even worse example on Tourette's from the New England Journal of Medicine) when like all sources, editor discussion and consensus apply as to what sources to use for what purposes in different articles. I hope we don't expect all editors to have the in-depth knowledge about sources on one topic that is at Featured level.

Besides that, if MEDRS doesn't explain things clearly enough to "give a clue", that is our fault (all of us) for having let the page stray over the last five years, to the point of being barely useful and also to the point of being used as a bludgeon rather than a guideline for discussing and helping find best sources, which are context dependent. That is what is happening here, and I am very concerned about the tone CycoMa has been exposed to in the whole paragraph about "CycoMa has not a clue". Wikipedia is about collaboration, and this does not look like appropriately taking an opportunity to explain to a new-ish user how different sources may or may not be best in different contexts. I had hoped that the TS example would do that, and I am sorry if I failed. Hermaphroditism is not Tourette's, and is not a Featured article, and I see a good-faith editor citing a MEDRS source but being taken to task for doing just that. At a time when we should be focused on recruiting and retaining editors who at least cite MEDRS-compliant sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, regarding the student editing discussion I pointed to, different problems were highlighted. Of course, it starts with the instructor for not preparing and/or instructing the class well enough. It's still the case that these student editors -- who are usually newbies to editing Wikipedia and who weren't sufficiently trained -- lack important experience and create a number of issues at articles. I've seen well-instructed student classes here and there, but they are few compared to the many sloppy or just plain poor ones.

Nowhere have I stated or implied that CycoMa should edit at an expert level. If I had, then I wouldn't have categorized CycoMa as a newbie or significantly less experienced editor. These latest interactions I've had with CycoMa are all that you see, but I've interacted with CycoMa for months now. And the way he started out... Well, it was a problem, as made clear by Mathglot on his talk page. What I expect from CycoMa is for CycoMa to listen when pointed to guidelines and policies and to try his best to follow them. He has given no indication that he has tried to understand the way Wikipedia works, and that includes trying to understand WP:MEDRS. While he stated to Mathglot on his talk page that he has made mistakes, owning up to one's mistakes and learning from them are two different things. CycoMa continues to make the same mistakes again and again. And although practice is how we improve, I don't see that he's trying to learn from his mistakes. Well, for the most part anyway. For example, if I tell him, per WP:Talk, not to blank a talk page section that has replies in it just because he started it and doesn't want it on the talk page anymore, and he does it again weeks later, that's obviously not learning from the mistake. I and others, including Mathglot, have given CycoMa chances to do better. Also, like I mentioned above, what is "expert level" editing depends on the subject when it comes to an editor's abilities. If by "expert level", you simply mean "experienced editor", well, then I just noted that I don't expect CycoMa to be an experienced editor already.

As for newbies not understanding WP:MEDRS, I've guided plenty of newbies who had no trouble understanding it after actually taking the time to read it. Not all will understand it as easily, but the same applies to some of our other policies or guidelines, such as WP:Fringe. If they didn't understand something about WP:MEDRS, they would ask. They also improved via practice. CycoMa can obviously just ask instead of repeatedly trying to do things his way. I've dealt with plenty of newbies just fine. If I hadn't, then you would not have stated not even that long ago to Memdmarti that he "would be well served to work with Flyer22 and other experienced Wikipedians." I mentioned back then that Memdmarti is a newbie editor; his 2008 edits don't change that. And he has greatly improved as an editor...without my help. Perhaps he can speak in this section of his experience understanding WP:MEDRS and growing as an editor.

Given that I've been with Wikipedia for as long as I have (since 2007) and collaborated with plenty of editors with no issue, I obviously know that Wikipedia is about collaboration. I don't appreciate being painted as someone who doesn't know that and is just picking on a newbie or being overly harsh on a newbie. I've dealt with plenty of editors who simply had no clue and didn't improve for whatever reason, with a number of them not even trying to improve. I'm for recruiting and retaining editors who are willing to listen, learn, and, as a result, know when they are and aren't citing MEDRS-compliant sources. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:34, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I commented tons of sources in the talk section of True hermaphroditismwhich sources do you think will do? CycoMa (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine I’ll remove the edits. CycoMa (talk) 19:34, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CycoMa I hope you don't think that what you have received here is acceptable treatment for a newish editor trying to follow guidelines, and I hope you'll keep trying. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was told that this wasn't a good source, any thoughts for this particular source?

https://www.orpha.net/consor/cgi-bin/OC_Exp.php?lng=EN&Expert=2138 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CycoMa (talk • contribs) 03:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have an idea of the "ideal" source for Wikipedia:Biomedical information that is medical school textbooks (and similar professional reference works), peer-reviewed review articles, and practice guidelines.

However, the real world is a bit more complicated than that. For rare diseases, Orphanet (which is sort of a spin-off of France's NIH-equivalent) can be a useful source for non-controversial content. It's also listed in Template:Medical resources, along with NORD, OMIM, and some similar sources, which probably explains why it's already linked in hundreds of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commented in the section immediately above this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Major urinary proteins is an aged (2010) Featured article, that has had a disputed statement since March. Is anyone able to address that, and the broader concern that the entire article may be dated and no longer in compliance with WP:WIAFA? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artoria2e5, it looks like you added that tag. Do you know how to fix it? Or is this a case of different sources saying different things? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a stab at it in the next 24h. According to UniProt, the MUPs are so similar that identification is quite hard, so it makes sense that some older sources got it mixed up. Just replacing the Mup17 word should do. --Artoria2e5 🌉 17:32, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• See Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#RfC re 10-fold COVID-19 mortality overestimation

This was not flagged as being on a medical topic, but as you can see it is. Alexbrn (talk) 21:31, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether some editors involved might mean for it to be a political topic (i.e., whether people should trust scientists). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect so. Alexbrn (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I would appreciate input at Template talk:Routes of administration, dosage forms regarding my proposed reorganization of the template, as members of this WikiProject may be interested in said template. Thank you in advance, -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperandrogenism is a term medically applying to people with female gonads, not male ones.

However it seems the IOC/IAAF appropriated the term in order to hide the fact that they had athletes with male gonads & DSDs competing in their sport:

https://www.tas-cas.org/fileadmin/user_upload/CAS_Award_-_redacted_-_Semenya_ASA_IAAF.pdf

• The DSD Regulations do not stigmatise athletes with DSD. The DSD Regulations stress the importance of strict confidentiality. These confidentiality provisions are effective. The IAAF dealt with ... cases under the Hyperandrogenism Regulations and at least ... further cases prior to that. The IAAF has never leaked any information about any of those cases; the identity of the athletes, their nationality and the number of cases all remain unknown outside the IAAF.
• The DSD Regulations expressly and emphatically stress that they do not connote any judgment or questioning of an individual’s sex or gender identity. They are also careful not to spell out that they apply only to 46 XY individuals with fully functioning testes.
• The DSD Regulations do not exclude affected individuals from competing in the female category.

This coinage was first used by the IOC/IAAF in 2011: [2]

Since 2011 coverage of hyperandrogenism has overwhelmingly focused on XY individuals with testes in sport, i.e. 'political hyperandrogenism'.

However the term does not seem to be in medical use, because there is nothing 'hyper' about individuals with testes having high testosterone levels, it's perfectly normal. I.e. the usage was to try to protect the secrecy of the fact that athletes were XY,SRY+ in women's sport.

Any comments on how to deal with this ? Sumbuddi (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that hyperandrogenism in sport is a separate subject? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't really related. As noted 'Hyperandrogenism is a medical condition characterized by high levels of androgens in females. Symptoms may include acne, seborrhea (inflamed skin), hair loss on the scalp, increased body or facial hair, and infrequent or absent menstruation.'

OTOH, 'hyperandrogenism in sport' is merely a euphemism for 46,XY DSD. The IAAF did originally include CAH 46,XX in its definition of 'hyperandrogenism' to try and obfuscate, but that was deleted in the final version, so there are no hyperandrogenic women (in the usual sense, e.g., PCOS or similar) included in the scope of this.

At any rate the article is confusing in that the article has been written to describe normal 46,XX biology, but then adds the euphemistic sense without explaining that hyperandrogenism may also refer to a 46,XY DSD, and this seems misleading. Sumbuddi (talk) 16:41, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to propose a WP:SPLIT on the article's talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A long, long time ago, there was a WikiProject called WP:WikiProject First aid. In 2008, this project became redundant and users were redirected to the most likely success, WikiProject Medicine. There are hundreds of First Aid related articles on Wikipedia, and most of them are simply categorised under the default category for WikiProject Medicine, and sometimes the EMS task force. I was wondering if anyone has ever considered creating a first aid task force? Just an idea. — Yours, Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 17:43, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

its worth considering, thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We talked about it in 2008. One of the founders of WikiProject First aid objected to a merge. I don't think it's been considered since then. (For anyone interested in Wikipedia's history, that experience helped us improve the site-wide guidelines on merging WikiProjects.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Dengue fever#Treatment: Papaya Leaf Juice. This is a Featured article that is outdated. @Spicy and Ajpolino:; I can't access all the articles, and @WhatamIdoing: I can't evaluate some of the journals in terms of the quality required for FA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was pinged, I took a look but unfortunately I don't seem to have access to Sobhia (2019) either. Spicy (talk) 23:15, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the entry with references from 2020. Jaredroach (talk) 17:42, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]