Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 04:29, 4 May 2020 (Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 135) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Edit with VisualEditor

    Shortcut

    Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

    We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

    List of archives

    RFC on pharmaceutical drug prices /currently at ArbCom

    The RFC has concluded. Here is my interpretation. Drug price information should nearly always not be included in the lead. The method used, of creating drug prices from raw database sources fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. The presentation of the price for one particular formulation of the drug, often from very few suppliers, claiming this to be generally representative of all formulations of a drug, an entire world region (e.g. developing world), and all possible indications of use of the drug is false and misleading to our readers. Were those claims to be reworded to be specific, they would fail WP:WEIGHT. This applies no matter where a price appears in the article. The inclusion of price in the body, should that even be necessary to make a point, requires extensive discussion in secondary sources, which is what WP:NOTPRICE has always insisted. Prices should not be added to info boxes.

    I see there has been discussion at {{Infobox drug}} about including GoodRX prices and/or links. There is no consensus for this, and I'm sure the wider community would be against infobox links to a commercial US-only price-comparison service. From what I understand, there are approximately three people in a population of 300 million in the US who have not heard of or use GoodRX, so there lacks any encyclopaedic value in an international project. Finding the cheapest local price for your medicines is not the job of an encyclopaedia.

    I would be interested to know what plans those editors who added drug prices to our articles... Doc James ... have for their removal in compliance with the RFC conclusion. I hope they will acknowledge the community result and desist from adding prices to medical articles except in the most unusual and non-controversial cases. -- Colin°Talk 18:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Colin, I agree this is the best place to hold a discussion, but before continuing the discussion here, it would be wise to hear from Barkeep49 if the restriction that all discussion of drug pricing was confined to a single remit, WT:MEDMOS, is relaxed now that the RFC is closed. Can drug pricing RFC followup be discussed here instead, or does it have to stay back at WT:MEDMOS ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes now that the RfC is complete I don't think the moratorium or requirement of discussion at a single venue apply though MOSMED discussion is still probably best held there, but that's just my personal opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Barkeep49, the only reason the price discussion was ever on WT:MEDMOS was because a, now blocked, editor added price advocacy statements to WP:MEDMOS and edit warred over them. The inclusion of price in an article isn't a MOS issue, and though the prices had been inserted into the lead (without any mention of cost in the body) in violation of WP:LEAD, what goes in the lead or the body isn't a medical matter. Drug prices have previously been discussed on this page, and most of the issues that led to the RFC result are general core policy matters, not a question of style (i.e how to format text). The discussion is over anyway, and what matters now, is what members of this project are going to do about the result. Hence, it's a project matter. -- Colin°Talk 20:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns about timing of this discussion due to the COVID-19 pandemic

    • I don't think this discussion will be given much attention right now in the middle of the COVID-19 pandemic. It would be wise to avoid drastic actions of any kind until WP:MED-editors are able to return to their normal duties and interests. The pandemic is currently, and quite understandably, taking a disproportionate amount of time from editors here.
      Carl Fredrik talk 19:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure that is broadly true; some editors have more time than usual right now, because of stay-at-home, and others have given up on the COVID articles, as most of them are being edited in irretrievably hopeless ways, MEDRS out the door, and mostly politics. They are being mostly edited by non-medical editors. That is, I don't see the need to hold off this discussion, which is not likely to be very complicated considering the RFC close. But I am worried about where to hold the discussion. CFCF, could you please refrain from adding excess markup to your talk page posts? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think there is going to be a wide variation on the impact of the pandemic on different editors, ranging from folks like Soupvector (who I know has been the Covid-19 inpatient attending for some time and expects not to be relieved until sometime next week) to many students who will have time on their hands for the rest of the academic year. Jenny is managing to do some editing, despite having to home-school her three kids and work at the same time. James is getting ready for a massive upturn in his work demands for obvious reasons. I'm really lucky in that it hasn't affected me much, but I think we'll have to accept that not all of the regulars will be responding quickly to on-wiki events. --RexxS (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I have to second RexxS's observation here: most clinicians will be preparing for a massively increased work-load, with many non-clinician MDs and nurses likely also facing having to care for COVID-19 patients. So your point, SandyGeorgia, about it not being "broadly true" is all the more reason to avoid discussion right now. MD/RN-editors are less likely to respond and the outcome might therefore be severely biased, discounting their views.
            My initial point was more about how this discussion wouldn't be prioritized in the current editing climate which is focused towards COVID-articles, but the above is an even more pressing reason to shelve the issue for the time being, in order to avoid disruption.
            Carl Fredrik talk 21:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with RexxS that there will be a wide variation, and that "not all of the regulars will be responding quickly". That will be the new normal for, likely, a long time to come, so while it is good reason to allow more time for discussions to unfold, and wait longer for responses, it doesn't mean we stop discussing or stop editing. Many will recall that quite a few participants in the formulation of the RFC were absent for days to weeks at a time, even before the pandemic; we don't stop regular editing because some editors are less available, although I agree we need to allow much more time for responses, and before implementing anything. No, people carrying on with their regular editing, as they always have, do not have to stop doing so.
            At any rate, Seppi333 was asking on James' talk page what to do about the infobox for drug prices, and it seems that we can give them that answer (no prices in infoboxes). The database sources are not supported per WP:V. What else needs to be decided now, besides who is going to get all of the 530 database prices out of the articles? Can someone do that by bot, or do we need to manually go through all 530?
            CFCF, could you please stop adding excess markup to your posts? Most of us can read without the added emphasis. (do you see how irritating it is to be Told We Must Pay Attention To Certain Text Because It Is Bolded, Underlined or All Capped?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I ask you not to comment on the format of my discussion where I highlight the most salient points, a practice which I believe to be very much in line with the WP:Talk page guidelines. Carl Fredrik talk 10:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You have been asked to stop. Similarly, please stop personalizing discussions: focus on content. Separately, please stop adding non-neutral headings to discussions. A neutral heading for this discussion would look more like "Timing of discussion"; it is not helpful to add your personal opinions to headings. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You added a non-neutral header and move my comment SandyGeorgia, implying that it was my personal "RFC interpretation", cutting it off from the necessary context. As for the other things you accuse me of, it's disingenuous, untrue and WP:UNCIVIL.
    We must be able to have disagreement, even disagree about personal actions and edits without calling it personalization and resorting to ad hominem, which is what you are doing when you question the format or language in my edits.
    That's just a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Carl Fredrik talk 17:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncertainties about bias // Implementation

    I'm not sure what sort of bias could be produced by not having people with a physician's or nursing license involved. The result of the RFC begins with the sentence "Editors are generally opposed to inclusion of prices in the lede." I can't really think of how, e.g., a good editor who is a nurse and an equally good editor who is not a nurse would interpret that sentence differently. AFAICT the only "discussion" to be had at this stage is whether any editors want to WP:VOLUNTEER to implement the RFC's conclusion in a systematic, organized manner, or not (NB: "or not" includes letting any interested individual volunteer do it all himself/herself, doing it haphazardly, doing it when a given page is being overhauled anyway, etc. It doesn't include rejecting the RFC's conclusions or trying to have the discussion about whether it's a good idea all over again).

    As for my own opinion on Colin's actual question, the RFC's conclusions ought to be implemented in the affected articles. Separately, someday I'll take them into account when I propose some content about prices for MEDMOS (and maybe also a sentence or two for MEDRS). But I don't actually care whether we organize the process of updating these articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WhatamIdoing, I'm not implying that you would be intentionally biased in any way. But the very nature of systemic bias ensures that we do not know how it would affect us. I am pointing out that the current time is very exceptional, and that large-scale edits or discussion on other topics should be avoided, if there is likelyhood a large portion of ordinary editors will not be able to engage in discussion. Wikipedia isn't about "snagging consensus" as soon as one sees the opportunity, and we would certainly be better off if we did not have to redo any discussion because of even the accusation of a one-sided consensus. Carl Fredrik talk 09:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WhatamIdoing, I think we should create a list of drugs that have notable high-cost issues and we can together all examine if there are problems surrounding the presentation or sourcing of prices on those drugs that need MEDMOS/MEDRS guidance. It may be that editors are doing a reasonable job with that, or existing general guidelines already inform, or the few problematic articles can be resolved without the need for further legislation in a guideline page. As I noted at the RFC, I think we have focused too much on a dollar.cent price figure and not enough on providing encyclopaedic information to our readers about general comments on affordability, availability and relative cost vs other treatments, which are probably best made at the disease article's treatment section. So I'd caution against specifically dealing with "price" at MEDMOS. The word "price" has us reaching for the $ symbol on the keyboard, and perhaps mostly we don't need it to inform our readers.
    As for volunteering, someone once said "If you want a job done well, do it yourself". So I guess... -- Colin°Talk 09:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And Colin — I would point out that regardless of the outcome, major editing across many articles, should be avoided if there is any suspicion that it would be controversial. This isn't about "restricting" what people can edit about, but more about advanced warning that major revisions at a time when consensus is difficult to gauge, can be very disruptive if we later have to revert all of it: because it went too far; or because it was judged to misinterpret consensus at a later stage.
    We should always strive for the broadest possible consensus, which is not possible at the moment, and this issue being a non emergency, it can clearly wait — whereas a lot of other things can't.
    I implore you to be cautious and avoid major changes across multiple articles right now. It looks like you're going to get what you wanted, but without room for discussion right now, there is serious risk of overshooting. This is directed to you, or to anyone involved, because I don't want anyone to come back and say "no one said anything" or "I didn't know". The COVID-pandemic is an exceptional situation for WP:MED, and major changes to our body of other articles would benefit from being put on hold. Carl Fredrik talk 09:41, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Carl, the RFC, in which you chose not to participate, is over and there is already a clear conclusion of community consensus weighed by two uninvolved admins. The only "discussion" now is about who wants to do the work, and a request that those who have previously edit warred over this matter acknowledge the consensus. The prices will be removed from the lead of nearly all drug articles, and prices sourced to raw database sources will also be removed from the article body. Carl, it is clear what you are doing here. Get over it, move on. I do not intend to discuss the matter further with you. -- Colin°Talk 10:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Colin — Those accusations are to me a clear rejection of WP:assume good faith. You rightfully point out that I chose not to participate in the RfC, but there is no reason why that would matter.
    I am not rejecting the RfC — but pointing out that large-scale major edits over many articles, which may be controversial — are not appropriate at the moment, and are not supported by the RfC.
    As anyone is able to see upon reviewing the link at the very top here: The closing message of the RfC is not as straight forward as you make it.
    There is mention of "no consensus" in several places and the phrase "unlikely to find consensus", not "consensus against". There are also use of phrasing such as "in most cases", which imply a need to go through articles on a case-by-case basis. Each article that is assessed must of course take into account the RfC-result, but from what I understand you were suggesting a quick run-down of all articles in one fell swoop.
    What I'm saying is for those cases where consensus isn't 100% clear (quite a substantial number where secondary sources are included): don't go overboard.
    For example, how should we treat secondary sources discussing medication prices, such as those from the World Health Organization? Those things aren't simple and we need to properly discuss them, taking time in expense that we simply don't have right now.
    I can't debate this further now, because it is a complicated issue and one that requires quite a lot of reading and familiarizing with sources.
    The reason why I'm saying this is because the RfC didn't come with a clear "Do this" result, and even if that is not your intent: using the current timing may be perceived as an attempt to avoid scrutiny by a sizable proportion of those editors who did not agree with your take in the RfC.
    TL;DR: The RfC resulted in a mixed consensus, not a ratification of Colin's position.
    Carl Fredrik talk 10:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps you will consider re-reading the RFC after a few days; let's not re-litigate it post-closing. The time to enter an opinion was during the RFC, not after. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That reiterates my point — the RfC is extremely lengthy, and if one is expected to read the entire thing to interpret the closing and to implement it, it will not be done quickly.
    I'm not interested in entering an opinion, which should be evident in that I did not engage in the RfC — but I am interested in ensuring that the current situation with most MD/RD-editors being away doesn't mean a lot of poor choices are made with incomplete consensus — which we later have to revert. WP:THEREISNODEADLINE Carl Fredrik talk 16:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the job of the admins to read the "extremely lengthy" RFC and their summary and conclusions are not long at all; it is quite consise, and not hard to understand. We don't re-litigate a closed RFC, which was widely advertised. For now, could you please take on board the need to avoid battleground, and allow neutral discussion, under neutral headings, to continue about how to best implement the consensus? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If it was the job of the admins, then why did you ask me to re-read it?
    All I've said was:
    1) That the timing is wrong for introducing major changes in the middle of a pandemic where many editors are not present
    and
    2) That the RfC certainly isn't as straight forward when 2 out of 3 points in the closing summary point to a lack of consensus or no consensus.
    I have no further comments.
    Carl Fredrik talk 17:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Separately, you have personalized unnecessarily in this post. I am not going to requote the unnecessary wording that risks derailing the discussion from matters at hand, but I do suggest you may want to strike that portion, and comment on content, not contributor going forward. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Implementation

    Back on topic. I think we should create a list of drugs that have notable high-cost issues and we can together all examine if there are problems surrounding the presentation or sourcing of prices on those drugs that need MEDMOS/MEDRS guidance. Colin, unless I am misunderstanding, you are proposing here that we should separately do something to examine those cases where our drug articles do have notable high-cost issues that should be covered? During the RFC formulation, we did find that in many instances-- where articles should be discussing pricing as a V, WEIGHT, reliably sourced issue-- they were not.

    In the rest of the cases, on implementing the RFC, there are several things I think we need to have feedback on:

    • First, we should hear if the people who made the edits to the 530 articles have a plan to remove them themselves. That would solve the implementation problem with no further need for discussion or a lot of work from other editors.
    • Second, if not, then we can discuss how to approach the 530 articles. Can that list be edited down to include just the articles and the text?
    • Then third, we need an approach to doing the work. Because many people are under stay-at-home orders, I don't think it will be difficult to find volunteers, but we should not initiate work until there is an agreed approach. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Adding clarification: This is NOT to say that we need agreement to implement the RFC-- only that we need to hear first whether those who added the disputed text are willing to delete it themselves, or whether we will need to find another way to divide up the work, whether alphabetically, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    My remark concerns WhatamIdoing comment about (at a future date) to "propose some content about prices for MEDMOS (and maybe also a sentence or two for MEDRS)." That's very much a no-rush matter. As with all guidelines, we need to look at current practice, best practice, bad practice, and work out even if guidelines are needed. That's why I suggested making a list of articles that might be worth reviewing. And yes there are social, economic and health-service issues surrounding pharmaceutical treatments that our articles neglect, so editors might want to work on that as an area to improve and suggest for MEDMOS. -- Colin°Talk 16:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I see now why you added that. We may already need a re-boot to focus on how to implement the RFC, as the discussion went off-track quickly. Perhaps WhatamIdoing can use her skills to figure out how best to re-focus the discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that will have to happen later, possibly months from now. For one thing, I'll want to re-read the entire 49,000-word-long RFC first. I'm a fast reader, but that step alone will likely take a couple of weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In re "major editing across many articles, should be avoided if there is any suspicion that it would be controversial": Carl, I don't think that it's generally considered "controversial" to (conservatively) implement the conclusion of an unusually long, unusually well-attended RFC. Do you? I mean, we have pretty much unanimous agreement (including from the person who originally added it) that when the database gives a price for a single African country, that nobody ought to write that it's the price in the entire developing world (=80% of the world's population). I really struggle to see how anyone would think removing that is controversial or in need of yet more discussion. At least a third of the prices sourced to that website are similarly bad. I can understand that drug price content feels less urgent to you (and to many people) than the COVID-19 articles, but does it genuinely seem controversial to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WhatamIdoing — No, that does not sound controversial, but it was also not what I understood the intent of the original post to be. There was nothing about conservative implementation of the least controversial points from the RfC. I'm totally fine with it, as long as we implement what is actually not disputed first, and then we can discuss the things that remain disputed, or that the RfC failed to answer later. From what I understand, the only really clear point is the first one about the general opposition towards prices in the lede.
    I don't have time to comment further, and truly hope that it isn't a mistake to drop the issue for now. I believe I've made my points heard about being careful and going slowly, and can't contribute more. Carl Fredrik talk 17:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This RFC was specifically about content sourced to Special:LinkSearch/*.mshpriceguide.org. While the discussion covered much wider range (there's no way to keep Wikipedians from talking about whatever they think is important), the primary conclusions are about (mis)using that single source, and especially about having misleading content from it in the introduction of an article. I think that fixing up that much could be implemented (especially in the most obvious cases) by anyone at any time. Most price content should move out of the lead (all editors to use best judgment, nobody to engage in WP:POINTy or mindless editing, etc.), and the price content from that one specific source should be reviewed with an eye towards removal (if the database had limited information for that drug) or correction/clarification (all the rest). The removals will be easier, so it might make sense to do those first, but Wikipedia:There is no deadline. It's been there for five or six years, so another couple of months doesn't really matter. For the rest (e.g., infoboxes), that's all food for thought at a future date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To answer WAID, the conclusions of the RFC are pretty clear, and I am not seeing this "controversy". I have suggested that CFCF might want to revisit the conclusions of the admins after a few days' reflection-- sometimes things can be seen more clearly with a few days' distance. On the other hand, I don't think anyone is advocating moving forward without a deliberative discussion and approach about how to go about approaching the work that needs to be done. That text in the leads sourced to these databases goes is indisputable from the RFC close. The closing admins also concluded that pricing text anywhere in the articles does not enjoy consensus that it meets policy (V or WEIGHT). Those wanting to add content need to demonstrate that the content meets policy, not the other way around. These are not controversial statements. The text in these articles now does not enjoy consensus is the conclusion, and where there is little discussion of pricing in secondary sources, it generally should not be included.
    That how to undertake this work on 530 articles needs to be discussed goes without saying, because it is a lot of work. The idea that we can't even talk about this because a small number of medical editors are attempting to keep up with NOTNEWS yet InTheNews edits across hundreds of COVID articles is a sample of confirmation bias. I am seeing editors engaging on non-COVID medical articles to an extent that I hadn't seen in years, so it is apparent to me that there are plenty of editors with more free time now. We can move forward to discussing how to implement the RFC conclusions; IMO, it would be preferable to first hear whether the editors who added the text will help get it removed, and I accept that it may take additional time, due to the pandemic, to get an answer to that query. Our time will also be better spent if we deal with the housekeeping issues here, lest we see another five-month detour through ANI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we need to have big discussions. I think we just need to move slowly. Nobody should try to edit hundreds of drug articles today, or even this week, because it's not nice to flood people's watchlists. We should fix the "obvious" problems first. It may take a long time to get decent price content into articles, but that's okay; we can make some of it better soon. For right now, just getting mediocre-to-bad content from the one source out of the introduction is a simple, feasible edit that dozens of us are capable of doing. Probably the fastest way to do that is to go to User:Colin/MSHData#Raw data, sort by the number of suppliers, and start with the ones that have zero suppliers or just one supplier. All of those require (mostly) removal or (sometimes) correction. If anyone is interested in doing this, but isn't sure what to do, then pick an article from the list, make your best-guess edit, and bring the diff here with your questions (or ping me for an informal second opinion). We could probably even ping the closing admins with a few diffs to make sure that the changes we make are what they expected. We do more complicated editing every day of the week. We shouldn't overcomplicate this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I support this take by WhatamIdoing. Carl Fredrik talk 19:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WAID, I don't suspect there is a current risk that anyone will run out and edit hundreds of articles any time soon. We do need to get the work done, but I think/hope we all understand that we need time to hear from all involved considering the current world environment. I do suspect we all appreciate the need for a systematic, deliberative, and coordinated effort, when we are talking about 530 articles. I don't want to see us getting in each other's way, duplicating work, duplicating checking of work, confusing editors who didn't know about the RFC, or in a situation where multiple editors are reviewing the same articles. I also submit, as an optimist perhaps, that the last time we found ourselves (WPMED) in a similar position, the editor who had added all of the disputed content voluntarily removed all of it themselves, so there remains a chance we don't have to undertake this work.
    If we do, we can approach this systematically to save time. That is:
    I suggest a sorting of the list of the 530 articles (by source used, then by article name), placed somewhere in project space, and set up in a format that each editor can indicate what they have addressed, and include a diff. (Similar to how Copyvio investigations proceed.) I also suggest we come up with a shared, common edit summary for this work-- one that links back to the RFC-- for two reasons: 1) recall that there were several dozen editors who had tried to remove this price data in the past but who were apparently unaware of the RFC (and were intentionally not pinged to the RFC per canvassing), who may be watching articles and unaware of why the changes are being made, and; this allows the rest of us to easily see the common edits and know what has already been done, avoiding duplication of work. Again, a reminder that we have seen work on similar problems where edit summaries were not used, and that will make it harder on everyone.
    Starting with the MSH-sourced articles first may make sense, but the RFC also concluded that there is no consensus for drug prices to be in articles at all, so we should proceed carefully enough that we have a broader system in place to deal with all 530 database-sourced prices when the time comes. Again, all of this work could be negated, though, if the editor who added them voluntarily removed them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Housekeeping

    It appears that we as a Project are going to have to take on some housekeeping issues here, unless we want another trip to ANI. Less than a week after the RFC closed, we are seeing a return to earlier behaviors.

    Our task is to decide how to implement the close of the RFC; not to re-litigate conclusions reached by the neutral admins who closed it. I am concerned that there is already opposition to even discussion of how to implement the RFC, and particularly at a time when many editors are stuck at home and have enough free time on their hands to go about getting the work done. I am particularly concerned that we are already seeing personalization of issues, unstruck battleground accusations that one editor is "going to get what you wanted" (what the RFC concluded), and non-neutral framing and re-editing of section headings that impede productive discussion of how to implement the RFC. The entire discussion has now been reformatted with non-neutral section headings impeding discussion. I do not intend to try to continue to address the reformatting of the sections to one editor's interpretation, but think that we might consider, as a group, ways to get it to stop so we don't end up at ANI again. We need some ideas here on how to reign in these issues so that discussion can proceed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    My suggestions:
    1. The first section heading here, "Wrong time to be having this debate (COVID-19 pandemic)" is quite a leading heading, discouraging discussion. I suggest it be changed to a neutral "Timing of discussion".
    2. Ditto for second, and I suggest changing, "Uncertainties about bias // Implementation" to a more neutral and general "Implementation concerns".
    3. My final suggestion is that we, as a group, make a determination here to get this re-formatting of sections and other people's posts to stop. We should be sufficiently grown up that we shouldn't need to go to outside admins to hold a productive discussion without excess markup, reformatting, and posts advocating that we cannot even hold a discussion.
    SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The one who has been doing most of the reformatting of others' discussions and sections here has been you, SandyGeorgia, having intentionally ignored responses and indenting — placing lengthy comments above or at the same level as those of others, repeatedly squirreling away what you find "irrelevant" or "personalized" under various trivializing headers.
    Adding unrelated and loaded euphemisms to headers is also not useful, as you did in: === RfC interpretation ===, implying that the section was independent from the rest of the discussion, and represented a minority or fringe view: [1] — after which you followed with a comment that simultaneously moved the section away and ignored the concerns: [2], starting with: "Back on topic".
    Or here, where you again implied that others were "off topic" in the edit summary upon concerns over whether it was a good idea to be debating when so many editors were absent: [3]; adding a pointy break: === Implementing RFC conclusions ===
    Growing up, I was taught the phrase: "people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones", which seems apt here.
    Carl Fredrik talk 21:45, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are entitled to your opinions and partial diffs. More significantly, thank you for partially addressing some of the headings you introduced (although removing mine, which you should refrain from doing again). Now, there is work to be done. Will you join in refraining from personalizing discussions, taking care with section headings, and allowing discussion to proceed? That would help all of our efforts. Once again, you may have the last word. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Conclusions

    Per "There is no consensus on whether drug prices should be included in articles at all". Sure I guess they can go in the body of the article. I will get around to starting a clearer RfC eventually after WP:COVID19. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    James, perhaps I am misreading, so could you expand/clarify? Your posts sounds as if you are saying you reject the conclusions of a widely advertised, community-wide RFC, so plan to re-do another RFC, formulated by you, which I find hard to understand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per "There is no consensus on whether drug prices should be included in articles at all" means that consensus was not achieved on some stuff. Yes that is correct. Personally I think that this RfC was a mess and hard to make heads or tails of. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a concerning response, James; it appears that I was reading your response correctly the first time? It seems that you are saying you don't like the conclusion, so you plan to re-do the RFC yourself. I hate to drag them back in here, but perhaps the closing admins will have an opinion on that approach. @Barkeep49, Wugapodes, and Ymblanter:. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Considering we have an RFC saying there is no consensus that the content added meets policy, are you accounting for the fact that the burden is on the editor wanting to add content to demonstrate that it meets policy? With a five-month-long process, wide open to the community, it is hard for me to understand how you can say that you need to re-do it yourself. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure feel free. We need to work to clarify the situation around the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    SandyGeorgia, just for the record I am not a closing admin on this. Wugapodes and Ymblanter did all that work. I felt it needed fresh eyes given the work I'd done to facilitate its launch. That said as long as an editor is including pricing information referenced secondary sourcing in the body of the article that seems appropriate given the conclusion of the RfC. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I realize that ... lumping you all together under one term was a shortcut. But Barkeep49, considering you did facilitate the launch, and close the ANI, how should we interpret James' intent to re-do the RFC himself? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's possible an RfC that seeks consensus on an area that had no consensus could be productive. Or could be disruptive, all depends on a lot of factors. Given my faith in James I would expect it to be productive rather than disruptive. Further, James has indicated he's not going to launch soon (and given COVID could be intense for a few more months) so it's not something we need to has out now. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:00, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks User:Barkeep49... There are also the concerns around an editor being pushed out of Wikipedia during the drafting of the prior one and multiple people raising concerns about the formating. But will leave that to later. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "An editor being pushed out" is a dubious way to phrase that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I read it as drug prices are not given any special priority for inclusion in articles, nor are drug prices exempt from the application of NOT and POV. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 01:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Basically, the "no consensus" close means we follow existing policy, that being WP:NOPRICES. Prices may be included in articles (body or otherwise) in exceptional circumstances where reliable and independent sources clearly consider them of significance and extensively discuss them, but not as a matter of course. And we very much should not be extrapolating from databases. Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Or per the link "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per both of you (Ronz, Seraph), this much is clear. To most of us :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:06, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention. No. We tried that and it failed. NOT and POV apply. Please avoid anything that comes across as WP:IDHT at this point.
    I realize that this is a quote from NOT, but in the context of this RfC, it's not enough. Editors all along were saying they had "justification". It's clear now that they did not. Let's be more clear and careful in how we proceed. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:24, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the three of you could help in the earlier sections of this discussion, that revolve around how to best proceed next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd hope there would be no problems with removing prices from article ledes, with the few exceptions where prices themselves were clearly part of the notability of the drug in question (eg Pyrimethamine). --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Our conclusion is that whether prices can go to the body of a specific articles is determined on case per case basis, and there is no general consensus on this. In practice, probably, as usual, if some users agree and some disagree, they should go to the talk page and sort it out, taking into account whether pricing sources are primary or secondary, their quality, the formulation of the statement etc.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ymblanter and Wugapodes, the "no consensus" part of your closing remarks is being seized upon as suggesting the RFC failed to reach a conclusion on the central points. My interpretation of your words is that there is indeed no consensus that prices should routinely be inserted in articles or never inserted in articles but that, as always, per WP:NOTPRICES, this is determined per drug article based on "secondary sources discuss[ing] pricing extensively" [for that drug] or as policy states it "mainstream media sources (not just product reviews) provide commentary on these details instead of just passing mention". Can I ask you to urgently clarify this. In my view the RFC achieved several things:

    • Prices should nearly always be removed from the lead.
    • Prices should not be sourced solely to primary databases of raw product prices, which when interpreted leads to WP:OR, WP:V and even if carefully written have WP:WEIGHT issues.
    • WP:NOTPRICES is reaffirmed as fully applying to drug prices.
    • The suggestions by some that prices might appear in info boxes, sourced to wikidata, is likely to be a non-starter and be rejected.

    In particular, it is not sufficient to find secondary sources mentioning the the cost of a drug (whether in dollars or abstractly) and then include a different price sourced to a primary database of product prices. The prices themselves must be sourced to secondary sources who make extended commentary on that price. -- Colin°Talk 07:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, this is what we concluded (with an obvious comment that we only summarized the discussion at this RfC - for example, if there are some magic databases which can be taken over without interpretation, this might be a different story, but it was not a subject of this RfC).--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ymblanter, thank you very much for your quick confirmation. There are no magic databases. The RFC focused on the MSH Price Guide database as a representative example of such databases. Drugs.com and BNF are similar, though with an even greater choice of formulations and dose strengths as you'd expect from developed nations. The BNF also lists, for each formulation and strength, prices from many suppliers to the NHS, generic and branded, which are not all the same. The NADAC prices are even worse (you can't link to a particular drug, which must be searched for by hand) and offer an oddly limited set of formulations and dose. Both NADAC and Drugs.com give official list prices (wholesale and retail respectively) and it is well known that these prices are not in fact the ones paid by pharmacies or by customers. GoodRX has more accurate retail prices, after discount coupons, though the mix of prices varies depending on which of their many partner retailers you shop at, and where you live in the US. The BNF website is unavailable outside of the UK and GoodRX is unavailable outside of the US, making their data harder for readers to verify. The mix of wholesale and retail, list and discounted prices further complicates their use on Wiki articles where prices get juxtaposed. Further, none of these sources are able to list the official price paid by health services for the extremely expensive cancer drugs (BNF give the official list price the drug company wants you to see, and includes a warning to indicate this) -- the huge discount negotiated is a commercial secret. -- Colin°Talk 08:02, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Drug price databases rejected as the sole source

    The RFC's conclusions also say "Where pricing information is included, claims should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources and not solely primary source data from price databases." This statement does not restrict itself to the introduction. It applies to all drug price content in the entire article.

    In keeping with my understanding of this conclusion, I removed a claim in Simvastatin that was sourced solely to primary source data from the MSH price database. James put it back in the article with slightly different wording at Simvastatin#Cost. It is still sourced solely to primary source data from a drug price database (a database that, because they're re-organizing their website, can only be accessed via tables in a PDF at the moment).

    Ymblanter and Wugapodes, when you said that it's not okay to source drug price content solely to the drug price databases, did you mean to include, well, sourcing this drug price content solely to the MSH drug price database? Do you think that including that sentence, with that single source, is in keeping with the community's consensus or against it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    We believe that the RfC established that sourcing prices only from a database involves original research. If there are some issues (like, I do not know, one database which covers some ground and does not require interpretation) which have not been discussed during this RfC then they should be discussed at the talk page. I can not really comment on the specific case.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure we can adjust these so no interpretation is required. Claims around pricing were not sololy based on price databases but based on multiple sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc James, the sentence I'm discussing about today is the one that currently says:
    The wholesale cost in some LMIC is around US$0.01 to 0.15 per 20 mg dose as of 2014.[1]
    1. ^ "Simvastatin" (PDF). International Drug Price Indicator Guide. Retrieved 28 November 2015.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
    That looks like exactly one (1) citation, to a drug price database, as in a claim that is "sourced solely to primary source data from a drug price database". Are you claiming that you took this information upon some other, uncited sources? Or do you agree that this single sentence is, in fact, cited solely to a single drug database? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion of prices generally is supported by a number of citations. The topic of prices is not just supported by that reference. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Additionally there was no consensus to scrub prices for medications based on the popular press such as the BBC.[4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    To add to Ymblanter's point, I took that language from WP:MEDRS which says to prefer secondary sources to primary sources. If primary sources like price databases are used anywhere in an article, they should be used with caution in line with our existing guidance on the use of primary sources. (edit conflict) — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:15, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:MEDRS we also state "recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field". A book published by the World Health Organization definitely fits that criteria.[5] So yes we are using appropriate caution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That a price database (primary source) is published for convenience in PDF format, does not turn it into a "recognised standard textbook by experts in a field". A textbook is a tertiary source that builds upon primary and secondary material. This is basic stuff. The database-sourced prices must go. "Adjusting so no interpretation is required" was discussed extensively at the RFC and gives WP:WEIGHT issues. This was confirmed by the closing admins "In addition, there are concerns that proper explanation of the situation for the indicated price would give the price undue weight." -- Colin°Talk 07:18, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    In James's Arbcom statement he writes (initially quoting the RFC's closing admin remarks) "Where pricing information is included, claims should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources and not solely primary source data from price databases." I do not take to mean that the price database cannot be used ever. If that was the case it would say this source published by the World Health Organization[6] should never be used despite MEDRS stating source from the WHO are among the ideal

    This is not an accurate assertion of what MEDRS says. MEDRS mentions the WHO in the section "Summarize scientific consensus" and specificity holds up "statements and practice guidelines" from various bodies, including the WHO, as the place to find such consensus sources. MEDRS does not claim that any document published or produced internally by WHO is a suitable or even ideal source. The RFC concluded that the current practice and indeed any use, of product price databases as the sole source of a price in our articles is not allowed. It, as you put it, "cannot be used ever" as the sole source of a price. This was clarified by the admin above. All these price database are published by respected bodies and nobody questions they are accurate databases of individual product prices from a set of suppliers at a particular point in time. Exporting a raw price database into a PDF document does not turn it into a consensus statement or practice guideline from WHO. I ask that James remove his misleading statement about MEDRS and WHO. Further, I request that if James wishes to better understand the RFC conclusion, that he post that request here, and not at arbcom. -- Colin°Talk 07:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Simvastatin

    I'm very concerned that this introduction of pricing iformation is far outside anything allowed by the RfC. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That is not a numerical price. Anyway I guess we have our next RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd rather just go to ArbCom. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not seeing the issue either, I don't see how it violates:
    Where secondary sources discuss pricing extensively (insulin being a frequently cited example), that information may be worth including in the article; where there is little discussion of pricing in secondary sources, it generally should not be included. Drugs which fall into the grey area between these extremes should be discussed on a case-by-case basis. Where pricing information is included, claims should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources and not solely primary source data from price databases.
    All that says is that inclusion is subject to discussion — which we rightfully can have here or at Talk:Simvastatin, if necessary.
    Immediately bringing up ArbCom over: a single edit, which relies on secondary sources in line with the RfC summary — certainly feels like WP:INTIMIDATION. I mean this is just saying "that edit's not allowed", without even going into what makes the edit forbidden — which is a conduct violation per WP:BUREAUCRACY (a policy).
    In addition, the skipping of discussion and simply pointing fingers — is explicitly against the RfC, which says: discuss.
    What it does look like is WP:Wikihounding.
    P.S. It's definitely Wikihounding, because there is even a clear discussion post here Talk:Simvastatin#In_depth_discussion, predating the bringing forth of concerns here; a discussion in which the user threatening taking things to arbitration has made no attempt to engage in.
    Carl Fredrik talk 20:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said, ArbCom. We put it off, hoping the RfC would allow us to avoid it, but clearly that's not the case.
    Of course, editors can at any time WP:FOC and demonstrate some understanding of the RfC and applicable policies. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 21:18, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that http://www.onlinejacc.org/content/71/5/564 is a good source. However, I'm concerned that the source doesn't actually seem to say that this specific drug has a relatively low cost (also: relative to what?). Instead, it says that most drugs (not necessarily this one) aren't affordable to most people outside of high-income countries, that WHO decided that statins (not necessarily this one) are generally cost-effective, and that MSH's International Medical Products Price Guide said the wholesale cost of simvastatin dropped to $40 per patient per year, compared to the $1200 that was charged while it was under patent protection. Editors can't take "most drugs aren't affordable", "statins are cost-effective", and "this price went down" and add that up into a simplistic statement that it has a "relatively low cost". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relatively inexpensive in the grand scheme of medication prices. This source is clearer if you need "Simvastatin, used for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia, is a universally accepted and relatively inexpensive drug."[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • James, could you please begin to use edit summaries? Editors removing the text per the RFC most kindly used full and descriptive edit summaries about why the text was being removed. [8] [9] This is helpful for the several dozen editors who tried over years to remove drug price text and may not know why these edits are happening. Since there are 530 articles to be reviewed, these edit summaries are helpful.
      When reinstating text already removed once, per the RFC-- knowing that this reinstatement is controversial-- an edit summary should be more descriptive than "adjusted". Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC

    Atorvastatin

    Too near the edit to Simvastatin: [10] --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of pharmaceutical prices edited

    So much for a systematic method of processing through the RFC conclusion. These are the articles edited so far, best I can tell. The list is likely incomplete because of an absence of edit summaries; please add any (alphabetical) I missed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:47, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I have not had a chance to look at Pyrimethamine or Trimethoprim; will leave them to others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Finished, below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ethosuximide

    James, I am starting through the list above (others have already looked at atorvastatin and simvastatin).

    I am concerned that this addition you made at ethosuximide is firmly against the conclusions of the RFC on many levels. The RFC concerned itself with making sure our drug pricing content upholds important policies of WP:V, WP:WEIGHT and WP:NOT. Why would we present 2001 data from one country, Italy ("costs are based on 2001 retail prices in Italy")? How does that help our readers? This is the very situation we just discussed at the RFC, yet you added a statement as of 2008 that used 2001 data from one country, Italy, which is not "most of the world" and is dated? That is specifically what we discussed in the RFC. How does this source verify "Ethosuximide, along with phenobarbital and phenytoin, is one of the few antiepileptic medications that people can generally afford in most areas of the world as of 2008"? What am I missing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The RfC says:
    "There is no consensus on whether drug prices should be included in articles at all."
    Ie there is no prohibition against including medication price information in the body of the article
    "Where secondary sources discuss pricing extensively (insulin being a frequently cited example), that information may be worth including in the article; where there is little discussion of pricing in secondary sources, it generally should not be included."
    We have lots of secondary sources that discuss the costs / pricing of medications and thus extensive discussion for inclusion in the body of the text.
    "Drugs which fall into the grey area between these extremes should be discussed on a case-by-case basis."
    Sure we can go through these with RfCs one by one.
    "Where pricing information is included, claims should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources and not solely primary source data from price databases."
    Yes some secondary sources are required before including any pricing information. These are not hard to find for essential medicines at least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    James, yes, I understand your take on the RFC (which others disagree with). That is not the question I asked.
    You have added a statement saying, "Ethosuximide, along with phenobarbital and phenytoin, is one of the few antiepileptic medications that people can generally afford in most areas of the world as of 2008", that is based on 2001 data from one country, Italy. How does that meet WP:V and WP:WEIGHT? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No not based on 2011 data Italy. The text says "For most patients living in these countries, only phenobarbital, phenytoin, and ethosuximdie may be avaliable at prices affordable by the general population" Referring to countries with 40% of the global population. I can start another RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:34, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    James. No, we don't need to bring in more non-WPMED editors to have a discussion about the long-standing standards upon which the reputation of our medical content was built. Is it your opinion that a source that uses 2001 data from one country (Italy) should be used to source a statement about the cost of a drug in "most areas of the world", and relevant to the year 2020? Please, directly answering the question is MUCH preferable to another RFC. TRUE discussion is always the best way to resolve content issues. Why do you consider that this source meets WEIGHT and is relevant ? As medical editors, we are accustomed to closely examining our sources and making sure the data we add is relevant and supported by the text. Regardless of whether this text is outside of the remit of MEDRS, do you believe that data (2001, one country) supports that text for the purposes of 2020? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do I think a 2008 textbook published by Wiley is a suitable source for discussion of the social and cultural aspects of a medication? Yes, yes I do. I use lots of textbooks for medical content, particularly social and cultural content. Part of the reason why I like the textbook is you can see it via google books. Sure I guess I can move to newer textbooks with less access. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    James OK, you are happy using 2001 data to make a statement in 2020. Got that part (and I hope we don't source other medical content to that standard), but that is only one part of the question. How is WEIGHT met by the fact that this seems to be the only mention found to support a statement about cost relevant to 2020? As you know, we would NEVER allow this kind of logic for other content; why do you feel it OK to allow it for pricing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually this is generally what we do. We find major medical textbooks and we paraphrase them. I am using a high quality 2008 textbook. My job is not verify that the textbook got it right. Also you do not need to ping me (ie if I am not clear enough please stop pinging me). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Happy to stop pinging you, since I hate those things myself. But, you are surely aware that it was hard to solicit your participation during the RFC because you disallowed pings and were not keeping up with discussion, so I wanted to make sure you were following this discussion. OK, I believe I have the answers now. You believe that 2001 data from one country published in one book almost more than a decade ago meets WEIGHT and V to support a broad statement about prices in many countries. I guess we will have to agree to disagree on that point. Thanks for answering, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:16, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would suggest people read the book themselves and make up their own mind. Will work on another RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't. I have a dismal record when it comes to formulating RFCs, but you give me a run for my money, and we don't need another malformed RFC at this particular moment. Perhaps you will wait until more editors have offered opinions on this one, as it is rather obviously problematic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies already have Talk:Ethosuximide#RfC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are five articles (listed above) edited already, and 530 disputed. Do you plan to start RFCs on every drug article edited, and do you think this is the most useful approach? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I imagine we will get closer to consensus as time goes on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Meta comment: Speaking as one of the long-time unofficial coordinators of the WP:RFC process, we're talking about the problem of overuse/misuse of RFCs again. Some of the proposals are to have a limit on the number of RFCs that any individual editor can start (e.g., no more than three a month) or to require pre-approval of RFCs (e.g., to make sure that there's a decent question, and that editors aren't jumping to a sitewide RFC without trying a normal discussion for a few days first). This ongoing discussion is partly prompted by the behavior by two WPMED-related editors, who have set records for the volume of RFCs started. I would really like to not have any more examples of WPMED-related editors opening multiple RFCs per week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pyrimethamine

    James added here moved but left existing pricing data specifically sourced to a press release from the manufacturer, which is directly addressed at WP:NOPRICE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SOAP as well. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was actually grouping content by country. The https://www.prnewswire.com was in the article before and I just moved it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Struck and corrected above, with my apologies. I am curious why you did not remove the text, since that sort of content (company press release) is quite specifically addressed in the policy page, WP:NOPRICE, and as far as I know was never disputed during the RFC. Could you clarify whether you also consider the PRnewswire source to be usable for price content? Also, this is another example where an edit summary would be helpful. Many (most?) editors when moving content, indicate that in edit summary. Because you used the same edit summary (adjusted) [13] that you used when reinstating other price content (in the articles above), I mistakenly assumed this was another reinstatement. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I did not look at the sources. That source sucks. I was just grouping content about price by country. Removed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Glad to hear that!(Oops, I see a problem there, added below). Ok, there are other problems there. We have an ungrammatical sentence in the lead, so I went to the sources to try to figure out what it meant to be saying.

    • In the United States in 2015, when it was not available as a generic medication, and the price was increased from US$13.50 to $750 a tablet ($75,000 for a course of treatment), resulting in criticism.[1][2][3]

    Sources
    1. ^ Hamilton, Richart (2015). Tarascon Pocket Pharmacopoeia 2015 Deluxe Lab-Coat Edition. Jones & Bartlett Learning. p. 54. ISBN 9781284057560.
    2. ^ Mullin, Emily. "Turing Pharma Says Daraprim Availability Will Be Unaffected By Shkreli Arrest". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2016-11-10. Retrieved 2016-11-10.
    3. ^ Alpern, JD; Song, J; Stauffer, WM (19 May 2016). "Essential Medicines in the United States--Why Access Is Diminishing". The New England Journal of Medicine. 374 (20): 1904–7. doi:10.1056/nejmp1601559. PMID 27192669.
    I don't know what is in the first source (request quote). The second source is a Forbes contributor opinion piece, which are generally considered unreliable for ANY text on Wikipedia. The third source does not verify the content; it mentions the cost of treating one patient at one hospital, as an example, and does not state that $75,000 is generally the cost of treatment. So, even in a case where there may be reason to include price data in the lead, we haven't done it in a policy-compliant way. This is why a systematic approach to checking all of these problems is needed; it appears that there has been too much very hurried editing of price content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And there's another problem with the text you deleted here. As I mentioned above, the source (a company press release) was not reliable compliant with WP:NOT, but instead of tagging or replacing or removing the citation (the press release), you also removed the entire content, which does seem to be relevant to the pricing problem that happened there. It is not good practice to remove text that can be cited, as in this case, that text can be cited to CNBC. The edit summary was "trimmed press release" which might better have been "removed text cited to press release", as that would trigger other editors to know that an alternate source might be (in fact, should be) sought.
    I think a careful examination of the editing in the first five pharmaceutical pricing articles suggests that a much slower approach would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole

    With this edit to Trimethoprim/sulfamethoxazole, vague text about pricing is left in the lead (unclear to what countries this applies), although IMO the requirements per the RFC and in accordance with policy to include price date in the lead of this article are not met. (WP:LEAD, WP:WEIGHT, WP:NOPRICE). The cost of this drug has not been the subject of significant secondary coverage worthy of mention in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Summary: those are the five articles edited so far; this is NOT a systematic or healthy approach to implementing the RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice of ArbCom Request

    Given the events of the last day I have filed an ArbCom Case request. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    Propose postponement due to COVID-19

    I would like to request delay on this topic until further notice due to COVID-19. This issue concerns WikiProject Medicine and the focus of that project right now is COVID-19. The primary outcome of this issue being discussed anywhere will be distraction from developing COVID-19 content. The matter of price is not urgent and has been pending for years. No harm comes from postponement.

    • Archive this discussion
    • Immediately remove any following price discussion
    • Delay taking action regarding prices
    • Edit COVID-19 or anything else peacefully
    1. Support as proposer Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:21, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Support Not unreasonable. The issues are much larger than just the pricing ones and we will need to get back to them eventually I imagine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Support With all the information and especially the misinformation going round, I feel that our coverage of the pandemic is extremely important. Dr. Vogel (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Support in view of the current covid-19 condition. BTW, it is useful to add drug prices to the Wikipedia pages. For me, it is one way for clinic doctors assess patients' financial burden when purchasing the branded ones and to write letters of support to the welfare department for financial assistance if the patient cannot afford it. I think it will be useful if the Wikipedia includes information whether the drug patent expires or not and whether it is available in generic forms. Generic drugs are definitely cheaper than branded name drugs.Cerevisae (talk) 00:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Since we discuss, not !vote, I will not add to the tally above, as it is clearly not possible to postpone a discussion that is before the arbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with SG, although also agree with this proposal in principle: I'm assuming that many—if not most—of the active project participants are probably to a greater or lesser degree on the front line right now, so may have less time for Wikipedia than usual. Take care and good luck everybody. ——SN54129 11:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Next steps?

    I'm hoping that the ArbCom efforts will get the behavioral problems settled out. Meanwhile, I agree that further clarification on the RfC would help. At this point I don't know how many clarification attempts have already happened, nor what outcomes we've had. Tracking them all down and following up seems like good next steps. What do others think? What other steps should we be considering? --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I always advocated for a methodical approach, and was disappointed that editing went forward without having a plan in place, but seeing how much effort was needed at Talk:Pyrimethamine (not even done yet), I even more strongly suggest that we should at least keep a list for now of what articles have been addressed, or edited without being addressed. We at least need to keep track of where we are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Areas where clarification and further discussion may be needed

    Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/RFC_on_pharmaceutical_drug_prices#Post_RFC_Addenda lists concerns and clarifying remarks. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Scope of problem

    I believe Colin did some work trying to get an idea of the scope of the problem (addition to the lead of price information)... I'll try to dig up some info. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:44, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Trying to put together a list of commonly used references: --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    From a sampling of Category:World Health Organization essential medicines, I believe Doc James added pricing information to all the medicine articles listed there. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm estimating somewhere between 550 and 600 articles, given what Colin and I have found. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 02:47, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Recent additions/expansions of pricing information

    I ran across these while looking at the scope of the problem. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Misinformation MEDRS

    Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, which keeps growing, needs a bit of ongoing attention. Some things like Buzzfeed are being used as MEDRS (for "Potentially serious side effects from chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine include irregular heartbeats, tinnitus, blurred vision, muscle weakness or "mental changes"", for instance). There are also some medical implications in the mere fact that some statements in the article; things like an implication that COVID-19 cannot affect young people with no comorbidities should require MEDRS. Obviously the regular media cover notable bits of misinformation, but I think we should be explicitly contrasting those notable rumours with reliably-sourced information.

    There are some biomedical ideas common to many conspiracy theories, such as beliefs that specific ethnic groups are more or less vulnerable (on genetic grounds, not due to demographic factors like socieoeconomic status, profession, age, prevalence of pre-existing conditions, etc.), or that the virus was genetically engineered to attack humans. Adding a section after "Combative efforts" refuting these might be an option. HLHJ (talk) 01:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    HLHJ, one thing you can do in the interim (as you wait for others to get in there), is to put a {{medcn}} tag on non-MEDRS-sourced text. That generates a "medical citation needed" tag, and will help others get to things quicker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, SandyGeorgia; I'd been using "medical citation needed" tags, but was not aware of that convenient shortcut. The whole page frankly needs a rewrite, some of it ideally by someone who's really kept up with the COVID-19 literature, which I have not. 17:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relatedly, I've had a solid go at List of unproven methods against COVID-19, which basically consists of dozens of iterations of:

    There are widespread rumours on Facebook that stuffing beans up your nose prevents/cures COVID-19. A [hapless spokesperson for a public health authority] said that there was no evidence that stuffing beans up your nose is effective against COVID-19, and it is not on the WHO list of recommended measures. They also warned that stuffing beans up your nose can have side effects, like damage to the nasal passages and difficulty breathing normally. They strongly advised the public not to stuff beans up their noses, recommending that they instead wash their hands and follow social distancing measures. They also said that anyone experiencing problems as a result of stuffing beans up their nose should call their medical provider.

    The MEDRS are not always stellar. Frankly there are too many of these rumours to keep up with refuting even just the notable ones that reach tens or hundreds of thousands of people. The WHO has put out statements against some of them. HLHJ (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    HLHJ are you thinking we need higher bars for notability of items of misinformation? We have List of common misconceptions which last time I looked had fairly high standards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That's an impressive list, I'd never heard of a lot of those misconceptions. Sorry, Doc James, didn't see your post at first. Here, if we just enforce MEDRS and only include things a public health authority saw fit to refute, which are generally also those with entire news articles about them, then that seems to act as a decent bar; it gets the most common and most dangerous misinformation. These rumours tend to be language-bound, and there are a lot of them that are notable; eventually we may need to prune for sheer length.
    I was posting here mostly because I was worried about uncited and incorrect MEDRS implications from the inclusion of some topics in Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Some IPs have been not unreasonably complaining about this on the talk page. The "Age" section has been removed, but, for instance, content on public mask wearing, which I don't think I'd put in the same category as violet-oil suppositories, remains. I'm hoping someone expert will go through and remove any misinformation about what is misinformation. HLHJ (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. An article about "misinformation" should be about misleading claims, propaganda and hoaxes. To lump in legitimate active debates and scientific uncertainty (as around masks) seems wrong. Alexbrn (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Stoppa operation for hernia repair

    Hello, came across this while de-orphaning. Would it be better to move it to Stoppa Repair? "Stoppa operation for hernia repair" feels awkward. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If it were to be moved, I think Stoppa procedure would be better. Natureium (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I put it there. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia's response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

    Page watchers may be interested to help expand Wikipedia's response to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Stay safe, ---Another Believer (Talk) 15:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wow, that's quite meta. Honestly, it seems a little navel-gazey to me, but since it's been written about in the media, I guess why not? But I don't think the article should get longer than it is right now, and should probably be significantly shortened in some areas per WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
    At a brief glance, it looks like we don't have articles on Facebook's or Google's response to the pandemic (although we do have coronavirus app). Rather than having a Wikipedia-focused article, would it be better to have an article on technology companies' response, and have Wikipedia as one part of that? I've also proposed (unsuccessfully, so far) that misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic be broadened to have a scope not just about misinformation but about all aspects of information dissemination related to the virus. If that happened, the content on Wikipedia could perhaps fit in there. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Another addition to the big pile of wank Wikipedia is producing around this epidemic. I could find "notable" material for Home baking during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, Cycling during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and Dog walking during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and woe betide anyone who tried to argue against our carrying this "useful information". I think for medical editors the pragmatic strategy is to focus on the key articles, key an eye out for medical misinformation and accept there is going to be a vast amount of impregnable cruft produced during this time which will get cleaned up in a few years (or more likely, left to fester indefinitely). Alexbrn (talk) 08:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Mmm, baking. I made https://www.kingarthurflour.com/recipes/vermont-maple-oatmeal-bread-recipe on Tuesday. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WhatamIdoing, I can smell that from here. Oh, making me hungry. I haven't been able to get any bread flour or yeast since the lockdown. I did find a packet of all-in-one breadmix at the back of the cupboard, and it was only 3 months past it's use-by date, so... desperate times. -- Colin°Talk 15:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That recipe calls for all-purpose flour and whole wheat flour, although I happen to have made it with some bread flour and white whole wheat this time. I buy a pound of yeast every few years. It keeps indefinitely in the freezer. I'm running low (by my standards ;-)), but the worst-case scenario is that I'll use the last pinch to jump-start a not-so-sour starter. I may run out of flour before that happens. Sometimes it's available at the grocery store, and sometimes it's not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Alexbrn, you left out Gardening during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. I've got tales! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Damp lemon and almond cake. From "How to be a Domestic Goddess" by Nigella Lawson.

    Home baking during the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic #2: Damp lemon and almond cake. WhatamIdoing, a shortage of flour during the pandemic => baking cakes with alternatives such as ground almonds. And the lockdown means a change from my usual photographic subjects. I can report it was exceedingly moist and delicious. -- Colin°Talk 11:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    As Colin notes, flour has been in short supply here in the UK. White flour especially. But wholemeal flour has been easier to come by and I have a favourite spicy fruit loaf to make with it - with eggs, milk and plenty of butter in the recipe it is more cake than bread. Like all right-thinking people I too am a worshipper at the feet of Nigella; yesterday I roasted two ducks for the family using her special "double cook" crisping method. Yumsk. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sdkb: your idea of an umbrella article on social media and coronavirus is excellent. Alexbrn (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Antibody testing/Antibody titer

    Serious work needs to be done here by editors who know the terrain. We have more content on antibody testing in the COVID-19 testing article (by far) than we do in the miserable stub at Antibody titer (and Antibody testing is a disambiguation page split between two concepts of the term). There is a great deal of news reporting right now about antibody testing for COVID-19, and we have no article giving a decent explanation of what antibody testing generally entails. I think Antibody titer should be moved to Antibody testing (ELISA can go in a hatnote there), and the content on what an antibody titer is should be a section of the article in the broader context of what the testing reveals and what good it is. BD2412 T 18:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I've edited the dab page to include a link to Serologic test, which is what people generally mean when they talk about "antibody tests". An antibody titer is a specific type of serologic test that determines the amount of antibody in a sample. There are serologic tests that only give positive/negative results, e.g. Monospot and most rapid testing kits. Both articles need work though. I've been busy lately, but I'll see what I can do. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 20:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I may also add some information, but that will probably relate to the legal status of such tests as substitutes for vaccination where the law otherwise mandates the latter. BD2412 T 00:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've expanded Serologic test quite a bit, esp. regarding testing for infectious diseases. I'll work on it some more later today but this should be OK as a start. Let me know if anything is unclear or if there's anything that seems to be missing. I work in a medical lab so what is obvious to me may not be obvious to a casual reader. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Childhood interstitial lung disease

    Hi! Is Childhood interstitial lung disease a topic on which Wikipedia should have an article? It's been listed at WP:CP for a while. Any chance someone would care to work on a rewrite? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like, yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think we should have an article on it. I'm happy to write an article from scratch if it helps to resolve the issue. Let me know. Dr. Vogel (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DrVogel, while I don't think every word of the existing page is necessarily copied, a clean rewrite from scratch is probably the ideal solution. Would you be kind enough to follow this link to reach the rewrite page; as soon as you've made a start on the page please let me know (on my talk or at Talk:Childhood interstitial lung disease) and I will move it into place over the existing – there's no need for the rewrite to be complete in every respect for me to do that. Oh, and thank you – this is just the response I had hoped for! Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've created a stub at Talk:Childhood interstitial lung disease/Temp with a ==Classification== section and just one source. Please help expand it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I've written something up from scratch. You can move my draft over the existing article. Hope this helps. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh dear, I didn't realise WhatamIdoing was doing what I'd already volunteered to do :) You'll never find keener people than here :) Do you want to add the section you've written to my draft? Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that's perfect. I'll do it now. Justlettersandnumbers, if you give me three minutes, then the /Temp page can be deleted and the /sandbox page is the real one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done The two were complementary, with no overlapping content. The /Temp page is ready for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    All done, many thanks to both of you. Wikipedia showing its best side here, I'm very impressed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Username, COI, MEDRS etc

    Apologies, in car, typing on iPad from hotspot, does anyone have time to deal with the username etc other issues here? [14] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I gave them the ol' {{uw-coi-username}}. They've only edited that talk page so there's nothing too concerning so far IMO. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you ever so much, SpicyMilkBoy. I posted a couple of recent secondary reviews on talk there, although I won't be able to address that work for several more weeks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Blood irradiation therapy

    File:Blood irradiation misleading screenshot.png

    Circulating on Facebook are what look like (but aren't) screenshots of a Wikipedia article entitled "ultraviolet blood irradiation", and they are being used to suggest that Trump's statement yesterday that UV might be a cure for Covid-19 is more sensible than he is being given credit for. We don't have an article by that name but the term is a redirect to blood irradiation therapy, which may now see an increase in traffic. It is not the most polished article on the 'pedia, and I can see from the talk page there has been discussion before about how credible a technique this is. I have no medical background but if someone does and can take a look at it, it would be good to weed out any overblown claims, and clarify when and for what purposes UV irradiation of the blood might be indicated. Beorhtwulf (talk) 20:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    UV radiation has been used to treat infection in the past; here is a 2017 review chapter: PMC 6122858 --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Beorhtwulf, thank you for this note. Page views for that article have suddenly gone from around 50 per day to 29,000 (twenty-nine thousand!) just yesterday. If anyone was looking for a weekend project with very high impact, this would be a good candidate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Moved from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19 § Big spike in views of blood irradiation therapy
    I just made a copy edit correcting a pretty noticeable copy error in the lead, so it indeed looks like an area that hasn't gotten a lot of attention. Regarding this issue, is there any way to add a sentence to the lead mentioning Trump and explaining how the therapy does or doesn't connect to his statement? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beorhtwulf: Giving this some thought, I think a warning notice may be appropriate. I'm working on a template, {{False version}}, that currently looks like this:
    I'm inclined to be bold and add it quickly, per WP:DEADLINENOW. How does it look? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beorhtwulf and WhatamIdoing: added. Can you share a screenshot of the false version being spread? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Screenshot added to top of this section (to avoid problems with spacing). I know to those of us familiar with Wikipedia it's very quickly apparent that this is not an article of ours, but the presence of our URL (with that photo, which is taken from the article in question) along with the first sentence with its definitional style, bolding, parantheses etc will make it look legitimate to a lot of uninformed readers. It's the second sentence that made me realise this was bullshit. This is not to say of course that blood irradiation is pseudoscience or quackery, just that it seems particularly important now that the article on that topic is fully grounded in reliable sources. Thank you to you and others who have made efforts to improve it. Beorhtwulf (talk) 12:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I've stumbled upon this template via WP:RFPP. A maintenance template with the sole purpose of raising attention for off-wiki issues, even more so on a widely viewed article, does not seem to be a good idea to me; I have listed it at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_30#Template:False_version to gain more general input about this. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Čeština "Language" has to be write on the English https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaplastic_oligodendroglioma page, but it is not normally working. Wname1 (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure what you mean? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Now it is correct: Čeština, Deutsch thanks. Wname1 (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The Help:Interlanguage links appear to be working now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice description of this project in The Daily Telegraph

    One of them is Project Medicine, a cadre of highly-educated specialists who treat badly-sourced claims like gangrenous tissue. From here. I hope that's a bit of welcome levity in this time. Stay safe, everyone. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice one. Sometimes journalists write about things that they don't really understand. But not this time. This lad nailed it. Dr. Vogel (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for posting this Sdkb! I love the journalist's vivid simile.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 20:36, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    New page on supercomputer-assisted research?

    I contributed the section "Supercomputer-assisted research" to the page COVID-19 vaccine a while back, with COVID-19 work on the Summit supercomputer and Blue Waters having piqued my interest. I relied extensively on press releases and news articles for sourcing, however; in addition, the sources themselves contained no indication of vaccine research, but rather were focused on using supercomputers towards the discovery of drug candidates, forecasting, and medical protocols. Therefore, the section was removed. (I highly recommend going over the version history for the page.)

    If I may ask, where might any information on the effects of COVID-19 on computing research be located? More pertinently, would it be acceptable to create a new article on the effects of COVID-19 on computing? Perhaps as a new section on Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology? COVID-19 drug development? Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jarrod Baniqued, I recommend starting with a new section in an existing article. I see that articles such as Citizen science and Folding@home already contain some content about computing research related to COVD-19. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. See Citizen science, COVID-19 drug development#Efforts to streamline drug discovery, and Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on science and technology. Jarrod Baniqued (talk) Jarrod Baniqued (talk) 20:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    heads up - watchlist request

    This serious blp violation yesterday, by an apparent spa, seems to have slipped through the net (I stumbled on it by chance). To my innocent eyes, it appears somewhat professionally done. Which makes me think some friendly stalkers here might care to watchlist Richard Horton (editor). Thanks, 86.134.212.26 (talk) 15:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC) [no COI][reply]

    Thanks for the heads-up. I've given Lizan98 an only warning for serious BLP violations. I'll keep an eye on it for now. --RexxS (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ( ah... 'only warning', thanks :) of course, if it is profish, they might come back via different spa, so I think it's good for the page to be watchlisted 86.134.212.26 (talk) 17:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I have put Horton my watchlist too. Can someone look at the edit history of this one? Whispyhistory (talk) 17:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like you and User:RexxS have cleaned up most of that. Having a few more people watching it would not be a bad idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thankyou @RexxS:...I was a little worried. @WhatamIdoing:...I'm struggling to keep up with opinions on some high profile medics.Whispyhistory (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If we stopped trying to report what people said this week or this month, then I think you might have fewer worries on that score. Maybe the examples in Wikipedia:Recentism would benefit from a quick update. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks @WhatamIdoing:...I thought I would try and tidy Horton, but that appears complex. Let's see. Let me know if I am not dong right. Whispyhistory (talk) 21:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    POV editing

    I have concerns about Magnovvig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)'s recent edits to the Neil Ferguson (epidemiologist) article, specifically misrepresentation of sources to cast Ferguson's research in a poor light, unsupported by the sources.

    1. In this edit Magnovvig misquoted the source by substituting "One of Ferguson's models predicted that 65,000 people would die from swine flu" for the source's "one of Ferguson's models predicted 65,000 people could die from the Swine Flu". There's a very clear difference in meaning in that edit.
    2. In the same edit, Magnovvig asserted "This latterly caused some embarrassment to Health Secretary Matt Hancock during BBC Today on 16 April 2020 while the coronavirus pandemic raged in the UK." The source says nothing about "embarrassment", nor does it describe its context as "while the coronavirus pandemic raged in the UK." The embellishment is clear editorialising.
    3. In this edit, Magnovvig selectively quoted Streek as saying "the authors assume that 50 percent of households where there is a case do not adhere to voluntary quarantine ..." The source actually quotes Streek as saying "In the - really good - model studies by Imperial College about the progress of the epidemic, the authors assume, for example, that 50 percent of households in which there is a case do not comply with the voluntary quarantine ..." Magnovvig's deliberate omission of Streek's preface puts a spin on the quote you employed and places the paper in a much worse light that Streek's actual words did.
    4. Having mentioned criticism of Ferguson's work, Magnovvig failed to make use of the Business Insider source's quotes from Tim Colbourn and Stephen Griffin, which were favourable to Ferguson's study.

    WP:BLP is clear that "Contentious material about living persons ... that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." --RexxS (talk) 20:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree completely with RexxS. Whispyhistory (talk) 21:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As a general rule, I think that a single "thing" shouldn't be discussed in any biography unless and until we have proof that this single thing is going to be an ongoing source of attention. If it later turns out that someone's April 2020 view on coronavirus is still being discussed months from now, then let's add it at that time. But otherwise, let's not go any further than the objective, unchanging facts, such as positions held and papers published. Wikipedia articles are not a suitable place for discussing the merits and demerits of a recent paper. In between now and months from now, time-sensitive interviews of doubtful enduring significance may be linked under ==Externals links== or omitted entirely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree..I was waiting for the story to end before adding. Thank you @WhatamIdoing: Whispyhistory (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm concerned about your use of this forum for browbeating me.
    In this instance, there are no quotes on wiki, and wikipedians are somewhat free to interpolate. The model influenced policy, did it not? That is why the House of Lords had their post-factum inquiry. Or do I mistake their thrust. The model itself was taken from "can die" to "will die" somewhere between abstract theory and dictated policy and concrete practice. That is the reality of what transpired, and the raison d'être for the Lords inquiry. Please, let us not split hairs. Ferguson for a time was in the jump seat of the bus. Lesser men would not have survived a call that was wrong by *two orders of magnitude*.
    No it is not. It is an accurate picture of what transpired in the interview. Wiki forces us to summarise fifteen minutes of radio into one sentence. Are you naive or just a hack? What other reason is there to think that a radio host drags up some event from more than a decade earlier?
    It is standard practice in academic circles to couch language in a shit sandwich; I'm just cutting to the chase. Wiki forces us to brevity, remember? And it's Streeck, if I'm not mistaken.
    This is an article about Ferguson, and that is a red herring. If I want to write about Tim Colbourn and Stephen Griffin or any other character who appears in the Business Insider article, I'll do so on their pages. What you seem to be saying here, if I'm not mistaken, is that you buy into Argumentum ad verecundiam.
    Ferguson is a big boy and more than able to fend for himself. Remember that lesser men would not have survived a call that was wrong by *two orders of magnitude*. Only because you have more seniority in this forum than me and can use it to silence me, I will back off my edits on this subject so as to ensure that there is no repetition. Magnovvig (talk) 07:24, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not browbeating you, and your claiming that I am is a personal attack. Please strike your attack on me.
    Wikipedians are not free to put spin on sources. There is a big difference between a model that predicts that deaths could rise to 65,000, and a model that predicts that deaths would rise to 65,000. That is not splitting hairs, and your edit deliberately misrepresents the source.
    "This latterly caused some embarrassment to Health Secretary Matt Hancock during BBC Today on 16 April 2020 while the coronavirus pandemic raged in the UK." is not an accurate picture of what the Business Insider source states. Anyone can read the source you used to see that is the case. You embellished what you read there to reflect your own POV and that's not acceptable. Strike your personal attack on me there.
    Steek's comment was not made "in academic circles", but in a newspaper interview. He was asked for an example of a model containing an untested assumption. Your selective quotation gives a very different interpretation of Streek's criticism of the report that he otherwise found "wirklich gut" – as is apparent from a full reading of the source.
    You are utterly mistaken. There's no red herring. Our article is indeed about Ferguson, but "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." You cherry-picked the critical comment about one of his models from the Business Insider source, but didn't report that the source also contained quotes favourable to Ferguson's work.
    If you don't demonstrate that you're prepared to abide by our policies on NPOV and NPA, I'll take steps to see that your editing privileges here are curtailed until you do. --RexxS (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just noticed this thread (kinda busy lately :). I encountered this editor in the last 24 hours at White House Coronavirus Task Force; they seem to be very inexperienced. I haven't had time to look further, other than removing their first, inaccurate and unsourced statement. Now they seem to be pushing a non-Task Force member into that article, for reasons that are not at all clear. If that article should include every person who ever attended a press briefing, there are several individuals more significant than the one Magnovvig added, and the content he added goes off-topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have just given up on trying to be exhaustive with the ArbCom evidence, Sandy. I found it too exhausting to even try. I'm pretty sure Magnovvig's edits are down to inexperience, not malice, and I'd like to see them contributing constructively as they are clearly so keen. Hopefully if enough experienced editors give them guidance, it will sink in, and they can avoid finding themselves at ANI. --RexxS (talk) 21:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect you are right (on Magnovvig), but have not had time to look. On the other, I am certain you are right; when someone invents a pill for verbosity, I will sign up for the controlled trials and buy stock. I think it's genetic.  :/ :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd probably do the same. Just have to check the price first --RexxS (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ozone therapy and COVID-19

    The section Ozone_therapy#Anecdotal_claims_in_treating_COVID-19 looks like it could use some work from an experienced medical topic editor, as it places significant emphasis on Anecdotal_claims and uses wording like '"spectacular" rapid improvement'.Dialectric (talk) 12:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing reliable there for medicine that I could see, so as a first step I have deleted the entire section. I am not convinced anything of this aspect is WP:DUE. Alexbrn (talk) 12:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:Fiix prothrombin time

    Does this draft satisfy the guidelines on medically reliable sources? Should it be accepted into article space? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    The sources in the draft are all primary. There's one systematic review on Pubmed [15]. Seems to be in an early stage of research, and I'm not sure if there is enough secondary literature to justify a full article. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Some information could probably be merged into Prothrombin time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I was thinking that—or somewhere on Warfarin—but I couldn't really think of a decent place to put it. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 22:56, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Personally I'd place it at the end of the Prothrombin time #Laboratory measurement section (before Statistics). The Interpretation section sets up the premise that the standard PT test suffers from variability owing to the short half-life of factor VII, so the point of Fixx PT would follow naturally. It really would benefit from some secondary sourcing though. --RexxS (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Draft declined. Merge recommended. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Help with creating a new wikipedia article outlining a newly discovered disease

    Hi, I am a research coordinator. My team has newly discovered a disease and would like to publish a Wikipedia article on it without being controversial. I am looking for assistance as to how I can facilitate this? Furthermore, what data will you need from me and my team so that we can facilitate this?

    From what I understand, in order to publish an article about a newly discovered disease, we would need an article written about this disease by an individual who was not involved in the original study and discovery of the disease, however this person can not be someone who is uninvolved with the study. Can someone further explain this point to me? I don't quite understand what I will need to do moving forward...

    Leahpoly (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Leahpoly and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for asking your very appropriate question as it shows respect for Wikipedia's integrity as an organization. I suggest waiting until your research has been published and has been cited at least once, if not more. (It depends partly on who cites your article.) Use the wait time to learn how to write and edit Wikipedia articles like a pro. Along the way begin writing a draft article about this newly identified disease - you do that in your Sandbox. Look for a welcome message on your talk page with a list of resources to get you started. Welcome aboard! We're glad you are here.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 22:16, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi and thank you for your helpful and timely response! Our research was very recently published. When you say to wait until it partly matters who cites our article - are you able to elaborate more on this? I greatly appreciate your help. Leahpoly (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Leahpoly. You don't need to bother with {{Help Me}} tags on this page. We're always here to help. You can probably understand our dilemma: we want to have comprehensive coverage, but it sometimes seems like any quack can buy an allegedly peer-reviewed journal article, so we have to restrict things and say that the original paper isn't ever enough. In this situation, we usually want is at least one peer-reviewed review article that talks about your new disease. It doesn't matter whether that article agrees or disagrees with you, but it does matter that the authors aren't you. It also matters that the review article (not yours) comes from a medium-to-good journal, and not one of those places that's notorious for publishing whatever they can make money on.
    So that's where we start. From there, it depends a little on the subject. The standard for a newly isolated virus or bacteria (which is pretty objective) is usually lower than the standard for a syndrome that is currently diagnosed as one thing, but which your group thinks ought to be considered its own thing (which is probably the toughest category). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi WhatamIdoing thank you very much for your response, this was very helpful. My team and I are very appreciative of your help. 174.7.244.85 (talk) 20:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    You're welcome. By the way, whenever you get to that point, feel free to come back to this page to talk about it. Once there are enough sources, then we can help you sort out the bureaucratic end of things. The original article might qualify for what we have jokingly named a WP:REFUND once we have several sources in hand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Habit cough

    Habit cough is a mess of marginal sources. I can clean it up to PMID 25856777 and PMID 26926981, but there are editorial comments all over the literature about the naming. See PMID 28449492 Should it stay at habit cough or be moved to somatic cough syndrome? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like the name is old, e.g., chapter 6 of this 1891 book, which also calls it a memory-cough and objects to it being called a stomach-cough because that name implies the wrong pathophysiology. (The term habitual aborter was used in veterinary medicine at the same time, and I suspect that it arises from a more neutral view of the word habit than we have these days – more like "It was his habit to take a walk everyday after dinner" than the modern use, which almost always implies a bad habit: tobacco habit, habit of chewing fingernails, etc.)
    A section on the name would not be amiss, I think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because a name is old, that doesn't mean that it is should be changed. While those 2015 and 2016 articles suggest a recent name change, the use of habit cough continues in the medical literature; for example, the 2017 PMID 28289448 starts Habit cough is most commonly characterised ..., so I'd argue that it's too soon for a name change, and as the name change hasn't taken effect in common (medical) use. Klbrain (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That was the direction I was headed as well. I think I will rewrite the article first, with a Name section, and then we can better see if a name change is warranted. I am also concerned that Weinberger as author appears so often on that page, and want to spend some time seeing if there are differing views. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    So, people, this simple little article (habit cough) is a bit fraught, and it may be expedient to sort this before I continue writing. New guidelines were issued in 2015. Those guidelines appear to suggest this should be two separate articles, placed at Tic cough and Somatic cough syndrome. But the lead author on the Guidelines (Vertigan) has written a 2017 editorial (which is basically a review), and another author of the Guidelines (Weinberger) seems to prefer the old terminology. So I have used the primary source (Vertigan editorial) in a limited way, with attribution, to explain the dilemma. And then Koreans wrote new guidelines in 2016, that stuck with the old naming.

    I have only written up so far a small portion of the Name dilemma, and still have the entire article to write, based on numerous new sources. Before I continue, it would be helpful to decide if this should be two articles, and if so, under what names ... as we have apparently a situation of somewhat contentious guidelines involving four different ill-defined and not well distinguished terms and conditions (tic cough, habit cough, psychogenic cough and somatic cough disorder). The new names were to bring terminology in line with DSM-5, but that appears to have some resistance. The 2017 Vertigan editorial gives the best overview of the whole situation; she was the lead author on the 2015 Guidelines. Weinberger, another author on the Guidelines, in 2017 prefers Habit cough in a published secondary review (and one reason this concerns me is that Weinberger is the main proponent of suggestion therapy, which I had never heard of until this article). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    If there isn't a consensus as to whether there is one, two or more syndromes, then I think that its best to keep the topic on one page where the different potential meanings can be discussed. Different syndromes can be discussed in different sections, and they can also be compared. If the page were to split, then the same awkward disambiguation of related terms needs to be carried out in two places rather than one. I wonder whether there are also national differences here, with the US changing nomenclature and the rest of the world not. Klbrain (talk) 17:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, it's going to be tricky to sort it all out on that one page, but I will keep trying. (Should also mention that Irwin, author of 2006 guidelines, was co-author of 2015 guidelines, and Pringsheim, co-author on 2015 guidelines, is a well-recognized tic disorder person, so it looks like a good panel). Also, on the national differences, the Vertigan editorial mentions four other countries, that I will look into ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:32, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It sounds like a ==Classification== section might do some good. "Weinberger classifies it this way, and the Korean guidelines split it that way, and..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Headed that direction as well, but I can't even say "it", since there may be two "it"s. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe if I just roll the whole mess into one Section called, "Classification and name"? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:16, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Verywell

    Is currently under discussion at WP:RSN#Verywell. It was previously blacklisted for "persistent violations of WP:MEDRS". buidhe 22:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    For clarity, all of these websites are listed at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, and some of them are also on the Wikipedia:Spam blacklist. The request at RSN is to remove it from the spam blacklist; the recent request at the spam blacklist's usual page failed to achieve the desired result (possibly due to lack of interest rather than serious opposition). At this point, please centralize the discussion at WP:RSN#Verywell. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposing moving Needle exchange programme to Syringe service program

    It is currently under Needle exchange programme but I am proposing moving it to Syringe service program (a target that already exists). The reason is that there are operations that hands syringes out to drug addicts. While those are still a syringe service, not every syringe service is a needle exchange. Graywalls (talk) 03:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Graywalls, there are two changes in this suggested move. The first is moving needle (the pointy metal bit) to syringe (the basically harmless plastic tube). The second is moving exchange (which implies a trade) to service (which does not). Which of these two swaps is the important bit? Or, to put it another way, is there actually an organization that hands out only plastic syringes to people who will have to stick dirty needles on the end of those clean syringes, and then congratulates themselves on doing a fine public service? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The two terms used are needle exchange or syringe service program. There are programs under the disguise of euphemism "need-based" that HANDS OUT insulin syringes to drug addicts. By convention, I have not seen anything named "needle service program" though. "SSP" seems to be commonly used in the medical context. https://fsph.iupui.edu/doc/research-centers/SSP_Report_20180516.pdf
    The term "needle exchange" refers to a program where the service user must bring in old gear in order to obtain new stuff usually 1 to 1. It is a model that few (if any) in harm reduction favor and is usually implemented for political reasons. example: The Washington Needle Depot: fitting healthcare to injection drug users rather than injection drug users to healthcare: moving from a syringe exchange to syringe distribution model.
    I haven't read this whole article in depth but it does not appear to be limited to describing an exchange program. For example it mentions vending machines which obviously can't function that way. Harm Reduction Coalition (respected in HR community) also uses the term Syringe Service Programs.
    Unfortunately the term "exchange" is used throughout this article and I can also see there are various permutations of the terms including hyphenation and abbreviations. I think it would be appropriate to include some kind of clarification about the difference between "exchange" and "service" because obviously it is a point of confusion though I am not sure exactly how to write such a thing or where it would go. There should be a brief section about actual exchange programs.
    For the curious, the kind of injection equipment available is generally something like the BD Micro-Fine.
    Also sorry if this is not the right place to put this but the term "drug addict" is considered stigmatizing (see for example What is harm reduction? footnote #1).
    (I just signed up to be a editor and am intending to lurk a bit before jumping in editing. This article looks like it needs some attention... For example the section "Diversion and fraud" should just be deleted. I bookmarked this and maybe I will come back to it later when I know what I am doing more.) WhatsBest (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Graywalls (talk) 05:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Do they also hand out the pointy metal bit? Or just the plastic part? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    they're often syringes with the needle permanently built into them. Graywalls (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    A syringe–needle combination? (That's BD's name for it.)
    I can see the advantage for the service vs exchange part of the name change (all are services; some are exchanges). The euphemistic aspect of "really, just the plastic bit!" rather than the "don't step on the improperly discarded sharps" concerns me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC opened for Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality

    Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality is within the scope of WP:MED, although this WikiProject does not currently have a banner on the Talk page.

     Question: To what extent should this article discuss the scientific consensus on reparative/conversion therapy's potential harms and benefits?

    → Share your insights and suggestions at Request for Comments (RfC) - Stalemate regarding undue weight.

    Thank you!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 18:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:AfC sorting

    Just wanted to bring this to the project's attention in case anyone isn't aware of it. Wikipedia:AfC sorting, which classifies drafts by subject using ORES, was created last month. Wikipedia:AfC_sorting/STEM/Medicine & Health and Wikipedia:AfC_sorting/STEM/Biology may be of interest to project members. Hopefully this will help drafts on medical subjects get reviewed faster. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 13:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Age management

    ...might benefit from some experienced eyes. It's got a lot of stuff in Wikipedia's voice that I find iffy. Usedtobecool ☎️ 13:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an alt med practice User:Usedtobecool. Most of the references were 1) poor 2) predatory 3) did not discuss the topic in question. Have trimmed a lot. Not sure the topic / concept is notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Doc James! Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    "Human Covid-19 Immunoglobulin Injection"

    Passive immunization is fast and Active immunization is slow . This is an Passive immunization drug.

    At present any Vaccine approved by Fda for "Covid-19"?

    https://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/hyderabad/2020/apr/30/hyderabad-firm-awaits-approval-for-covid-injection-trial-2137160.html

    https://www.aaaai.org/Aaaai/media/MediaLibrary/PDF%20Documents/Practice%20and%20Parameters/IVIG-March-2017.pdf

    https://www.nyoooz.com/news/hyderabad/1440050/hyderabadfirm-awaits-approval-for-covid-injection-trial/

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1537-2995.1966.tb04713.x

    https://epaper.newindianexpress.com/2653374/The-New-Indian-Express-Hyderabad/30-04-2020#clip/51442323/92283b06-0233-4b7b-8ae1-2e04786ef158/912.0000000000001:330.53025302530267


    (Doctor Andrew Baldwin MD (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    What is the suggestion User:Doctor Andrew Baldwin MD? Yes people are studying the use of immunoglobulins from people who have recovered from COVID19 and we discuss this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For better results “Plasma Therapy” we have to follow following points

    1. Corona virus frequently changes through mutation. So Donor and Receiver from same tree of Covid-19 infection , that means plasma transfer between persons belongs to same area or between family members.

    2. In Plasma therapy dosage 200 ml , no option for change dosage ,so its better option to collect Immunoglobulin concentrate from plasma with technique “Plasmapheresis” . Injecte Immunoglobulin’s instead of plasma .The above drug “ Human Covid-19 Immunoglobulins”injection from in India based on this principal,”Passive Immunity” . Patient needs only IgG antibodies (Immunoglobulins). No need to transfer total plasma with unnecessary material.“ Human Covid-19 Immunoglobulins” injection is preferable than plasm for covid-19 patients. In this injection the manufacturer mixed all various types of strains of Corona virus. We can adjust dosage based on severity of clinical symptoms.

    https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2763982

    https://utswmed.org/conditions-treatments/therapeutic-plasma-exchange/

    (Doctor Andrew Baldwin MD (talk) 03:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    Not much to say until we have RCTs really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes you are right User:Doc James , any thing wrong in my overview? Thanq James!

    (Doctor Andrew Baldwin MD (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    The only point I'd make, Doctor Andrew Baldwin MD is that we must be careful not to editorialise based on our own knowledge and experience. For example, the Atlanta study says nothing that I could find about donor and receiver being from the same tree of COVID-19. Although I'd personally agree with your conclusion that the rate of mutation indicates a higher chance of success when donor and recipient are from the same region, I would disagree with the suggestion that mutation rate is a factor in preferring family (there are other reasons for that). In my case, my son is in Canada and I'm in the UK, so I doubt we'd be encountering COVID-19 with just the same pattern of mutations. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:RexxS I agree with you .(Doctor Andrew Baldwin MD (talk) 16:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]

    New medical books at the Internet Archive

    In the new books scanned by the Internet Archive I noticed that we seem to be getting a large batch of thousands of books from the NIH Library. Several of those volumes seem quite rare, although they were discarded as duplicates or whatever. There are a few volumes of editions around 2000 of the American men and women of science directory, which seems used on a few articles judging from American Men and Women of Science. Nemo 21:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    some books aren't too old/therefore useful[16], thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Tyrosinemia

    Tyrosinemia (Type I) and Type I tyrosinemia seem to be about the same subject. If so, the articles need merging by a subject matter expert. In addition, Tyrosinemia type II and Tyrosinemia type III are named more similarly than the related Type I tyrosinemia. A cursory reading of WP:NCMED doesn't say whether type or disease name should be placed first in the article title. If a consensus is reached here, page moves will solve the slight inconsistencies in article naming. Vycl1994 (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree needs merging. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:28, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Renamed and merged. Boghog (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=954756936"