Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles
|This page is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Identity-first v. person-first
- 2 Related discussion about Research and Medical articles
- 3 Please change the 'encouraged' section ordering
- 4 Proposed change to the wording on citations in the lead
- 5 Need stated policy: INN drug names are not (ordinarily) capitalized
- 6 Overdose as a title for Addiction, and Dependence & Withdrawal: need for consensus on psychoactive pharmaceuticals
Identity-first v. person-first
Person-first language has been criticized by some Autistic, Deaf, ADHD, Dys*ic, Bipolar, etc. people as, they believe, their condition is an inseparable part of who they are and of their identity. They argue you can't separate a person from their Autism, Deafness, ADHD, Dys*ia, Bipolarity because if you did, "they" would not be them anymore. Some people have complained they can't use identity-first language with cerebral palsy easily for the same reason.
The MOS knows this and says some people dislike person-first language. However, when should we use what language. When it comes BLPs it is easy, whatever they prefer. However, what about articles about general subjects? "People with lupus are more likely to give birth to autistic children" or "give birth to children with autism?"
Related discussion about Research and Medical articles
Hi all, just wanted to share a discussion started by The Wikipedia Library at the Wikiproject Medicine talk page about a pilot exposing the WP:Research help page more in medical article reference sections. Please share feedback/thoughts. Thanks, Astinson (WMF) (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Please change the 'encouraged' section ordering
The current order seems illogical (eg. Prevention between Diagnosis and Management) and some editors try to enforce it despite the guidelines saying they may be varied. There has been support for changing the list of recommended sections and no opposition. Can we reorder the suggestions along the lines of Archive_6#Order_of_sections ? - Rod57 (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Proposed change to the wording on citations in the lead
I've proposed a change to the wording on citations in the lead at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#.22Adding_sources_to_the_lead_is_a_reasonable_practice_but_not_required_as_long_as_the_text_in_question_is_supported_in_the_body_of_the_article.22. That page gets higher visibility than here I think. Please comment there; we can copy the discussion over here after it closes. Johnbod (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Need stated policy: INN drug names are not (ordinarily) capitalized
Not infrequently, INN (generic drug names) are wrongly being treated as proper names and being capitalized. This is even occurring when the INN is listed with a brand name, such as Levothyroxine (Synthroid). (A contrived example.) I can't find a direct policy guiding editors, but one should exist. (If it does, it should be more apparent, included here and WP:PHARMMOS.) This current practice may also create confusion between INN and brand names in our audience. — Box73 (talk) 17:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Overdose as a title for Addiction, and Dependence & Withdrawal: need for consensus on psychoactive pharmaceuticals
I gather this has been discussed in Archive 8:
The Amphetamine article under the title "4 Overdose", discusses addiction and tries to imply that any recreational use is an overdose. In the article Drug Overdose itself, the correct definition is used and explained. For example, it is recreational use of an illicit drug to take cocaine, and not an overdose of cocaine. However, injecting cocaine can easily lead to overdose.
It is in an attempt to convey "The stimulants are not addictive in the doses used to treat ADHD" that the world is being turned upside down with semantics.
I think there needs to be consensus across all the psychoactive drugs.
Overdose is not a title for addiction, and dependence & withdrawal. These terms all have independant and separate meanings. Logically, if the statement "The stimulants are not addictive in the doses used to treat ADHD" is true, the mechanism for becoming addicted is still not "overdose", by definition. Over-use and misuse come to mind.
- This is also discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Style guide#When is an overdose not an overdose?. Essentially this is an issue of differing (but equally valid as I understand) definitions of "overdose". Sizeofint (talk) 00:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)