Edit with VisualEditor

Good evening,

The 'Terminologia Anatomica' has been re-edited in 2019 (https://ta2viewer.openanatomy.org/) and is much more logical than the first edition (https://taviewer.openanatomy.org/).

Since one year, I work full time to create an open source 3D atlas of anatomy (https://www.z-anatomy.com/) which includes this list of anatomical structures in several languages.

English and Latin are default, I translated the whole list in french (using the TA1 and adapting it) and the Portuguese version has also been corrected.

For this atlas, I adapt, copy-paste and create a definition for each of these anatomical structures (I have about 2700 on 7200) Most of them are the actual Wikipedia page, but the name has been adapted to the new nomenclature.

In order to be up-to-date, Wikipedia could take advantage of this work and adapt all these pages.

We are talking about >2500 pages and more will come (>7000).

Most of the sources are Wikipedia itself.

There are very few new anatomical terms, but many existing anatomical terms have a new name.

Many anatomical terms did not have their own page on Wikipedia.

The definitions created are copy-pasted parts of another wikipedia page (of the parent structure).

The other descriptions created are translations made from the 'Feneis' -which is the first reference for french anatomists- and contain the reference used in this book (page+number).

If you have any idea about how to update these pages (the atlas already takes all of my time), it is welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melodicpinpon (talk • contribs) 21:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tom (LT), Bibeyjj, Ornithopsis, GBFEE, anyone else: What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WhatamIdoing! As far as I see it, there are 2 queries raised here

• The first query is article naming convention, and how changes to TA affect current Wikipedia articles. It is worth noting that most Wikipedia articles do match the term given by TA, but that they don't have to (as described by WP:MEDTITLE). It may be worth checking whether the TA list linked at WP:MEDMOS is still up to date - we could also put a link to the new list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy#Tools. This is ongoing work.
• The second query is about whether some anatomy Wikipedia articles still need to be made. This points to general article improvement, as many anatomical structures do not have an article because they lack notability, or because no one has yet collected enough reliable sources to prove notability. There is not much action that needs to be taken regarding this unless there is a secret legion of editors we can unleash on increasing the number of anatomy articles! I imagine that most articles that do not exist are redirects to other pages, although I have no evidence of this.

I will link to this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy. All the best! Bibeyjj (talk) 22:03, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with what Bibeyjj says. We already provide TA2 identifiers in infoboxes if Wikidata is up to date (see e.g. Stapes). Your work on this atlas is fantastic and adds to existing anatomical ontologies that already exist. I would be wary of batch creating hundreds to thousands of stub articles in this sphere if they're just a dictionary definition particularly if you haven't had time to familiarise yourself with our existing articles. Usually the content can be found on bigger articles and the thousands of new articles just creates more work for editors to organise them, de duplicate them, merge and so forth down the track without meaningfully assisting readers. Perhaps at WP:ANAT you could post some lists of what articles you think are missing and you can get some extra hands and eyes to look through them to work out which need redirecting, additions to bigger articles, or creating.Tom (LT) (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not altogether sure what I was tagged for. My interest in anatomy is from the standpoint of paleontology, and I am of the opinion that we should separate human and non-human anatomy into separate pages when possible (e.g. create a new page titled Vertebrate maxilla and re-focus Maxilla to be specifically about the structure in humans, or conversely re-structure Maxilla to be less human-centric and create a new page Maxilla in human anatomy). If this were done, I would have no stake in what is done on human anatomy pages, and even as is, I only have a stake in those articles of paleontological interest. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom (LT), Bibeyjj, and WhatamIdoing,

These are my very first steps posting and editing on wikipedia.

Two informations:

1)The University of Leiden (Holland) received about 100 000 euros (approximation) to continue developing the open source atlas of anatomy and I do not know at all how they will spend this money; I hope to get hired

https://www.surf.nl/nieuws/13-nieuwe-projecten-voor-open-en-online-onderwijs-gehonoreerd

https://www.surf.nl/open-anatomisch-3d-model-in-het-onderwijs

It may be the moment to try and put some people translating the TA2 and adapting the wikipedia pages of the anatomical structures.

2)If somebody has the time and skills to create a short python script to export the .txt files of all the definitions contained in the atlas (in Blender), they could then be used to create/rename the wikipedia pages of these anatomical structures.

I try to create bridges to coordinate my efforts with the contributors of wikipedia but, as I give all my time to the 3D atlas of anatomy (it is enough challenge for one man), I do not plan to integrate the content myself in wikipedia. I'd rather try and find a method to propose what I do to the contributors, and let them decide if they want to integrate it or not. Melodicpinpon (talk) 16:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with your job prospects. You might also want to talk to the Wikidata folks, as importing structured data is their specialty. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

- Headbomb {t · c · p · b}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was sent to more than a thousand pages, so I think we can confidently expect an uptick in mindless removal of reliable-for-this-specific-statement sources, despite Headbomb's ongoing (and, in this case, bold-faced) efforts to discourage that. Ask for help when you need it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So far, in the two or so years the script's been around, I know of exactly one person (Zefr) that mindlessly uses the script. So while it's always a good idea to keep an eye out for mindless removals, those are still very uncommon. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:06, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your hostility, Headbomb. I didn't know the script existed, and don't make "mindless" edits. I use CITEWATCH for the useful disclaimer about predatory practices, and the search function to identify journals needing caution about weak editorial purview and article content. It just happens to be the case that journals listed on CITEWATCH for topics I edit often publish dubious articles - which I do read before editing or reverting, so my behavior is compliant with editorial scrutiny. In such a case when I do revert, it is the original editor's responsibility for a better source per WP:BURDEN. Zefr (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because this has been explained many times to you, with little to no effect. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:22, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any history of "many times" or of "little to no effect" due to some explanation from you. Take a cold shower and stick to the project without baseless accusations. Zefr (talk)

BURDEN is a little more nuanced than that (don't forget to read the footnotes). Generally, editors are only required to provide one (1) source that they genuinely believe is reliable for that statement. Limiting it to one source prevents a lot of POV pushing ("Sure, you gave me sources from the Pope, the Queen of England, and Albert Einstein to support this statement, but I reject them all as being completely unreliable. Bring me another rock, sucker.") Perhaps you are thinking of WP:ONUS? That's the one that says content can be removed unless and until there is a consensus to include it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It takes some new users a few rounds to start understanding that when the script highlights things, that is not the same as a demand that the source definitely be removed on sight. Most people will get the hang of it after a bit, and others won't keep using it (it's just not everyone's cup of tea, which is fine), but my point is that there is a learning curve. If you feel like you are encountering one of those situations, no matter which "side" you are on, ask for help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What about making deprecation highlighting opt-in using a class, instead of automatically for everybody? Instead of highlighting for all users using the {{highlight}} template, this would make it opt-in:

• <span class="unreliable-source">[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]</span>

along with a suggested common.css adjustment to produce the highlighting:

• .unreliable-source {background-color:pink}

And then whoever wants unreliable source highlighting, gets it? (And also lets them choose their background color or other text decoration if color-blindness or other accessibility issues are present.) This would make it more similar to orange disambig link highlighting. This comment contains such opt-in highlighting, but you can't see it now; make the change to common.css and it will become visible. Mathglot (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's already opt-in. Not sure what a class would add. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:49, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I'm missing something: I thought a user who chooses to use this script, will cause an unreliable source on a page visited by the script to be highlighted for all users, everywhere on the internet; or am I mistaken? If that's what it does, that is not opt-in. Opt-in means, I don't see any change, unless I take a positive action first. What the class would add, is precisely that: no change to previous highlighting behavior, *even* if someone runs the script, unless I do something to my common.css. "Opt-in" means, "I get to decide if page highlighting changes after the script has been run on pages I view, not the script runner." There's also the opt-out option, but I'd be opposed to it. Mathglot (talk) 11:16, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Users scripts are personal things. What you install affects you and you alone. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. In that case, I'm neutral. Mathglot (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Try it, see for yourself. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:04, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The script basically highlights sources that come from weak publishers. Think "anything published by MDPI" – and then keep in mind that many (but definitely not all) MDPI journals are good sources. Scopus lists more than 100 of MDPI's journals in the top half of their academic fields. Even journals in the below-median-but-not-horrible range may contain individual articles that editors can use appropriately, just like top-tier journals normally contain sources that editors shouldn't ever cite.

The point of the script is to show you, the individually opted-in editor, which sources might need further manual review. If you find a source that shouldn't be used, then you should consider replacing it or tagging it with {{better source}}. That's the step that other people will be able to see. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"basically highlights sources that come from weak publishers" it does, but it highlights more than just weak/borderline publishers. It'll pick up blogs, quack journals, predatory journals, disinformation, misinformation, facebook, blacklisted sites, deprecated sources, and a whole lot more. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully there won't be too many social media posts in medical articles. Some of them will be very obviously unreliable. It will also not pick up everything that shouldn't be cited (e.g., sources being misused, primary sources in respected journals). I do encourage anyone interested to try it out. Even if you decide that it's not for you, you will likely learn something from trying it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the script! But some kind of database like Wikidata would be much better. If I find a predatory journal I'll probably need to copy the script and modify it rather than adding an entry to the database. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 04:47, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@D6194c-1cc: if you find a source that should be flagged by isn't, you let me know and I'll add it to the script. The script does and will do nothing with Wikidata because describing whether or not a journal is predatory is not within the remit of Wikidata. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Headbomb: a handy script, thank you :) But things like "Beall's list membership" could be included on WD. Perhaps a reliable source for source-reliability -- some external group that vets sources and journal quality, and publishes this in an archival way -- could monitor a queue of suggested unreliable sources. And we could have something simpler than RSN amounting to an editable queue of "sources flagged for addition to tools like unreliable". Then that could be ingested by the other queue, reviewed by the external group, and it could be used as a source for Wikidata claims of predation. – SJ + 22:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Heat stroke looks to make several unsourced medical claims and uses low quality studies. MarshallKe (talk) 18:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

did a couple of edits[1] (however it needs more editor help)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've found that Kidney article describes human kidney. But my edits were revered even with started discussion on talk page. I've made the article in Russian about kidney in vertebrates and started translation to English. I'd like to publish it as Kidney page. And I need help in translation to English. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same kind of problem that an editor mentions above in this comment. Should an article about "kidneys" be about "human kidneys" or about "verterbrate kidneys"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi D6194c-1cc. We generally follow WP:SPLIT which is, when there is sufficient content to justify a split to a separate article, the human article gets moved. However, for various reasons editors don't seem that interested in adding content about non human kidneys. As you are worried about translation, I suggest you translate into your user space and then contact us at WP:ANATOMY. Please also be careful regarding your sources; if you have used primarily outdated or non English sources this would not be ideal. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer! Since there is not so much common and specific information in open access in the internet I used background information and introductions from primary sources. I don't think that it could be a problem because I don't use information from the research itself so those primary sources become secondary but with slightly less quality. But I've found one problem. The edit filter warned me that I have a link from a predatory journal in the third paragraph of the article and I can't determine which one. D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@D6194c-1cc, the user script at User:Headbomb/unreliable (includes installation instructions) would probably highlight the offending URL for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've found the link. It's the "Evolution of the Kidney" article as I thought. That source contains some valuable information but it's like a mess. I'll try to substitute it by something else. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... at Template:Older med refs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I recently submitted a new article on the enzyme thrombokinase that was rejected by Robert McClenon because the word is contained in the article on thromboplastin. The reason for the submission is that thromboplastin is NOT an enzyme as stated in the wiki article, but rather acts on the enzyme thrombokinase, now popularly known as Factor Xa. I want to correct the thromboplastin article, make an addition to the Factor X article, and insert a new article about thrombokinase, as shown below. This should clear up some long-standing confusion about these terms. How should I proceed?

Thromboplastin (TPL) or thrombokinase is derived from cell membranes and is a mixture of both phospholipids and tissue factor, neither of which are enzymes. Thromboplastin acts on and accelerates the activity of the serine protease Factor Xa, aiding blood coagulation through the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. Thromboplastin is found in brain, lung, and other tissues and especially in blood platelets. and that functions in the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin in the clotting of blood.

Proposed change: Thromboplastin (TPL) is derived from cell membranes and is a mixture of both phospholipids and tissue factor, neither of which are enzymes. Thromboplastin acts on and accelerates the activity of the serine protease Factor Xa, aiding blood coagulation through the conversion of prothrombin to thrombin. Thromboplastin is found in brain, lung, and other tissues and especially in blood platelets.

History: American and British scientists described deficiency of factor X independently in 1953 and 1956, respectively. As with some other coagulation factors, the factor was initially named after these patients, a Mr Rufus Stuart (1921) and a Miss Audrey Prower (1934). Factor X proposed History: American and British scientists described deficiency of factor X independently in 1953 and 1956, respectively. As with some other coagulation factors, the factor was initially named after these patients, a Mr Rufus Stuart (1921) and a Miss Audrey Prower (1934). At that time, those investigators could not know that the human genetic defect they had identified would be found in the previously characterized enzyme called thrombokinase. Thrombokinase was the name coined by Paul Morawitz in 1904 to describe the substance that converted prothrombin to thrombin and caused blood to clot[ref] . That name embodied an important new concept in understanding blood coagulation – that an enzyme was critically important in the activation of prothrombin. Morawitz believed that his enzyme came from cells such as platelets yet, in keeping with the state of knowledge about enzymes at that time, had no clear idea about the chemical nature of his thrombokinase or its mechanism of action. Those uncertainties led to decades during which the terms thrombokinase and thromboplastin were both used to describe the activator of prothrombin and led to controversy about its chemical nature and origin [ref 1952]. In 1947, J Haskell Milstone isolated a proenzyme from bovine plasma which, when activated, converted prothrombin to thrombin. Following Morawitz’s designation, he called it prothrombokinase [ref 1947] and by 1951 had purified the active enzyme, thrombokinase. Over the next several years he showed that thrombokinase was a proteolytic enzyme that, by itself, could activate prothrombin but whose activity was greatly enhanced by addition of calcium, tissue extracts and other serum factors [ref. 2021] In 1964 Milstone summarized his work and that of others: “There are many chemical reactions which are so slow that they would not be of physiological use if they were not accelerated by enzymes. We are now confronted with a reaction, catalyzed by an enzyme, which is still too slow unless aided by accessory factors.” [ref 1964]

Morawitz, P (1904). "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Blutgerinnung". Deutsches Archiv fur Klinische Medizin. 79: 432-442. Milstone, J H (1952). "On the evolution of blood clotting theory". Medicine. 31: 411-447. doi:10.1097/00005792-195212000-00004. PMID 13012730. Milstone, J H (1947). "Prothrombokinase and the three stages of blood coagulation". Science. 10610.1126/science.106.2762.546-a: 546-547. PMID 17741228. Milstone, Leonard M (2021). "Factor Xa: Thrombokinase from Paul Morawitz to J Haskell Milstone". Journal Thrombosis and Thormbolysis. 52: 364-370. doi:10.1007/s11239-021-02387-6. PMID 33484373. Milstone, J H (1964). "Thrombokinase as prime activator of prothrombin: historical perspectives and present status". Federation Proceedings. 23: 742-748. doi:10.1085/jgp.47.2.315. PMID 14080818.

Thrombokinase new article: Thrombokinase, now commonly known as coagulation Factor Xa, is the pivotal proteolytic enzyme that converts prothrombin to thrombin. History: Thrombokinase was the name coined by Paul Morawitz in 1904 to describe the substance that converted prothrombin to thrombin and caused blood to clot[ref] . That name embodied an important new concept in understanding blood coagulation – that an enzyme was critically important in the activation of prothrombin. Morawitz believed that his enzyme came from cells such as platelets yet, in keeping with the state of knowledge about enzymes at that time, had no clear idea about the chemical nature of his thrombokinase or its mechanism of action. Those uncertainties led to decades during which the terms thrombokinase and thromboplastin were both used to describe the activator of prothrombin and led to controversy about its chemical nature and origin [ref 1952]. In 1947, J Haskell Milstone isolated a proenzyme from bovine plasma which, when activated, converted prothrombin to thrombin. Following Morawitz’s designation, he called it prothrombokinase [ref 1947] and by 1951 had purified the active enzyme, thrombokinase. Over the next several years he showed that thrombokinase was a proteolytic enzyme that, by itself, could activate prothrombin but whose activity was greatly enhanced by addition of calcium, tissue extracts and other serum factors [ref. 2021] In 1964 Milstone summarized his work and that of others: “There are many chemical reactions which are so slow that they would not be of physiological use if they were not accelerated by enzymes. We are now confronted with a reaction, catalyzed by an enzyme, which is still too slow unless aided by accessory factors.” [ref 1964] In the mid-1950s American and British physicians described an inherited deficiency of a coagulation factor in humans, which they named after their patients Rufus Stuart and Audrey Prower. By 1960 the Stuart-Prower factor was being called Factor X, and it soon became clear that activated Factor X, or Factor Xa, was equivalent to Milstone’s previously characterized bovine thrombokinase.

Morawitz, P (1904). "Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Blutgerinnung". Deutsches Archiv fur Klinische Medizin. 79: 432-442. Milstone, J H (1952). "On the evolution of blood clotting theory". Medicine. 31: 411-447. doi:10.1097/00005792-195212000-00004. PMID 13012730. Milstone, J H (1947). "Prothrombokinase and the three stages of blood coagulation". Science. 10610.1126/science.106.2762.546-a: 546-547. PMID 17741228. Milstone, Leonard M (2021). "Factor Xa: Thrombokinase from Paul Morawitz to J Haskell Milstone". Journal Thrombosis and Thormbolysis. 52: 364-370. doi:10.1007/s11239-021-02387-6. PMID 33484373. Milstone, J H (1964). "Thrombokinase as prime activator of prothrombin: historical perspectives and present status". Federation Proceedings. 23: 742-748. doi:10.1085/jgp.47.2.315. PMID 14080818.

Leonard Milstone (talk) 20:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC) Leonard Milstone 5/13/2022[reply]

The article is at Draft:Thrombokinase. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We also have an article at Factor Xa. @Leonard Milstone, is Factor Xa the same molecule as the one you're writing about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t make 10+ edits a month, your library access is denied. It would be easy to game the system, but it suggests to me that if you decide to spend some time researching sources in the library without making active edits, that won’t be possible - even if you log in to wikipedia every day. CV9933 (talk) 09:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.biospace.com/article/researchers-answer-how-and-why-infants-die-from-sids/

Excerpt:

“The theory was that if the infant stopped breathing during sleep, the defect would keep them from startling or waking up.

“The Sydney researchers were able to confirm this theory by analyzing dried blood samples taken from newborns who died from SIDS and other unknown causes. Each SIDS sample was then compared with blood taken from healthy babies. They found the activity of the enzyme butyrylcholinesterase (BChE) was significantly lower in babies who died of SIDS compared to living infants and other non-SIDS infant deaths. BChE plays a major role in the brain’s arousal pathway, explaining why SIDS typically occurs during sleep.

“Previously, parents were told SIDS could be prevented if they only took proper precautions: laying babies on their backs, not letting them overheat and keeping all toys and blankets out of the crib are a few of the most important preventative steps. Importantly, they still are, as there is still no test for this biomarker.”

—- Jo3sampl (talk) 21:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that historically, most "SIDS" deaths were "suffocation due to unsafe sleeping practices, but we didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings, so we're calling it SIDS" deaths. That can make research into SIDS complicated. I wonder what the next round of research will turn up? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An editor raised a concern about the article Copper peptide GHK-Cu, as claims about its use in anti-aging creams are heavily based on primary sources. See this FTN discussion for details. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:38, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, that kind of content will say something closer to "Consumers spend billions of dollars each year" than "It works" (which is a fashion-and-beauty-standards claim, not a biomedical one; wrinkles are not a disease). Also, it looks like this MEDMOS recommendation is relevant for this article (and many, many others): Cite sources, don't describe them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Medical conditions with no known cure was created with no parent categories. I'm not knowledgeable about medicine so I'll just leave this here. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 23:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've placed it in Category:Human diseases and disorders. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 23:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting it in a sensible place, ClaudineChionh.

I wonder if we should have such a category. Presumably everything in Category:Genetic disorders has "no known cure". It's not clear what really belongs there (e.g., Common cold? Teenage pregnancy? Amputation?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree this is a problematic category, implying medical conditions either have cures, or do not. For many "conditions" that's not applicable, or so simple. Alexbrn (talk) 05:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see a use for it. There was a "List of" article that got deleted. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incurable diseases and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of incurable diseases (2nd nomination). A category is even worse, since it has sourcing issues on top of everything else. -- Colin°^Talk 07:36, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And it's also misleading to the reader, who may be thinking of one of several meanings of the word "cure". For example, do we mean that we can get you to a point where it is as if you didn't have the condition, although you actually still have it? Or that we can make the condition properly go away permanantly? Or that we can make the condition go away and it'll be as if you've never had it in the first place? HIV would be a good example of this. Dr. Vogel (talk) 10:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HIV appears to be curable. You just have to get Graft-versus-host disease once or twice first. (I think that sets a new standard for the cure being worse than the disease.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for following up. I reacted out of a de-orphaning impulse, but now I see in the history that the category was linked to that deleted list, so maybe this should also go to CfD. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 12:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you responding to that de-orphaning impulse.

I have listed this for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 18#Category:Medical conditions with no known cure. I hope that anyone with an opinion (including if you disagree with me!) will share your thoughts over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion at Talk:Calendar-based contraceptive methods concerning sourcing problems for effectiveness claims for the Standard Days Method (SDM). Input from WikiProject Medicine editors would be very welcome. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of a deletion discussion which may be of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/COVID-19 vaccine side effects — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:02, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just alerting editors that the WikiProject of Current Events now has a task force to cover the ongoing 2022 monkeypox outbreak. Feel free to join if you want to help. Elijahandskip (talk) 06:42, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for posting (important current topic)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Related to this reverted change to MEDRS:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#What MEDRS is NOT
• Wikipedia:What MEDRS is not (new essay)

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One result of this conversation is Wikipedia:Don't use today's news to contradict medical sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is "non-invasive surgery" actually an oxymoron, or is there a kind of surgery that doesn't cut or puncture anything? (I'm wondering if this phrase ought to be replaced with Minimally invasive surgery.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing that mentioned? We have Non-invasive procedure. -- Colin°^Talk 17:08, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in a handful of articles.[2] WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fun edge case, does it count as surgery Manipulation under anesthesia. Ironically it might be dangerous than many procedres that can be done without anaesthesia. Talpedia (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but is it surgery? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows. It's done by surgeons in an operating theatre to permanently fix a problem. No cutting though. Talpedia (talk) 10:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently surgery is defined as "removal, repair, or readjustment of organs and tissues," and invading/puncturing/cutting isn't required. A longer source here makes the same point. Subjectively, I can think of several procedures that aren't technically invasive but that I would consider surgery: most dental work, radiofrequency apoptosis, realigning broken bones, etc, as well as, of course, all the articles you mentioned. Minimally invasive still implies the procedure was invasive, if the term surgery doesn't work, I agree with Colin, in my opinion the phrase should be changed to non-invasive procedure. Cioriolio (talk) 22:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the Newsletter gets back on track...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As my editing waned around the end of last year, I let the newsletter go. WikiProject newsletters have a rich history of twinkling in and out of existence here; I suppose now I've added to that history. If anyone is interested in taking up the mantle, the newsletter is easy to assemble, and you can get a sense of the formula pretty quickly by looking at the archive. If there's sufficient clamor for the newsletter's return (i.e. more than just Ozzie) I can also take a crack at getting the presses running again -- though I make no guarantee of its regularity. All that said, thank you for the note Ozzie. I'm glad you enjoyed the newsletter's run. Ajpolino (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did (as Im certain several more medical editors enjoyed it as well), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because, dear medical editor, if you're not, you might want to head over to 2022 monkeypox outbreak to lend a hand. Oh boy. Alexbrn (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this (among editors/edit summaries/not just article text) appears to be more panicky than seems warranted. If you don't happen to remember this one from microbio and you think you might be catching a bit of "Oh, no, another virus I've never heard of is spreading!" feeling, then I suggest glancing at the years listed in Monkeypox#Epidemiology. Monkeypox is endemic in parts of the world, and outbreaks in the rest of the world happen all the time (e.g., every single year since 2017). I don't think that the epidemiologists are looking at this as the likely next pandemic. I suggest approaching this topic the same way you would approach an article about the 2020–2021 influenza season, or maybe the Disneyland measles outbreak. It's happening, and it is affecting real people, but this is not that scary (especially for those of us old enough to have been vaccinated against smallpox, as it's believed to provide protection). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This time there's the whole "It's the Gays what done it!" vibe that is particularly depressing. Alexbrn (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF. Many public health professionals have raised the alarm about MSM community spread, all the mainstream coverage acknowledges it, currently the article is transparently downplaying it. There have been multiple attempts to fix this; while the text may not have been perfect, these did not look like attempts to stigmatize the group at risk. You have been completely reverting these contributions instead of improving them. I agree that someone else should step in. There is more discussion at Talk:2022_monkeypox_outbreak#Majority_of_cases_in_gay_and_bisexual_men_(MSM) Palpable (talk) 02:30, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "vibe" I was referring to was on the world outside Wikipedia (though fuelled by some news reporting). Alexbrn (talk) 06:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPE. PRAXIDICAE💕 19:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alexbrn, I don't think the removal of text that is ultimately sourced to David L. Heymann via Associated Press "per MEDRS" was helpful. Nor do I think WAID's suggestion that this is treated like a bog standard flu season we don't even have an article for, is likely to fly. Remember, the last time some editors got all reverty over MEDRS was the Covid origins debate and I cannot repeat enough that they were wrong and nearly critically endangered MEDRS in the subsequent RFC. Choose your battles carefully and revert "per MEDRS" carefully or you are going to find it demoted to essay status or restricted to "medical advice". This is an ongoing notable current event and we have to cut our cloth appropriately, which means using the best sources and citing the best experts we can find. Of course we need to caveat that some of this is just expert speculation rather than consensus epidemiological "fact". The AP article says "Heymann hypothesized" and also cites Mike Skinner, a virologist at Imperial College London, who appears to be focusing more on the "close contact" that arises from sexual contacts, rather than it being literally sexually transmitted. If we are going to have this article (and it ain't going away) then we need to report this kind of expert speculation carefully. The article will evolve and better sources may come later. Here's The BMJ also reporting. The fundamental facts about the current cases involving many MSM does not appear to be at all controversial, though obviously needs to be handled sensitively. Bluntly "censoring" information that appears negative towards "the Gays", as you put it, because the sources aren't a review in the Lancet, is not helping. -- Colin°^Talk 07:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not controversial, and the the article already sourced the MSM aspect to the ECDC. My concern is that "sensitive" handling does not entail piling speculative weaker sources on. Alexbrn (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well then a summary "We already cover this with better sources (Nature, ECDC)" would have been appropriate, and maybe some comment about WEIGHT. As it stands, your edits just look like you are removing the gay angle and using MEDRS as your tool. I'm just saying we need to be really careful if a edit summary is just "per MEDRS". If we didn't have the other text and didn't have features in Nature news, but all we had was a couple of proper experts interviewed by AP, then that would have been absolutely fine (today.. and then can be improved later). This topic, like covid, is going to attract editors who aren't familiar with medical articles, and who think (absolutely correctly) that this is a current affairs article, not a medical condition or disease (monkeypox) article. So if it attracts too much cruft, and needs pruning, then let's use the language of standard editing and policy, rather than always arguing the pruning is "per MEDRS". -- Colin°^Talk 10:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you mention the Covid origins debate. The current article for SARS-CoV-2 states flat out that it had a zoonotic origin, and on the talk page, Alexbrn and others are bullying someone who tried to make the language a little less dogmatic. Palpable (talk) 06:58, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The title of this thread made me laugh, as I live in a state of permanent burnout. I'm sure several of my colleagues here can relate to that. Also to be frank I live in constant fear of another bug coming along and the same thing happening again and again. So when I heard about this monkeypox thing the other day I felt almost anaphylactic. Dr. Vogel (talk) 19:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a general reminder to everyone: If you can pitch in, great. And if you can't, then please don't, and don't feel guilty about that.

When an outbreak begins, we need help on the related articles. The English Wikipedia is a particularly popular destination for early information, and we'd like people to get good information. But we also need folks who deliberately turn the other way and keep an eye on the other articles that aren't the focus, to pick up the things that others are temporarily dropping. Some folks really enjoy the early days, and I can see the appeal. You get to learn about new things, most of the editing is pretty straightforward, there's a team of folks working together to get good stuff in and garbage out, and it's high-impact work. But there are folks who always hate that high-speed environment, and most of us are up for it only on occasion. If it isn't "your turn" – even if you think it's never going to be "your turn" – then you are still a very valuable contributor, and we need you to protect yourself and build the project in ways that are sustainable for you. We need good editors somewhere on wiki much more than we need them at any specific article.

So to all who help with these articles: Thank you. We need you. And to all who support the rest of the project: Thank you, equally. We need you, equally. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS and current affairs

Perhaps MEDRS could do with better advice about breaking news stories, current affairs and handling the immediate need to document an unstable topic that has rolling tentative information breaking about it, vs the long-view that we take with medical articles sourced to reviews and books. We note that the popular press is generally not reliable, and indicate a couple of lay publications like New Scientist and Scientific American, but we don't really mention the medical current affairs aspects of journals and their publishers (e.g. Nature news, and BMJ) Possibly those have increased since MEDRS was written, especially due to Covid. I just deleted a Ben Goldacre link from MEDRS which indicates just how out-of-date that section is likely to be. Those new professional medical news publications are likely to be a better bet than The Telegraph and fairly up-to-date. I think there is still a temporary role for quality newspapers who have interviewed experts or are repeating statements from organisations where those experts/organisations are considered reliable. MEDRS asks us to use "use common sense" here, and perhaps we should give a little slack for information that is uncontentious and likely to be better sourced in coming days? -- Colin°^Talk 10:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favor of keeping good content and upgrading sources later. OTOH, I think the main source of disputes is contentious content? We're not generally seeing many disputes over "WHO said the cause is a virus"; it's more like "Scientists say it's a virus" and someone wants to add "But this guy disagrees, and I found a newspaper who quoted him, so we have to treat his POV as having equal validity to all the others". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly happens, but the above issue with sources that more or less said the same thing about a group of people who were notably affected in this outbreak and a handful of all respectable scientists clearly speculating about transmission. I think MEDRS isn't helping direct editors towards better sources of medical news reporting (e.g. the Nature news) and a lot of that section is really really old. MEDRS seems mostly designed to pick sources that have significant lag and determine that what we say is not likely to change for years. And that's not helpful for a topic that is days old, and readers are coming to find out "What are scientists saying about it now?" and are quite happy if next week scientists are saying something entirely different. What are the best sources for that? Cause it isn't meta analyses and textbooks. -- Colin°^Talk 06:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds a bit like the WP:N vs MEDRS dilemma: an experimental drug can be notable (e.g., as a commercial product whose success or failure will determine the fortunes of major corporations) but there might not be any sources that match MEDRS' ideal, because it's in early clinical trials.

OTOH, if we say "The goal is to use the best possible sources, even if those aren't ideal", then we're going to have someone trying to cite very bad sources because "this is the best possible source for my POV". I'm not sure how to write that in a way that doesn't make things worse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please advise whether drug education is a topic that falls under WP:MEDRS, specifically on its effectiveness in preventing drug use. It was badly disorganized when I got here, and I am concerned that information on effectiveness is based too heavily on primary studies. The article is possibly slanted toward supportive evidence and viewpoints; an unsourced, weasel-wordy section was dropped entirely from the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:50, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can always replace bad primary sources with better secondary sources if they exist without having to really think about WP:MEDRS... Talpedia (talk) 12:17, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be better, at least in a theoretical-knowledge-framework kind of way, to think about whether individual pieces of information fall under MEDRS, rather than whole topics/articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Talpedia and WhatamIdoing: I am more specifically concerned about whether MEDRS is applicable to studies on the effectiveness of drug education in reducing drug use, as many of the primary references in this article are. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to avoid the issue if we have better sources :). Replacing primary sourced statements with secondary one is the best thing to do if it's possible, though it does take more effort than hitting the delete key (but maybe not than the resulting drama). Talpedia (talk) 09:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questions of efficacy would ideally always be supported by MEDRS' ideal types of sources (e.g., medical school textbooks and review articles). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm new to Wikipedia and wanted to ask before adding this to the mentioned article.

A condition- Blepharitis is a chronic condition- inflammation of the eyelid and according to WHO ICD-10, it is categorized as H01.0 Can this condition be added to the subsection H00-H06-Disorders of eyelid.. of the article?

Not sure if I have a correct and acceptable source either (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459305/ OR https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1444-0938.2005.tb06677.x) - but if anyone can check and make the edit (or not)- that would be great!

Thanks! Oluwa24 (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed a rename of Gallium 68 PSMA-11 to Gallium Ga 68 gozetotide to use the INN instead of the brand name. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Railway surgery has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I had a question regarding justifying edits. I am trying to remove an edit that is misinformation, but these edits are "supported" by a citation so I have to find a secondary source counter-citation to a clearly wrong statement. For example, in the Tennis Elbow page under the "Differential diagnosis" section, there is a differential diagnosis of "Osteochondritis dissecans" for tennis elbow with a source that "supports" it because the source states "There are many pathological conditions that may mimic [tennis elbow] such as osteochondritis dissecans." However, osteochondritis dissecans is a pediatric disease while tennis elbow affects middle-aged adults. Therefore, there is a clear separation and reason that osteochondritis dissecans should not be there. Would I have to find a secondary source to justify every edit like this or are there some organizational/foundational medical framework that I can refer to as justification to save time? Thank you for your help and time!

Best, Trit6611 (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To my non-expert eyes, I fail to see the issue. Differential diagnosis is a contrast with other similar conditions. Tennis elbow and Osteochondritis dissecans are both similar conditions. That one is an adult condition, and the other a pediatric one seems rather immaterial, especially if the pediatric condition remained untreated. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Headbomb,

I can see the point that you are making. I believe that my doctor had an issue with that because the age gap indicates no possibility for the two diseases to cross paths. It would be unhelpful for a middle-aged individual looking into tennis elbow to potentially worry about osteochondritis dissecans since it is a condition that has no possibility of affecting them. However, I can see the point that you are making as well since I was unable to see this opposing side of the debate. Aside from this controversial example, I would like to inquire whether a secondary source counter-citation is the only way to approach a counter-edit justification? Could I cite a Wikipedia page like "Correlation does not imply causation" or WP:MEDRS or any medical edit framework as a counter-edit justification for edits that is harder to find a secondary source citation for? Trit6611 (talk) 19:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll put this scenario forward. A 17 y.o. athlete complains about elbow pain getting worse. Says it makes playing racquet sports impossible/unpleasant. Goes into the doctor's office, and complains about having "tennis elbow or something".

Would either the teenager (or people from their entourage) or the physician be served by knowing that osteochondritis dissecans looks a lot like tennis elbow? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Headbomb,

Yes that completely makes sense. There is definitely multiple point of views to this example so I apologize for using such a debatable example. However, my main goal of making this thread is to inquire whether a secondary source counter-citation is the only way to approach a counter-edit justification? Could I cite a Wikipedia page like "Correlation does not imply causation" or WP:MEDRS or any medical edit framework as a counter-edit justification for edits that is harder to find a secondary source citation for? Could I please get some guidance on this? Trit6611 (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This particular example could be addressed by adding information: tennis elbow can happen in kids but is mostly seen in middle-age adults; OD is mostly seen in preteens and teens.

Another approach to articles is to re-write sections completely. I re-did a section in COVID-19 vaccine last week. You can see from the diff that I kept some and replaced or removed some, but the overall goal was to re-write the whole thing, and not specifically to keep or remove any particular sentence or source. I'm pretty happy with the way it turned out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @WhatamIdoing,

Thank you for your mediation and suggestion. I wanted to clarify something from your statement. If I had a whole goal of rewriting a section, I would not have to find a source to justify the rewriting of material supported by a source or does all sourced material have to remain unchanged in the rewriting process? Trit6611 (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I'd come back to this page because I realized (I thought) I hadn't made the connection clear, but you picked up on what I meant. Re-writing sections is generally a good thing, and when you re-write, it sometimes turns out that not everything belongs (and/or that missing things need to be added).

If you need some WP:SHORTCUTS to sling around in a discussion, then the main ones are WP:DUE and WP:BALASP. It is possible for something to be fully verifiable, MEDRS-compliant, and even uncontestably true – and just not relevant or important enough to mention in that article/section/paragraph.

The other thing I'd suggest that you keep in mind is: If you re-write and someone crams their favorite factoid back in ...let it go. Sometimes the relevance isn't obvious but it is actually appropriate; sometimes it's just somebody's favorite thing and not worth a fight (unless it's really horrible, in which case, you can ask for help here). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing,

Thank you very much for your help and guidance! I truly appreciate it! It made this process a lot clearer and easier for me!

Best, Trit6611 (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any active initiatives focused on vaccines?

• On the safety side: Wikipedia:Vaccine safety seems inactive, there was a Sure We Can project w/in the COVID-19 project that touched on vaccine safety. Anything else about vaccine disinformation and safety?
• On the research and positive information side: it seems like tracking vaccine science and progress, and interplays with sequencing like nextstrain, seems important and somewhere in the intersection of WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Viruses...

Thanks! – SJ + 23:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not to my knowledge, however a good idea on your part--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add a paragraph about veterinary use of salicylic acid to Medical uses of salicylic acid - it's commonly used to treat joint diseases in dogs, goats, and horses, assorted conditions in poultry, and digital dermatitis in cattle - but per the notice on the talk page I thought it prudent to first check here and on the article talk page. Is this acceptable, or should I create a new article?

To be honest I don't think it's worth creating a new article but I know wiki projects in STEM fields and especially medicine are understandably worried about unreferenced or poorly referenced nonsense being shoehorned in, so I thought I’d check first. Thanks. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 00:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a particular regular here, but an alternative could be to add the veterinary uses to the main article on Salicylic acid - suitably referenced of course. It might also be appropriate for someone to move use for (human) shampoos from the medical article to the main article - it is currently unsourced there and tagged with "medical source needed" - while it is trivially easy to show that salicylic acid is used in shampoos, whether this is a medical use and whether there are MEDRS compliant sources covering that is a different question. Nigel Ish 10:31, 3 June 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that. Thanks; there are oceans of good references in veterinary journals, so proper sourcing won't be an arduous task. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 05:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Medicine community, there is an Article for Deletion being discussed that may be of interest to project members.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muthana_Mithqal_Sartawi CT55555 (talk) 15:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I commented as well. I wonder if WP:NACADEMIC may require some additional medicine-focused criteria, or a separate guideline for either medicine or inventors. The patented surgical technique at the core of this discussion doesn't quite seem to fit neatly in any of the academic criteria, but arguably isn't all that academic because it's a direct practical application while NACADEMIC focuses on higher education and abstract intellectualism. Bakkster Man (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an excellent question. Refining WP:ACADEMIC would seem like the logical path forward, as this seems too niche a problem to create a whole new notability criteria about.

I guess most inventors make it through WP:GNG but this was a good example whereby someone invented a medical procedure and it's perhaps too complicated to make it to newspapers.

I would be happy to collaborate to improve things. CT55555 (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think the bigger question is, broadly speaking, when does an inventor become notable. Not every patent is notable (even on the article above, other patents are mentioned in passing), nor every patent holder. Where does that line get drawn? In this case, I'm struggling to find significant independent coverage or citing of the procedure, and wonder how much is a result of being recent (2018) versus of limited enough applicability to be actually non-notable (how many procedures per year, how many other surgeons performing it, etc). Bakkster Man (talk) 17:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be helpful to consider the WP:WHYN section of WP:N before going to far down that path. If you can't find independent coverage, then how could you write an encyclopedia article that complies with NPOV? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably the right way to think of it. The invention itself is notable (at least, notable enough to be a sub-heading in the knee surgery article), but the inventor might not be without independent coverage. And that's also probably the difference with NACADEMIC, where those major awards indicate notability and almost always have independent coverage. Bakkster Man (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's my impression that NACADEMIC was written for exactly the opposite reason: Some editors decided ~17 years ago that the world was unfair by giving "too much" attention to, say, movie stars and "too little" to academics, so they wrote an exemption for their favorite subject from the requirement to produce any sources that weren't written either by the professors or by the professors' employers. Look at the notes for NPROF #4, for example: textbook authors are guaranteed an article, and all that you need to produce is a page from the publisher's or author's self-published and self-promotional website that says something like "This textbook is now used at several universities".

I don't believe that we are generally producing NPOV articles in this subject area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the example above, there was plenty enough to write an article, but his notability was still robustly challenged because editors did not see that inventing a new technique was notable. If it was not for the commented from the editors above, I don't know how the AfD would have ended. CT55555 (talk) 22:07, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed rename is Living with COVID-19 → Endemic management of COVID-19, discussion at Talk:Living with COVID-19#Requested move 18 May 2022. Bakkster Man (talk) 13:41, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of editors at Gender dysphoria are collectively reverting back material about "a 2021 study" sourced to this CNN article, later replaced with the study itself. Reverts: [3][4] Both of them are accusing me in edit summaries of WP:STONEWALL and "edit warring against consensus" respectively, even though there is zero discussion about this on the talk page and when I was accused of STONEWALL I had literally only reverted once after one editor added it. So, I feel this has become toxic and an issue of assuming bad faith about me. Really, though, isn't this a case of trying to use WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to override the guideline, which represents community consensus?

And I cited WP:MEDRS, and more specifically: Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content...For biomedical content, the Wikipedia community relies on guidance contained in expert scientific reviews and textbooks, and in official statements published by major medical and scientific bodies. Historically, we have used MEDRS at these articles (such as gender dysphoria in children and puberty blockers) to exclude use of single studies and possible cherry-picking to promote particular POVs on medical gender transition in children - both for and against.

This matter needs outside input and action. Is it proper for two editors to use reversion and accusations to force inclusion of a particular single study? What's to then stop inclusion of any and every single study that any editor wants in the future, or becoming 'writing reviews, not citing them' contrary to MEDRS? How is it WP:DUE to treat single studies alongside reviews? And most importantly: why on Earth would we use single studies when we have review articles on this topic? Crossroads ^-talk- 01:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I count at least three if not five editors who are in favour of including this study to your one oppose. More views are of course welcome, however you could have cast significantly fewer aspersions about other editors when posting this notice. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One inserted it and two, including yourself, reverted it back in. That's three. This isn't a notice, the discussion is here and I posted a notice at the page, because the crowd here is better able to apply MEDRS. Normally I would have left out complaints about other editors; however the accusations in edit summaries left me no choice. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:34, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crossroads, MEDRS refers specifically to cases where it is appropriate to cite primary studies:

Findings are often touted in the popular press as soon as primary research is reported, before the scientific community has analyzed and commented on the results. Therefore, such sources should generally be omitted (see recentism)... If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study (emphasis added)

What we have here is an emerging set of high-quality primary studies that make substantially different observations than the lower-quality studies that have been summarized in previous review articles. It is entirely appropriate, per MEDRS, to include the results of such studies (properly attributed) until the next round of review arricles appear. I don't want to speak on behalf of the other editors who have supported inclusion of this material at Gender dysphoria, but I expect their reasoning is similar and not, as you have asserted without evidence, ILIKEIT. For all appearances, it seems thwt you are STONEWALLing the inclusion of studies that you yourself do not like. Newimpartial (talk) 01:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically fitting you quote that, because touted in the popular press as soon as primary research is reported is exactly what happened here and hence should be omitted as recentism. This is in no way like "a large randomized clinical trial" (here, N=317) and this justification about an "emerging set" of sources is entirely unsourced editor opinion and hence irrelevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Sideswipe9th has listed the authors of some of the other studies in a prior Talk discussion - the additional studies are "fact", not "opinion", and I am disappointed at your apparent difficulty distinguishing between the two.

You realize that the "large clinical trial" reference in MEDRS is an example of a high-quality study the results of which should be mentioned even before they make it into review articles, yes? The principle is to include high-quality studies making important empirical observations even before reviews are available; the principle is not "let's nit-pick the number of participants in the study if we'd rather leave it out". Newimpartial (talk) 02:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I did so at Talk:Puberty blocker#Giovanardi source and desistance rates, where the issues of low quality research by Zucker, Giovanardi, Bradley, Bailey and others that formed the focus of all past reviews was discussed. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also relevant to this discussion is the subsequent section at Talk:Puberty blocker#WPATH 8 SoC Draft, which summarised the draft adolescent chapter from the upcoming WPATH 8 Standards of Care. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also just re-found where I downloaded a copy of the draft chapters, so I'll re-review them again for the context of this discussion in the next day or two. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, what were the sizes of the previous primary studies? While 317 is small compared to big general population studies, but large compared to rare condition case studies that are often single digits. Bakkster Man (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to the original question, why on Earth would we use single studies when we have review articles on this topic?, is of course, because the newer single studies on this topic have overcome many of the methodological limitations of the older studies, limitations that make most of the review arricles a complete show of excrescence. I thought this had been made reasonably clear to you in previous discussion of this topic, Crossroads. Newimpartial (talk) 02:46, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More editor opinion, cherry picking, and special pleading. And these arguments could be used to include numerous undue primary studies across the medical topic area, including ones that might seem to disfavor child medical transition - which we've had people try to add in the past and which I opposed. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am engaged neither in cherry picking nor in special pleading, Crossroads. I have critical opinions about the older studies (including the newish studies built on the old data that were not fit for purpose), and those opinions are not OR because similar criticisms have been published in MEDRS sources. When I see it, I recognize methodology that is more able to answer the questions researchers and practitioners have actually been posing, and it matters a great deal whether a practitioner is to assume that over 80% of trans kids presenting to them are likely to desist or whether fewer than 10% will. When we have important results from quality studies that matter to our readers, we are supposed to present them, not stonewall them. Newimpartial (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the results will vary from place to place and even from practice to practice. In some times/places/cultures/groups, we will see higher rates, and in others we will see lower rates. The study itself calls out time ("2010s") and groups (better educated, higher-income families) as specific confounding factors, but think for a moment about the differences that you would expect in a culture that accepts trans women but not gay men vs the opposite, or the rates you would expect if you study young children vs preteens vs older teens vs middle-aged adults. There will also be some cultural differences in awareness and in the willingness to officially label someone as presenting with gender-diverse behavior ('turning a blind eye' whenever you can will reduce prevalence and probably desistance rates). For children, the parents' choices will also affect the numbers: Do the parents seek medical attention? Do they select a provider that resists their child's self-identification? Remember that what we see in these studies isn't reality itself; we are seeing only what people are willing to tell the researchers.

We would also expect some differences by identity. A non-binary AFAB person is likely to have a different detransition rate than a trans man or trans woman.

I've no objection to including this study, but I feel like the recent attempts have been a bit like taking the survival rates from brain cancer and applying it to all of cancer. The relevant description is not "A 2021 study on transgender children who socially transitioned". The relevant description is probably closer to "One longitudinal study found that American children who differ from typical by completely socially transitioning at a very young age (median=5 years old) and who also differ from typical because the study excluded all non-binary kids from enrolling and who additionally differ from typical by having at least one parent not only willing to support them through socially transitioning at a young age by buying different clothes and permitting a different hairstyle (which are things that most five year olds can't do on their own) but also willing to enroll them in a long-term clinical trial during the 2010s – these unusual children don't socially transition back to cisgender very often during the first five years after transition".

Don't get me wrong: This is a good study, and I think it's worth mentioning. It's just not the be-all and end-all of everything about all trans people forever. Trying to use a study like this to report statistics down to the tenth of a percentile is IMO a bad idea. I think that the most useful line in the study is this: "many youth who identify as transgender early, and are supported through a social transition, will continue to identify as transgender five years after initial social transition". We should follow the authors' lead here, and pattern our content after their summary statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right; the key point in several recent studies this that they deal with specific populations who have transitioned socially and who possess specified demographic characteristics (including age, sex assignment, and sociocultural characteristics). These results cannot be generalized outside of that population, nor could the populations used in the studies from the past century, who had very different characteristics, be used as the basis for equivalent generalizations. The point is not to switch from one bad generalization to another, but rather to specify as precisely as possible in article text what the actual studies show. The biggest problem with the former review articles IMO is not as much the studies they relied on, as the sloppy generalizations they reported on the basis of those studies. Newimpartial (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with everything you wrote except for the bit about specifying everything as precisely as possible. I think that the solution here probably lies in vagueness. It could be "different studies have produced different results" (an incontestable fact, right?) or "rates vary per population studied" or "When young children are supported through social transition, few retransition during the first five years after social transition" or any number of things, but I think we want to avoid specificity and head for a very general summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem I have with "results vary per population studied" is its FALSEBALANCE implication: that results from the various studies are equally relevant to the questions at issue. The main problem with all existing review articles is their reliance on studies that include among their research subjects many who did not fit the DSM-V definition of "gender dysphoria", much less belong to the more precisely defined populations that have been most of interest in contemporary studies. It is certainly relevant that when researchers include within their study populations children who do not experience gender dyaphoria, those subjects tend not to develop trans identities, but including this in a summary of desistence and detransition findings as "results vary per population studied" seems somewhere between vacuous and disingenuous. Which is why I feel that more precision is useful to our readers (within the constraints of what can be reasonably included in a summary, or course). Newimpartial (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the claim "the recent attempts have been a bit like taking the survival rates from brain cancer and applying it to all of cancer" is unfair because the legacy studies have similar restrictions and legacy irrelevances. In off wiki battles, both sides are guilty of using studies on population X a decade ago to say something about the quite radically different population Y today.

In the UK Cass Review Interim Report, page 56 (my bold):

Regardless of aetiology, the more contentious and important question is how fixed or fluid gender incongruence is at different ages and stages of development, and whether, regardless of aetiology, can be an inherent characteristic of the individual concerned. There is a spectrum of academic, clinical and societal opinion on this. At one end are those who believe that gender identity can fluctuate over time and be highly mutable and that, because gender incongruence or genderrelated distress may be a response to many psychosocial factors, identity may sometimes change or the distress may resolve in later adolescence or early adulthood, even in those whose early incongruence or distress was quite marked. At the other end are those who believe that gender incongruence or dysphoria in childhood or adolescence is generally a clear indicator of that child or young person being transgender and question the methodology of some of the desistance studies. Previous literature has indicated that if gender incongruence continues into puberty, desistance is unlikely. However, it should be noted that these older studies were not based on the current changed case-mix or the different sociocultural climate of recent years, which may have led to different outcomes

page 19:

A lack of a conceptual agreement about the meaning of gender dysphoria hampers research, as well as NHS clinical service provision.
Internationally as well as nationally, longer-term follow-up data on children and young people who have been seen by gender identity services is limited, including for those who have received physical interventions; who were transferred to adult services and/or accessed private services; or who desisted, experienced regret or detransitioned.
Much of the existing literature about natural history and treatment outcomes for gender dysphoria in childhood is based on a case-mix of predominantly birth-registered males presenting in early childhood. There is much less data on the more recent case-mix of predominantly birth-registered females presenting in early teens, particularly in relation to treatment and outcomes.
Aspects of the literature are open to interpretation in multiple ways, and there is a risk that some authors interpret their data from a particular ideological and/or theoretical standpoint.

We are seeing those (opinionated but non-medical people) involved in drafting laws and fighting legal battles and arguing about treatment approaches claim "evidence" they really do not have. The last sentence is also a warning that secondary sources (both past and future) may offer conclusions and place emphasis or avoid issues according to their prejudice. It will be tricky to find someone truly impartial on this matter, though it is worth noting that Cass was chosen to head the review that produced this report because they were felt to be impartial.

I have a strong dislike of Wikipedia fighting such battles in front of the reader, and of editors using Wikipedia to fight real-world controversies. I share Cass's conclusion that existing studies (and reviews of them) are either bad or desperately irrelevant, and Wikipedia should summarising the position as one of profound ignorance and disagreement rather than trying to push a noisy paragraph of conflicting "facts" of dubious merit in front of the readers face. I think Cass's report would be a useful source for us to say that. -- Colin°^Talk 12:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the recent efforts were generalizing brain cancer to all cancers, then the past efforts were generalizing breast cancer to all cancer – which actually did happen. (Breast cancer patients were studied because the long-term survival rate is so high. It's difficult to do long-term studies on a population that dies in the short- or medium-term.)

I agree that we should be emphasizing the "nobody really knows" aspect in the relevant articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Separate from my views above, if we are to include the findings of this study on wiki, then I agree with WhatamIdoing's final comments on statistics and the caveats with the population group. The current article text "A 2021 study on transgender children who socially transitioned found that 7.3% detransition" is simply wrong. Firstly of course is the issue already noted that "children" is a huge age range and it is very important here to note this study looked at young prepubertal children who socially transitioned early. It is vital we get that right, because it is a common "deliberate mistake" of advocates on both sides to use data from wildly different population age groups and sexes. But the article points out that the 7.3% figure is for those who "retransition" at some point, including those who "retransition" back to being transgender again or who become non-binary. The authors note that many people include "non-binary" in the definition of "trans" and their strict grouping does not conform to this general practice. They only include trans boys and trans girls at the start of the study, not non-binary children, yet some of the children become non-binary during and at the end of the study. They note that if you consider desistance to be going from trans to cis, the figure is only 2.5%. All these complications mean that trying to summarise the results in one sentence while at the same time saying "7.3%" is foolish. The conclusion that WAID quotes is far safer. Colin°^Talk 13:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given your apparent opposition to chwrry-pickimg and the inclusion of single studies, I look forward to your participation in this discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:24, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Wabbit season! Duck season! Wabbit season!!! Duck season!!!  Tewdar  09:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article merits inclusion, but I'm not sure if WP:ALPHANUMERICS agrees with me or not...  Tewdar  20:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually changed my mind. All WP:PRIMARY sources making biomedical claims should be excluded from this article and all similar articles, in my opinion.  Tewdar  08:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This topic area is highly flammable, and even summaries of secondary sources are a bit dubious much of the time. Primary sources are almost guaranteed to be cherry-picked, badly described, and incorrectly interpreted, with their inclusion opposed by anyone who doesn't like the conclusions, often with sketchy reasoning and loads and loads of meaningless WP:UPPERCASE, with inevitable victory by whichever side has the greater numbers that week. We should just accept that our articles in this area will be out of date and wait for high-quality reviews.  Tewdar  09:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a topic where the older studies in question are so obviously flawed (and are noted as so in secondary literature) and where newer studies are so obviously better, I cannot agree with your revised position. Newimpartial (talk) 12:53, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy tells us to include primary studies based on whether Newimpartial says they're better? Crossroads ^-talk- 17:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, it's not just one editor's personal belief that the recent study is better, or that the older research is weak.

Also, it's in a different population than most of the previous research. It is therefore not a question of "Old is wrong, and new is correct"; it's more like "Research in the 1990s on adults said X and research in the 2010s on young children said Y". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Per the 4 to 2 consensus above that the current text in question is not acceptable (or at minimum a lack of consensus for it per WP:ONUS and WP:NOCON), I have removed it. If anyone wishes to try to get consensus for a more general statement like WhatamIdoing suggested, you can make your case, but I myself agree with Tewdar that primary sources should be avoided. The topic of gender dysphoria has no shortage of secondary sources, such as reviews, we should be relying on, and that is better done for generalized statements about the field as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent media coverage has caused a spike in pageviews for this article, I was just thinking that perhaps the article could be given a bit of TLC. I'm not too familiar/experienced with virus articles, so if others could pick up the reins that would be great. X-750 _{Rust In Peace... Polaris} 02:29, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Ewing's sarcoma to be moved to Ewing sarcoma. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. (I am not a bot but I would appreciate some input. Thanks!) AdrianHObradors (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]