User talk:Jimbo Wales

Deletion of current affairs articles deemed to have "no lasting notability"?

See also: Talk:Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information § Reevaluate this article

It appears that some editors think this is a good idea, even on a good-sized current events article (with ongoing consequences) which survived an AfD in May 2017 as a SNOW keep. The prime movers happen to be Trump fans, though not all in the discussion are in that camp. Maybe I'm wrong, but this really smells like deletionism/protectionism/carrying water for Trump. They propose to revisit AfD or condense it down to practically nothing, compared to its current size, and then merge that content elsewhere. The article deserves more than passing mention.

See: Talk:Donald Trump's disclosures of classified information#Reevaluate this article. I think this is a bizarre and horrible idea.

What do others think? I have never seen Wikipedia as an assembly line where, as new articles are added at one end, older ones are deleted at the other....and this one isn't even old! -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:29, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

When people propose old articles for deletion, keep an eye out for new news. Nobody remembers an old article that has genuinely passed from the public eye, let alone cares to delete it. As a rule, if they nominated it, there's a reason. (To be sure, I didn't find that reason in this case; even this recent editorial referencing the case doesn't seem that important. But occasionally deletionists seem to know news from tomorrow and the day after ...) Wnt (talk) 23:50, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

LOL! Yes, sneaky deletionism is a reality. They wait til "no one is looking" and then succeed with a small cabal of supporters, when they previously failed with the broader community looking on. Ban those types. They are NOTHERE. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:00, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, clearly we should ban everyone that doesn't agree with your opinions *sigh*. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

It is still an over-hyped nothing-burger news story. Due to the existence of semi-partisan news media sources whose WP:MILL contemporaneous news coverage is often mistaken for secondary sourcing, it's almost impossible to fairly assess anything involving Trump and Russia in realtime, and probably will remain impossible for the duration of his presidency. Fortunately there is no deadline. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

More fortunately, we never have to fairly assess it. I generally believe in "verifiability, not truth". But while it is theoretically possible for editors to decide what is True in a more absolute way than the mere reading of sources, it is implausible and unnecessary for them to decide what is Important. The mere existence of the sources, summarized here in a hopefully impartial way, and of editors interested enough to do the work, is sufficient to justify the permanent acquisition of the article. Wnt (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

• I expect most are aware of this, but for those not, the basic policy here is Wikipedia:NOTTEMPORARY - notability is intended to be permanent. But the policy recognises we may not always get this right. In such cases, I'm likely to generally support a keep, as I think the question is usually adequately scrutinized at the time of creation, and heaven knows that Trump's presidency is going to keep historians & readers busy for decades to come. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
• Deletion is not the process to be looking for or at, as a merge, or a title rename/scope issue is what is being suggested. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:30, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Strange this section's heading begins with "Deletion" then! Notability is all about a subject's appropriateness as a stand-aloner article. Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Not strange, just usual confusions of Wikipedia process - will the subject be covered in Wikipedia, quite obviously, so the subject will not get deleted, how it's organized is up for debate, that's why we have talk pages. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Hopefully, when all the public furor dies down over the 2016 election of what some consider a shady, playboy businessman over a crooked politician (only in America, folks), the pedia will return to normal, and those who are interested in being journalists rather than authors/editors of encyclopedic content will move over to the WikiTribune. The Trump administration doesn't need our help to cause any further damage to their reputation than what they are quite capable of accomplishing on their own. Facts only, please. Regarding the deletion of Trump-connected articles, it would not be an issue if editors (as applicable) would stop discounting the cautions described in WP:NEWSORG, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. WP was inundated with similar types of disinformation/gossip/unfounded allegations relating to the Clinton, Bush, & Obama administrations - there were plenty of controversies/scandals to cherrypick from RS to fit a particular POV agenda - but those articles had a chance to cure over time, so the bulk of negativity was whittled down for compliance with NPOV, and the same will happen with the Trump articles. Per WP:RECENTISM: But in the long-term, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is not an indiscriminate collection of information, articles should be written from a neutral point of view without editorial bias or article imbalance, and not every topic eventually meets the general notability guideline to merit its own stand-alone article.

Trump just completed his first year as president, and there are 3 more years to go (maybe)...possibly even 7...and we already have more articles filled with unverified allegations, journalistic analysis/commentary/opinions mixed with news, along with so-called expert analysis by doctors who never personally examined him, and other negativity than what was included in the articles of 2-term presidents. Deletions/rewrites are a necessary part of reaching compliance with NPOV which is why WP:CIR is important when making early determinations, especially considering the DS and accompanying restrictions to which such articles are subjected. It may feel good to write what we "feel is appropriate" now but it simply won't stick. Stricter adherence now to WP:NEWSORG, WP:RECENTISM, WP:LABEL, WP:BALANCE, WP:UNDUE, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and the 3 main core content policies NOR, NPOV, & V will probably reduce a lot of the necessary UNDUE, GOSSIP, POV deletions/modifications that will become apparent as time progresses.

Suggestion - while some may oppose any comparison to the Encyclopedia Britannica, (because WP is far better and more reliable than any other ), we can't deny that the Britannica is a long standing, stable and widely accepted tertiary source in academic circles, and aligns with encyclopedias by Cambridge and Columbia. It is also conveniently available online. It wouldn't hurt to compare their articles about the same political topics, and use it as a gage for neutrality as it relates to our own. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

The "journalists" will stay here. Phil Graham once said that journalism is the first rough draft of history, and today Wikipedia is that first rough draft, for better or for worse. As far as policy acronyms go, truly enforcing WP:NOTNEWS is clearly not supported by the community (I've made vague suggestions of stronger enforcement that got no support). The rest will happen in due time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

The name WP:NOTNEWS is trotted out every time there's one of these conversations, so every time I have to mention that if you actually read the policy, it doesn't say we have to delete good data just because it's news. It says only not to treat news differently than other content. There has been a global push against news aggregators of all kinds, with even big companies like Google teetering on the brink of illegality as the legal landlords claim their rent from knowledge of the world's events (see ancillary copyright for press publishers), but Wikipedia doesn't have to go along with it. The news industry is failing because their overall economic model, the idea of copyright in general, is failing, and if we can hold out just a little longer, they won't have the capital left to lobby against us. After that we may need to get more creative about how to define or find a reliable source, but I think the hindrance of their collapse may be less than expected. Wnt (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Nigeria as a major "expanding market" for Wikipedia?

I volunteer at WP:Articles for creation and over the last couple years I've seen a major uptick in submissions relating to Nigeria, mostly biographies of musicians, actors, footballers, and some politicians. I came onboard in 2008, and what I'm seeing now reminds me of the big uptick that I started noticing around 2010 where we started getting a ton of contributions about India. And as I'm sure a lot of us have noticed, India-topic articles on Wikipedia frequently rank in the Top 25 when a blockbuster movie comes out, or something major happens in the sports or political world.

Nigeria is 186 million people (USA is 325 million, UK is 66 million) and while there are many local languages the national official language is English. So while not as huge as India, that's still a really large Anglophone population that is increasingly online. I'm seeing this though on a smaller level with other Anglophone African countries like Zambia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe.

As a very, very tentative observation, it's my vague impression in AFC that Nigeria submissions tend to be higher-quality, pound-for-pound than general US or India draft submissions. Is this a reflection of a slightly higher technological bar-for-entry in Nigeria, or due to a larger portion of people coming to WP through more formal outreach that has them paying more attention to article requirements before submitting? I'm genuinely surprised at the success rate of drafts for Nigerian musicians, that are relatively more likely to be properly sourced to Nigerian media reports as opposed to the regular flow of non-notable American garage band (and I say this as someone who's played in American garage-bands).

Are there any good articles or essays (on Wikipedia or off) that folks would recommend to read up on Wikipedia's increasing penetration in Africa? I'm under the general impression that Wikimedia is doing more outreach there since I've seen edit-a-thon drafts come through AFC, so that's heartening to see.

Just writing here for those who may work in other aspects of WP and not have noticed this trend yet, or to invite further enlightenment from folks tracking this issue more closely who have interesting observations about this trend and what it bodes for Wikipedia. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I was asked to evaluate 100 articles about Nigerian topics a couple of years ago, as part of an editing competition. I read about 20 of those articles quite carefully. My experience was quite positive. Although there were a few clunkers, a large majority were solid, properly referenced start class (or better) articles about notable topics. This is the day-to-day work of addressing systemic bias. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

There is indeed a major Wikipedia awareness campaign in Nigeria. Graham87 09:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

This all seems quite cool to me. I think we in the community need to on-guard to make sure that people aren't reflexively nominating things for deletion in this area based on spurious "I have personally never heard of this, therefore it is not notable".--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

As I'm sure others have noticed, one of the huge issues with Systemic Bias is the "chicken or the egg?" wherein Wikipedia can only cover a topic if RSs have covered it. So we run into the issue where there may be major African figures who aren't well-covered in RSs and thus hard to prove Notability despite being unquestionably significant figures in their field. The solution to that is more, for example, Nigerian scholars and journalists publishing about significant Nigerians. Fortunately there are a number of Nigerian media sites online that appear to be RSs; I've found entertainment news is really well-covered by Pulse so that really helps getting Nollywood films and actors through since we have coverage of their careers, box-offices and reviews, etc. In a weird symbiotic way, increased Wikipedia coverage of Africa might actually help more scholarship and journalism to cover Africa since running into Wikipedia roadblocks might cause more people to say "hey, why isn't anyone writing about Dr. Smith who had such an active role in medicine during the Biafran War?"

Thanks for the Wikimedia blog post, that's just the kind of thing that helps answer my questions. Just today I'm seeing Category:WikiGap Harare popping up in the queue, so glad to see Wikimedia folks kicking off such projects. Having seen a lot of iffy India content come through during the initial press of Indian editors, it's gratifying to see that African editors are disproportionately doing their homework in advance to provide strong sourcing. I'm unclear to what degree that's just a reaction to Wikipedia's rising standards, and to what degree it's because editors are entering through a more formalized outreach process, but in either case it makes AFC easier. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree that there is more wiki potential in the Nigerian ecosystem. Kudos to Wikimedia UserGroup Nigeria, who have been making some strategic partnership and organizing awareness programs that could be responsible for the increase we are seeing today. Although 2018 is my 8th year on WP, I began interacting with the Nigerian off-wiki community about two years ago and have been priviledged to coordinate the activities for Ibadan hub and I'm proud to say off the top of my head there are at least 10 new editors (eg. Oshhhh, AshiomaMedi, etc) who became WP editors due to the two outreaches we were able to organize in UI in conjunction with WUGN. However, I still think more can still be done, for example many Nigerisns still do not know that Wikipedia is free on Airtel, sometimes I wonder if part of the mou between Airtel and Wikimedia foundation was that it should not be overly promoted.@Mathew You are 100% on point about refernces; notable Nigerian nollywood and music-related content that were released since the mid-2000s have good coverage, especially from Pulse. However, we also have a number of indigenous sites that cover local Nigerian football, but they don't have the resources Pulse have to make them 100% reliable sources. Media platforms like allnigeriasoccer.com, ladiesmarch.com, Saharareporterssports, Savidnews, etc are owned and published by reputable stakeholders in Nigerian male and female leagues but they are not as refined as Pulse, all their first-person information have always been accurate too. So we can also say Nigerian football leagues (both male and female) have also been well covered lately. Goal.com, Complete Sports Nigeria and other richer sporting sites are also doing quite well for the big games. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Osmosis: Wikipedia medical articles hijacked by paid editors working for private foundation

I am very concerned that Wikipedia medical articles now embed videos created by Osmosis. These videos are uploaded by an editor user:OsmoeIt who declares to be paid by the foundation to create and upload them to Wikipedia. Osmosis appears to be funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which is a private philanthropy foundation created by a founder of the American medical firm Johnson & Johnson.

Wikipedia is, I believe, fundamentally a project collaboratively edited by volunteers. While it may link to other websites containing medical information created by third parties, I hope the Wikipedia content itself is fundamentally user created and open to being collaboratively edited. For audio-visual material we have a history of accepting content that is not created by volunteers, provided it is freely licensed. However, this content is mostly images or short video clips which can easily be substituted for another by any editor.

Here, though we have lengthy videos that often comprehensively replace the article content in their scope. Take Epilepsy. Here we do not just have a short video of a person having a seizure, but a nine minute video documentary covering the entire article topic. There are several issues with that:

• The content cannot be edited. [While theoretically, someone can take the CC BY SA video and make a derivative work, it is not realistic to do that as the narrator would be different and it would be very hard to achieve the same visual style].
• The content begins and ends with publicity for a third party.
• The content is unsourced and therefore does not meet our editing policies.
• Some content is outdated, and it is not possible to fix. For example the video uses the outdated term "complex partial seizure"
• The video does not fit with our style guide for medical articles, referring to "patients" rather than "people with epilepsy".
• The video contains American English slang terms such as "spaced out" which would not appear in professional writing and may be unfamiliar to our international audience.
• Wikipedia is primarily an encyclopaedia, not a YouTube channel, nor a documentary. Videos should supplement the article text, providing information in ways that cannot be done by reading alone. Instead here, we have whole article topics in video format.

Here is what happens when an editor challenges the material in one of these videos in Dementia with Lewy bodies:

• Video removed and discussion started on talk: "With no mention of two of four core symptoms, this video is outdated" -- User:SandyGeorgia
• video restored without discussion or gaining consensus "Sure. Will request they update it." -- User:Doc James
• video restored again "I have restored the video. They say they are willing to update it." -- User:Doc James.

Another example to Coeliac disease

• Doc James adds the video to Coeliac disease, which is a featured article. -- User:Doc James
• Video removed by BallenaBlanca and discussion started on talk Talk:Coeliac disease/Archive 5#Coeliac disease video "I do not agree with the inclusion of this video...I repeat, these "old ideas" are “very dangerous” and the reason which most celiacs remain unrecognized, undiagnosed and untreated. So I removed this video" -- User:BallenaBlanca
• Video restored without discussion or gaining consensus "lets see if they are willing to update the video based on the concerns you have raised" -- User:Doc James
• Video again removed by BallenaBlanca and discussion continues on talk.
• User:OsmoseIt says "The target audience of our videos is for medical students" and "We'll implement your feedback in our next revision of the video."
• video restored again by Doc James "It is still useful content" -- User:Doc James
• Video moved out of the lede by BallenaBlanca "This video is the same version, it was not improved. I do not agree its inclusion in the page as it is; if we let it, at least should not be in the lede, I think it has to be left in Pathophysiology section until it is updated." -- User:BallenaBlanca

So we now have content created by a private organisation that cannot be removed by any editor with concerns about its content. Instead the video is forcibly, and without discussion or consensus, restored to the article by edit warring, with just a promise that this third-party will at some point update it.

There are nearly 300 of these videos added to many of the major medical article topics. In addition to the Canadian User:OsmoseIt, another editor User:Tannermarshall is involved, of which we know nothing. But the biggest player here is Canadian User:Doc James. I can find no discussion at WP:MED where Osmosis is discussed as a possible project the community might approve of. Yet the material is added with edit summary "Videos have been released under a CC BY SA license and uploaded as part of a partnership between Osmosis.org and meta:Wiki Project Med Foundation. I can find no mention of Osmosis at meta:Wiki Project Med Foundation. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis page was created by Doc James "We are working with Osmosis to create medical videos under a CC BY SA license." That project page contains almost no discussion -- these videos are not in fact being reviewed by the project or community prior to being added to articles by Doc James. I must conclude that the "we" is Doc James, and not WP:MED nor the Wikipedia community.

While the project to create and add these videos may appear well intentioned, this is not IMO, what Wikipedia is. Would we accept it if our history articles embedded documentaries from the History Channel? Or our current affairs articles contain vidoes by Fox News? A CC BY SA licence, and an educational purpose is not sufficient reason to embed content from private third parties. Wikipedia is being privatised and collaborative editing denied. -- Colin°^Talk 10:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If they were well done, presented the consensus of scholarly opinion, and made available free, why wouldn't we? I checked the dispute on coeliac. I'm at a loss to understand what "danger" BallenaBlanca is talking about. The video is a reasonable description of coeliac as I understand it, as a late diagnosed patient. Obviously BallenaBlanca has a different view, but this is completely mainstream, and one thing that is dangerous is rejecting mainstream content in Wikipedia medical articles because we have a different view. I don't know if BallenaBlanca is medically qualified (Doc James is). Guy (Help!) 12:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

If you like it, User:JzG, then sure, link to it as an external link. Doc James is not an expert on Coeliac disease, and since when did we start dismissing editors because they don't publicise their qualifications or are lay. As a lay editor with a Featured Article (Ketogenic diet) I find that rather offensive. But let's imagine you are a medical authority on Coeliac disease. So, exactly how, on this collaboratively-edited encyclopaedia, are you going to edit any mistakes you find, or if you wish to update this in a year's time with the latest consensus advice? And which part of WP:V allows us to replace-in-video-format article content but not apply any sourcing policies? -- Colin°^Talk 12:23, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Actually, User:JzG, User:BallenaBlanca's talk page states "I am a Doctor in Medicine. Gastroenterology Specialist." So not only are your comments on their medical status inappropriate on an encyclopaedia which, last time I checked, didn't require a "MD" after the user's name to be able to edit, but they are also wrong. If we believe the statements made by both these individuals on their qualifications, then Doc James is totally out of his depth, as usual. But fundamentally Wikipedia discussions are not settled on the qualifications (or lack) of editors, but on the sources used to justify article text. In this case, we neither have article text nor sources. It is the anti-Wikipedia. -- Colin°^Talk 13:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Park your hysteria, please. I said I didn't know if BB is medically qualified. That is televant simply because medical articles are a magnet for lay activists. As I said, I see nothing dangerous about this content. It seems mainstream to me. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

User:JzG, you are dealing with this as though it is a content dispute. Concentrating on whether one particular video is mostly OK isn't the point. -- Colin°^Talk 13:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

No, I am looking at one of the examples you cited, which is a subject that is important to me (as an adult-diagnosed coeliac), and not seeing any problem. Free content that fairly represents a mainstream view of the subject, does not appear to be a problem to me. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Inserting any video or other media content into an article is a question of whether there is consensus for inserting it or not on the article discussion page, not of the professional qualifications or prior endeavors of the editors. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: did you read the talk page discussion at Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB)? Here it is again. They do not present, in that case, the minimum of consensus of scholarly opinion. On the two of two I have checked, they have real errors. There is remarkably clear medical consensus on DLB, that was well established before the video was inserted, and which they apparently were unaware of. (Neither was Doc James, based on the effort it took to get him to understand the issue with REM sleep behavior disorder in that article, its lead, and its infobox.)

There was one installed at FA Tourette syndrome until a few days ago; it is now at tic disorders, but still has issues even in that article. After years of carefully keeping the POV wording, "suffers from" out of the TS articles, there it is, along with an inaccurate description of tics. The medical consensus DSM-5 criteria for TS most clearly states that not all people with TS "suffer" -- there is no significant distress or impairment requirement. Similar to DLB, Doc James is defending these videos without in-depth knowledge of the topic.

So, in three cases demonstrated here now, editors who have in-depth knowledge of the sources on a specific topic are trying to explain to people who don't have in-depth knowledge of those topics why these videos don't belong in our articles. Wikipedia editors have to engage in a dispute (that apparently involves edit warring) to remove an inaccurate video from an external source, indeed, a source that has products for sale and no about us information on their website to establish their reliability. This is COI paid editing with every video providing a website link to their shops with products for sale. I am more troubled that there seems to be no en.Wikipedia discussion about these videos, and yet they are being systematically installed on medical articles by one editor. Not seeing the hysteria from Colin that you mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Some years ago, Jimmy Wales was pleased to announce that the medical fraternity wanted to become more active on Wikipedia. They would import good, reliable, encyclopedic information. What have we ended up with ? A torrent of subliminal advertising ! I agree with JW on most things but this paid for activity has got to stop.Aspro (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• I'm disappointed that this issue was not raised on WT:MED before being brought here. Looie496 (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Looie496, there isn't actually a medical aspect to this issue. It is fundamental to what Wikipedia is. But it would be been nice if WP:MED had even discussed these videos on wiki or with the wider community. -- Colin°^Talk 14:01, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
    • I am seeing it more broadly as a COI issue, in which Doc James is involved with furthering paid editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Imagine you have worked on an article and taken it to Featured Article status like Tourette syndrome (another example article where Doc James edit warrs over the video). Every sentence is professional-level prose. Every fact sourced. The topic is comprehensively covered in text. Then someone plants a block of text in your lead with a big box round it. The block is titled "Content created by Osmosis". The bold Comic Sans font paragraph covers much of the article topic, but is written for medical students. It gets a few things wrong and out-of-date along the way. It ends with Facebook and Twitter links to Osmosis. Well, you'd be upset and want to either remove or edit it. But when you press the Edit button you get told your edit is denied. Instead you get a web form where you may submit change requests to Osmosis. After describing the problem in the box, you are thanked for your help in improving Osmosis and promised your comments will be taken into consideration for the next version of the video. Whenever that might be.

Wikipedia -- from wiki meaning quick, and encyclopaedia, meaning not YouTube. I should be able to edit the article and quickly change it. I cannot do this If someone embeds an entire article in video format, it can become WP:OWNED by a private organisation. -- Colin°^Talk 13:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Per Colin's comment above, it does seem that having a block of embedded content that – practically speaking – can't be modified by anyone except the original uploader is difficult to reconcile with the wiki ethos.

Placing a block of content in the middle of a Wikipedia article that credits an external agency at the beginning and end of the video, and rolls credits naming several contributors at the end, also violates the spirit of WP:WATERMARK and MOS:CREDITS. It highlights that this material isn't really Wikipedia article content, it's just an interstitial ad. (Having watched the video on Lewy body dementia just now, it might as well have ended with Ask your doctor if donepezil is right for you!)

At best, the content in these videos is simply a recapitulation of content that should already be present in the articles. This is functionally a way to circumvent the guidance of WP:ELNO—by uploading their privileged, (practically) unmodifiable content to Commons, they are able to paste their preferred video articles straight into the body of Wikipedia pages. If the videos were hosted externally, we wouldn't link to them at all, as they "...[do] not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page."

As an aside, Osmosis' use of a round logo with muted blue-green-red color palette is sufficiently reminiscent of the Wikimedia Foundation logo that I actually went to check whether there was an official link between the organizations. While I expect that they're sufficiently distinct for trademark law purposes, I found the design choice to be uncomfortably suggestive, especially as it appears at the beginning and end of each video. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:09, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

On the issue of donepezil, I am slowly working through the DLB article (which was awful), and have not yet gotten to the Management section (or Causes, Pathology, and a few others-- the article was horribly outdated). When I have finished updating the page (need at least another week), I will take issue with other things in that video. Yes, I agree this is an ELNO problem; I don't want to see us furthering the interests of this org, even in External links. And I agree that we need to address videos at WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the OP. It is good to include these as external links (similarly to how The Periodic Table of Videos is included at Osmium), but presenting them as they currently appear at Epilepsy isn't acceptable. It promotes "Osmosis" and is in a location where "wiki" content that anybody can edit is expected. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• User:Colin nice job climbing the Reichstag. Like most who do that, your post misrepresents the situation. You write that there has been no discussion. This is not true - they were discussed here -- Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_76#Videos -- and several other times as well as this search shows. Your behavior here is reprehensible. Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Jytdog, would you believe me if I said that I did not see that discussion in my search results? Perhaps not. Anyway, that discussion involved very few editors not already linked to Osmosis. Such as User:Soupvector who claims he "helped their founders with Osmosis during its early days". The other discussions are quite superficial. -- Colin°^Talk 18:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• Jyt, while your tone is unhelpful, that initial discussion is. The problems with these videos were expressed early on by multiple medical editors, and installed on "consensus" of a minority. Why did the project go forward? Also, a reminder about local consensus; this is not only a medical article issue-- it is one that should concern anyone who cares about COI in paid editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

• PS, that red link raised flags, so I went to check if I needed to file an SPI. No, but the first edit summary is of interest to this discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Your attack on Doc James above is horrible, and noted. Jytdog (talk) 17:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Very interesting to see the Doc James contributions here. When newbie User:Chrisbospher added the words "for profit" to clarify Osmosis's position as a company, he was reverted and taken to ANI. Doc James claimed "The group doing medical videos at Khan has split off and formed an organization called Osmosis" User:OsmoseIt writes on Commons "We are not a spin-off of Khan Academy. Could you point me to where you saw that we were? If that's written anywhere then that is indeed a mistake and I'll fix it, but to my knowledge we've never claimed to be a KA spin-off." So, we have false and misleading information being corrected and improved by a newbie who is then sent for punishment at ANI. The user is dismissed as "someone with an axe to grind" and "only here for one purpose—to have the extremely useful medical videos deleted" and "The claims of "free advertising/marketing tool" are obviously over-the-top". Well perhaps Jytdog if you could stop worshiping the WP:MED deity for a moment, you might think that perhaps uneditable content owned by a private for-profit corporation on all our medical articles, may well simply be freemium teasers for their subscription material. -- Colin°^Talk 18:00, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

I am blocked for life on Swedish Wikipedia, but not on English or any other Wikipedia.

The reason is that I made an attempt at tackling a highly sensitive political issue - that Jewish slaughter (shehitah) is banned in Sweden. The reason is that the Nazis (National Socialist German government of the 1930's) pressured the Swedes to do this. At the time, the Swedish government was a coalition between the Social Democrats and the Agrarian party - a forerunner to today's Center party. Sweden is alone together with Norway and Denmark in having political power vested in peasant farmers. and these parties - in Sweden and Norway were pretty racist having as a policy to refinde the blood of the Swedish/Norwegian people (folk) and the minister responsible in Sweden for pushing the legisltion through was the Minister of Justice who was from the agrarian party.

A prime mover for the legislation who spoke a number of times on the matter was Otto Wallén, who said at one stage in the Swedish Riksdag - "I am not ashamed to call myself an antisemite.

Swedish wiki entry on Otto Wallén The exact quote is:

Jag erkänner gärna, herr talman, utan att blygas att jag idag är antisemit /.../ Den asiatiska folkstammen passar icke i sällskap med vår hyggliga svenska folkstam

I readily admit, Mr Speaker, without embarrassment that I am today an antisemite ... The asiatic tribe does not suit the company of our fine upstanding Swedish tribe.

However, the immediate problem is that the article on Skäktning is wrong and i cannot correct it.

The very first sentence is:

Skäktning är en slaktmetod föreskriven inom judendom (kosherslakten) och islam (halalslakten). I båda fallen avlivas djuret genom att halspulsådrorna skärs av med kniv.[1] Skäktning is a slaughtering method within Judaism (kosher slaughter) and Isam (Halal slaughter). In both cases the animal is killed by the arteries being cut with a knife.

Well this is not the case. there are two major arteries and two major veins that supply and drain blood from the brain - they are the carotid arteries and jugular veins.

RPSM (talk) 14:37, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

In both the Jewish and Muslim slaughter methods that are different in many respects, all four blood vessels (two arteries and two veins) are cut simultaneously with a long, sharp knife. the text is therefore misleading.

I need to publicize that the Swedish wikipedia is misleading on this point and unreliable.

The traditional European method is to use a short pointed dagger called a sticking knife, and often only one jugular vein is cut.

Cutting one, two, three or all four of the major blood vessels results in death occurring and different rates - slowest with only one blood vessel cut and quickest when all four are cut.

This is why when an animal is stunned unsuccessfully that the long Jewish knife is used to put it out of its misery as quickly as possible.

I got this information from the South African Meat Company when their handbook for supervisors was on line.

My editin on English Wikipedia has mostly been on an article for