Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 150

Archive 145

←

Archive 148

Archive 149

Archive 150

Archive 151

Archive 152

→

Archive 155

Sources for fossil fuel air pollution deaths

Hi everyone. For the article Sustainable energy, I'm trying to figure out what sources we can use for the number of worldwide annual air pollution deaths that are caused by fossil fuel emissions. This is tricky because while calculating the total number of air pollution deaths is biomedical science, the work of tracing the sources of pollutants is mostly environmental science. What do you think about using the calculated numbers of deaths from this paper by Lelevield et al in PNAS, and this paper by Vohra et al in Environmental Research? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Clayoquot, have you looked for statistics from the WHO? That might let you sidestep any "your scientists are the wrong kind" debate that might arise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing. Thanks for this idea. The WHO doesn't give precise numbers on this. They say 7 million people die each year from air pollution and say in various documents that fossil fuels are a major contributor. FWIW it's just a debate between myself and myself for now to make the article as useful as possible within policy. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Is this any help? [1] I used it at the Environmental policy of the Donald Trump administration article. Gandydancer (talk) 11:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but we need sources that are global in scope. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:40, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The WHO document that your Lelevield paper cites here looks pretty detailed, but I only skimmed it. The topic is in the UK news again. I get the feeling more and more illnesses than just the obvious asthma/lung disease ones are being identified, so this may be something where the estimates become quickly out of date. -- Colin°^Talk 17:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I checked and this WHO document doesn't seem to quantify the contribution of fossil fuel emissions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:36, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

After thinking more, I'm leaning towards using these two papers. The reasons for MEDRS are the particular complexity of medical science, and the level of potential harm if we report information prematurely. I don't think either of these concerns apply in this case, and I prefer not to normalize too-high sourcing standards that would make it harder to write about pollution. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:30, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

The rather long essay you link to is largely the thoughts of one editor (Jytdog). Sometimes when we are worried about whether MEDRS applies, then it is useful to step back and look at other guidelines and policy. For example WP:RS/AC recommends using review articles to determine if there is scientific consensus on a matter. I would think also a big organisation like WHO would also have processes in place to ensure its public-facing publications are within the bounds of scientific agreement, but others may know more about that. Medical or not, there is a danger when one cites a research paper with novel findings that the findings were not accepted. Per WP:UNDUE, if nobody else is pulling that "X million deaths due to Y" figure out of the paper, then perhaps we shouldn't. There's also the complication with sustainable energy that some "sustainable" solutions involve burning. When we start adding bio fats and ethanol into fuel, what proportion is "fossil"? Wood and dry dung fuel also cause significant pollution. Someone shifting from dry dung to natural gas in the kitchen is likely reducing pollution, though adding other environmental debts. Ideally, for this article, we'd want a source that considers pollution from this angle of sustainable energy transition. -- Colin°^Talk 08:41, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

It's wonderful to see the interest here in sustainable energy. I agree that the WHO is an ideal source for the health effects of energy use, which as Colin points out are caused by the burning of both fossil fuels and biomass. What I think I'm hearing so far is that policy does not categorically exclude the two papers I mentioned, but sources that state scientific consensus (like the WHO) should be given a lot more weight. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:41, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I can't read your second paper, but I googled some findings and the 8.7 million fossil fuel deaths figure was widely picked up in the media. Ok, so that's mostly churnalism and those aren't high quality sources for scientific facts. But the commentary, and the US political angle, suggests this finding is going to be cited in reviews and other high quality secondary sources soon. Wrt consensus, if you are reading the literature, then you'll likely have a gut feel and take a punt on this source in good faith. The main problem will be if someone challenges your figures, and all you have is the primary research paper -- it can't demonstrate its own acceptance by the scientific community. But perhaps nobody will challenge it, and in a couple of months time, you'll have a review to cite instead or as well. -- Colin°^Talk 07:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Rp on the way out ?

From this, and from the linked discussion, it seems to have been decided that this template will become obsolete and deprecated. My impression is it's quite heavily used in medical articles. Alexbrn (talk) 15:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

That note has been on the template's doc page for a long while. My impression is that getting the WMDE wish here is blocked on editor acceptance (in addition to them finishing up the work). If you're used to seeing then seeing is, you know, different. (It would probably be "1a" here, rather than the "1.1" they show in their documentation, because that's the style we use here.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This is news to me - multiple WP space pages specifically refer to this template as both a method and at times the preferred method of adding page numbers to references - as you may see, I have used it in all of my GAs which all have used textbooks for reference. I don't know why a Wikimedia Group is going to be able, if ever, to deprecate a template on enwp without obtaining a local (project) consensus for such - and I see no such linked discussion. FWIW, I don't support requiring editors to use a specific method of referencing pages any more than I support requiring editors to use a specific reference style - if anything, I could support a certain method being preferred (like I prefer CS1 [and included vancouver style parameters if desired] for ease of use and readability) but not mandated. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:59, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The template's creator is the one who added this note, and I have the impression from prior discussions that he'll be glad to see it go. If we ever actually deprecated the template (which is not necessary), it should be easy to convert from the template to the new WMDE option via bot or AWB script.

I didn't remember seeing any pages recommend it as the preferred method, but I have found Wikipedia:Writing your first GA, which doesn't list any alternatives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I am mis-remembering or conflating two things - my understanding was that this template was "preferred" when multiple distinct page sections are referenced from the same book, over the alternative which is having the same book appear in multiple citations with differing page numbers (i.e. instead of having [1] [2] [3] [6] [8] [10] all being the book but with different page numbers, have [1]{{rp}} and change the rp template so that the book itself only appears in the reference list once). In fact, this help page states (perhaps incorrectly) that using pages in the references themselves is deprecated and either SFN or RP should be used instead. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 16:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There's no such rule. I mean, I personally happen to prefer {{rp}} to the sfn templates, but that's not the same as there being an actual rule. Our main rule is basically that editors shouldn't fight about how to format citations. We'll take almost anything as long as it is internally consistent within the same page, makes some basic level of sense, and nobody's fighting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't mourn its loss. The vast majority of our readers are not looking at the references, never mind needing to know the page number of a book or long paper. For them, this is just visual noise that gets in the way of reading. So we are inconveniencing the huge majority to help with the 1 in a big-number reader who wants to look up the book and page number to check a fact. The {{sfn}} template isn't ideal, but at least readers of the article aren't bothered by the extra detail of source precision. -- Colin°^Talk 10:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

The noisy thing cannot be gone soon enough for me :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, Not sure this is the best place to discuss it, but I recently started using this. It works well in VE, produces results that look satisfactory, and makes ref organizing helpful - before that I used to create dozens of refs for the same book. It also makes citing pages from journals more doable. So I'd be sad to see it go, unless we get something that replaces it and retains all functionality & friendliness of this. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Piotrus! I don’t care for the clutter within text. I hated SFNs for years, but have to come to understand they are easy to use, give a clean result for our readers, and are easy to edit around. So, that’s the system that gives the same result but with better functionality and friendliness, once one does the convert.

• Dementia with Lewy bodies#References
• Buruli ulcer#References
• Menstrual cycle#References

No irritiating clutter for the reader, and very little clutter to edit around in edit mode. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:52, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Eventually, it appears that our options will look something like this:

• <ref name="Lee"/>{{rp|123}} →
• {{sfn|Lee|2020|123}} →
• <ref extends="Lee">p. 123 </ref> →

I don't think that any of these amount to clutter in wikitext mode, and I'm not sure that readers will be irritated by any of them. If you were looking for a reason to prefer one or another, then if you use the same source for a large part of the content, then the sfn template tends to obscure that (by giving you a different blue number for each page number), and any form of template is worse for translation (because neither sfn nor rp are present at most Wikipedias, whereas wikitext options will eventually be the same everywhere). However, I think that for most subjects, these are minor considerations.

@Piotrus, I don't think there is any significant risk of the {{rp}} template being deleted locally during the next couple of years, even if the WMDE wish list item gets finished soon (which is not guaranteed). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I don't think the page numbers in text produce irritating clutter. In fact, I think they are educational, stressing the fact that we care about page numbers and also telling the reader the source is probably of a higher quality (since paginated sources are usually books or journal articles). So the more I think about it the more I believe the 'rp' style is the best style, both from the reader (educational) and editor (simple code) perspective... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:29, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't buy it. There are plenty awful books and primary research articles are a pest that also have page numbers. And I wouldn't want readers to think the source was more reliable just because someone stuck ^:[123] after the citation. I mean, how many readers will even have the slightest clue what ^:[123] means? Particularly when the DOI or other link takes you to an HTML format journal article that doesn't even have page numbers found only in the PDF version (assuming our reader can even access the journal article beyond the abstract). Honestly, I think you are just trying to convince yourself that the style you picked is best, which is a pretty natural human thing to do. Perhaps our readers think text with ^{[1][5][7][14][16]} think is super reliable because it has five sources, when it is often a sign of editors trying to convince others of some contentious "fact". I suspect most of our readers don't look for the citations at all. Is text with a citation at the end of the paragraph more reliable than text with five citations throughout the paragraph? Not necessarily, and the former is probably more readable prose that has been added by one person sourced to one comprehensive source, vs five editors with five factoids sourced to five varied sources. -- Colin°^Talk 08:09, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Of course references are sometimes used wrongly. Finding references sourced to incorrect page numbers is an excellent way of detecting them I've used many times. We should be encouraging as precise citation as possible.(tho of course over precision can be excessive, as in twenty citations to the same or adjacent pages) But I always get a little suspicious when I see something specific and important linked to a book without giving page numbers unless it seems clearly to be a book that supports the overall content of hte article.- I take it as a sign that the editor might never have seen the book-- The basis by which we librarians have supported the use of WP is that, unlike all other generally available sources, it does give citations, and often correct and exact citations at that. The idea that it's irrelevant to users implies that we've given up on showing WP:V. DGG ( talk ) 10:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 in India

• COVID-19 pandemic in India

The article is in need of updates with recent events, and more clarity is needed between 2020 and 2021 events. A lot of the 2020 material needs trimming as NOTNEWS, although much of this has already been done, and general copyediting may also be necessary. There are also other relevant pages in Category:COVID-19 pandemic in India. Would some editors here be able to take a look? The page has ~22k daily pageviews and probably ATM is inadequate given recent events. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:47, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

this is a very important article/issue for the duration of the pandemic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Primary hyperoxaluria

Talk:Primary hyperoxaluria has a long list of suggested changes to the article. If you know anything about kidney stones or genetic conditions, please have a look. I've turn the suggestions into a numbered list, so it should be easier to talk about which ones you've done/have questions about/rejected/etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Localised spinal muscular atrophies — an undeclared class project or a sock farm?

See the details here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mge23genetics

Are these socks, meatpuppets or just students with a poor grasp of MEDMOS? — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kashmiri, have you considered the possibility that it's a group of parents who are trying to improve the article? We occasionally see group efforts by affected people, to donate their time and knowledge for the benefit of other affected families. It doesn't usually result in a polished appearance or earn a Halo effect (especially on the first day or two), but the end result can be improvements to the facts in the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

No I didn't, Jokela type spinal muscular atrophy is an adult-onset disease, moreover such usernames as "Geneticsme123" and "Mge23genetics" point more to the editors' professional identification with genetics.

I certainly don't mind improvements, however this isn't always the case. Removal[2] of well-sourced alternative name of the disease ("late-onset spinal motor neuronopathy"), for instance, was not an improvement, nor was adding epidemiology "data" which have been completely made up by the editor. — kashmīrī ^TALK 08:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Smell training

A newly created article on Smell training, a proported treatment for the loss of the sense of smell caused by Covid-19, is in the queue to be in DYK on the Front Page. As it stands right now, the article takes a very credulous view on the treatment. Could editors here take a look at it? Abductive (reasoning) 12:46, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive, at a quick glance, and based on my overall impression (i.e., not based on a thorough review of sources), I think the article's description as a "promising experimental treatment" probably reflects the mainstream view. Have you seen sources that disagree? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's an analysis: "Questionable Therapy". “Smell training is somewhat questionable, frankly,” says Richard Doty, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Smell and Taste Center. While the therapy has “caught the imagination of laypeople as well as scientists,” he says, the evidence is “pretty weak that it has any effect.” Doty, a physician who has published widely on olfactory dysfunction ... “the studies have been so poor”. And: According to Moein, the Institute for Research in Fundamental Sciences neuroscientist, an additional limitation is that in many smell studies, patients and researchers know at the outset which patients are and are not receiving the treatment — a study design that can bias the results. “This has been problematic for many of the papers about smell loss,” she says. And: ...Moein, too, notes that when you have vision problems, doctors tell you to wear glasses. “They never tell you to look at different lines, vertical or horizontal, several times a day to recover your eyesight.”. Basically it's a joke and would be a disservice to the readership to keep on Wikipedia in its preset form. Abductive (reasoning) 23:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Abductive, a review article in a top-tier journal[3] says that it seems to work for some people (in non-COVID contexts), and I don't think that we can disregard that in favor of an opinion in the popular press. I'm also not sure that the Slate.com article would actually disagree with any single sentence in the article. COVID-19 is only mentioned in a single sentence, and that sentence merely says that some COVID patients are trying it.

IMO the comparison to optometry is inappropriate. Most vision problems are physical, not neurological. You can't change the shape of the eyeball or remove a cataract by trying to see something. Neural plasticity, on the the other hand, is something that behavior does affect. A more apt comparison would be to patching a dominant eye to treat Amblyopia, because "trying to see something" while your brain is ignoring the nerve signals seems pretty close to "trying to smell something" when the nerves aren't working. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of "trying to see something" curing blindness? The article should be fixed before it disgraces the Front Page. Abductive (reasoning) 08:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Curing blindness in one eye by "trying to see something" is not an unreasonable description of the treatment for amblyopia. So, yes, I've heard of people (kids) doing that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The UK's NHS mention smell training "can help some people" and link to two UK smell-loss charities who have web pages with details. I don't think analogies between smell and blindness are useful, as WAID notes. Our brains are trained to see as infants, so you have no memory of the effort you once put into figuring it all out. -- Colin°^Talk 09:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The tiny sizes of the biased studies, and the fact that Thomas Hummel, the inventor, did the meta-analysis, should raise alarms. Abductive (reasoning) 11:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That there are attributes of a study which might make it susceptible to bias, does not mean the study was biased. I agree that having Hummel on the meta-analysis does not make it as independent as a sceptic would like, but this is not necessarily as dodgy looking as it might appear. It can be a small world in some disciplines. There are more sources that WAID added on the talk page. There's another systematic review and meta-analysis by a team that AFAICS is independent of Hummel. There is a Position paper on olfactory dysfunction that is lead by your nemesis, Hummel, but includes 42 experts who unanimously agree on the portions marked "Recommendations", which includes "Smell training can be recommended in patients with olfactory loss of several aetiologies (this treatment requires further evaluation in patients with sinonasal disease)". And there are British Rhinological Society Guidelines that says "Olfactory training is recommended to patients with LOS more than 2 weeks. It is recommended that loss of sense of smell advice is provided to the patients. It is recommended that patients are directed to AbScent and Fifth Sense for further support", and this corresponds to the NHS page I listed earlier. -- Colin°^Talk 12:39, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Abductive I've reverted some of your edits to the article. You added "authored by Thomas Hummel, its inventor and main proponent" as an editorial comment on the meta-analysis. Hummel is not the only author of the paper, and "inventor" is an odd term for a therapy. Your opinion that he is the "main proponent" is precisely that, your opinion. The comment is designed to disparage the meta-analysis, but we need a reliable source saying "this meta-analysis is hopelessly biased because ...." to do that in article text. Your comments on the studies is also original research. It is very common for meta-analysis and review papers to comment on the study size or their weaknesses of design, so let's have such comments sourced to such secondary sources, rather than Wikipedians. For example, one of the studies had 153 participants with post-infectious olfactory dysfunction, which doesn't sound "small" to me. This isn't heart disease, you know. I just found another review: "Treatment of post‐viral olfactory dysfunction: an evidence‐based review with recommendations", which concludes "Based on the available evidence, olfactory training is a recommendation for the treatment of PVOD". Are there sources of similar quality that recommend against olfactory training or that conclude the evidence is too weak to recommend it? -- Colin°^Talk 12:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the Slate source I gave above. Using the Hummel meta-analysis is problematic. Note that the studies on which the meta-analysis is based are considered too small and hopelessly biased. Abductive (reasoning) 13:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Abductive, I'm not going to get into an edit war with you about this. Would you please self-revert your two recent changes, and discuss. You restored "authored by Thomas Hummel, its inventor" despite not discussing that or attempting to reach consensus, which is edit warring. You added "The general feeling among physicians is that since the treatment is low-cost and unlikely to cause harm, it can be recommended in spite of the low likelihood of it improving patients' sense of smell." which isn't sourced at all, and your comment "in spite of the low likelihood of it improving patients' sense of smell" is contradicted by all the reviews listed above. Please can you give me a MEDRS source of similar quality to the reviews that make recommendations "in spite of". Slate is a magazine and not MEDRS. -- Colin°^Talk 13:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a medical source if it is engaged in high-end analysis. In fact, it is better than a typical MEDRS. It quotes scientists and physicians in the field on the record saying (gently) that the treatment is questionable. I'm sorry if it dashes the hopes of people who want a cure, but Wikipedia should not coddle people. Abductive (reasoning) 13:53, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think some quotes in a current affairs magazine are going to impress anyone here about what constitutes a reliable source for medical claims. I see you added another unsourced comment. Could you please stop. It is very clear that Richard Doty is a sceptic. And he is also an expert in the field. He wrote (alone) the book chapter Treatments for smell and taste disorders: A critical review in the Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 2019. The chapter discusses many treatment options and the evidence for them, and he is dismissive of the evidence for smell training and does not think this justifies clinical recommendation. But it is also clear from what reviews, guidelines and consensus statements we have already quoted, that he is somewhat alone in this view. We need to assess WP:WEIGHT of opinions here. The way to do that, Abductive, is to review the literature in the field. Could you find some more MEDRS sources that support your position. -- Colin°^Talk 14:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

That source you found is sufficient. Please add it to the article. Abductive (reasoning) 14:54, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Abductive can you please revert your changes since 12:45 and we can discuss, perhaps on the article talk page, what should and should not be said on the article. This is a treatment, rightly or wrongly, that is viewed by our most reliable sources as having some benefit to some patients, and is clinically recommended by multiple authorities. In medical articles, we try, as much as possible, not to argue in front of the reader. If this treatment is as dubious as Richard Doty believes, we should have no trouble finding multiple high quality sources that agree with him on that. So far, we have multiple high quality sources that do not. Doty is not among the 42 experts who signed that position statement I cited above. How do we justify including his views above 42 others? Or above British Rhinological Society? Wikipedia has to apportion weight fairly, whereas magazines (and historically, the BBC, to its shame) often like to place two opposing "experts" as equals, thinking that provides some kind of balance. If it is "a joke", as you say, then there are an awful lot of expert bodies that are in on it. Do you think that is likely? -- Colin°^Talk 15:16, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The field of olfaction has no idea how the sense of smell works, and this treatment, as the article now correctly states, is low-cost and unlikely to do harm, so these experts can go about their days without having to admit that they can't help people regain their sense of smell, but give them something to do instead of ringing their offices. It is a joke, and we all know it. Abductive (reasoning) 16:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Who is the "we" that knows it's a joke? If "we" is "experts in the field", then why are the experts in the field saying that it's not a joke in their official writings? If "we" is Wikipedia editors, then why do we care what we believe? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

We only have User:Colin's word that Doty is alone in his view. In fact, there are others, even ones in the source I provided in the beginning of this section. A simple solution is to include the skeptical viewpoint, which has some weight, in the article instead of arguing here. I have attempted to do so. As editors, it is incumbent upon all of us to make the article better, not take an adversarial position here because we don't like another editor's tone. Abductive (reasoning) 16:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

What's the point in saying it is "Colin's word". It is easy to disprove. There are various search engines and repositories of research you can use to find if anyone else shares Doty's views. I googled Doty and Moein, the two people that Slate interviewed who were negative, and it turns out they are colleagues: Prevalence and Reversibility of Smell Dysfunction Measured Psychophysically in a Cohort of COVID‐19 patients and Smell dysfunction: a biomarker for COVID‐19 are written by Moein under Doty's supervision. They shared this presentation. Btw, Doty is founder, president and majority shareholder in Sensonics who make and sell the smell tests featured in the research that Moein published. -- Colin°^Talk 17:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

So, their learned perspectives should be given extra weight in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abductive (talk • contribs) 17:38, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence their perspective is more "learned" than any of the other experts cited above, who consider smell training to have some value. Let's be clear, nobody is suggesting this is a miracle cure. The current evidence suggests a small improvement for some people. I've tried finding reviews on smell training that have a negative conclusion but have not found any yet. The more I read of Doty's book chapter (which reviews several treatment options or research paths) the less I'm impressed. The disadvantage of a narrative review like his is that he can cherry pick which studies support his opinions, and exclude others (he neglects to mention two randomised controlled trials that are picked up in other meta analyses). A systematic review (like those mentioned above) avoids a deliberate neglect of inconvenient findings. The strong opinions that litter his text are accompanied by citations to other articles which do not reach his conclusions. It is a bit like a movie poster that says "Astounding" and cites a review that says the film was "astoundingly bad". Or if your friend Joe said a restaurant had slow service but the food was fine and you repeated this to another friend as "Joe says it wasn't worth the wait". The chapter is really quite a mess and more of a rant, actually. IMO, it goes beyond professional disagreement into academic insults that must make him an awkward invite to any conference. -- Colin°^Talk 20:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I would appreciate if WP:MED could review the recent edits to this article, which is on the main page today. User:Abductive continues to attack the article with negative comments. Some unsourced (such as adding "small" to describe the studies and other sourced to one lone critic (Doty). These have been written in a way that looks like Wikipedia is editorialising ("unfortunately still marred by small sample sizes and lack of double blinding") and inserted in a way that looks like they are the view of a meta-analysis. I cannot see any reason at this point to include Doty's views, as they appear to be WP:FRINGE. -- Colin°^Talk 14:34, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I have refactored the weight to be as mild as possible. Please take a look. Abductive (reasoning) 15:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, the weight should be zero. I have not found a single reliable source or authority that agrees with Doty. Whereas we have position papers and consensus guidelines that list many dozens of expert authors who unanimously agree this treatment has merit. Secondly, the Slate article is not WP:MEDRS for medical claims. Thirdly, the book chapter does not, AFAICS, mention "the potential for the observed improvements to have been the result of nerve regeneration that would have occurred without intervention as reason to be skeptical". The problem with that statement is there are randomised controlled studies of this, but Doty doesn't mention them in his narrative review. In contrast, the two meta-analysis reviews do include them, because those are the best trials. The controls in those studies show that this is not simply regression to the norm or expected regeneration -- those doing the training are more likely to gain smell or gain it quicker than controls. Thirdly, you say "Critics" when there is just one guy. -- Colin°^Talk 15:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

That is an outright lie. There is Moein, who you arbitrarily discounted above. Abductive (reasoning) 15:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Abductive, Moein and Doty are colleagues. He's her supervisor, or similar relationship. And we only have a non-reliable source for her opinions. You said on my user talk page that I was "determined to win". I'm really not. Neither WAID nor I had any knowledge of this therapy and folks at WP:MED are pretty sceptical about unusual therapies. I've researched the evidence and indicated what I found. If I was "determined to win" I wouldn't have even mentioned Doty's book chapter. I'm still looking to find negative opinions but not finding anyone else who concludes this therapy is "a joke" or who "question[s] the validity of this entire field" as Doty puts it.

Justin Turner, one of the co-authors of yet-another meta-analysis, from 2017: Efficacy of olfactory training in patients with olfactory loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis has recently written an editorial Olfactory training: what is the evidence?. He is interviewed about it in a podcast Olfactory training: what is the evidence? with Dr. Justin Turner. I encourage you to read and listen to those. The editorial is quite critical, and yet this is a guy who offers the treatment to his patients. Sure there are weaknesses in the studies performed, but the overwhelming view of the experts is that some patients will see some improvement, and it is not just down to "they'd have got better anyway". For sure, the fact that it is harmless and cheap means there's little harm in recommending it, but there are supplements for example, that that are also relatively harmless and cheap, and which guidelines say are not recommended. The problem we have is that the Slate article fails MEDRS. The editorial fails MEDRS. The podcast fails MEDRS. And Doty is hugely outnumbered by other experts to the degree where his views are fringe. We aren't in some situation, for example, where the American's all think it is bunk and the Europeans think it is great. -- Colin°^Talk 16:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You are a master at cherry-picking. But you are wrong on every count. You misinterpret WP:MEDRS. You discount the fact that Hummel has his fingerprints all over everything, but Doty is not allowed to have a colleague. You should be ashamed of yourself. Abductive (reasoning) 16:56, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

You wrote in the article "Critics have pointed to the small sample sizes in the studies and the potential for the observed improvements to have been the result of nerve regeneration that would have occurred without intervention as reason to be skeptical". But you don't have any source that multiple people have made those actual claims. Please can you quote from the sources you give that small sample size and the potential for regeneration is a "reason to be skeptical". I can't find that in the Slate review. The book chapter conveniently avoids citing the several randomised controlled studies. For example: Damm et al had 171 subjects over 11 centres. Altundag et al had 85 subjects. Those are large enough studies and both studies had a non-treatment control group to compare against spontaneous recovery. -- Colin°^Talk 17:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Referencing the use of the PHQ9 for depression

Over on Depression (mood), I and another user are having a dispute about whether https://www.savantcare.com/phq9/ or PMID 11556941 is the better source for a mention of the use of the Patient Health Questionnaire for measuring depression. The other user has mentioned a desire for a 3rd opinion, but so far all discussion has taken place on my talk page. More eyes would be helpful. - MrOllie (talk) 17:09, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

If both meet MEDRS, why do you have to pick only one? Why not just cite both? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe the savantcare.com does meet MEDRS. - MrOllie (talk) 18:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Cite a specific reason why Live PHQ9 tool does not meet MEDRS and is better than a static paper PMID 11556941 where the questions are mentioned multiple pages down?Knownnotknown (talk) 21:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• SavantCare is a website for a psychiatric group practice. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not a reliable source for our purposes here on Wikipedia, i.e., it does not meet basic requirements for Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine), also known as MEDRS, and a document which one should read before debating further (please). Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 21:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Might be a moot point anyway as that URL (http://www.savantcare.com/phq9/) is returning a 403 error. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 21:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

• • The link is to live version of PHQ9 tool. By the way something that I did not find anywhere else on the internet that was not mining my data. PHQ9 is a standard 9 point questionnaire. Why are we debating if Savant care is a reliable source. There is a tool at the URL which is privacy focussed and is using the well researched and documented depresson measuring system. I have read MEDRS twice. Also the site opens for me. I have sent an email to their contact us page pointing out that it did not open for some people. Knownnotknown (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Knownnotknown: You wrote, "By the way something that I did not find anywhere else on the internet that was not mining my data." What do you mean by "mining my data"? Are you affiliated in any way with SavantCare.com? Btw, a Google search reveals many online versions of the PHQ-9. Have they all stolen your data? Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 00:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Markworthen: Other tools on the internet are taking my mental health data to their servers. Last thing I want is some other company to know my mental health information. By "mining my data" I mean, that "My mental health is my business" and I do not want any one else to come near my depression score. I am not affiliated with Savantcare. Once a company takes depression score to their server I do not know what they do with it. It probably sits in the database somewhere and no one will ever look at it. Or the tinfoil hat me says that they will use the knowledge that I am depressed to sell me supplements and a rejuvenating vacation to Bahamas. It is not reasonable to expect a user to take that risk.Knownnotknown (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

• • I will replace the link to a live version of any other PHQ9 if you can find me one. Knownnotknown (talk) 21:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

    @Knownnotknown, if by "tool", you mean something like a calculator or online quiz, then that would normally be placed in the ==External links== section instead of being hidden behind a little blue clicky number as a ref. The rules for external links are at Wikipedia:External links (e.g., can't require readers to register an account first, has to work for people in any country, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The live php9 depression measurement looks like this:

Live PHQ9 gold standard for measuring depression without data harvesting

Knownnotknown (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I would like to report MrOllie He did not look at the destination link and still rejected my edit 3 times and argued without specific rule citations for 4 hours. The destination URL's webmaster got back to me and said he made a change to the server (at 11PM PST on 1st May 2021) to allow access to the destination URL outside a 5 mile radius (ip-geo-tagged) around Stanford. All 3 of MrOllie rejections of my edit happened before 11PM PST. I posit MrOllie is not within 5 miles of Stanford and he is abusing his status of being among top 500 editors of wikipedia. If someone can please give me pointers to the process, I will be grateful. Knownnotknown (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Because of a phenomenon we call WP:BOOMERANG, and our unfortunate tendency to privilege editors' experience and prior participation (you'd lose) and our general preference for "fancy" academic citations over an individual clinic's own website (you'd lose again), I think you might be better off not taking your complaint to the Wikipedia:Dramaboard. Besides, we don't require editors to argue with "specific rule citations". The best decisions are often based in common sense.

And speaking of common sense: if you want readers to see that link, then maybe about 0.3% of readers will click on any link in any ref in any article. If you want them to see that, I repeat my advice that you put it in the ==External links== section instead of hiding it behind one of the (currently) 57 ref numbers in the article. If we assume an even distribution, listing that website as a ref means that 99.9947% of readers will not click the link you're trying to put in the article. Is that what you want? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Got it. Lack of "Stigma sensitive private tools" lead to 80% depressed people not being treated. I am learning how to create a infobox. Subsequently, I will create a infobox called "Stigama sensitive private tools" and in a subheading "Measurement" put the live PHPQ9. Maybe others will also add to the "Stigma sensitive private tools" infobox. I will add a foot note that it has to be non-commercial, no-regn-rquired, no data leaving the users computer and available worldwide in multiple languages to get listed in this new infobox. Knownnotknown (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Aside about external links from that statistic, which is actually higher than I thought it was (I was not assuming a number distinguishable from 0), I've been frustrated lately about the intersection of our ludicrously strict EL rules with wanting readers to be able to actually see relevant information. I'd love to have the Unique Foundation guides as ELs in my chromosome disorder articles, so that readers of the "my kid has this" type can be informed there's an actual community and read something more directly targeted to their needs, but they're used as references, so they'd get ripped out. (Knownnotknown, as you can probably tell by the shape of my complaint, I concur that you should be putting this in the EL section where readers will see it rather than the refs where readers will not see it.) Vaticidalprophet 16:13, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I also assumed that the number was not meaningfully different from zero, but it seems that about three out of 1,000 page views result in the reader clicking a link inside a ref. This is most likely to happen when the article is incomplete. The assumption is that people click the links when they need more information than the article can provide. Depression (mood) is a pretty popular article, with ~1750 page views per day, so if we assume that it's average for clickthrough rates (it's probably less) and that all refs are equally likely to be clicked on (probably not true), then using this link as a ref means that about 12 (twelve) readers per year would click through. "Where readers will not see it" sounds like an accurate description. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I have moved the link to the infobox. Hopefully it will help someone. I have been there, I wish it had been available to me. I have sent an email to the webmaster gently requesting them to consider making similar stigma nullifying tools for other mental health disorders. Thank you for your suggestions @WhatamIdoing Knownnotknown (talk) 07:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I am thinking it may be time for a trip to WP:ANI, and I almost never think that way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it is at all. (And I do spend more time at ANI than I should. Bad habit.) I think it's reasonable for this article to have a PHQ test as an EL, and Knownnotknown is clearly good-faith trying to figure out how ELs work and asking for people reverting him to discuss here. He was wrong about having it as a ref, WAID and I explained to him why he was wrong, and he thanked us and stopped using it as a ref. He still hasn't figured out exactly how ELs work, but I'm not going to begrudge a good-faith new user for technical issues. Vaticidalprophet 00:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown appears to have a COI, is not understanding core policies and guidelines about how to use reliable sources, and edit wars. And now he is carrying this to a Featured article, major depressive disorder, so also seems to have a case of Not Hearing The Message. He doesn't seem to have seen Template:Editnotices/Page/Major depressive disorder popping up on his page every time he edits, nor to have taken on board the problems with savantcare as a source. For starters, maybe HE should stop reverting knowledgeable editors. I am on my way next to his talk page to ask him to stop so we can avoid a trip to ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

This editor is now blocked, so a trip to ANI won't be necessary unless they resume same in 24 hours. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

The editor had already stopped trying to use it as a reliable source on that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, It was shifted to an external link in the info box, which is also a problem, but a different problem. If there ends up being consensus for putting a link where it would belong (the external links section), it should probably be to the PHQ's official site, which is phqscreeners.com MrOllie (talk) 14:02, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

@MrOllie, we would privilege the official link in the article about the PHQ-9 questionnaire, but not elsewhere. The phqscreeners.com website isn't the WP:ELOFFICIAL link for major depressive disorder. It's just the official link for the questionnaire. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, Sure, but it is a better choice than a small business's copy. User:Little pob's suggestion of patient.info would be fine by me as well. - MrOllie (talk) 20:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry I got into an edit war. Till 5 days ago I did not know what a talk page was and that discussion pages like this were the correct way to resolve dispute. I will build consensus before doing any edits. Thank you Knownnotknown (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is the link where the discussion is continuing to build consensus Knownnotknown (talk) 10:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there any research on people's reasons for not accepting the COVID 19 vaccine?

Hi all

Is anyone aware of any research looking a who is unwilling or worried about getting a COVID-19 vaccination either in a specific country/region or globally? Most popular news sources focus on conspiracy theories related to COVID but there are also issues around perceived risk of blood clots etc. The section COVID-19_vaccine#Vaccine_hesitancy talks about percentage of vaccine hesitancy generally and one study from the US of what people say they would do when a vaccine became available.

For context, my sister is a vaccination nurse and only around 1/4 of people with appointments for getting vaccinated today showed up.... My hope is that this is not all because of a belief in conspiracy theories.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't have sources, but in my experience actual hesitancy is only about maybe a quarter of the population anywhere - and of those, maybe only half are adamantly refusing the vaccine. Of the other 75%, there's about a third (or 25% overall) who aren't going to ever go out of their way to get the vaccine. Basically, if they show up and are shopping at their grocery store and can get an appointment (or an expiring dose), they'll get it, and they'll then go back for the second (maybe), but if not, they won't. Furthermore, of the remaining 50% overall, another quarter isn't going to "traverse mountains" to get it - i.e. they'll make an appointment and a special trip, but they won't do so if it means going out in the rain, or if it's super hot, or if another activity comes along which conflicts, etc. Luckily, in the US, there's a massive surplus of vaccines now, meaning that people can reschedule as much as they want. As a comparison, a place I work at had around 40 appointments one day recently, but only about 8 of them showed up because of completely shit weather that day. From what I saw, the vast majority of those people ended up rescheduling and coming to appointments later that week. It's not just weather but also other events such as traffic issues that cause people to miss. On the subject of side effects, I think there's actually more people getting appointments from what I've seen now than when the J/J vaccine was paused - many people seem to have been waiting for the J/J vaccine (against our recommendations) and then once they perceived it to be potentially risky said "fuck it I'll get whatever I can". Any links to studies that people provide here would be appreciated, but I figured I'd give my experiences. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 21:42, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings, in PMID 30735925 (2019 primary source), views on childhood vaccinations were categorized as "accepters", "fence sitters", and "rejecters". That is probably a useful formulation, and helps support the notion of a spectrum rather than a binary 'pro or anti' approach.

International estimates of intended uptake and refusal of COVID-19 vaccines: A rapid systematic review and meta-analysis of large nationally representative samples and COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy Worldwide: A Concise Systematic Review of Vaccine Acceptance Rates aren't (I think) quite what you want, but the sound like they have some decent numbers.

Evidence-Based Strategies for Clinical Organizations to Address COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy looks like it might be good reading for anyone who is working on those articles. The Strategies to Support the COVID-19 Vaccination with Evidence-Based Communication and Tackling Misinformation might be useful, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing this is very helpful, thanks very much. If anyone reading this wants to work on this as well please do not wait for me to make a start. John Cummings (talk) 22:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Issue with phentermine I don't know how to solve

Phentermine

I tagged phentermine as {{confusing}}, and am not sure how to resolve the issue. If any member of this WikiProject has time, perhaps they can do better than just tagging the page. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 13:48, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Assistance please (GA review)

Diaphragmatic rupture

Hi, I recently unretired. I wish to continue my GA creation at Diaphragmatic rupture, but the current reviewer is now too busy to resume the nomination. I am now active nearly every day. Can anyone experienced help me resume the nomination? aeschyIus (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

have moved up and pinned for visibility , this editor needs some editor to help out, thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

The Core Contest

From June 1 to July 15, the Core Contest will be launched in its ninth iteration. It's an exciting contest, running over a period of six weeks, with £250 of prize money for the articles that are most improved. It would be neat if we could get participants from the medicine wikiproject! FemkeMilene (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• please participate--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

BBV152 COVID-19 page rename discussion

FYI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:BBV152#Requested_move_9_May_2021 --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking for an editor to help with edit requests

Hi, I am a COI editor that recently made a few edit requests on Talk: FIGS (apparel). The editor that had been helping me has taken a break from editing, so I am hoping someone in the WP: Medicine will be interested in taking a look at my most recent requests and then implementing them. Thanks in advance. Todd at Figs (talk) 23:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Made some of the edits requested - I'm not well versed in how CEOs/etc are put into articles so leaving that for someone else, as well as the recognition. Made significant changes to the "controversy" section - another set of eyes on that would be appreciated as well. The controversy is well documented and far-reaching, but I'm not sure what if any changes were made after in the company that can be well-sourced and added for due weight and balance. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Berchanhimez, thanks for starting this. It's quite a list of suggested changes. Could you mark off any items in the list you've  Done already, or which ones are still {{ToDo}}? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, it's hard to so, and I was trying not to alter that user's comments by striking things I'd done (which really would be the only way to clearly state it). For clarity (and I'll also post this on that section0, the only thing remaining to my understanding is the user's request to include information about the C-suite - which I would add if I had any clue what the consensuses were around how to present that in articles. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Seasonal flu article needs significant improvement

The seasonal flu article is very US-centric, outdated in many areas, is missing lots of info in general, and the lede is simply too short to summarize all the key points of seasonal flu. It would be nice if someone or multiple people could work on significantly improving the article. X-Editor (talk) 06:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

the article does in fact have several issues(however 'US centric' tag?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:42, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Category:Science articles needing expert attention

You are invited to participate in a discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science#Category:Science_articles_needing_expert_attention about the following articles:

• Environmental radioactivity
• Patlak plot
• 15 articles primary about other disciplines. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit request on Talk:Primary hyperoxaluria

Oxalate

Hello,

I wanted to point out that there is an outstanding edit request on Talk:Primary hyperoxaluria from an editor with a COI. It's a lengthy, somewhat complicated edit request that involves evaluating sources for compliance with WP:MEDRS, and thus is unlikely to interest the vast majority of people working the edit request queue. Just thought I'd point it out in case anyone in this Wikiproject is inclined to tackle it. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

commented at original help/talk[4]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Ozzie10aaaa. Would anyone else be willing to take a look at the suggested changes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Primary_hyperoxaluria ? Or suggestions on how to make it simpler to review for you? Iciplascarfern (talk) 19:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Time-limited trial

I've been seeing news reports about Time-limited trial, a technique used in end-of-life care (among other things). The general idea is that you try something, and if you don't see an improvement in a stated (reasonable) amount of time, then you stop. Is this something that could be part of an existing article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Probably best as a section in clinical trial for now, likely under the "trial design" heading or the "types" heading, and if it becomes clear there's too much information for adding on that page, a summary paragraph with a link to a specific page. Just my 2 cents, I'm not sure there's enough encyclopedic information on those trials specifically to merit inclusion on the page or on its own page - it's basically just another "form" of trial where instead of continuing treatment regardless of improvement, the clinician can stop the treatment. IMO it's not much different than other treatment-paramaters in trials such as crossovers, but there may be enough information out there for a small extra article on them. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 19:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's really a clinical trial, since it's not research-oriented. What I've seen suggests that it's more about helping family members see that the hospital staff is doing everything reasonable, and agreeing in advance that if <last-ditch effort> doesn't produce <defined result> in a reasonable length of time, then it's time to stop life-prolonging treatment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I see what you mean. Many of those publications talk about using this technique in intensive care settings. Could it be added to Intensive Care Medicine or perhaps chronic critical illness? Iciplascarfern (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Intensive care medicine sounds like a strong candidate. Futile medical care is another related article, but the subject feels more See also-ish to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:55, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed article merger & rename

Hi all, I’ve proposed that Primary FRCA and Final FRCA be merged and the result renamed; I’d very much appreciate any feedback at Talk:Final FRCA#Merge & rename discussion if anyone fancies swinging by, please! Best wishes, Alice Jamie (talk) 05:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Should disease pages have a link to diagnostic tool if one exists

In my opinion, when a destination link to a diagnostic tool satisfies these 8 criteria:

1. Not commercial - no advertising

2. No registration required

3. Scientifically validated.

4. Considered the gold standard of diagnosing that disease.

5. In multiple languages

6. Available worldwide

7. Not collecting user data.

8. Immediate automated results.

Then that tool should be linked to from the diagnosis page.

Imagine a world where non-profit medical organizations and non-profit universities started competing to create these diagnostic tools. And these diagnostic tools were available on the disease page.

I would like to live in that world where my mother could have filled out the diagnostic form and detected her disease years before she was actually able to save money to see the doctor.

In my work with the medical industry over 20 years I am confident that such a policy will have non-profit organizations and universities creating these diagnostic tools. And these diagnostic tools will save 1000's of lives each day.

Please let me know your thoughts.

Knownnotknown (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Your #1 isn't technically a requirement here at the English Wikipedia, but it's a nice-to-have, when available. (We object to 'objectionable' amounts of advertisements, not normal amounts).

#2 is a requirement in the usual rules, and I think closely related to your #8 (none of this 'thank you for spending all this time answering the questions – now give me your e-mail address if you want to see the results' garbage).

#3 is my preference, but I could be persuaded to skip it if there were some special circumstance. I wouldn't want to have disputes over whether the website or the tool has to be scientifically validated.

#4 is IMO not important. For example, height–weight calculators of Body mass index aren't the gold standard for diagnosing obesity, but they are very widely used.

#5 is another nice-to-have, but I wouldn't exclude a link for being available only in English. The related #6 is a requirement in the usual rules.

#7 is IMO a nice-to-have rather than a requirement.

I think that you might overestimate the concern that average people have about computer security and privacy. The average person, if promised a video of dancing bears, will click on anything necessary to watch that video. The minority that cares about computer security and privacy have taken their own steps to protect themselves across all websites. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@Knownnotknown: Although we are an encyclopedia, not a self-help site, that doesn't mean we can't link to diagnostic tools like you describe, and as explicated further by WhatamIdoing. Nice idea. :0) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 04:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Please comment on the proposal for Why and how of scoring system and Why and how of data presentation. Thank you @WhatamIdoing: for factor ranking and @Markworthen: for the encouragement.

• I don't think we should be including diagnostic tools with the (hyperbolic) intention of "saving 1000's of lives each day", as that is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. It is also possible that linking such tools may cause real-world harm. On the other hand there is surely no problem linking such a site if it is, as suggested above, "scientifically validated" - and that I suggest would mean it was at least uncritically referred-to in some WP:MEDRS. We definitely don't want an elaborate new set of rules for determining one type of EL per WP:CREEP. Alexbrn (talk) 06:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:CREEP was a good read. Would you suggest that the site should be referenced in WP:MEDRS or the tool should be referenced in WP:MEDRS — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knownnotknown (talk • contribs) 07:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• Do we have any examples of existing diagnostic tool web pages that would meet even a few of these criteria? I'm sceptical that doctoring could be reduced to filling in a static form. A link on a "disease page" suggests the person already has a suspected diagnosis. There are existing websites that take users through a set of questions and may use a mix of static logic or AI to triage patients towards either an information page or where to go next (doctor, pharmacy, hospital A&E). But these are general purpose portals (not aimed at one condition) and likely aimed at the typical health needs of their target audience (so not much emphasis on tropical diseases or snake bites in the UK, say). A website that could deal with global health concerns in this fashion would be unlikely IMO. I have to say, I'd rather imagine a world where your mum didn't have to save up money before she could see a doctor. -- Colin°^Talk 08:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is an example of the tool that meets above 8-pt criteria. This spread fast in my local community of sysadmins. It found 12% of the community was clinically depressed and needed urgent help. I had only read of under diagnosed mental health as a statistic. This experience made it real. Depression being under diagnosed in bay area .. consider what happens in less fortunate places. Knownnotknown (talk) 09:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• @Knownnotknown: Just to make it clear to everyone here, you are just off a block for edit warring in which you promoted that questionnaire, and now it's painfully obvious what your question is all about.

We do mention diagnostic tools as described in WP:MEDRS, which mainly includes academic literature. We do not usually link to the websites of private medical practices, because well, they are usually not MEDRS, and two, there is always a risk of uncontrolled content - the website will disappear, the tool will be edited, the site owner will add promotional content, etc. Moreover, the mere linking to a private medical practice may be construed as sort of endorsement of that practice, which we are normally keen to avoid.

So - no, I'm against linking to your medical practice. — kashmīrī ^TALK 09:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not my medical practice and I am not affiliated with it. I will quote my apology from yesterday "I am sorry I got into an edit war. Till 5 days ago I did not know what a talk page was and that discussion pages like this were the correct way to resolve dispute. I will build consensus before doing any edits." Knownnotknown (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem of uncontrolled content is with all external links. MEDRS is for the tool and not for the domain name. The reason for starting this discussion is to build consensus. Not to hide. As you seem to imply with your statement "it's painfully obvious what your question is all about" Your palpable anger for a 2 week old editor of wikipedia who has come here with the best intentions might be doing harm. Knownnotknown (talk) 10:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, Look at this from our perspective. We have a new editor - the first thing this editor does is add an obscure doctor's name to an article. Then they add a link to that doctor's website (and edit war to keep it in), as well as adding a link to a lawyer's blog (and edit war a bit to keep that in). Both of these sites are hosted by Hurricane electric: [5], [6], and the new editor's user page includes a photo of themself, captioned as being taken at Hurricane electric. Is it so surprising that we might think there was some sort of business affiliation and/or promotional relationship going on here? MrOllie (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If editors are comfortable including the questionnaire, but want to avoid the link to Savant; then the PHQ-9 is on the patient.info website — a site trusted enough by the WP:MED project that it's already used in the {{medical resources}} template. Little pob (talk) 12:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I have previously disclosed that I know of this tool from my sysadmin community and I know of this doctor and the clinic since we are both in Bay Area. I do not have affiliation with the doctor or the clinic. I am not going to remotely make a dollar from this link. I have seen people benefit in my micro community and I want this to be widely available. I have no interest in marketing. And I suppose there must be easier ways to marketing than these long conversations lasting a week now. Which as evident have included you looking into my private (semi-private?) life. I do not condone this. STOP looking into my private life NOW. Knownnotknown (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, I assure you, I haven't looked at anything but your wikipedia contributions. MrOllie (talk) 16:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't seen it mentioned yet, but WP:NOTHOWTO is policy. Focusing too much on a diagnostic tool would seem to fall under the spirit of that. KoA (talk) 15:46, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

@KoA, I don't think that would be relevant. The policy says that the articles themselves aren't supposed to provide detailed how-to content, but there's nothing wrong with linking to a different website that has that information.

Also, I'm not sure that it's technically how-to content, in the way that editors normally think about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Along the lines of us sharing useful information, as Knownnotknown tried to do, I think our article for major depressive disorder should have prose that incorporates and links the PHQ-9 Wikipedia page in the Major_depressive_disorder#Clinical_assessment section, but it currently doesn't, for what it's worth. I find this surprising because I'm under the impression that the PHQ-9 is commonly used in clinical medicine. Biosthmors (talk) 23:09, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It does seem to have been quite difficult to get Knownnotknown to digest how Wikipedia articles are written; I have given two examples of how to discuss and include a link to PHQ-9 in a featured article at the discussion here, but I don't sense I have made any progress. The intent seems to be to get a specific link in to the article, rather than correctly sourced content about the instrument with a wikilink to the instrument's article. If not for being so busy, I would search for a high quality source, adequate for a Featured article, and do it myself as this discussion continues to go in circles; perhaps someone else will add the text, correctly sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:13, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I see no reason that for articles solely about diagnostic tools, or articles about diseases where one diagnostic tool is considered due weight to include a section about, they can't include an external link to a copy of that tool. Our article bodies are not to put external links to additional content in - if it's not encyclopedic (i.e. we can't include it directly in the article), then it can at most be linked as an external link at the bottom of the article. In cases where the tool itself has an article about it, there is no reason to include the external link on the disease article itself. The major depressive disorder article rightly goes over many screening and evaluation tools for depression. PHQ9 should be included under the Screening and prevention section of the article. A link to the tool itself that meets EL criteria can then be added on PHQ-9. The relevant policy here is summary style - for articles that cover in brief content that is given its own or a sub-article, content should generally be added to that sub-article. While it's noble to want people to be able to "easily be able to self-screen for depression when reading the MDD article" (my summary, not a direct quote of any one person), that is not within the purpose of Wikipedia and does not make it okay to add that link on the MDD article. It should go on the article about the tool and the tool should be discussed in the appropriate section of the MDD article. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:18, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: I just noticed that the PHQ9 article already links to the Pfizer website, which requires inputting no personal information whatsoever, and offers the PHQ9 (among other tools) with only about 3 clicks in a variety of languages as a PDF - that someone could easily check off. Our article already provides a "conversion" from the PHQ9 score to whether someone would potentially want to seek help. I see no reason to add another link to a different website than the official one. Alternatively, the website makes clear that the questionnaires can be reproduced without permission required. This seems to me like a good thing to port to WikiSource, and then a WikiSource content box can be added to relevant articles if desired. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 23:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

It appears that this link has been removed from the ==External links== section.[7] WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I strongly prefer a tool that will give me the depression score instead of a PDF where I have to do math to calculate the depression score. And from the PDF once the user gets a score then lookup another table to understand what that score means. I can think of 3 adults, as I type who would not be able to use the PDF tool Knownnotknown (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• Here is my plan once my work permits me some time:

I will create a comparison table for different PHQ9 tools. And link that table from the PHQ9 page. A good visual is current comparison of different linux distributions. User talk:MrOllie went ahead and added link to EL section of a tool that will do more harm then good as it violates the research protocol and gives realtime score as the user is answering. To do this while the discussion is ongoing, does not make sense. I think a comparison table will be very helpful. (OM Shanti)

I will see a tool that seems to do good on the comparison table and give a link in the EL section of Depression and MDD. Please no more edit war. Knownnotknown (talk) 06:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, What are you talking about? I haven't added any links to that article. As to your proposed 'comparison table' : that will work if you base it on reliable sources and it does not end up being a list of external links. Given the track record here I am skeptical that both of those conditions will be satisfied, but I look forward to being proved wrong. MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Here is the link added by MrOllie Will you now acknowledge that you probably forgot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knownnotknown (talk • contribs)

No, I did not add that. According to a history search it was added by another editor in 2014. - MrOllie (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

My mistake. Knownnotknown (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• User:MrOllie Please remove this EL of mdcalc. mdcalc tool does not follow the protocol. Showing the depression score while the person is doing the depression screen will do more harm than good. I am not removing it since I do not want an edit war. I also acknowledge that this might just have been a honest mistake. I am not ascribing any bad intent. Knownnotknown (talk) 09:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

My mistake. This link was not added by MrOllie Knownnotknown (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

• Here is the page on Draft:Comparison_of_PHQ9_tools please give feedback. Knownnotknown (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I will wait for a couple of days and if other editors do not object to it, I will link the comparison page from the PHQ9 page. Knownnotknown (talk) 00:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The page is a draft and is very unlikely to be approved. If anything, this comparison would be better included in the article - but we don't just compare things for the sake of comparing them. That is not encyclopedic information, and I'm honestly at this point going to recommend that you take a break from editing this topic area. It's clear that you are too focused on promoting one link, regardless of why you are doing it, that it is not constructive in this topic area. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:43, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The goal of creating this comparison tool is to show that the link I am promoting is order of magnitude better than this EL of mdcalc. I am invested in this one link because I know it to be the best out of 10+ I have used and I want to stand up for it. I am standing up for it since I know depression is a raging disease and this tool can help. I do not want to enter into an edit war. I will wait for others to show counter examples of why mdcalc should remain in the external links. If not then I will make the edit. (Whew!! Creating consensus is hard work) Knownnotknown (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, none of that is within the guidance of Wikipedia. Such a comparison is original research and prohibited unless you can show a reliable, secondary source (independent from all of the tools compared) that makes a similar comparison. I don't think that MDcalc should remain. I also don't think that your link should be included. I think a link to the Pfizer tool that provides people with multiple tools used for depression screening is likely the most appropriate. While I think it's admirable that you want people to have an "easy" tool, that's not a criteria for external links, and the Pfizer link is more beneficial overall as it gives people printable tools (they can use for people without internet access) as well as multiple tools itself. I understand and agree that depression is a "raging disease" - but Wikipedia isn't a tool for advocacy or public health, it's an encyclopedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The external link policy of wikipedia states: Is the site content accessible to the reader? I think the link I am advocating meets this criteria much better then Pfizer. Pfizer tools requires math and then subsequently another PDF and a table lookup on the 2nd PDF to know the severity. I still have not been able to find the 2nd PDF on the Pfizer website. I think we can all agree that most of us cannot use the pfizer PDF specially since the 2nd PDF is not there. Also the link I am advocating can be printed using the browser print button. Hence pfizer tool advantage of paper distribution that you mentioned is nullified. Since Pfizer does not meet the content accessibility to the reader requirement, I think we finally can have an agreement that the link I am advocating is better then Pfizer for the EL section. If I do not hear back a counter argument for 3 days I will change the EL link from mdcalc to the link I am advocating Knownnotknown (talk) 20:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, That's not what the accessibility requirement means. That's for sites that are geolocked or require an add-on program or something. You should not continue adding your preferred link without consensus and over the objections of other editors. I would imagine that if you continue doing that you will just be blocked again. MrOllie (talk) 03:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Accessible to the reader means that external links shouldn't be behind a paywall, or geographic restrictions. It doesn't mean "ease of use". There is no requirement that "math" is prohibited. The second lookup was easily accessible to me. And no, the link you're advocating can't be easily printed - because it then requires someone to have a computer to get the results of it by plugging it back in. You've heard many counter arguments - if you continue to add your desired link I will request your account be blocked. While the cause you claim to be for (increased access to diagnostic tools) is noble, you are obviously here to promote one specific link and that's not acceptable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 03:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think he's here to promote one specific link. I think he's here to promote inclusion of the best link (best according to his values, e.g., privacy is more important that official-ness). He has previously said that any website would do, so long as it was equal or better in the qualities that he cares about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Knownnotknown, the edit you are proposing to make is I think contested by other editors. It is good to discuss while that discussion is productive, with all sides seeking out alternatives or trying to improve their understanding of the issues. However, it is clear that there is upset on all sides, which tends to close minds, and for which a break is often a good solution. If the discussion reaches a stalemate then there are ways of getting more opinions, or maybe to just accept for now the idea isn't going anywhere useful. I would caution you against making edits you know would be contentious and for which you haven't achieved consensus. -- Colin°^Talk 09:06, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I want everyone to rest assured. I will not be making edits without majority agreeing to replace the current EL link with the link I am advocating. I have a feeling that some of this is directed at me personally. But that does not matter. I will keep working on getting majority agreement and not everyone agreeing.Knownnotknown (talk) 18:39, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

The premise of this question is all wrong; we are guided by MEDRS sources and Wikipedia policy on what articles are created and what is included in articles, and that varies for every instrument and condition. This is more of the same problem seen in the earlier depression instruments and articles, where core policy and guideline is not apparently understood. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to organize a poll on wikipedia where moderators can vote if they like the much more useful www.savantcare.com/phq9/ or more official www.phqscreeners.com ? How would I go about getting more eyes to look at it. Maybe for some moderators this has become personal and the only antidote is to get more eyes and viewpoints. Knownnotknown (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I will replace the link on PHQ9 Depression and MDD page from mdcalc page to phqscreeners.com If mdcalc does not exist I will add a EL to phqscreeners.com I hope on that there is agreement. I will wait 3 days for others to make a counter argument? Knownnotknown (talk) 05:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@Knownnotknown, if you want opinions from people who are familiar with the Wikipedia:External links guideline, then Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is the central place to ask. However, you might be better off talking about this at the individual articles first.

I think you have several questions here:

• Should [this article] (there are several possibilities, right?) have a link to any screening questionnaire at all?
• If so, then should [this article] have a link to the PHQ9 specifically (rather than other options)?
• If [this article] should have a link to the PHQ9, then which of the many webpages should be the one linked? (That is, the one for that particular article; people could reasonably prefer different links for different articles.)

As an example, I have started one such discussion at Talk:Major depressive disorder#External links, asking only whether, in principle, there should be any external links to any screening tools. If people decide, e.g., that they just don't want any external links section at all in that article, then we have a useful answer for that page, and don't have to consider the relative merits/demerits of any particular link. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you WhatamIdoing I want to acknowledge your gentle efforts in pointing me to the right direction multiple times during my short life here at wikipedia. You are a kind human. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.92.192.52 (talk) 04:45, May 17, 2021 (UTC)

Concerns about Psychedelic therapy

Could someone please look at that article and determine if it's compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS? Or is it promoting an unproven therapy in wikivoice?

I'm not at all an expert in this area. I was led to the Wikipedia article after reading a New York Times article titled "The Psychedelic Revolution Is Coming" [8]. I reacted skeptically to the article, which relies heavily on Rick Doblin as a source. He's been a psychedelic advocate for 40 years, he has no actual medical training, and he was a student of the fringe personality Stanislav Grof, who certified him in Holotropic Breathwork. I then went to Psychedelic therapy to see whether Wikipedia's coverage might be less promotional than that in the NY Times. It isn't.

I raised this issue at FTN, but that was probably a mistake, since it might not really be a fringe issue, and only one other editor has responded there. The two questions I raised about the studies that make claims for safety and effectiveness are (1) COI, and (2) unclarity about double-blinding. I also raised a social concern about psychedelic therapy spreading to millions of people who do not have PTSD or other severe mental conditions, similarly to what occurred with opioids.

For example, the article [9] on MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD gives a meta-analysis of what it describes as six randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trials, and argues that the therapy is both safe and effective. But despite the use of the word "double-blind", toward the end of the article the authors write: However, participants and therapists often, but not always, accurately guessed dose assignment (Mithoefer et al. 2011, 2018; Oehen et al. 2013; Ot'alora et al. 2018)--a recognized limitation in clinical trials of all drugs with perceivable effects and in all psychotherapy studies where there is no possibility of effective blinding. I read that as saying that the studies were not double-blind: the researchers were blinded but not either the patients or therapists. In addition to the placebo effect when patients know which group they're in, therapists might consciously or subconsciously handle therapy differently, especially if they're believers. The misleading use of the term "double-blind" might call into question the objectivity of the researchers.

Another question about the studies is whether they lasted long enough to detect long-term effects. Isn't it true that therapies and psychotropics typically don't "cure" patients once and for all, but rather often have to be repeated for years or even decades? And that they can be psychologically addictive even if not physically addictive? Do researchers have any idea what the long-term effects will be if psychedelic usage increases dramatically for reasons other than severe mental conditions?

From an outsider's perspective this seems to me to be a topic that needs some balance. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Blinding is not removed by simply someone accurately guessing. There's many people that guessed, based on side effects, that they got the Pfizer shot in the double blind trials of that. The fact that people can correctly guess isn't necessarily an issue in studies. The use of psychotropic substances, including psychedelics such as LSD, MDMA, and others, in therapy has long been a mainstream view of science. The only reason it isn't used daily and hasn't had large-scale trials yet is because of the onerous restrictions governments around the world have placed on the substances. Most of your questions on long term affects and addiction simply haven't been studied well enough for us to make claims like that. It's certainly nowhere near a fringe theory - and while I appreciate your concerns about the issue, I can't identify glaringly obvious MEDRS violations in the article you link. It's possible that the material could be pared back, but to my quick reading of the text and sources, it doesn't appear to me that anything is being misrepresented, and the text based on individual studies is clearly labelled as such. The quotes could likely be pared back or removed completely, and it's possible that some sections contain just an WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of studies and their results, but the topic is well known, it's a mainstream view that it works, and I don't see that article as promotional as you try and say it is. You brought up a "social concern" that I agree is potentially an issue - but the bigger social concern is unfortunately the fact that these studies, which for decades have shown since the drugs' discovery that they have medical use, have been buried by people who are "anti-drug" just because some people use them illegally and have side effects or die because of that. I'll note that you may be unaware, but esketamine, an enantiomer of ketamine, has already been approved by the FDA for use in psychedelic therapy sessions - someone goes into an office, is administered the drug, remains for 6 hours or so until their "trip" is over, and repeats that every so often. The tide is slowly turning that governments are realizing that classifying these compounds as "no medical use" is inappropriate - and studies will continue to show that they are immensely useful when used appropriately. Unfortunately, until the governments allow larger scale studies, we won't be able to answer the questions you pose in your second to last paragraph. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 22:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your informative response to my questions. As I said, it was a mistake on my part to bring this to FTN, since it's not a fringe issue (although at first I had thought it might be because of the NY Times' heavy use of Rick Doblin as a source). I'm certainly not "anti-drug". The question remains: Should the Wikipedia article cover Psychedelic therapy as a standard treatment that's proven to be safe and effective, or as a promising treatment with many unanswered questions about matters that are crucial for public health, particularly in the U.S., where there are dangers of misuse and over-prescription? The double-blind question doesn't matter much for the Pfizer trials, since there are clinical tests for COVID. In the case of mental conditions, isn't the issue of placebo effects (from patients' knowledge that they're getting the drug and not the placebo) a serious one? Also, if the therapist is an advocate for the drug-assisted treatment, and also knows which patients are in which group, doesn't that have an effect on the nature of the therapy that's provided along with the drug or placebo? I've read some of what Marcia Angell wrote that's sharply critical of the overuse of psychotropics on children, starting in the 1970s. In particular, she criticized the research that led to the approval of psychotropics for widespread use on children for COI and failure to consider long-term effects. In connection with psychedelic therapy, are there any MEDRS sources that should be in the article that call for caution and highlight the difficult issues that will take quite a while to resolve, such as evaluating long-term effects and determining precisely what patient conditions are favorable or unfavorable for safe and effective use? NightHeron (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

On your first question (Is it safe and effective, or promising and experimental?), I believe that the answer is a firm "yes, both".

I'm not sure that the placebo effect is a problem here. (Everyone who gets it in the future would know that they were getting it, right? So if that knowledge causes efficacy [or side effects] in the trial, then that knowledge should cause efficacy [or side effects] in future treatments, too.) If you are concerned about people saying that they feel better because they believe that they got the real treatment, then I think that could be addressed by measuring objective outcomes rather than self-reports. The number of hospitalizations is just as objective as a COVID test. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

NightHeron, unfortunately, the answer is "both" - we should cover it as a treatment that's been proven in many small scale trials over 4+ decades, but unfortunately due to government regulations there haven't been the large scale trials necessary for government approval. There are questions to be answered, yes, but unfortunately until the government loosens the regulations (ex: by classifying LSD and MDMA as Schedule 2 in the US instead of Schedule 1 with no accepted medical use), they can't be answered at all. And I disagree with the "placebo effect" being a big deal here. The whole point of a placebo is to see if the drug has an effect. If the participants and therapists are able to determine based on the effects that someone got the placebo vs. active drug, that's even more evidence that the drug works. Sure, there's COI/bias concerns - but that happens with all drug studies. I can see your concern about the fact the therapist may be able to glean which the patient was provided based on the actions, but I think that assuming that has an impact on the therapy provided is saying that they're unprofessional. Keep in mind that even though they're small scale, most studies have multiple if not many therapists involved in them - so you're saying that there's a mass problem with professionalism in the therapy industry if you claim that it would have such a big impact to tamper with the results. I think children is a different topic completely and conflating that with use of psychotherapy on adults is improper. I don't think many MEDRS call for caution - because the medical consensus is clearly that the therapies are useful and aren't being used more widely due to government regulations - it's clear from the studies that have been conducted that they're safe and useful when used appropriately. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 04:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I hope I don't regret posting because I am bringing my personal experience into the discussion rather than the extremely professional and competent feedback that I see here. I am not a therapist but I have worked for some years in a mental health setting with patients and their therapists. In all that time I never met a therapist that would not do their best to help their patients to the best of their ability in a study in which they would immediately know who had been given the drug that was being studied. They would know and they all would know. I can not speak so firmly about the patients, but I would guess that most of them knew as well, perhaps almost all of them. But of course, many patients did benefit from therapy even without the medication--as one would expect. Talk therapy works. And one more thing, having worked in the field I know that some people do not know the agony and suffering that some people are going through. For example, 20 vets a day, multiply that times 365 and you get over 7000 a year, are taking their own lives, many from depression and PTSD related to the time they served in combat. We owe it to these suffering people to offer anything we've got, including drugs without endless testing, to help them live a life that is not so bad that they want to end it. (Which bring untold grief to family's of the dead ones as well.) I apologize if this post is not appropriate here but I am quite moved by both NightHeron's postings and the wisdom presented by those that have responded. More evidence of the wisdom and caring that goes into making WP such a remarkable body of information. Gandydancer (talk) 05:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, WhatamIdoing, Berchanhimez, and Gandydancer, for taking the time to address my concerns. NightHeron (talk) 10:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is a great example of an ideal talk page discussion. An editor asked a thoughtful question with appropriate caveats and other editors responded with respectful, well-informed perspectives. And the OP then thanked the respondents! Nice. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 19:46, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Oh! So true! (still feeling a little emotional by it all). But it has happened before! See here: [[10]] I liked this so much that I put it on my home page some years ago. Gandydancer (talk) 12:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@NightHeron, WhatamIdoing, Berchanhimez, and Gandydancer:, can anyone say why this discussion worked, and Smell training didn't. They both have a similar start: editor is sceptical about some treatment that isn't your typical "take this pill twice a day" therapy and wonders if the Wikipedia article is biased. I have recently finished reading "Conflicted" by Ian Leslie, which I strongly recommend, and so am curious about this. If you'd rather not say publicly, you can drop me an email. -- Colin°^Talk 12:53, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: (1) I have no medical expertise, and came to this issue as a layperson. (2) I'd over-reacted to the NY Times article because of its heavy reliance on a person whose BLP shows a history of fringe, and that's why I'd mistakenly first taken the issue to FTN. (3) At FTN and this page no other editor entered the discussion to share my skepticism, and 4 editors argued against skepticism. (4) All 4 editors addressed me respectfully and pointed me to relevant information; and 3 of those editors I'd already encountered before on various occasions and regarded them very highly. NightHeron (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The key here is respect for others that are involved. We are all seasoned editors and I know NightHeron very well and I know him to be one of our best editors that's not afraid to dig into very controversial topics such as abortion and the question of whether IQ is related to race as a couple of examples. And as it turned out, he didn't let me down here either when he proved that he came here for advise and not to prove that he was right. And then, there is Waid...she may very well be one of the most, if not the most intelligent editors here that also is very emotionally intelligent as well. When she speaks, I listen. I don't know the third editor but I felt he did a really exceptional job of covering the information. I might add and really appreciated the fact that I felt safe enough to disclose personal information, not that it probably helped, "tho it didn't hurt, right?" (per my above link). Over the years I have learned never to do that because it will certainly be used against you as the discussion/argument goes on, and you'll regret it. Gandydancer (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought it was helpful for you to remind us about the context. We often write articles from an academic or intellectualized perspective, which lets us pursue a goal of perfect scientific evidence, but some people can't wait until we have perfect evidence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the intersex article needs a review

There is a certain sentence on the intersex article that makes me suspect someone was doing original research.

The sentence that says. “ Research in the late 20th century led to a growing medical consensus that diverse intersex bodies are normal, but relatively rare, forms of human biology.[9][184][185][186]”

I looked at sources 185 and 186 and those two never once said there was a growing consensus. I can’t tell what sources 9 and 184 say because I don’t have access to them.

Also here’s another problem with saying intersex is normal. There is no agreement on what counts as intersex. (As a matter of fact it’s not a medical term anymore.) The article even mentions that statistics on what counts as intersex varies.

Like is the article on intersex saying Turner syndrome is normal. Like if you scroll through the Turner syndrome you can tell why it’s clearly not normal.

Since the article on intersex is both a sociology and medical article I feel like I need some editors who know more about this topic to look through those sources and see if there any issues. CycoMa (talk) 03:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It does indeed need a review, as I have stated extensively. It's a bizarre slapdash of the most radical advocacy sources one could find naming conditions that have absolutely never been conceptualized in the most expansive definition of "intersex" as such. It is unfortunately owned by people with absolutely no understanding of the things they claim expertise on, so it continues to be an embarrassment run by people who don't know what consensus is edit-warring for versions that fail WP:BURDEN. Vaticidalprophet 04:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidalprophet that’s another thing I have noticed too, a lot of the sources cited in intersex articles especially intersex is that they use partisan sources. In earlier versions of that article I remember that article cited Intersex Society of North America on the definition of hermaphrodite, even tho that definition of hermaphrodite went against the definition biologists use to classify organisms as hermaphrodites.

Also there was literally a consensus back in 2006. Where they came to the agreement that intersex would no longer be a medical term. I mean I even checked the ICD on this.CycoMa (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a difficult subject area to work on. If some of you want to take it on, then I think it's useful to keep in mind that editors' identities and deep feelings are involved. If you conceptualize yourself as ____, then you will really (even subconsciously) believe that the article about ____ should reflect your view as the reasonable/rational/best-informed position (because why would you personally hold any view that you think is less than best?). I also think that it would be best to have two or three editors make a long-term commitment to the article. Just dropping in quickly to make a few changes may not result in long-term improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing I understand that topic is personal to some people.

Yes I am aware there are a good amount of intersex conditions that don’t cause many problems.

But, I’m concerned some people are gonna read that sentence and think serious diseases like Turner syndrome or CAH are normal. CycoMa (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article needs substantial work. We might look for language that lets us move beyond the concepts of "normal" and "abnormal" towards specifics (some conditions cause short stature, shorter life expectancy, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree as well. While the topic is not exactly in my wheelhouse, I will try to assist in making it better if time and spouse permit. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

International Tinnitus Journal... and Allied Academies?

The journal is listed as an Allied Academies journal (reminder, this is an OMICS subsidiary).

This is a bit puzzling.

The journal was published from 1995 to 2010 by SUNY. Then it was transferred to a Brazilian publisher... and there's now an association with Allied Academies of some sort...

1) Is this still reliable?

2) What's going on here?

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:03, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

[Update] In the meantime, I've sent an email to the journal asking who is the publisher, and what exactly the relationship there is with Allied Academies, if any. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Seems the journal is blocking gmail.com addresses... Or they're struggling with technology. Tracking down the Chairman/EiC's personal email (Carlos Augusto Oliveira/Fayez Bahmad Jr) also is proving challenging. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@ Headbomb did you hear from the chairman? The Allied Academies affiliation does not appear reliable, at least the way it is structured now in the websites. For starters, the articles on International Tinnitus Journal do not mention Allied Academies in their header unlike many other Allied Academies journals. The International Tinnitus Journal also has its own website instead of opening under alliedacademies.org by default. What gives me pause is that the contact address is the same for both journals, which is weird. Iciplascarfern (talk) 00:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Haven't heard a peep through the "contact form". Haven't been able to send anyone an email though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 01:12, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Please assist with the COVID-19 Transmission RfC

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic

Should COVID-19 Pandemic's Lead state the following when explaining transmission modes.

Option 1 Transmission of COVID-19 commonly occurs when people are exposed to respiratory droplets or small airborne particles exhaled by an infected person. Those particles may be inhaled or may reach the mouth, nose, or eyes of a person directly (i.e. being coughed on) or through touching with contaminated hands.

OR

Option 2 COVID-19 transmits when people breathe in air contaminated by droplets or small airborne particles. Transmission can also occur if splashed or sprayed with contaminated fluids, and uncommonly via contaminated surfaces.

OR

Option 3 COVID-19 transmits when people breathe in air contaminated by droplets or small airborne particles. It can also spread if infectious respiratory fluids, such as from coughing, land on people's eyes nose or mouth, and rarely via surfaces.

OR

Option 4 Please insert

--61.68.81.220 (talk) 13:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:17, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Excited delirium

There's some action going down on Excited delirium. This is a complicated topic that straddles sociology, race relations, current affairs and medicine. We have a couple of editors making editors that in my opinion are more from the current affairs (and maybe sociology) angle - which is good! Energetic editors make wikipedia, but I fear some WP:NPOV might be slipping into the article and the medical and scientific perspective being lost a little. I wonder if any editors here could help ensure the medical perspective is represented, but at the same time not used to dismiss the possibility that the diagnosis is being misused should this exist in literature.

Some angles on this. This diagnosis seems to exist mostly in emergency medicine. It is recognised by the NHS though also under another name, acuate behavioural disturbance, [11], it is used as a cause of death, but is also used to justify treatment. My personal opinion, with some review of the literature, but not complete in depth reading, is that it is more of a *symptom* that justifies Chemical restraint.

Talpedia (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• only 1 editor has responded, we need more opinions, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Is this PRIMARY, or a survey article?

Is there some kind of attribute or characteristic on a published paper that can be used as a clear indicator that the article is a survey, versus an individual study that should be regarded as PRIMARY? Usually it's obvious to me, I look for words like "survey of the literature" and so on. But here's a paper that I can't determine if it's one longitudinal study with activity in 1971, 1992, 1999, 2007, and 2015 so maybe in that case can be regarded as primary, or whether it's a survey of five individual studies. I don't see reference to other authors for each activity-year. (This ref came up due to some edit warring at Refractory period (sex), which I read as a possible disagreement about whether this ref is primary or not. (pinging @Generalrelative and MordvinEvgen:)) So, two questions, really:

1. is this Finland paper a longitudinal study, and should it be regarded as one study, thus PRIMARY?
2. in the general case, what's the best way to separate a survey or literature review (thus, SECONDARY) from a primary study, and where do longitudinal studies fit in this scheme?

Currently, MEDRS doesn't say anything about longitudinal studies, which I imagine have individual papers published over time. Is the most recent paper of a longitudinal study, which refers to latest results and maybe compares them to previous results from years past PRIMARY or SECONDARY? Or aren't such papers organized that way? (please  mention me on reply; thanks!) Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Responding to the ping. FYI I don't have an informed view on the matter. I restored the ref [12] after seeing it removed in what appeared to me to be a campaign against MordvinEvgen by the IP 37.47.128.238. I didn't see anything superficially wrong with this source and in any case it was one of three refs used to support a single point. But I have no opinion on the larger question raised by Mathglot above. For context, see this thread on my talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No campaign. MordvinEvgen wants men and women to be the same. Finland study doesn't support what it's used for on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.61.162.219 (talk) 05:39, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

The initial report of any set of findings from any study, including longitudinal studies, is a primary source. It would not be surprising if this were cited in a review article or a book.

Also, that journal only published between 2011 and 2018. It's not listed in Scopus or MEDLINE, and I don't recognize the publisher's name. You might want to see if its reputation is acceptable (it doesn't have to be "the best", but it should be "not the worst"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

I thought PubMed used to classify articles and you could discover this at the article page. I know there is some classification going on so that the search page can find reviews or clinical trials or meta-analysis or whatever. When I search for one of the authors, and try ticking any of those search filter boxes, it doesn't come up, suggesting this paper wasn't classified at all, or doesn't fit into one of those boxes. If I search more generally, and tick some of the boxes, sometimes the article result list has entries with "clinical trial" or "review" tagged along with the citation, but not always. Anyway, I agree with WAID that novel findings are primary research. As MEDRS notes (and discussed on its talk page several times), the introduction section of that paper is a kind of poor man's review: not ideal but might be useful for non-controversial stuff where you can't get access to anything better. -- Colin°^Talk 07:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Per Colin. The term longitudinal study is commonly used as a synonym for cohort study (retrospective or prospective) - a type of study design that is namechecked a few times in the WP:MEDASSESS section of MEDRS (though the term longitudinal isn't itself is now[13] mentioned). These are *always* primary study designs (the Methods section in the paper you link to gives relatively few details of the design itself, other than its use of preexisting surveys). Worth noting perhaps that surveys of people, procedures, or whatever, are cross-sectional (primary) studies; whereas "surveys" of the scientific literature are normally referrred to as review articles, and as such are secondary sources (and, in the case of systematic reviews, secondary studies). Hope this helps a bit (fwiw, personally, I feel the incomplete list/s of primary study designs in WP:MEDASSESS is already wordy enough, perhaps almost verging on OT[?]; but I can also see how such info can be explanatory). 86.174.206.60 (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps it's also worth mentioning here [re Colin's point, I think] that the "review" filter used to retrieve review articles in PubMed is sensitive but not specific. In other words, it finds a lot of review articles of the type we're looking for, but it also picks up primary studies which happen to use the word "review" in the text (eg "review of cases" [in a hospital, etc]). So we editors always need to inspect the text carefully to see whether a listed source really does qualify as a secondary review article (or whether it's actually a primary study).

(Additionally: searching/filtering by 'publication type' [pt], such as 'review' or 'systematic review', etc, may sometimes mean missing out on certain of the more recent articles that are listed in PubMed but haven't yet been indexed in MEDLINE [14]) 86.174.206.60 (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Menstrual cycle on the main page on May 28

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 28, 2021

Please watchlist Menstrual cycle (a fine save at Featured article review in an effort headed up by Graham Beards) to help with vandal reverts when it runs on Wikipedia's Main page as Today's featured article on May 28, Menstrual Hygiene Day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice: request to add Template:Uw-medrs to Huggle

If you're interested in the single-issue user warning template {{uw-medrs}} or in WP:Huggle, you may want to add your thoughts to Wikipedia:Huggle/Feedback#Proposal to add template Uw-medrs. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Created first article

Was it a good idea to redirect Hydrothorax to Hepatic hydrothorax? The whole article ha no sources and was essentially a disorganized collection of information. aeschylus (talk) 23:30, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. I think you have redirected the general case to a more specific one (like redirecting "disease" to "liver disease", even though most diseases aren't specifically liver diseases). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Hepatic hydrothorax is a subset of pleural effusion. So, you could link it to the pleural effusion page where it lists liver cirrhosis as one of the causes. Pleural effusion, when unspecified, is called hydrothorax. So, I doubt we need a separate article for hydrothorax. I agree with your point that the hepatic hydrothorax article could be spruced up with references. Here's one: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6647819/ Iciplascarfern (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Iciplascarfern, is a separate article for hepatic hydrothorax a good idea? I believe that there are a load of sources in journals describing it as a condition. aeschylus (talk) 01:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@Iciplascarfern, so what you are saying is that hepatic hydrothorax doesn't need an article? aeschylus (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing, yes, but here I don't see and reliable sources for other causes of hydrothorax. They all point towards the hepatic hydrothorax. aeschylus (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

@aeschylus I meant that 'hydrothorax' does not need an article because 'pleural effusion' covers it already. 'Hepatic hydrothorax' is a type of pleural effusion, so you could have a page for 'hepatic hydrothorax' (provided it is well-sourced). You could add a link to hepatic hydrothorax as a related topic on the pleural effusion page, if you wanted to. However, you redirection from hydrothorax to hepatic hydrothorax does not make sense because they are not one and the same. Iciplascarfern (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm by no means a clinician, I've not read the pleural effusion article, and I've no alternative targets to suggest; but I just want to mention that ICD-10 and ICD-11 both classify hydrothorax (J94.8 and CB2Y) away from pleural effusion (J90 and CB27). Little pob (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Watchlisting request for Black fungus (COVID-19 condition) and Mucormycosis

Mucormycosis

Could some helpful community stalkers of WP:MED kindly add Black fungus (COVID-19 condition) and Mucormycosis to their watchlists? Following extensive news coverage, these two pages are attracting more or (occasionally) less gf edits, which may sometimes potentially detract from their value as (relatively) reliable sources of encyclopedic-type information for general users, including perhaps journalists etc. Thank you, 86.186.155.163 (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

will keep eye on, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Ferric pyrophosphate citrate?

Should Ferric pyrophosphate citrate have a separate article from Iron(III) pyrophosphate?

My additions to the Iron(III) pyrophosphate article were reverted by a user with a COI claiming they are different. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iron(III)_pyrophosphate&diff=1025109615&oldid=1005539217

--Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@Whywhenwhohow, they are different chemicals ([15] vs [16]), but I'm not sure whether that means they should have separate articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Is it Triferic? - maybe just redirect it to Rockwell Medical#Products as a place holder for now. CV9933 (talk) 13:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-19 and misinformation: how an infodemic fuelled the prominence of vitamin D

An interesting read[17] and further evidence (as if it's needed) why the strict sourcing requirements of MEDRS help. Alexbrn (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Monoclonal Immunoglobulin Deposition Disease

Would anyone be so kind as to give Draft:Monoclonal Immunoglobulin Deposition Disorder a review before I submit it. I want to make sure it's compliant. Red Fiona (talk) 18:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

did a few edits you may want to add pathophysiology/mechanism/pathogenesis section--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Red Fiona (talk) 22:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Article request for criticism of psychiatry and psychology practices.

Anti-psychiatry is a movement rather than just criticism of psychiatry which has a connotation that entire stream of psychiatry is bad. But there are various kinds of practices in psychiatry and psychology which are criticised, obsoleted and changes with time, just like any other branches of science. Sometimes there is a delay in this change or updatation though. I want to request an article on criticism of psychiatric and psychology practice, and how it changes with time.

Controversies about psychiatry article discusses the subject of psychiaty as a matter of controversy, it does not have a discussion on individual practices and methods and their criticism.

Therefore I request an article on criticism of psychiatric and psychological "practices" rather than entire psychiatry and/or psychology. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

My view is that Controversies about psychiatry is sufficient, and open for expansion if more is needed on practices. However, my view is that criticism of such practices are already present in those articles, with a link to main articles (so, appropriately in WP:SUMMARY format). For example, Controversies about psychiatry#ADHD or Controversies about psychiatry#Psychosurgery both discuss practices. Other articles would just create undue overlap. Klbrain (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Osteogenesis imperfecta"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk: Osteogenesis imperfecta#Subtypes, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 17:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: You've given me this same thank you note a few times and it's not needed and probably not preferable unless you have something to add, so other editors don't need to read irrelevant comments. Please don't thank me for posting. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 14:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

@Psiĥedelisto: no problem Ive deleted it(yes it does seem you havent received any comments yet, it takes time[18])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject

Rapid antigen test 92,779 3,092 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 15:00, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. Looks underassessed -- I've bumped it up to start. There's a long tail of medical stubs, but many of them would be...difficult...to expand. (I wrote XYYYY syndrome to about the stub-start border, and I don't think there's any real way it could ever be longer.) Vaticidalprophet 15:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

COVID-related RFC

Coronavirus

Wikipedia talk:Biomedical information#RFC: Disease / pandemic origins. appears to be about what kind of sources are needed to describe the origin of the pandemic. All interested editors are welcome to share their views. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 pandemic Please also take a look at the RfC in relation to the transmission of the virus, and which method is more important per the sources. --Almaty^✉✎ 17:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Grading Malignancy Article

Hi there, I have been editing the stub malignancy article and managed to get it up to a C class. I then added a few more sections and an infobox and I was wondering if this is enough to get it up to a B class?

Thanks! Becomingeditor (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2021‎ (UTC)

Welcome, Becomingeditor, and thank you for your work. I have re-rated the article as B-class. I wonder whether you would find it easier to use the word-processing-style editing environment. You can see it by clicking this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malignancy?veaction=edit and the settings (if you like it and want to use it long-term) are in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing (scroll down a bit). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Narcissistic abuse

The article Narcissistic abuse has been nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narcissistic abuse (2nd nomination). All input helpful Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Grading Circumcision and HIV Article

This is grading as low importance. HIV is currently the most devastating pandemic of recent history, and circumcision is a proven preventive intervention. The fact that is applies most to Subsaharan Africa does not make it unimportant and suggests to me a cultural/colonial bias. It is unimportant to whom? Petersmillard (talk) 16:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:MEDIMP it should probably be rated "High" as it affects many people. Alexbrn (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

The fact that is applies most to Subsaharan Africa does not make it unimportant and suggests to me a cultural/colonial bias It suggests to me that the script people use to rate articles defaults to low, and most people don't bother to change it. Vaticidalprophet 16:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

How many people use the importance ratings? Would anyone miss them if they were gone? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I would. I think article assessment is a vital part of the project, and the fact most people ignore it is a problem with them, not with assessment. We are the archivists of our age; properly categorizing articles by how good we thought they were and how important they were to us is how the historical record knows our preferences and priorities. (Perhaps, in turn, it is telling of our priorities if we find this issue unimportant.) Vaticidalprophet 17:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there is any indication that most people care about the importance ratings even in that context, and I disagree that one editor deeming a topic "low importance" is particularly ... important to the wider world. All what they do is to upset people, such as in this case. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

IMO it ought to be called a "priority" rating rather than an "importance" rating, but changing the template requires updating tens of thousands of pages, and it's never seemed worth it.

The point of these ratings is to show the level for this group, not for the world in general. We generally rate "subtopics" as low importance to this group. That is, we think our time is better spent on HIV and male circumcision as separate topics than on HIV and circumcision as a combined topic. We have accordingly rated in the category described as "Article may only be included to cover a specific part of a more important article" (i.e., Low). That puts it in the same category as Nobel Prize winners, Spanish flu, Suicide methods, Asbestos, Herd immunity, COVID-19 lockdowns, and every article about COVID in any country. These are all important articles overall. They just aren't the ones that this group normally focuses on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:52, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

You know, They just aren't the ones that this group normally focuses on. seems like an argument that they are in fact useless. In fact, my impression was that this project tends to focus on articles with a large amount of readers (i.e articles where inaccuracies have the most impact) or these that someone has brought up here. Deprecating importance ratings for a project is possible; Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts did it too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

"Importance" ratings aren't useless, but they have very limited uses that are not apparent to most people. These ratings were created by and exist primarily for the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. The idea is that if a subject interests Wikipedians enough to form and sustain a group of editors on wiki about it, then the articles that are most interesting to this group should be given extra "points" when articles are selected for offline releases. Since the main criteria are popularity and quality, this additional criteria helps combat some types of bias by increasing the odds that the collections will include articles of importance to small groups of people (e.g., an article about a city that most English speakers have never heard of, but which is important to people from that country, or an article that is important to people of a small religion/ethnic group/sexual orientation/etc.).

Since we're tagging articles for this purpose anyway, some WPMED folks additionally use the ratings to focus their own editing or patrolling efforts. If you're interested in trying this out, then this link will let you see all the non-bot recent edits made to top- and high-importance articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

What’s your opinion on this source?

I found this one article on The BMJ called Rethinking sex-assigned-at-birth questions. I haven’t read the whole thing yet since I don’t have access to it, I was thinking about adding it to medical relating to articles on sex and gender to give some due weight to a certain view.

Any thoughts on this?CycoMa (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, that's an editorial, similar to an OpEd in a newspaper. The only thing it could be considered reliable for is for the attributed opinion of those authors - but given that it's a fellow and two students, it's virtually certain that their opinion isn't due weight to include in Wikipedia. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Berchanhimez okay thank you, I was thinking about going to resource exchange to get access to. But, I was afraid of using this as a source because I’m aware there is some misinformation regarding this topic. I just didn’t want to contribute to spending misinformation.

I guess not using it as a source is the best idea.CycoMa (talk) 02:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem - while sex and gender aren't necessarily always medical topics, this looks like it's at least borderline and potentially well into MEDRS territory as it seems to be discussing the potential mental health harm that could come from asking such a question to someone who does not identify with their sex assigned at birth. IMO better to be cautious and just say probably not a good idea to use it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 02:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa, you can request access at https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/ through the Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)