Talk:Prostate cancer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleProstate cancer is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 29, 2006.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 29, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
December 16, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
May 12, 2009Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

OPPOSE the whole lot of RFCs[edit]

I am not participating in the massive filling up of this page with RFCs. I consider all efforts to work on only the lead a mistake in editing that should be reserved for novice editors. I also consider that the various "sides" in this debate are simply refusing to hear the others.

Leads are summaries, and the body of the article is a mess. Cleaning up the body will fix the lead. You agree on content in the body-- later you summarize that to the lead. Experienced editors should stop this thinking that they can only clean up leads, and ignore bodies of articles.

Further, there is original research throughout these talk page discussions -- doctors and lay persons arguing their case without consulting sources. You don't get to just leave out a whole ton of reliable sources because you don't personally agree with them. Treating prostate cancer is particularly difficult, because no two cases are alike, and yet we have people here arguing from the naive (a position of not having or treating cancer, and yet ignoring reliable sources from those who do).

Furthermore, jumping to RFCs when valid discussion is happening is not helpful. And RFCs are likely to just bring in people who have no knowledge of medical issues or medical editing.

The problem in this entire suite of articles can be summarized as one POV that has been given preference over multiple other reliable sources. That is slowly changing. Start listening to each other and using all sources-- not just government sources with one POV. Clean up the POV in the article, the lead will fix itself. Canada, by the way, is by no means the only area left out of this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

PS, I am off now to the hospital for an overnighter. That means, if I am able to edit, it will be from an iPad, with resulting typos, edit summaries, etc. Sorry in advance. I catch up as I am able from a real computer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree these are premature. It is unfortunate the discussion of these articles has become so combative. As we have seen elsewhere, this will slow improvement, by keeping others from contributing. Johnbod (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
(summoned here by the RFC bot) I support the idea that the work on the lead must be mostly about the improvements it adequately covers the article. That the lead requires a lot of footnotes is a big bright red flag the article body is inadequate. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Citations in the lead[edit]

We typically add references to the lead for medical articles. This lead is similarly referenced to 100s of other medical articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, then IMO something is wrong with writers of medical articles so that they do not follow WP:LEAD. Alternatively, something is wrong with WP:LEAD: if there are too many exceptions from a rule, time to rewrite the rule based on community experience. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
For context, User:Staszek Lem, it's my understanding that to hasten broad coverage of our medical content in other languages, the translation project has often been translating only the lead of many articles. To facilitate that in turn, several of us have been insuring that everything in the lead of medical articles is sourced. It is true that WP:LEAD says they are not necessary and that remains true. But for this purpose they are very useful. And I agree that in other contexts, lots of refs in the lead is a sign of trouble. It isn't, in medical articles. We should add a note about this to MEDMOS. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Not only MEDMOS, but WP:LEAD as well. Just you wait until some zealous wikignome decides to "clean up" these overfootnoted leads brandishing the guideline into your face. Happened with me quite a few times. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
WP:LEAD says "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation. Any statements about living persons that are challenged or likely to be challenged must have an inline citation every time they are mentioned, including within the lead.... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus."
There is no "prohibition" of references in the lead. Local consensus is at WP:MEDMOS were use is supported. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
No, we need not include citations in lead, and forcing them (and 12-yo language) into leads for a different project (translation) not only results in less than optimal leads-- it also has resulted (as in this suite of articles) in important parts of the bodies of articles being neglected. The lead is a summary of the whole article-- not a select set of facts that are for translating on a 12-yo level. And, the problem in THESE articles is just that ... the leads do not summarize the articles, do not summarize the conditions, and reflect select cherry-picked facts for translation.

Further, with respect to MEDMOS and MEDRS, we had to jump through quite a few hoops back in the day to get those pages accepted as guidelines, and part of getting them accepted was making sure that they did not contradict project-wide guidelines, like LEAD and MOS. MEDMOS needs to stay in sync with the rest of the project, or we risk their acceptance as guidelines. This "local consensus at MEDMOS" is overridden by project-wide guideline.

This line of thinking drives down the overall quality of medical articles, with attention focused on making them readable at a 12-yo level so they can be translated, and is perhaps is why the growth here has stalled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Or maybe FA has stalled because many people (like me) do not care about these badges. There is so much work to do always, with just basic maintenance like keeping things updated. Jytdog (talk) 14:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I have also received similar pushback about references in the lead of medical articles citing this style guide. I agree that it should be addended to avoid further confusion since many editors who primarily work outside of the medical project are unaware of the above caveats. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Jytdog here, the decrease in medical FAs has nothing to do with not reaching FA requirements. Rather it is that our own requirements are nearly always far beyond what FA requires, and getting referenced ledes through FAR has not been a problem. The reason no one is working on FAs for medical articles is that the effort to reward ratio is awful. So what if it's featured on the main page when the article gets 30.000 views a day as it is? WPMED quality control is frankly better than FA, and GA is horrible. I've seen articles that are extremely factually inaccurate reach GA. Carl Fredrik talk 15:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I tend to agree - Sandy, as you keep saying there are so many terrible medical articles, even dangerously so, and at the point where a big medical article has been got to be accurate and up to date in essentials, editors are presented with the choice of going on and doing that to probably at least 2 more articles, or spending the same amount of effort taking the first one through FA. Given the wholly different importance of the articles to many readers (another point you rightly keep making), it's understandable if people choose the first path. I have to say I've pretty much given up writing my own FAs, though I still review some, as I think this argument applies even to art history - it's just more useful to get a series of bad articles up to a decent standard, and leave them there. I personally support the emphasis on leads, not just for translation purposes, but for a high proportion of our English-speaking readers, who seem to include great numbers of second-language English speakers, who prefer (trust) English WP over say the Polish or Spanish one, though they may look at that as well. Many only read the lead, plus maybe one or two sections that especially interest them, before moving on to other internet sources, as my research at CRUK showed. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2018 (UTC)