Edit with VisualEditor

Battered woman syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Battered person syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There are WP:Content fork concerns regarding these articles. In 2017, SlimVirgin redirected the Battered person syndrome article to Battered woman syndrome. In 2019, a new account restored it with additions. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes there does seem to be WP:Content fork--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:08, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James, any thoughts? Do we really need two articles instead of one for this? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flyer22 Frozen as they are both small and closely related do not see an issue with them being together in a single article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:57, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I agree that they should be merged. There are plenty of men who get battered and abused by personality disordered or alcoholic female partners and also men who get battered and abused by their male partners. You cannot merge battered men article into a battered women article, it makes no sense. So oppose. Instead there should be a see also link, perhaps above the lead in the battered women article, in my view.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, there is a medical/psychological syndrome, Battered person syndrome (which applies to both men and women), and the title of a legal defence or argument, Battered woman syndrome. They really are two quite distinct items, even though the latter relies on the existence of the former. I can see no good that could come from attempting to merge them, as I expect their audiences to be very distinct. Each article has a perfectly informative hatnote directing the reader to the other article if required. --RexxS (talk) 14:17, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Literaturegeek and RexxS, I'm very familiar with the domestic violence literature, but I looked again to specifically compare "battered woman syndrome" and "battered person syndrome." And the literature shows that they are not distinguished. In fact, they are treated as synonyms, with "battered woman syndrome" being the far more common term. This is seen by Born2cycle comparing different terminology at Talk:Battered person syndrome to find the WP:Common name. The References section of the Battered person syndrome article is overwhelming about women, using the terminology "battered woman syndrome." The vast majority of content on the matter is about domestic violence and the legal defense. That the ICD9 code 995.81 cited in the Battered person syndrome article states "Battered: person syndrome NEC, man, spouse, woman" is the exception, not the rule. The "battered husband syndrome" terminology is out there, but it is attributed to one author -- Suzanne Steinmetz, who coined it in 1977 to refer to men who were abused by their wives in ways similar to women, even claiming that there are as many men abused by their wives as there are women abused by their husbands -- and is a significantly disputed topic. For example, this 2000 "Gun Women: Firearms and Feminism in Contemporary America" source, from NYU Press, states, "Proponents of what was for a time referred to as 'battered husband syndrome' in the press failed, however, to take into account two pieces of information that author Gelles considered essential: that women are seriously injured at a rate seven times that of men, and that women are killed by their partners twice as often as men. True, Gelles and Straus concluded that 'you are more likely to be physically assaulted, beaten, and killed in your own home at the hands of a loved one than any place else, or by anyone else in our society.' However, the likelihood would still be considerably less if you are male and an adult." This 2014 "It Could Happen to Anyone" source, from Sage Publications, states, "'Some researchers and societal agents have implied gender equality in intimate partner violence and have even gone so far as to suggest battered husband syndrome. Although there are clearly some aggressive and violent female partners, research has clearly contradicted the assumption that there are large numbers of battered male partners." Sociology, psychology and political sources address the term/concept of "battered husband syndrome." And it's easy to see from looking for sources on the topic that the term is barely used, except for when noting who coined it and the debate that ensued regarding it.

If there are academic sources using the term "battered person syndrome" to refer to men as victims, that bit can have a section in the Battered woman syndrome article. I'm really not seeing that we should have these two articles instead of one to cover the topic. Like SlimVirgin, I do view the Battered person syndrome article as a WP:POV fork. I might start an RfC on this matter. No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither I nor RexxS were suggesting that male partners are battered with the frequency of female partners. I know that the literature will indeed focus on mostly on women for the just described reason. Perhaps a better solution would be to call the article ‘battered male syndrome’, if such a title is used in the literature, and therefor content pertaining to battered men gets added there? We have an article on male rape (even though, I assume, the vast majority of the literature refers to women being raped rather than men), and I suspect, as a non-expert, male rape occurs far less common than men getting battered by male and female partners, so it is strange we don’t have an article on this topic.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting that you or RexxS were suggesting that male partners are battered with the frequency of female partners. I'm just relaying what the literature shows. If we are talking about the term "battered", it is seriously used to refer to women who are victims of male-on-female intimate partner violence. Like we state in the lead of the Intimate partner violence article, "the most extreme form of such violence may be termed battering, intimate terrorism, coercive controlling violence, or simply coercive control, in which one person is violent and controlling; this is generally perpetrated by men against women, and is the most likely of the types to require medical services and the use of a women's shelter."^[1][2][3] That stated, the term "battered" is an older term with regard to domestic violence/intimate partner violence and medical/academic sources have largely moved away from it. It has barely been used seriously with regard to men as victims. We have a Domestic violence against men article. So any content about "battered husband syndrome" (the term/concept) can go there. In fact, the article already mentions the term/concept of "battered husband syndrome." Because the term should redirect there rather than to the Battered woman syndrome article, I will redirect it there now. It is easy enough to mention in the Battered woman syndrome article that the term "battered person syndrome" may at times be used for gender neutrality. That is, if there are reliable sources stating that. But the literature does not support us having both an article called "Battered woman syndrome" and "Battered person syndrome." And, per what I stated in this section, we shouldn't have one called "Battered husband syndrome" either. Per WP:FALSEBALANCE, we don't need to and shouldn't have an article titled "Battered husband syndrome" simply because the Battered woman syndrome article exists. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand where you are coming from, I now agree with you. Clearly I am not well familiar with the literature on this subject matter and not being aware that we already have the article Domestic violence against men confused my judgement further. I now withdraw my opposition to this merge suggestion supported by yourself and Doc James.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if using the term "battered" (to similarly mean what it means with regard to battered women), male rape is more prevalent than a man being battered. If speaking of domestic violence against men in general, such as reciprocal violence, then that's different. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The literature on the legal defence and argument called "Battered woman syndrome" is sufficient to produce at least 20 references in that article, which deals with the legal issues, and not the medical condition. The legal issue is notable in its own right. I can see no reason whatsoever why the contents of that article should be merged into the article about the medical condition, especially without input from the three WikiProjects who claim the article to be in their scope (note that WikiProject Med does not). My objection to the merge remains. --RexxS (talk) 13:15, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that when the same (single) situation has both legal and medical aspects, we should deal with them in the same article (assuming article size isn't the main issue). Consider Suicide: would you separate the legal and medical content? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:40, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the people likely to be looking for the technical and the legal issues are unlikely to be looking for the same thing, certainly I would. We don't try to merge Insanity defense with Mental illness, or Speed limit with Car. The Suicide article you mention is an overview summary; we already do separate out Epidemiology of suicide and Suicide legislation into separate pages. ‑ Iridescent 17:02, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide legislation is seven times the size of Battered woman syndrome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RexxS, when it comes to the term "battered person syndrome", I'm not seeing that term used for any medical condition besides the ICD9 code 995.81 listing. Terminology-wise, "battered child syndrome" has more medical consideration, although from very old sources. And again, the literature shows that "battered woman syndrome" and "battered person syndrome" are not distinguished. They are treated as synonyms, with "battered person syndrome" almost always referring to women. And on top of that, I'm barely seeing sources using the term "battered person syndrome." As seen at Talk:Battered person syndrome, searching for that term usually brings up the term "battered woman syndrome." To repeat, the vast majority of content on the matter is about domestic violence (which is obviously a medical topic in addition to the other fields related to it) and the legal defense. Not some medical diagnosis. That the ICD9 code 995.81 cited in the Battered person syndrome article states "Battered: person syndrome NEC, man, spouse, woman" is the exception, not the rule. The references in the Battered person syndrome article overwhelmingly use the term "battered woman syndrome." It is very clear to me that the Battered person syndrome article was created to give validity to the notion of "battered husband syndrome", which is already covered in the Domestic violence against men article, and to unmarried men in intimate relationships reportedly being battered. We only need one article in this case. The Battered woman syndrome article should cover both legal and medical aspects, as is clear by this 1990 "Battered woman syndrome: a critical review." source, which states "BWS is recognized as important in providing legal defense to victims and as basis for diagnosis and treatment." This 1995 "Battered woman syndrome: a conceptual analysis of its status vis-à-vis DSM IV mental disorders." source states, "Literature on battered woman syndrome is examined with a view to validating the use of the word 'syndrome'. It is concluded that there is now sufficient information to justify its serious consideration as a form of post-traumatic stress disorder, as that diagnosis is defined in DSM IV: and that this has significance for the legal defence of battered women who react aggressively towards their abusers." This 1998 "Battered woman syndrome." source notes that both medical and legal aspects of the concept are discussed. This 2006 "Battered woman syndrome: empirical findings." source states that "'The construct of Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) has been conceptualized as a subcategory of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)." So should we have one article called "Battered woman syndrome (legal defense)" and another called "Battered woman syndrome (diagnosis)"? No. If anyone wonders why I'm citing these old sources for "battered woman syndrome", they can look on PubMed for why. Not a lot of sources using this term with regard to a medical issue, except for the medical issue of domestic violence/intimate partner violence. And even use of the term in general shows that it's primarily situated in years past. The term "battered person syndrome" can be mentioned in the article as an alternative term that is used for gender neutrality...if an academic source is located stating that. It can also be mentioned in the article because of the ICD9 code 995.81 listing.

As for WikiProjects, since the Battered person syndrome article is presenting itself as a medical article and is tagged with Template:Reliable sources for medical articles, of course it makes sense to discuss the matter here. That an article hasn't been tagged with the WP:Med tag obviously doesn't make it any less within WP:Med's scope. That talk page is also tagged with WP:WikiProject Psychology, and psychology significantly intersects with WP:Med. But WP:WikiProject Psychology is inactive and should be tagged as such; so I don't bother to post there anymore. Out of the two projects, I come right to WP:Med about psychology topics. As for the talk page being tagged with WP:Women, and Talk:Battered woman syndrome being tagged with WP:WikiProject Feminism, WP:WikiProject Law and WP:WikiProject Women's History, sure, I can contact them to weigh in. I will do that now. Per WP:TALKCENT, I will point them here, to one place, as to keep the discussion centralized. And it might still be a good idea to start an RfC on this after that. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flyer22, please observe WP:LISTGAP. There's no good reason to make life even more unpleasant for anybody using a screen reader to read this page.

There is absolutely no need to repeat your arguments time and again. I wasn't convinced by them the first time I read them, and I'm even less likely to change my mind the second time I have to read them.

The present title, "Battered person syndrome" is used in ICD9 to encompass the syndrome relating to any person. Being gender-neutral and independent of age and marital status, It's as good a title as any other for the medical condition. If you want to change it to something different, start a WP:RM.

If "the literature shows that "battered woman syndrome" and "battered person syndrome" are not distinguished", then either title should be as good for the medical condition. Anyone searching for "battered woman syndrome" as a medical condition is just one click away from the current article on the medical condition.

If (as you assert) we only need one article to cover the medical conditions Battered person syndrome, "battered husband syndrome", "battered child syndrome", "battered partner syndrome", Domestic violence against men, and "reportedly battered unmarried men in intimate relationships", then go ahead and request merging those topics.

You assert "The Battered woman syndrome article should cover both legal and medical aspects" and I disagree strongly. They are very distinct topics and there is absolutely no reason to try to merge an obviously legal topic with an obviously medical topic. Have you actually read the article about the legal defence, Battered woman syndrome? It is 1510 words, readable prose size, with 23 references (compare that to the medical article, which is 753 words with 15 references - half the size). Ninety-nine percent of the legal article does not belong in a medical article. It would be totally UNDUE. Your sources, PMID 12349358, PMID 8668013, PMID 10696359, and PMID 17189503 discuss both the medical issues and legal issues, and make a point of distinguishing between them, so is suitable for use in both articles. But just because two different articles may have some sources in common, it doesn't mean we should merge them. Do you believe that all 23 sources used in the legal article should be in your proposed merged article?

I'm glad you agree that the Battered person syndrome article is a medical topic, and I naturally agree it makes sense to discuss the matter here. However, you fail to see that the Battered woman syndrome article is a legal topic, and is properly within the scope of WikiProject Law, WikiProject History and WikiProject Feminism. You will see that Talk:Battered woman syndrome is not tagged for WikiProject Medicine, nor for WikiProject Psychology, no matter how much you think it ought to be. We should not be discussing merging articles outside of our scope (especially when clearly in other wikiprojects' scopes) here, at least not without the courtesy of inviting the interested wikiprojects to participate. --RexxS (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of WP:LISTGAP, but I do not always remember to follow it. Like many others, I often don't remember to follow it.

You stated, "There is absolutely no need to repeat your arguments time and again. I wasn't convinced by them the first time I read them, and I'm even less likely to change my mind the second time I have to read them." This isn't just about you; it's also about others reading, or who will read, this section. And I didn't just argue the same thing. This time I provided sources quite clearly showing that "battered woman syndrome" is used to address both legal and medical aspects. The matters are commonly discussed together. There is no valid reason whatsoever to have one article called "Battered woman syndrome (legal defense)" and another called "Battered woman syndrome (diagnosis)", or similar. And, per what I stated above, there is absolutely no valid reason to have a Battered person syndrome article. Like WP:POVFORK states, "all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged, or nominated for deletion." Here we have a term -- "battered woman syndrome" -- that is used to refer to both the legal defense and medical aspects. We only need one article for the topic of battered woman syndrome, which just so happens to be about both medical and legal aspects. Both aspects are usually covered in sources because the term refers to both aspects and those two aspects go hand in hand when the legal defense is applied.

Per what I argued above, the "gender-neutral and independent of age and marital status" argument does not hold up. As for a WP:Move request, we are dealing with two articles. This discussion is about merging, not moving the article.

You stated, "then either title should be as good for the medical condition." We should go with the common name, and that is "battered woman syndrome." The term "battered person syndrome" hardly exists in the literature.

You stated that I assert "we only need one article to cover the medical conditions Battered person syndrome, 'battered husband syndrome', 'battered child syndrome', 'battered partner syndrome', Domestic violence against men, and 'reportedly battered unmarried men in intimate relationships', then go ahead and request merging those topics." No, I didn't. I asserted that we only need one article to cover Battered woman syndrome. I've already addressed the near non-existence of anything called "battered person syndrome." I already addressed that "battered husband syndrome" is a disputed social/political topic mainly attributed to one researcher, whose research on that has been significantly criticized. And I addressed that "battered child syndrome" is something mainly covered in very old sources. Although the term "battered child syndrome" is still occasionally used today, the term "child abuse" is used far more often for the things traditionally covered under the "battered child syndrome" title. This is similar to the terms "wife abuse," "wife beating," and "wife battering" having been phased out for the terms "domestic violence" and "intimate partner violence" instead.

You stated that you "disagree strongly" that the Battered woman syndrome article should cover both legal and medical aspects. You assert that "they are very distinct topics and there is absolutely no reason to try to merge an obviously legal topic with an obviously medical topic." I disagree with that. The literature simply does not show that. I don't need to read the poor Wikipedia article about the legal defense. Like I stated above, I am thoroughly familiar with the domestic violence literature, and that includes the topic of battered woman syndrome. I've edited domestic violence articles for years.

I don't agree that the Battered person syndrome article is a medical topic; I agree that it presents itself as a medial topic. The medical topic is "battered woman syndrome." That term refers to both legal and medical aspects. As for your assertion that I "fail to see that the Battered woman syndrome article is a legal topic, and is properly within the scope of WikiProject Law, WikiProject History and WikiProject Feminism." No, I don't. If I didn't consider that domestic violence relates to fields other than to just the medical field, I would not have stated "the vast majority of content on the matter is about domestic violence (which is obviously a medical topic in addition to the other fields related to it)" above. I was very clear above about why I brought the matter to this WikiProject. And per WP:TALKCENT, the matter should be discussed in one place. That one place can be at one WikiProject, with other WikiProjects alerted. And I alerted those others per your previous comment. I never stated or implied that Talk:Battered woman syndrome should be tagged with WP:WikiProject Medicine and WP:WikiProject Psychology. With regard to those two WikiProjects, I focused on the tags placed on Talk:Battered person syndrome.

We disagree. Fine. So far, four other editors agree with me about merging. Five if we count SlimVirgin. Let's see what others think. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:36, 9 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Repeating your arguments multiple times won't impress any of the other readers either.

I know that you provided sources quite clearly showing that "battered woman syndrome" is used to address both legal and medical aspects, but I refuted that with just because two articles have some sources in common, it doesn't mean we should merge them. WP:MERGEREASON states four reasons to merge. None of those apply to the two separate topics of a medical condition and a legal defence. It also states Merging should be avoided if ... The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross-linked) articles [or] The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, even though they might be short. WP:N tells us that If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article. Anyone who reads it can see that the article on the legal defence Battered woman syndrome meets WP:GNG and is a sufficiently different topic from the article on the medical condition Battered person syndrome for the advice on not merging to hold.

You state "I don't agree that the Battered person syndrome article is a medical topic. You spent considerable time explaining how it's tagged for WP:Psych and medical sources. Why have you changed your mind now? Anybody reading the article can see it's a medical topic.

Because "battered woman syndrome" could refer to either a medical topic or a legal topic, but "battered person syndrome" applies to the medical topic (according to ICD9), and never to the legal topic, natural disambiguation gives a good reason for retaining the current titles.

You also make the mistake of claiming that "We should go with the common name". No we shouldn't. WP:NCMED requires that The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name. ICD9 recognises "battered person syndrome".

You state "The literature simply does not show that. I don't need to read the poor Wikipedia article about the legal defense." A shameful admission. The article on the legal defence dwarfs the medical article in both size and referencing. It is an entirely different topic, and you've now made clear your disdain for the efforts of other editors on that important subject.

We'll see how the numbers turn out when we ask the editors who contributed to the legal article which has been around since 2006. I seriously doubt that many of them will be impressed by your attempts to remove that article. --RexxS (talk) 03:01, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating arguments? And yet you keep repeating, and in ways that indicate that you aren't as familiar with the domestic violence literature as you perhaps would like to be. For example, "battered child syndrome" is adequately covered by the Child abuse article. Just like we do not need, and should not have, a Battered person syndrome article (a topic category which has almost no information on it under that name), we do not need, and should not have, a Battered child syndrome article. We do not need a Battered person syndrome article to cover battered child syndrome or the disputed topic of "battered husband syndrome."

You claim "two separate topics of a medical condition and a legal defence." No, they are not two separate topics. They are the same topic -- a topic that happens to refer to two aspects. We have many articles on topics that have different aspects (including different, or slightly different, definitions), but they are the same topic. This is why WhatamIdoing stated above, "It seems to me that when the same (single) situation has both legal and medical aspects, we should deal with them in the same article (assuming article size isn't the main issue)."

You stated, "Anyone who reads it can see that the article on the legal defence Battered woman syndrome meets WP:GNG and is a sufficiently different topic from the article on the medical condition Battered person syndrome for the advice on not merging to hold." And yet there are people in this discussion who disagree with you. Also, per WP:No page (an aspect of WP:Notability), not every topic needs its own Wikipedia article.

You stated, "You spent considerable time explaining how it's tagged for WP:Psych and medical sources. Why have you changed your mind now? Anybody reading the article can see it's a medical topic." What? Changed my mind? No. My point is that your support for the Battered person syndrome article is flawed because it is a topic category which has almost no information on it under that name; I've already stated that "the literature shows that 'battered woman syndrome' and 'battered person syndrome' are not distinguished. They are treated as synonyms, with 'battered person syndrome' almost always referring to women. And on top of that, I'm barely seeing sources using the term 'battered person syndrome.' As seen at Talk:Battered person syndrome, searching for that term usually brings up the term 'battered woman syndrome.' " I stated that "The medical topic is 'battered woman syndrome.' That term refers to both legal and medical aspects."

You stated, "but 'battered person syndrome' applies to the medical topic (according to ICD9), and never to the legal topic, natural disambiguation gives a good reason for retaining the current titles." Sources do not support retaining this split at all. The very "Battered person syndrome" article you are supporting is overwhelmingly referenced to sources using the term "battered woman syndrome." Strip it down to sources using the term "battered person syndrome", and what are we left with? That is easy to see. If you don't want me to repeat, then I don't see why you should continue to act as though sources cover something called "battered person syndrome." They don't. Not really. Furthermore, there is no need to retain an article title simply because it's covered in the ICD-9, which has been superseded by the ICD-10 and soon-to-be ICD-11.

You stated that I "also make the mistake of claiming that 'We should go with the common name'. No we shouldn't." Yes, we should. I am aware of WP:NCMED; I've cited it times before. This is not a case like heart attack. In this case, we have a common name that is also the scientific or recognised medical name (per the sources I listed above, and other sources), and a name that is barely used at all (which is why you can only point to the ICD-9, and barely anything else, for it).

You stated, "A shameful admission. The article on the legal defence dwarfs the medical article in both size and referencing." Not a shameful admission whatsoever. I didn't need to read it, but I did. My point was that I don't need to read a poor Wikipedia article on the topic to be familiar with it.

You stated, "and you've now made clear your disdain for the efforts of other editors on that important subject." What? No. You've unnecessarily made this personal. But I've seen how you debate before. I have supported your arguments times before, but not in this case. And I have always respected you. This is not about disrespecting editors or their hard work. If articles are poor, they are poor. And both of those articles are indeed poor. The Battered person syndrome article even has a WP:OR tag on it. This latest discussion has soured my view of you. But that stated, WhatamIdoing, SlimVirgin and I have been in heated exchanges times before, and we always come back to being on good terms and interacting well enough. So I hope the same for my interaction with you.

I'm not going to sit here and continue to endlessly debate you on this. I seriously doubt that many editors will support retaining a clear content fork. I've made no such attempt "to remove that article." This is about merging a "Battered person syndrome" article that is full of references that use the term "battered woman syndrome", and it's calling itself "Battered person syndrome." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tl;dr - I've said all I need to. I have no problem in helping draw together the multiple strands of the topics that you see as the medical topic "Battered woman syndrome". But a legal article is not a WP:POVFORK of a medical article, and I'll continue to oppose your attempts at trying to cram together two obviously different topics into a single Frankenstein-article. --RexxS (talk) 19:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh. You are more interested in trying to be right than listening. Got it. I've started an RfC on this matter with sources showing that what you are arguing is not supported by the literature (in addition to not being supported by any policy or guideline). For example, "battered person syndrome" is also used to refer to the legal defense, not just to a medical condition. And that legal defense? The same as "battered woman syndrome" because they are overwhelmingly treated as synonyms. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:44, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*your both taking up space here, this discussion should be at talk/article,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2020 (UTC)...I give up--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:04, 9 March 2020 (UTC) ____[reply]

I have nominated Chagas disease for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• apparently needs more opinions[1]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some may remember a collaboration I was involved in with the Cochrane Schizophrenia Group, where tables were added to a number of articles summarising evidence of treatment effectiveness. The study (RCT) has now been published with a CC-BY 4.0 licence in BMJ Open: https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/10/2/e033655.long

Only one outcome was significant, but the exercise was worthwhile and hopefully will lead to more collaborations between WMMED and academic groups. --RexxS (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

great work RexxS[2], thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:11, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sharing this! Congratulations! JenOttawa (talk) 01:27, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

173,490 pageviews in February, daily average this month of 10,000+ views, 1800+ Watchers... Article will need a major re-write to keep its WP:FA status, references are outdated (+ some refs have gone dead), prose needs serious attention, etc.. Before this FAR the previous FAR was over 13 years ago, see 2007. Present FAR is at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive4. Shearonink (talk) 19:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• FA criteria[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. My point in posting here was I thought people who are involved with WikiProject Medicine, who have expertise and interest in medicine might want to know about the article's present state, might want to weigh in on the FAR, etc. Shearonink (talk) 05:41, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I do not know where else to ask: Does anyone still produce Chlorpropamide?

It is needed for a Nephrogenic diabetes insipidus case, for which no other effective medicine is known.

Any producer/seller name, anywhere in the world, would be immensely appreciated. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.177.96.37 (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, User:Ozzie10aaaa; I have done so, 129.177.96.36 (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.goodrx.com/chlorpropamide lists prices for a bunch of US pharmacies. I assume that it wouldn't list any prices if no one was selling it. https://www.drugs.com/chlorpropamide-images.html has some pictures, including the marks that identify some of the manufacturers, such as Mylan. If you search for chlorpropamide https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/ob/index.cfm you will get a list of the dozen manufacturers approved to market this drug in the US. I don't know what the equivalent resource is in your country. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:18, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:WhatamIdoing: Mylan stopped producing it last year, that is the problem. And they all say they have it, -just to return 2-3 days later, saying they dont. (Just try any of those pharmacies listing it, if they actually have it -my guess is no. IF they have it, please give me the address so I can pass it on to my pharmacy!) 129.177.96.36 (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How long has Procarbazine, Lomustine (CCNU) and Vincristine been used on brain Tumors (in years)? Wname1 (talk) 10:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wname1, PMID 1122488 suggests that the answer is approximately 1975. To be more precise, you'd probably have to decide exactly what it means for it to "be used" (e.g., does experimental use count as "use"?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Wname1 (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor, claiming to be a published author on the subject, has twice replaced most of the content of Menstrual psychosis with their own take on the condition. I'm sorry to discourage possible experts once again, but I have serious concerns about this editor's contributions, which read more like a lecture presentation for an advocacy group than an encyclopedia article. I've restored the prior content and outlined my concerns at Talk:Menstrual psychosis, but I suspect that we are going to need more eyes on the issue. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same issues with the same editor at Psychiatric disorders of childbirth, discussion at Talk:Psychiatric disorders of childbirth. Their sources are self-published. --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Casliber and User:FloNight both worked on that article in the past. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedians, for my undergrad Technical and Professional editing course we are working on editing two Wikipedia articles that could use some help. I'm working on Basic life support and 2009 flu pandemic in Australia , which both have some pretty big issues. We're encouraged to seek help from experienced Wiki editors so if anyone has any tips or would like to collab on transforming these pages, let me know! Astrokassie (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Astrokassie. Has anyone talked to you about how to find good sources? On Talk:Basic life support, towards the top, there's a box that starts "Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content...". That will give you some links to some sources. Generally, we think that the best sources are review articles (summaries of multiple research studies, not the papers directly about an individual experiment) and textbooks (which may be especially helpful for the BLS article). This is a good place to ask questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello medical experts! I toned down and expanded this article about an endocrinologist, and added some newspaper references. Since I'm not familiar with this topic, can someone with medical knowledge please check it out to make sure I haven't introduced any incorrect information? Thanks.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the article( and that image) may need to be trimmed it looks a bit PROMO-ish….IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started an RfC concerning pointing to the template namespace in the COVID 19 navbox. See Template talk:COVID-19#RfC on linking to template namespace.  Bait30  ^Talk? 05:16, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tourette syndrome is Wikipedia:Today's featured article on the Main Page. Congratulations to User:SandyGeorgia, User:Colin, User:Outriggr, User:Ceoil, User:SUM1, User:Markworthen, User:Casliber, User:Adrian J. Hunter, and the others who have spent the last two months polishing up the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, WAID ... Not to leave out User:Yomangani. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, though really Sandy deserves an order of magnitude bigger billing for this one. And this is also a fine example of an article with several high-quality daughter articles that cover aspects of the topic in greater detail. -- Colin°^Talk 21:14, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Anthonyhcole got the video release from HBO and the Tourette Syndrome Association, then RexxS fixed it to display better for the TFA blurb. Eleven-person collaboration; thanks to all! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:24, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations to all involved! We have a terrific community! JenOttawa (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...And apparently it's now the subject of a student editing assignment [4]. I've left a note with the course instructor. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Education noticeboard#Level 2 English course intending to edit Featured medical article (Alzheimer's disease in addition to Tourette syndrome); I have made suggestions there for alternate articles that might be of interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:29, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to look up our article on the 1957 flu pandemic to check my old memories of its impact and spread, but could find only short mentions at Influenza pandemic#Asian Flu (1957–1958) and Influenza A virus subtype H2N2#Asian flu. The information there is outdated - the CDC estimates the number of US deaths at 116,000^[1] and a review paper estimates that 25% of the US population became infected.^[2] I did find the information I was looking for at the CDC (page 14 of the pdf has a nice set of maps showing the spread), but it would be nice if someone who had access to the medical literature would write an article on the subject. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On WikiProject Medicine's front page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine we present a report from user:HotArticlesBot.

Imagine that a non-Wikipedia editor were looking at this graph. Could I ask that anyone here volunteer to comment and interpret this for a general audience? I intend to bring this to The Signpost and I would like to showcase comments about this from WikiProject Medicine. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1)number of edits to an article in a 7 day period,2) furthermore 'red' indicates that it is the highest level of editing going on(believe other colors used are yellow and orange).3) Finally all the articles being edited at an unbelievable rate are due to the current coronavirus outbreak or related (applaud Whispyhistory, Doc James and all editors at this time, a superior effort from all)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at WP:MED? (where we list what kinds of articles we want to support, and what we don't), and I'm wondering whether that list is still accurate. Do we want to support:

1. Biographies (e.g., patients, researchers, healthcare workers) – overlaps with .Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia
2. Businesses and organizations – hospitals currently sent to Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals; pharma companies currently tagged for Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology; medical device manufacturers currently tagged by us. Wikipedia:WikiProject Business and other WikiProjects also work in this area.
3. Schools (e.g., medical schools) – overlaps with Wikipedia:WikiProject Higher Education.
4. Dentistry – Wikipedia:WikiProject Dentistry has never been very active.

As a group, we get to decide what we want to work on. We haven't had a discussion about what should/shouldn't be brought to us for a long time. My impression is that people aren't very interested in biographies or businesses. If we don't want to support those articles, it's okay. We should just make that decision and adjust our documentation and templates accordingly.

What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the Dentistry project has not been very active, there is nevertheless a lot of continuing edits to Dentistry articles. Furthermore the field of Dentistry has a high degree of overlap with Medicine, therefore I think there is a strong argument that the Medicine WikiProject should support Dentistry. Boghog (talk) 19:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This list is quite active and there are large groups of students in the UK and U of Toronto that I am aware of that are active through the Wikipedia Collaboration of Dental Schools: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dentistry/Participants. JenOttawa (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Dentistry lists the names of just three editors who have participated on the group's talk page during the last three months. This is an improvement compared to this time of year for any previous recorded year (2015, zero; 2016, zero; 2017, one; 2018, one; 2019, one). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Mixed support. I am in favor of setting standards for appropriate and in-scope discussions on this talk page to maximize new user engagement. I agree, we are here for development of medical content and not directly biographies. I think this WikiProject should get news of any kind of medical themed programs in this space, including for biographies or schools, but our best response to requests for non-medicine support is having a plan to refer people elsewhere.

I think that the future of managing all this is in D:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine. I contribute to the meta:WikiCite project and Scholia which both seek to generate profiles of people, medical schools, and hospitals. This has lots of applications, but the one which I think English Wikipedia WikiProject Medicine should watch is the significant media criticism Wikipedia gets for claims of discrimination against women in creating biographies. We should keep our stake in such controversies by being aware and having conversations here, even if we do not actually organize the editing. Here are some examples of automated profiles. I think that eventually we will have something like this for every person, school, and hospital. Wikipedia Infoboxes are part of this also.

• person
• organization

I develop this project as staff meta:Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Virginia.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WPMED should support all of the above; we don't restrict posts to projects on topics that are within our knowledge base. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, being inclusive is better than being exclusive. Also, the question of anatomical articles. I'd say include but there was an idea to separate out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy some time ago. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:15, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately there are fewer and fewer long term editors which are the life blood of Wiki Projects. One solution to re-establish project critical mass is to merge closely related projects. A recent example was to merge a variety of molecular biology projects (see Merger discussion Wikiproject:BIOL) which I think succeeded. In a similar spirit, I think it may make sense to merge WP:DENTISTRY into WP:MED. Boghog (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a related note, WP:Molecular Biology recently merged WP:GEN, WP:MCB, WP:COMPBIO, WP:BIOP, WP:RNA, WP:WPMP and WP:CELLSIG. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 08:43, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I'm working on the Basic life support page and I'm confused about the difference between the European Resuscitation Council and the Resuscitation Council (UK). Are they different certifying bodies? Google isn't really helping me find the answer. Astrokassie (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Resuscitation Council (UK) is a charity set up in the UK in 1983 to "promote high-quality, scientific, resuscitation guidelines that are applicable to everybody, and to contribute to saving life through education, training, research and collaboration."

The European Resuscitation Council is an NGO set up in 1989 to coordinate the efforts of national resuscitation councils throughput Europe (including RC UK). It helps standardise training and currently consists of 33 national resuscitation councils.

Certification is usually awarded by the relevant national resuscitation council, but the idea is that someone certified in any European country will have been trained to the same agreed standards set by the ERC. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, WP Medicine,

Over the past few days, I have put most of the coronavirus-related pages on my Watchlist and I find many of them are being edited throughout the day, usually changing totals of people diagnosed with no accompanying change in sources. I have spot-checked a few but if we could get a few more eyes on them, actually any of the pages in Category:2019–20 coronavirus outbreak, that would be helpful. I think inflating the number of those afflicted with this virus is not helpful for readers who might be consulting these articles, looking for information about this health crisis. Thanks! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:39, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it is really problematical to have figures inserted without sourcing. My advice would be to simply revert them with the edit summary "revert unsourced". There's no rush to keep tallies, and Wikipedia is not a news outlet. It's better to have a slightly older, sourced statement that an unsourced speculative one, especially when it comes to medical content. --RexxS (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many pages and templates are relying on this BNO News source. The sources it relies on are questionable. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, I've had partial success in similar situations by adding editorial comments within the article. For best results, put them within the figure. Thus

93

becomes

9<!-- PLEASE do not change this number without updating the reference. BNO is not a reliable source. -->3.

Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would an admin please see Cyprinid herpesvirus 4? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, it would better if you ask this question on WP:Viruses. Ckfasdf (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted as CSD G7. It's eligible for refund if somebody eventually discovers it. --RexxS (talk) 22:52, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?target=www.whonamedit.com&title=Special%3ALinkSearch
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=1000&target=Template%3AWhoNamedIt&namespace=0
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&limit=1000&target=Template%3AWhoNamedIt2&namespace=0
• Whonamedit? and Ole Daniel Enersen

When I wrote Georges Gilles de la Tourette back in 2006, whonamedit.com seemed like a decent source. In updating content before and during the Tourette syndrome TFA, I found enough problems with whonamedit.com that I am concerned about how widely it is used in medical content, and what we can do about it.

The entry on Georges not only has basic typos, but it says he died on 26 May, when he actually died on 22 May (with published obituaries on 24 May), and then to add insult to injury, later the same article states that he died in June. It says he was shot in the head, when he was shot in the neck. The misinformation I added to Georges' bio more than ten years ago, from this source, has now spread across other language Wikipedias.

For further evidence of how bad this site is, have a look at the entry on Tourette syndrome. (While I frequently nitpick misinformation about TS, that is pretty much the worst I have ever seen.)

While it may be appropriate to use this site strictly as a source of eponymous names, it is not possible to tell how many of the thousand articles listed above use it for more than that, and it is not a reliable source for medical information. Factchecking is abysmal; it has demonstrably wrong information. It appears to be a one-person hobby site.

Can Headbomb add it to his script, and is anyone up for checking through articles above to see how often this source is misused? I think anything beyond "this condition was named after that person" is suspect. Is it possible for some tech-knowledgeable person to find a way to target and label every use of the two whonamedit templates so that they will be flagged in every article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS, do others here think I should open a thread at the Reliable sources noticeboard to get more eyes on the problem? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to add, but I'd first want consensus that Whonamedit? is questionable/unreliable/self-published or whatever. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if others would check entries in their areas of expertise. Also, see this BMJ article from 2003: [5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, not BMJ, btw. Still part of the BMJ Group though. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1. Trauma-sensitive yoga (talk | history | start review) (Reviews: 243) Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2. Bipolar disorder (talk | history | discuss review) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Review: this article is being reviewed (additional comments are welcome). (Reviews: 11) Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 16:17, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3. Pancreas (talk | history | discuss review) (Reviews: 8) Tom (LT) (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. (Reviews: 11) Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 00:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

4. Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (talk | history | discuss review) Signimu (talk) 20:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. (Reviews: 11) Ajpolino (talk · contribs) 04:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5. College health (talk | history | start review) Manlymanstan (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
6. Human nose (talk | history | start review) (Reviews: 1) Iztwoz (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
7. Substance use disorder (talk | history | start review) Ash.kaush (talk) 01:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
8. Strømme syndrome (talk | history | start review) (Reviews: 1) SUM1 (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Note: My first 3 nominations. All 3 are rare diseases with less than 50 patients each, so I've done my best to make them as big and comprehensive as they possibly can be. SUM1 (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

9. CDK13-related disorder (talk | history | discuss review) (Reviews: 1) SUM1 (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   On hold: this article is awaiting improvements before it is passed or failed. (Reviews: 34) Canada Hky (talk · contribs) 00:11, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10. Okamoto syndrome (talk | history | start review) (Reviews: 1) SUM1 (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
11. Bladder cancer (talk | history | start review) Astroketh (talk) 20:09, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
12. Thymus (talk | history | start review) (Reviews: 8) Tom (LT) (talk) 09:07, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
13. Homeopathy (talk | history | start review) Heptor (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
14. Vitamin B12 (talk | history | start review) David notMD (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
15. Complete blood count (talk | history | start review) (Reviews: 1) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 05:30, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a long list of articles in the Wikipedia:Good article nominations process. Some of these have existing reviewers and could use a nudge or a helping hand; others need a reviewer. If you are interested in starting a review but are holding back because you think you'll do it wrong, then please WP:Be bold. Step #1 is well within your ability: just read the article. You don't even need to click the "start review" button until you've done that. Several of us here have done GA reviews before and can walk you through the whole thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to Wikipedia, and I'm here to improve the quality of health-related information on Wikipedia. I would be contributing to the Cochrane-Wikipedia project Dellyjacobs (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello....please post and ask any questions, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Dellyjacobs. Have you chosen your first source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears there is a lot to learn. Honestly, navigating through the pages is quite difficult for me. It took me some time to even know how to navigate to this page to respond to your reply. I really hope I can do this. I am still going through the videos and articles that provides instructions for new editorsDellyjacobs (talk) 09:59, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dellyjacobs: Thank you for introducing yourself here. It is great to have you as part of the community! JenOttawa (talk) 14:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article removal candidates
Pokémon Channel	Review now
Borobudur	Review now
William Wilberforce	Review now
Polio	Review now
Concerto delle donne	Review now
The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask	Review now
Geography of Ireland	Review now
Edward III of England	Review now
USS Wisconsin (BB-64)	Review now
Doolittle (album)	Review now

Two medical Featured articles are candidates for removal, with four more in the pipeline (notification has been given that a Featured article review is needed).

WPMED has the resources and knowledge to update and maintain these articles but unfortunately that has not been done, even with notifications given on talk.

FA Dengue fever and others are also in need of updates, but only those that have been formally noticed on talk per the instructions at WP:FAR are listed in the FAR template.

I see a long listing of GA reviews needed as well; a reminder that GA is a one-person process, not a wider community process as FA is (that is, GA status reflects the impression of one editor only so can never carry the same weight as an FA). It is unfortunate for articles that have been maintained to FA status for at least a decade to lose their bronze star, when these could be saved with a bit of elbow crease and collaborative effort. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is about members here not prioritizing FA, in part because the process has become needlessly bureaucratic – and lacks understanding of what concessions need to be made for medical articles. I'm inclined to posit that whereas WPMED may have the knowledge, the resources are severely lacking; and not only on WPMED's side. I have no issues with stripping all medical articles of FA-status. Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The process for retaining a star is no different than we should expect of our medical content anyway-- that is, it should not be ten years outdated, regardless of article status. And featured articles have the benefit of a bit more protection from uninformed edits because of their community review. I am unware of any "lack of understanding of concessions" that need to be made for medical articles, and I suspect if something like that existed, I'd know about it. And finally, there are plenty of resources for maintaining important articles current, albeit focused in other directions. I'm not aware of you ever having worked on articles at the FA level,[6] so it would be helpful if you refrain from discouraging others who might be willing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look at the death-grip syndrome article, and I'm quite concerned at the state of the it. For an article about a "syndrome", there is a remarkable lack of WP:MEDRS; at least one of the cites does not appear to support the statement it is attached to, there are a bunch of hard-to-check cites from books, and in general the whole article has a feeling of WP:SYNTHESIS. I think at the very least, it needs a thorough inspection by medically knowledgable editors, if not a rewrite. -- The Anome (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]