Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Skip to top
Skip to bottom

Edit with VisualEditor

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

Achondroplasia COI edit requests

Rod of asclepius.jpg

Hi! I've posted some COI edit requests at Talk:Achondroplasia. Sharing in case anyone here is interested in taking a look. Thank you for any help or feedback! Mary Gaulke (talk) 13:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

@MaryGaulke, you've posted 16 separate changes. Have you experimented with making smaller requests? Maybe post a couple of them on one day, and then a few more after the first few are processed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: I've found that different reviewers have different preferences here, but many like to know the full scope of the requests from the outset rather than having them shared gradually. In cases where one round of requests will impact the next, I've done multiple rounds, but given the length of the edit request queue right now, I'm hesitant to post just a few items, wait months for a review, and then start over with the next few. Open to any feedback on that, though. Thanks for the reply! Mary Gaulke (talk) 16:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree w/ WAID(make smaller requests)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:24, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
The COI requests queue isn't processed in a first-come, first-served fashion. I'm guessing that long/complex requests are more likely to be quietly skipped. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Vital Articles reboot

The WikiProject Vital Articles has now being recently revamped and welcoming new members. On our Vital article list, the WikiProject Medicine has plenty of articles that both projects can work together in the Health, medicine and disease section, such as Injury, Drug, and Medicine itself. Please do consider joining our project too! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


They're not only used in asthma. Proposed move. Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing needed on tattoo-related articles

I would love help with improving the quality of medical information in the following articles: Health effects of tattoos, Process of tattooing, Tattoo removal, Tattoo ink, and UV tattoo. These articles have a lot of biomedical information without sufficient high-quality sourcing. Dreamyshade (talk) 00:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dreamyshade, have you found any good sources yet? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Can you clarify? I've been able to find good sources while working on sections of these articles - for example, I've been working on Tattoo ink#Health effects, and I was able to find sources for the existing information. I also found several other sources for improving that article, including this review article and this article, and I'm hoping to work through them for adding citations to other parts of the article. It's slow work for me because I'm not familiar with the field, and I'm not experienced in finding or using medical sources. That's ok, I just would like other people to get involved as well, including to check my work. Dreamyshade (talk) 01:20, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Use of controlled clinical terminology

I am surprised that the info box template for disease doesn’t have a section for SNOMED-CT and ICD-10. These would be helpful tremendously in using the resultant Wikidata as well as being helpful for those sort of people who use ICD-10 and SNOMED-CT.

Ditto for signs & symptoms.

There is also a strong case for use of SNOMED-CT to identify procedures, anatomic locations, diagnostic studies, drugs, and so on.

There is a URL representation of SNOMED-CT (including both concept model attributes, as well as “unapproved” attributes which could be very helpful in representation of knowledge (vs. intensionally defining a concept).

For a host of reasons there is a need for a curated, peer reviewed basic knowledge representation for some really basic use cases. e.g. “pathological process” CAUSES “disease”, “disease” HAS MANIFESTATION “clinical finding”, “drug” TREATS “disease”, etc.

I am delighted to work on this, and can probably even churn out some useful content (from SNOMED chiefly, but can also supply mappings to ICD-10, recognizing that ICD-10 is a gross simplification and at best a classification scheme but should ‘’’NEVER’’’ be used for clinical use as it is too ambiguous and imprecise. Yes, I know, commercial EHR systems do it all the time, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a profoundly bad idea. And don’t even get me started on ICD-10-CM…). DrKC MD (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@DrKC MD, that information is usually in {{Medical resources}}, which is placed in ==External links== at the end of the page. It used to be in the infoboxes, but the list got kind of long and confusing, especially when we started adding lay-friendly summary contents (like the relevant specialty), so we moved the links off to a separate template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
As a side note, the ICD codes are something that has a specific, niche audience that we know about through comments on social media: Medical coders sometimes use Wikipedia to find codes for unfamiliar conditions and procedures (presumably if they can't find something through a more definitive source). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Ectopic pregnancy

Ectopic pregnancy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just a heads up, last night I had to revert an edit to the article about ectopic pregnancy to remove a NPOV-violating screed about how terminating an ectopic is totally not an abortion.

Whilst, depending on the definitions you use, termination of an ectopic pregnancy may not technically be an abortion, this is besides the point that the standard treatment for ectopic pregnancy is still termination; there is a worrying trend outside the encyclopedia, especially since the Dobbs draft leaked, to make excuses for the draconian abortion laws that are now coming into effect across America and causing a major chilling effect for obstetricians (leading, in turn, to more Savita Halappanavars).

It's especially important right now that the encyclopedia not be used to disseminate medical misinformation, so it would be nice for some more knowledgeable eyes to keep an eye on articles relating to pregnancy. Sceptre (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

A meta-obervation. Years ago I took a decision not to edit any WP:AP2-related articles, because it was not likely to be a gainful activity. But AP2 is infecting everything, not least medical topics. It is profoundly depressing. The WP:PAGs are up to the job of defending against bad edits, but the amount of needless drama is increasing. Alexbrn (talk) 15:22, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Ugh, the pedant in me demands that this is not necessarily an attept to spread misinformation, but an attempt to split up the definition of termination so that there is a category X of "necessarily termination" and a category Y (to be called abortion). The aim is to render everything in Y immoral, by putting everything else in X such that Y can be considered "essentially immoral". This is a common process in law where previous precedent is ignored through claiming your new case is sui generis. The misinformation (should it exists) would lie in claiming that this new unusual definition is commonly used, or wilfully encouraging people to fall into fallacious reasoning through Conflation of the new concept Y with the broader meaning of abotion. A reasonable argument would be that wikipedia should use the definition of the term used by medics.
It's worth noting that the game of generality tweking isn't an exclusive preserve of pro-life groups. I am highly suspicious that the definition of abortion as "termination of a pregnancy where a fetus has implanted" used by medics may have evolved to exclude certain forms of birth control (though that would require a good deal of reading) and there is a clear incentive for pro-choice groups to interpret abortion as broadly as possible to extend the "moral justification" or necessary abortion to the practice as a whole.
As to what this means for editing? I'm not so sure. Courts and newspapers will probably proceed to push term Y, and then editors will try to cite it. Other editors will try to use WP:MEDRS to keep these sources out of the article. I am unsure if our editorial powers extend to talking about Y as "an abortion that protects the health of the expectant mother, which the source calls an abortion". After sufficient time there will be academic sources that comment on Y, X and the term "abortion". Talpedia (talk) 17:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Of course, the eventual end-goal of these people is that — as the now-famous op-ed goes – the only moral abortion will be their abortion (or, indeed, their mistresses'). There's a significant amount of winners' regret going around now, to the point where major pro-life 501(c)(3)s are going to Congress and testifying that a child rape victim terminating her pregnancy isn't an abortion. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we do not and must not censor medical fact to help right-wing culture warriors sleep better at night. Sceptre (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not quite sure it medical fact though. There is a "social fact" about what medics call abortion. I guess there are a series of facts that argue and conclude that the state of an embryo implanted in the uterus is similar to one implanted elsewhere such that the procedure to terminate an ectopic pregnancy is the same as abortion - but then a medic will also tell you that preventing implantation of a fertilized egg through use of a morning after pill is also not abortion. Such interpretations leave room for an argument than termination of an ectopic pregnancy is different because the fetus has not implanted in the uterus. We should, nevertheless, be clear about the terms we use and prefer the terms in use in most current scholarly works. Talpedia (talk) 18:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Like I said in the OP, you can argue in good faith whether termination of an ectopic pregnancy is abortion, but these people aren't arguing in good faith; I don't know how you can reconcile the belief that preventing implantation (with something like Plan B) is abortion but terminating a fertilised ovum post-implantation isn't, after all.
But one thing we can agree on is that if a ten-year-old child gets pregnant and crosses state lines to terminate her pregnancy, that is an abortion, no matter how much special pleading the forced birth brigade engage in. It's not 2012 any more; we don't have to pretend that in cases of legitimate rape, the female body has all sorts of ways to shut that whole thing down. Sceptre (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I mean to me lots of this is a game with words. My only position here is to recognise that a lot of this discussion is a game with words, and we should make sure we don't get sucked into such games.

I don't know how you can reconcile

You cannot, you could however argue that ectopic pregnancy and plan b are equivalent and distinct from other forms of termination at a scientific (rather than moral) level. I personally think such a distinction aren't that relevant scientifically or morally. But this gets into WP:FORUM territory, the point here was mostly pedantry, but also to note that "politically or procedurally useful" distinctions is perhaps a feature of medicine itself as well as recent US politics. Talpedia (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
There is a "social fact" about what medics call abortion.
Yes. Also, it has changed, and we've not done a great job of keeping up with the changing language. To whomever removed that old note at the top of Abortion that cited ob/gyn textbooks claiming that miscarriages are called abortions: Thank you. I think the solution used there (i.e., to point people to Definitions of abortion) is a good one, and might be helpful in all of the disputes about whether _____ is technically an abortion.
Articles like Ectopic pregnancy could certainly get a paragraph on people (not just in the US) being afraid that anti-abortion laws will result in medically unsound management of ectopic pregnancies. It should not, however, say that any US location actually has such stupid laws unless and until we have an WP:EXTRAORDINARY source to support the claim that such a law actually exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Positioning of Template:Medical resources

Revisiting a 2017 RfC: should the WP:MED template {{medical resources}} should be in an external links section? Please join the discussion over at Template talk:Medical resources#Revisiting template positioning. Little pob (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:06, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting but depressing: Systematic reviews aren't good at dealing with retracted papers

Many SRs and CPGs included already or later retracted RCTs without caution. Most of them were never corrected. The scientific community, including publishers and researchers, should make systematic and concerted efforts to remove the impact of retracted RCTs.

Talpedia (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

[1] interesting, and unfortunately true--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Dietary acid load

New article: Dietary acid load. Looks like synthesis promoting fad diets to me - see also Alkaline diet (alternative medicine), where this nonsense seems to have been started. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

[pH] Levels above 7.45 are referred to as acidosis and levels below 7.35 as alkalosis. – not off to a great start. TompaDompa (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Analysis and Response Toolkit for Trust


I am writing to inform about a tool that is currently in development, and is possibly interesting for WikiProject Medicine members.

Hacks/Hackers, along with its project partners, announces the Analysis and Response Toolkit for Trust (ARTT). ARTT aims to provide motivated citizens with tools and resources to discuss vaccine efficacy online. ARTT provides these connectors with expert guidance in analyzing information online and in responding to others through trust-building ways.

In theory, ARTT users would engage with the tool when seeking guidance on how to respond to vaccine misinformation online. The tool would suggest resources that have been vetted for quality and reliability in hopes of encouraging productive dialogue.

During the first research phase for this project, Wikipedians have been asked to provide feedback on potential uses for the tool within Wikipedia. For example, could a tool that vets sources be used to improve articles? Furthermore, could articles themselves be elevated to the point at which they could be recommended by the tool as reliability sources?

Hacks/Hackers and Wikimedia DC invites you to contribute to this conversation using ARTT’s Meta page. Netha (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Alzheimer's research controversy

Please read all of Talk:Sylvain Lesné and Sylvain Lesné and Talk:Alzheimer's disease on Lesne, and sources, lest we jump the gun. Particularly please read my urges for caution, to avoid a WP:NOTNEWS issue of getting too far ahead on this breaking story.

Where do we put a description of Aβ*56 ?? Does that belong at a) amyloid at b) amyloid beta or at c) amyloid hypothesis? My suspicion is b), but not a neuroscientist. And I can't write that content even if I know where to put it; for now, I have temporarily set up the very awkward amyloid beta star 56 as a redirect to Lesne.

Some sources are comparing this to the Wakefield fraud, but my hunch is that is hyperbole, so we need to take it slow (and see what develops over the next few days in major US news outlets). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

PS, this may turn out to be much more of a story about one person's alleged fraud than the newsy hype (piggy backing on the aducanumab scandal) that this one protein is so significant in AD research. It's bad news for Ashe, bad news for Lesné, bad news for US taxpayers, bad news for University of Minnesota, but may be a flash in the pan for the big picture on the amyloid hypothesis and the overall Alzheimer's research. I recommend reading the commentary on the alzforum thread, linked in the Notes section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hot articles

I don't know if any of you are watching Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Hot articles, but if you like knowing what's interesting to editors, then it's a good page to keep track of. You can transclude it on any page (like we did in the ==Metrics== section of WP:MED) like this:

371 edits Archie Battersbee case
267 edits 2022 monkeypox outbreak
86 edits Joseph Lister
85 edits Idiopathic generalized epilepsy
49 edits 2022 monkeypox outbreak in the United States
47 edits Circumcision
45 edits Place of safety
43 edits 2022 monkeypox outbreak in the Philippines
39 edits Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
38 edits Statistics of the COVID-19 pandemic in Peru

These are the articles that have been edited the most within the last seven days. Last updated 10 August 2022 by HotArticlesBot.

Transclusions auto-update without causing an edit to the page, so if you put it on your talk page or some other page that you visit frequently, you can see what's happening but not have an extra item in your watchlist every day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Lethargy and fatigue

Back in 2018, BubbleEngineer proposed merging lethargy into fatigue. Lethargy is barely a stub and repeats much of what fatigue says, but as I am no medical expert I don't want to redirect or merge without first trying to start a discussion here. I encourage any interested parties to see Talk:Lethargy#Redirect?. Cheers, Anarchyte (talk) 13:41, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:06, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

History of smallpox - input needed

Your input would be appreciated in the debate on Talk:History of smallpox. The article, the bulk of which was written before 2013, suffers from old age. A lot of new results published in 2016 and later are not reflected at all. Thanks for your help! Renerpho (talk) 02:14, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Renerpho, the three editors in that section have posted in different years. I suspect that if you decided to WP:Be bold in updating that page, that nobody would object. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

XKCD on proxy variables

I think that many of you will appreciate this: WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

New articles on inner and middle ear conditions

Inner ear decompression sickness and Middle ear barotrauma could use a quick check over by ENT expert, and maybe someone well familiar with medical categories, Template:Medical resources, and medical infoboxes. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 09:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

List of case reports at Coma blister

Is that really appropriate? Or should that just be nixxed right out? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

It... depends. A lot. For a common condition, you wouldn't mention individual cases. If it's a single patient ever (or especially famous/in pop culture), then you might write a whole article about the one case (see Category:Index cases). Situations in between those two extremes are occasionally described this way, or (perhaps more often?) the sources for the individual cases are listed in a Wikipedia:Further reading section. I don't know enough about this condition to know where it falls in the spectrum.
MLy16 and Ucsfrdu, I think the most important thing you could do to make quick improvements to that article is to add lots of links to other Wikipedia articles. Try to link most "technical" terms. Two small bits of advice: First, if there's a string of terms in a row, then we try to skip words: "One two three." and then find and link "two" somewhere later in the article if possible. Second, we don't link every occurrence of the same word, but it's good to put links once in the lead and once in the body. For example, link to blister in the first sentence plus again in either the ==Etiology== or ==Diagnosis== sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

People "afflicted" with disease?

A disagreement about MOS:EUPH's recommendation that Wikipedia should describe people as "afflicted", see:

Please comment there, not here. Alexbrn (talk) 13:16, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on how to describe the impacts of the 2022 Monkeypox Outbreak on the MSM community

Inviting additional editors with experience editing medical articles to contribute to the discussion here [2] {{u|Gtoffoletto}}talk 19:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award for Enzyme inhibitor

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Enzyme inhibitor/archive1 for User:Boghog. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Alcohol abuse/use disorder

The discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:TylerDurden8823, mass changes, introducing factual errors may interest some editors here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

No matter what happens at ANI, it appears that we have a couple of problems that we could usefully discuss. Off hand, they include:
  • To what extent should we prefer to use modern language vs. sticking to the cited (and out of date) sources?
    • For example, if the source uses a previous name for Intellectual disability, should we use the current ICD-10 term?
    • Sometimes it'll be obvious (we used to call aspirin a form of chemotherapy, but the concept of chemo has since been narrowed to cancer treatment). Other times, it might not. It's these latter cases that need to be discussed.
  • To what extent should we prefer to use non-stigmatizing language vs. other options?
    • For example: Psychiatric disorder, psychological disorder, mental illness, mental disease, mental health condition...
    • Also: What if you think _____ is stigmatizing, but I think it isn't?
  • How can we help editors deal with the way that diagnostic criteria and terms change or are disputed over time?
    • For example, previous definitions said that every pregnant woman with high blood pressure and swollen ankles had pre-eclampsia. Current definitions usually require high blood pressure plus protein in the urine. So – did she really have pre-eclampsia?
    • For example, sometimes the Lumpers and splitters get their way, and an old diagnosis is split into two (Plague is three separate diseases, the way some define "a" disease), or two old diagnoses are combined into one (e.g., DSM-IV separated Alcohol abuse from Alcohol dependence; these were combined into the DSM-V's single entry on Alcohol use disorder; Autism spectrum disorder was more or less created by merging Asperger syndrome with [old definition] Classic autism, PDD-NOS, and a few other things).
  • How can we help editors deal with everyday language vs. technical terminology?
    • For example, male/female; chronic fatigue syndrome vs being tired all the time; alcoholism vs alcohol use disorder)
    • Some changes are easy (you should almost always use kidney instead of renal, because these are exact synonyms and most people only know the more common one). But should we prefer everyday language or common names when that is less precise?
  • What advice can we give to editors about words that have multiple definitions (one of which might be correct)?
    • For example, consider cancer: Many people who say they have Head and neck cancer don't technically have cancer (instead, they have non-cancerous "benign" tumors that could kill them). Or perhaps I want to shock readers by pointing out the True Fact™ that blood cancer and sarcomas aren't cancers, because they're not carcinomas. But they are cancers, in the sense that most non-medical people understand what that word means.
There might be more questions. @Talpedia and @Colin, I'd particularly be interested in your thoughts about the questions that should be asked. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, in the short term, would it be more useful to everyone if we tried to write up something specific to alcohol-related disorders (the locus of this dispute), to psychology/DSM-type subjects more generally, or more broadly (perhaps even extending outside of core medical topics)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Some thoughts. These are interesting questions. I tend to prefer to think in a case-by-case way, where you sort of get generalish principles from the specifics of an individual case and after a while you distill this into a policy, so I guess I feel like we should start with the narrowest case of alcohol-related disorders. On the other hand, I have no experience doing policy work here or elsewhere and think that wikipedia might have more of a "top down culture" to doing things - I don't really see people take a precedent based approach that much. Both top down and case by case approaches have benefits, though in real life I get more irked by "we are creating a policy for things we don't understand yet" than "how will we live without more rules".

  • I can certainly see the arguments for sticking to sources when you have disagreements, possibly with a little contextualization when people start disagreeing.
  • As was brought up in ANI, for WP:BLP we need to be careful to avoid misrepresenting people. I think it might be better to say, "James was diagnosed as manic depressive - cite 1 (a disorder now known as bipolar cite 2)" rather than "James was diagnosed with bipolar disorder".
  • I'm not sure I like some of the search and replace that may have been going on in the ANI, and I think the meaning of alcohol abuse is sort of a case-by-case thing. This sort of issues seems like an easy way to pointlessly spread drama across lots of pages where no one really cares. It's different when you have a handful of pages that deal with a topic or closely related topics. I guess for things like "person first" or Wikipedia:SUFFER it's more open and shut.
  • I'm inclined to open up "non-stigmatizing" a little and say that some of this language can be more generally "political". You can get turf wars between different fields and different values. I think we want to stay out of these turf wars where possible. There may be cases where things are genuinely non-stigmatizing, but yes I feel that technicality is a better escape and defense from stigmatizing language than being "played" politically.
  • I can see a pretty good argument for consistent language across wikipedia. A rule of thumb might be if you are linking to an article or section of an article that is genuinly about just that thing you should use the name of the article. This sort of moves the conflict into merge discussions.

How can we help editors deal with the way that diagnostic criteria and terms change or are disputed over time?

This feels like a bit of a nightmare for editors. I'd throw in that a similar problem is competing standards like ICD versus DSM. I think google n-gram viewer could at times be helpful since it can confirm if a term has completely fallen out of use. I like the idea of systematic reviews to resolve this sort of stuff, but then the systematic review that DarcyIsVeryCute took the easy root and outsourced to the DSM.

But should we prefer everyday language or common names when that is less precise?

The case that came up was in WP:BLP. I can see an argument for "use common names if the sources you cite are not by expert authors"".

I dislike the use of common language on medical articles, but this is perhaps a personal preference that doesn't easily fit into wikipedia's values or principles. I am quite aware that language can be key to power in professional groups and bureaucratic processes and that people can use jargon to intimidate, confuse, bar access, hide information and suggest complexity where there is none. I don't think wikipedia should be propping up these barriers so I think it should use technical language to give people access to this language and prepare them for other reading. Wikipedia has the power of the wikilink to give the definitions of terms. But obviously WP:JARGON. The counter argument is that you are excluding readers and sort of "extending the reach" of jargon by doing this; the former is plausible the latter less so. Professions will have their own reach and maintain their jargon, and ignoring the jargon doesn't really decrease this.

To what extent should we prefer to use modern language vs. sticking to the cited (and out of date) sources?

In practice, if I were editing around this I would resolve it by trying to find newer sources. I don't know the answer more generally.

There are a bunch of other good questions here that I haven't addressed, but I think that's it for now! I think the principle I use myself outside of wikipedia "when in doubt, choose technical and overly precise language"... I guess because I want the discussion to be precise, and it's almost a request for others to provide details. I also am sort of of positive about "follow the citation graph of your article to the most recent systematic review" as an approach.

Talpedia (talk) 02:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I think too many questions at once, and so hard to focus. One issue is with formal diagnostic terms, the names that committees and organisations agonise over and publish periodically, and that may then change over time. Sometimes a name changes without any change of scope, but sometimes the scope is widened, narrowed or redefined. Sometimes the name doesn't change but those familiar with the literature will know that in the past its scope was different. As noted here, there may be times when we have to use older terminology but perhaps indicate what the new terms is (and this may vary depending on how reliably they are equivalent). Someone in history who had a "fit" or "seizure", for example, cannot be assumed to have had an epileptic seizure. Some medical literature, for example, uses deprecated terms for particular seizure types, and this may be because the doctor is familiar with them and hasn't adopted the new terms yet, or because the doctor is writing outside their speciality and last learned about seizure types in the 1980s at medical school. So there are likely reasons why even modern sources might not use the optimal technical term.

But there are other problems we get where the word is not a technical term invented by a committee. Whether to use the word "woman" or say "committed suicide" or write "wheelchair bound" or "patients" or use "she" for ships... most of recent MOS battles, are not words that we let experts create and define for us. I think for those, what language our sources use is of limited importance.

Then there's medical terminology for anatomy or types of drug or treatments. I agree with Talpedia that part of our mission should be to educate readers about these words, which they may encounter outside of Wikipedia. But at the same time, we have to bring readers with us, and we can't rely on links to lift all reader's vocabulary to the level of a neurologist, and writing like one would to a fellow neurologist, say, gives a strong message to the reader that they are too stupid to understand this subject. It is well established that we need to make an effort for the general reader, but I disagree with the style taken by many medical article leads. The point here is that we will be compelled at times to choose different words than our sources do, and it requires some care to ensure substitutions are appropriate.

In terms of approach, I wonder if merely fixing individual words is always likely to rub some people up the wrong way, and end up badly at AN/I. Most of the text on Wikipedia is overdue a rewrite and an update, so perhaps it is better if editors do that, with new sources, and then they can write in their own words how they see best.

Wrt whether you think something isn't stigmatising (or offensive, or biased, or whatever) I think we need to move away from editors having to convince a majority of RFC participants that this is the case. There will always be language conservatives and always be those who dislike someone saying one should write this way or that way, and such people are rarely honest and direct about this. Rather than saying "I am conservative about this and see no need to change" they invent rules like "stick to sources" when they think the sources might be more likely to align with their preference. They ask us to respect experts if they agree with them and ignore experts if they don't. If some reasonable people find a term problematic, we should at least consider alternatives. Sometimes alternative are remarkably trouble free, yet we still see huge resistance to change. -- Colin°Talk 07:58, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Are any of the questions (these or others) actually easy questions to answer? I'd be happy to get the easy questions out of the way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The (multiple) Alzheimer drug scandals

On the positive side of things:

On the negative side, there has been raging POV/COI possibly paid editing by IPs at

More eyes are needed at those two articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you feel like Simufilam is stable for the moment, or do you think that we should request WP:SEMI at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
The semi at Cassava expires tomorrow ... let's see how it goes, and see if the same IPs go after both, and then decide whether to up protection on both per same. That is, give 'em the WP:ROPE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Cassava seems to be holding; maybe now that the Department of Justice is on board, there is less motivation to try to slant the articles. But please keep watchlisted. If anyone has an interest, simufilam still needs cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Unpaywall – Find free versions of paywalled articles instantly

Unpaywall logo.png

Don't shower, skip the grocery shopping; run over to right now and install the browser extension Unpaywall for Firefox, Chrome, and (inserting my plug here for the best browser out there:) Vivaldi—you won't regret it. Either Unpaywall is the best kept secret out there, or you're all using it already and I am the very last one to find out. This is going to save me untold amounts of time searching around for that elusive, free version of an article which comes up first as an abstract with paywalled links if you want to read the article. If there's a free version out there, Unpaywall will find it, and it sticks a little open padlock icon right onto the paywalled page, and all you have to do it click it, and voila! No more searching around anymore. Techcrunch review here.

If you're an eagle-eyed reader of WT:MED, you may recall that this isn't the first time someone has mentioned Unpaywall. Back in January, Ajpolino quietly snuck it into this discussion, but it deserves more of a giant billboard that you can't drive by without seeing, so here ya go. Mathglot (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

installed, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Asking for help on Crystal-storing histiocytosis

Over at someone has edited without adding sources for their additions. Normally, I'd just revert, but the person is a patient with the disorder. Does the project have some good wording for how to handle that sort of situation? Red Fiona (talk) 20:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Those edits need some work. I reverted one, which looked a bit like a mistake. Let's see what happens. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks - I wasn't sure what to do. Red Fiona (talk) 15:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
If we're lucky, we'll be able to turn this Very Interested Person into a good editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)


Can anyone explain or define "lagoon" in The diagnosis is based on the clinical appearance of the lesions. Examination with a dermatoscope shows characteristic red, purple, or blue-black lagoons. in article Cherry angioma? · · · Peter Southwood (talk): 14:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikimania starts Thursday

You can still register for Wikimania. Attendance is free. This (mostly) virtual event will use a virtual event website called These sessions may interest some of you:

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Signing up requires an e-mail address. That e-mail address does not have to be connected to your Wikipedia account, but please put your username down as either your name or nickname in the registration materials (the form asks for first+last+nickname), so we'll recognize you! WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2022 (UTC)