Talk:NowMedical

NowMedical
Company type	Private
Founded	2004
Founder	John W. Keen
Headquarters	London
Area served	The United Kingdom
Services	Medical Assessments
Owner	Dr. John Keen
Website	www.nowmedical.co.uk

This article was nominated for deletion on 10 February 2020. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Medicine: Society Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Society and Medicine task force.

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Social Work Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Social Work, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Social Work on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Social WorkWikipedia:WikiProject Social WorkTemplate:WikiProject Social WorkSocial work articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

United Kingdom Low‑importance

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

MarthaLuke (talk · contribs) has been paid by NowMedical. Disclosure on userpage.

Untitled section

NowMedical is a company worthy of a Wikipedia entry. Its activities are of interest to housing, immigration, medical and legal practitioners in the UK. The article could do with improvement. I have made some changes and intend to make more when I can. nik nicol (talk) 11:05, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NowMedical's statement

Hello,

Wikimedia OTRS received concerns regarding this article. They asked OTRS agents to publish their statement. Reference: ticket:2020060310007957. Best, --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is the subject of a request emailed to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT).

Issues identified are:

NowMedical's statement

Lengthy statement from NowMedical

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

NowMedical’s Role
Housing
6. Local authorities owe a duty to secure accommodation for unintentionally homeless applicants regarded as “priority need”, pursuant to Part VII, ss.193(1)(b) and 193(2) Housing Act 1996. Priority need is allocated to those regarded as “vulnerable” pursuant to s.189(c) Housing Act 1996. The test for determining whether an applicant is a homeless “vulnerable” person (as opposed to a homeless “ordinary” person), establishing the local authority’s duty to provide them with accommodation, is defined as the “Hotak test”, following a Supreme Court judgment^[1]. The test is not whether an individual is “fit to sleep on the street” or “fit enough to sleep on the street”.
7. Local authorities have the legal responsibility to make, and must make, decisions on whether an applicant is regarded as priority need. NowMedical does not and cannot make any decision on behalf of a local authority. It is simply providing a medical opinion, to assist the local authority to understand the medical records and make a decision.
8. In order for local authorities to make this decision, they must consider the medical evidence and assessments as part of the application. Where there is doubt on vulnerability, the council may seek a clinical opinion to assist its decision-making process. This is most clearly expressed in the Welsh Government’s Code of Guidance for Local Authorities on the Allocation of Accommodation and Homelessness,^[2] which provides at paragraph 16.23:

“Local Authorities may seek the opinion of a medical professional not directly

involved in the provision of treatment, where this will enable Local Authorities

to develop a better understanding of the nature of the condition and how this

affects the ability of the person with the medical condition to fend for

themselves.

Where the opinions of the treating and non-treating medical professionals

differ, then the Local Authority will need to show how they have reconciled

this difference.

The final decision on level of vulnerability must rest with the Local Authority,

who are not bound by the information provided by any medical professional

opinion given.”

9. It is obvious from the above that NowMedical is not diagnosing any individual’s medical condition nor claiming that the applicant’s treating doctor has misdiagnosed the applicant. It is simply providing a clinical opinion, based on the medical records, on the nature of the condition and how this affects the ability of the person to undertake their daily activities.
10. The statutory test for priority need uses the comparators of “vulnerable person” and “ordinary person”. When our client uses these descriptions, it is in this context. This information is also laid out on NowMedical’s website.^[3] NowMedical is asked to consider the patient’s medical records and/or evidence provided and opine as to whether the statutory test for vulnerability/priority need is met on medical grounds.
Immigration and Asylum
11. Under the Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum Seekers) Regulations 2005, a failed asylum seeker may be eligible for support if, in addition to satisfying the Secretary of State that they would otherwise be destitute, they are “unable to leave the UK” by reason of a physical impediment to travel or for some other medical reason.
12. The precise meaning of this test was considered by the High Court^[4], with Holman J finding:

“the test is not whether it is undesirable or inadvisable for an applicant to

leave the UK from the point of view of their medical treatment, but whether

the applicant is actually unable to leave. Where medical evidence indicates

that an applicant needs to maintain regular treatment and monitoring, this

does not mean that, on any given day, an applicant would not in fact be fit to

travel or as the test requires, be unable to leave the UK”.

13. When providing opinions to the UK Border Agency (“UKBA”) NowMedical is being asked to opine as to whether an individual is “unable to leave the UK”. This is not an opinion on whether an individual is “fit to fly” on a specific day. No such language is used in NowMedical reports.
Who Makes Decisions
14. For the reasons set out above, NowMedical makes no decisions whatsoever in either Housing Act 1996 or Immigration and Asylum (Provision of Accommodation to Failed Asylum Seekers) Regulations cases. It is the local authorities and UKBA, respectively, who make such decisions. Not Meeting Individuals in Person
15. The Page suggests that NowMedical is breaching GMC’s “Good Medical Practice” guidelines, or otherwise acting negligently or unethically, by not meeting individuals in person. This is categorically not the case and NowMedical’s practices are regarded as conventional and appropriate by the GMC, the medical profession and the judiciary.
16. The true position is that NowMedical’s doctors are not required to physically examine a patient in order to provide the opinion that the local authority/UKBA has asked for. NowMedical is not being asked to diagnose that patient, or challenge the diagnosis by that patient’s treating doctor. NowMedical is providing an opinion to a local authority or the UKBA, based on the relevant medical records provided, as to whether that patient’s medical condition meets the relevant statutory tests described above. A physical examination would add nothing to this opinion.
17. The General Medical Council’s ‘‘Good Medical Practice’’ (“GMC”) guidelines make clear at paragraph 15(a) that patients need only be physically examined “when necessary”^[5]. A member of the public recently made a referral request to the GMC in relation to a NowMedical doctor and has publicised the GMC’s response^[6]. The GMC concluded that there were no concerns worthy of investigation and that “there is nothing to suggest that Dr Keen is breaking the law or that he is not in a position to be able to give a medical opinion on each patient he is asked to review”.
18. The practice of providing an opinion without a physical examination in this context is also one which the Courts have readily accepted to be entirely correct:

a. “There is no rule that a doctor cannot advise on the implications of other doctors’

reports without examining the patient…It is entirely right that local authority

officers, themselves without any medical expertise, should not be expected to

make their own critical evaluation of applicants' medical evidence and should

have access to specialist advice about it.”^[7]

b. “there is always the risk that if a housing or review officer does not obtain help

and assistance in understanding medical material they will be criticised on the

basis that they proceeded to make a decision without a proper understanding of

the medical material.”^[8]

c. “Although Dr Keene [sic] had not seen the appellant, he had a full account of his

medical records. He was able to apply the correct test to that evidence and came

to an appropriate conclusion. I prefer his assessment to that of the appellant’s

GP.”^[9]

19. In light of the above, it is clear that criticism of our client for not meeting with or speaking to applicants is entirely misplaced, as it is based on the incorrect assumption that our client must meet with/speak to applicants in order for it to “apply the correct test to that evidence and come to an appropriate conclusion”. This is demonstrably not the case.
Judicial Criticism and Judicial Review of Decisions
20. The Page suggests that NowMedical is routinely criticised in the courts for the advice that it provides, and that any decision made on the basis of an opinion provided by NowMedical is likely to be overturned on a judicial review as to the lawfulness of that council’s decision.
21. Decisions which local authorities and UKBA make about applicants’ housing needs or ability to leave the UK will plainly have an impact on applicants’ lives. For applicants receiving positive decisions, these will not be challenged. Similarly, where an application was not likely to be successful and the local authority/UKBA make a negative decision, that too is unlikely to credibly be challenged.
22. As with any decision of this nature, there will be a small number of cases where an applicant does not accept the local authority’s/UKBA’s decision and seeks to challenge or appeal it.
23. The Page’s sources contain multiple references to a very small number of cases which are critical of NowMedical, dating as far back as 2006. Critical comments of our client have been cherry picked and those sources give the false impression that significant numbers of decisions based on NowMedical’s opinions are in fact challenged and that any such decisions would be likely to be overturned on a judicial review.
24. The sources – and therefore the Page - fail to reflect that there are in fact many judgments which are positive of our client, where their medical expertise has been commended and where their assessments – based on having applied the correct test to the evidence – have been preferred to an appellant’s treating GP.
25. The first negative judicial reference in the Articles is from 2006. Since that time, NowMedical has provided hundreds of thousands of opinions, the vast majority of which lead to decisions which are not challenged. The sources’ failure to put the rare negative judicial comment into its proper context is not only inaccurate and significantly misleading, but also defamatory of our client. This follows through on to the content of the Page.
KS & AM v London Borough of Hackney
26. The Page refers specifically to this case in the paragraph:

“In 2018 it advised Haringey Council that “a fall from a first floor is unlikely

to be fatal”. According to the decision of the court "It is not clear on which

medical basis he comes to that conclusion, or indeed what injuries he

considers it likely that a 6 year old child might sustain falling from a first floor

flat four to five metres above ground level and what level of injuries he

considers to be an acceptable risk."[5]”

27. This quote is manifestly misleading, inaccurate and taken out of context. It suggests that NowMedical advised that the family did not need to move and that the family’s current accommodation was suitable.
28. A NowMedical report dated 24 November 2017 (the “Report”) is cited in paragraph 26 of the High Court judgment^[10].
29. The first assessment in the Report advised on the child’s current accommodation. The Report agreed that the child “was in medical need” and accordingly advised that housing priority “Band C” should apply to the child “to correctly reflect the moderate medical need to move”. The NowMedical report did not conclude that the child’s current accommodation “was suitable”.
30. The Report also found that “a ground floor property would be optimum in this case”. The opinion that a different first floor flat was “an acceptable alternative” and “compatible with the approach taken by other London local authorities” was based on two factors: “that a fall from a first floor is unlikely to be fatal, and that availability of ground floor properties may be so scarce as to potentially delay a relocation”. As the Report concluded that the child’s current accommodation was not suitable, opining on what would constitute an “acceptable alternative” to enable a move more quickly is entirely reasonable.
Sources
31. We have already made a number of points concerning the suitability of sources used as the basis for various statements contained on the Page. Our client’s case is that many of these are trivial, unreliable and/or misleading and we do not propose to repeat these points here. Our client’s position is summarised below:
Local media
32. Wikipedia’s notability policy states that sources “solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, [are] not an indication of notability”. None of the local sources cited on the Page meet this policy requirement.
33. Hackney Citizen, Islington Gazette, Islington Tribune, Bracknell News: these local papers serve a single borough of London, or a small town and have average circulations in the low thousands.
34. There are also questions over the reliability of these local sources, given legal complaints about substantial inaccuracies and defamatory allegations have been made to most of them and they have failed to make suitable amendments to ensure that their reporting is accurate.
35. The Islington Gazette and Bracknell News are regulated by the British press regulator IPSO. The IPSO Editor’s Code requires publishers to take care not to publish inaccurate reporting and to correct significant inaccuracies. The Hackney Citizen’s Code of Conduct sets out similar obligations. Publishers who refuse to correct significant inaccuracies may be in breach of the IPSO Code, or their own editorial Code.
Other media
36. We have also made legal complaints about inaccuracies and defamatory allegations to other, more widely read, media organisations whose articles are used as sources for the Page.
37. The Independent has made substantive amendments to its articles to reflect the true position, including:

a) that the statement of Dr Frank Arnold was not referring to NowMedical

specifically. This is not reflected on the Page.

b) To clarify that NowMedical only carries out “assessments” and does not make

decisions.

c) To clarify that Islington Council decided to not renew its contract with

NowMedical, rather than terminating it.

d) To remove any reference to NowMedical making determinations on asylum

seekers being “fit to fly”.

e) To reflect to the correct position in respect of KS & AM v London Borough of

Haringey, explained at paragraphs 26 to 30 above.

f) To include our client’s statement at the bottom its articles about

NowMedical, as follows: “NowMedical does not make decisions in relation to

individuals. It provides opinions to local authorities and government agencies,

who consider those opinions as part of the application as a whole.”

38. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism has amended its article11 to include a statement of our client’s position, as follows:

“Local authorities have the legal responsibility to make, and must make,

decisions on a priority need. NowMedical does not and cannot make any

decision on behalf of a local authority. We simply provide medical

opinions to assist the local authority to understand the medical records

and make its decisions, ensuring that those who are most vulnerable

receive the accommodation and fair treatment to which they are

entitled. Our opinions are only a part of the information that councils

consider. The law uses the comparators of “vulnerable person” and

“ordinary person”. Our reports use this language.

“Opinions we give to the UK Border Agency consider the statutory test of

whether an individual is “unable to leave the UK”. This is not an opinion

on whether an individual is “fit to fly” on a specific day. No such

language is used in NowMedical reports.

“NowMedical’s registered doctors and psychiatrists are not required to

physically examine patients in order to provide the opinion that the local

authority/UKBA has asked for. This approach is one which the Courts

and General Medical Council have readily accepted to be entirely correct.

“There are Court judgments which are positive, commending our

medical expertise, and where our assessments – based on having applied

the correct test to the evidence – have been preferred to the treating GP.”

Blogs
39. According to Wikipedia’s policies, “self-published sources” and blog posts are “generally not reliable sources” and are “generally not acceptable”. As such, neither of the two blogs cited on the Page are suitable for inclusion.

References

^ Hotak and others (Appellants) v London Borough of Southwark and another (Respondents) [2015] UKSC 30.

^ https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2019-03/allocation-of-accommodation-and-homelessness-guidance-for-local-authorities.pdf

^ https://www.nowmedical.co.uk/vulnerability.html

^ R (on the application of the SSHD) v Asylum Support Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 1248 (Admin).

^ https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/good-medical-practice---english-20200128_pdf-51527435.pdf?la=en&hash=DA1263358CCA88F298785FE2BD7610EB4EE9A530

^ https://twitter.com/lena_lena3002/status/1229362986407645189

^ Shala v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 624, paragraphs 23 and 19.

^ Guiste v LBC Lambeth, paragraph 41.

^ Asylum Support case AS/14/09/31897, paragraph 14.

^ https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/587.html

The VRTS ticket number is 2020060310007957.

Please discuss these issues here, being mindful of the policies on biographies of living persons.

Inserted by --Martin Urbanec (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to spend too much time on this - if they want edits to be made, they should use the Wikipedia:Simple_conflict_of_interest_edit_request format and articulate clearly and simply (in a 'from X to Y' format) what they want to be changed.

As an aside, I don't think the complainant has understood our policies. WP:NOTABILITY clearly does not relate to the inclusion of local sources in an article, but rather prevents an article existing if it relies solely on local sources. There has clearly been sufficient national coverage (as the complainant admits) for this article to meet WP:NOTABILITY.

Cheers, Darren-M talk 22:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As far as misunderstanding of policy goes, I don't think WP:OR is understood either. They've cited legislation, but this is a misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. We're not going to alter content based on their reasoning of the law, or our opinion of their reasoning of the law, it would simply be original research. This request lacks in clarity and is far larger than any other in the currently-backlogged COI queue. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did nonetheless sympathise with their argument about the use of blogs, so have amended the article to remove the two blog entries. I've also expanded a couple of the paragraphs around court judgements, and provided a more lengthy quote.

It does seem that the article has been subject to WP:POVPUSHING to make the article more favourable to the subject, though. Time will tell if that will resurface against the hopefully more neutral and accurate phraseology that now exists.

As always, shout up if you have any queries re my edits. Best, Darren-M talk 23:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

Some of the recent edits remove some important information or are factually incorrect so I thought it best to write here and let others adjust. I should declare an interest - I work in UK Housing and know some Now Medical cases well - I'm not employed by Now Medical nor have I ever been.

1 the lady from Sudan did not have a stroke - that is an error. She had a back problem (sciatica) according to the court judgement

2 the fact she had satisfactorily travelled from the Sudan to the UK is obviously relevant and should not have been removed from the page

3 the comment from the Scottish MP should be removed as suggested elsewhere, as if it is correct Now Medical don't advise in Scotland, she has no direct knowledge of the company's casework

4 the company have widely distributed - including to me - a document explaining their work and citing various cases when they have been praised by Judges in court - this evidence should be on WP, to balance the negative cases already described. Kind regards. Alberthalll (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alberthalll, just two interim comments. On 1, the in-line source appears to confirm this was re a stroke, though happy for you to provide alternative sources. On 4, if that positive coverage has not been detailed in reliable secondary sources, that would be against WP:UNDUE. Best, Darren-M talk 15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested changes from NowMedical

I work for NowMedical. Since there was no consensus at AfD[1], I would like to propose some specific changes to the page that may address some of the BLP/UNDUE/RS-type concerns expressed by NowMedical and echoed in the AfD discussion.

Specific Requested Changes

Current Content: "In April 2020, the London Borough of Islington decided to discontinue their contract and stop using services by NowMedical."
Change to: Delete.
Reason: WP:UNDUE. Listing individual customers that stopped using the service seems awfully detailed. This customer is not a significant part of NowMedical's history. NowMedical has more than 100 similar council customers. The cited article is just a short blurb in a local paper.

Current Content: "Criticisms and Controversies"
Change to:"Use in Government Housing Determinations"
Reason: WP:CSECTION. "Criticisms and Controversies" sections are discouraged. The proposed replacement is more neutral and more specific.

Current Content: In 2015. NowMedical was criticised for providing medical opinions to councils without seeing the people or the medical records of those whose health they assess, thereby "providing secondhand evidence" to the councils.
Change to: As of 2015, about 80% of NowMedical's assessments are done without physically meeting the person they are assessing.
Reason: WP:QUOTE, etc. Using quotes to add editorialized language is discouraged. Additionally, quotes are supposed to include a clear attribution to who said it. In this case, the criticisms and quote are from the plaintiff's attorney. A majority of the cited local news article is actually made-up of quotes from the plaintiff's lawyer.

Current Content: The Liberal Democrat MP Christine Jardine said that there should be "a review of how companies like NowMedical are awarded contracts to make these kinds of assessments.”
Change to: Delete
Reason: WP:QUOTE, WP:UNDUE. This politician's comment about what the government should do is not a significant part of the company's history. Using quotes to add editorialized language is discouraged.

Current Content: In November 2019 Keen advised that a woman who was housebound after having a stroke was able to return to Sudan on a plane, recommending frequent exercise whilst on board the plane by walking around the cabin
Change to: Delete
Reason: WP:UNDUE. NowMedical has provided more than 200,000 assessments. The journalist probably felt this anecdote was great for storytelling purposes, not that this individual assessment was a significant part of the company's history.

Current Content: Thanet District Council defended its use of the company in 2019, stating that "their role is to assess whether someone’s housing conditions impact on their health. They are not there to replace the services provided by the NHS and people should visit their own GP to discuss their health and medication.”
Change to: The Thanet District Counsil defended its use of NowMedical, stating citizens should visit their own doctor for medical advice, not rely on the housing determinations made by NowMedical.
Reason: WP:QUOTE. The lengthy quote seems unnecessary and can be stated more concisely.

Current Content: In 2017, it was criticised by the County Court at Central London for its advice to Lambeth Council, stating that "[NowMedical’s] approach to reaching a conclusion was flawed as a means of providing information that would help the decision maker".
Change to: Delete
Reason: WP:RS. This is cited to a personal blog.

Current Content: In 2017, NowMedical provided a medical opinion to Haringey Council relating to a mother having to care after a child with autism. The case concerned the suitability of accommodation provided to her and her family, and specifically the potential risk to the child stemming from the flat being situated on the first floor with access to balconies. Keen stated that the optimum solution would be a ground-floor property, however "given a fall from a first floor is unlikely to be fatal, and that availability of ground floor properties may be so scarce as to potentially delay a relocation, then I think that a first floor property is an acceptable alternative."
Change to: Delete
Reason: WP:UNDUE. NowMedical has provided more than 200,000 assessments. The journalist probably felt this anecdote was great for storytelling, not that this individual assessment was a significant part of the company's history.

Current Content: This advice was commented on by the High Court in 2018, which stated that it was "not clear on which medical basis he comes to [his] conclusion."
Change to: Delete
Reason: WP:RS. Most of this content, including the quote, is taken directly from the judge's opinion, a primary source.

Infobox: Replace the current infobox with the below expanded version:

Unfortunately, all of the available press articles featuring NowMedical are really about lawsuits against local governments that use NowMedical's services, rather than being profiles about NowMedical itself. The articles primarily repeat the plaintiff's allegations and related political discussions. As a result, there are no Wikipedia-compliant citations for even basic biographical details like when the company was founded. However, the changes above would at least address the most severe issues. MarthaLuke (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment. I would remove the two anecdotes, and anything based on blogs. But [2] was updated in 2020 to include a rebuttal by the company. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I started off by removing the bit about the London Borough of Islington. Agree that individual customers deciding to use or not use the service is undue. This includes Bracknell Forest Council. MarthaLuke, do you have a proper history that is [A] sourced, [B] not focused on individual customers, and [C] looks like something that belongs in an is in an encyclopedia?

Also, the lead paragraph appears to describe a different service than what I see at [ https://www.nowmedical.co.uk/ ] Medical advice and housing medical advice are quite different. Which is it? --Guy Macon (talk) 02:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the OTRS section above. I am going to have to spend some time evaluating that and the deletion discussion. More later. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:37, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: Our organization consists of about 9 part-time doctors and 3 secretaries. Besides press release reports, I am not aware of any substantial press focused on our small organization, other than the press around a lawsuit against Government customers using our service. We are housing medical advice only. MarthaLuke (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to ping me. I am watching this page.

How about this: per WP:ABOUTSELF we can use nowmedical.co.uk as a source for the history of NowMedical. Write up a company history (make sure it reads like a typical company history and not a sales brochure) and ask whoever does your webpage to put it up on nowmedical.co.uk. that will give us something to put in the company history section.

I am still looking at the other sections. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Guy Macon. A month ago you said you were looking into the “specific requested changes” above and asked if NowMedical could provide some content on their website for an ABOUTSELF citation, given the lack of media coverage about NowMedical’s history/operations. Please do let me know if this works for the ABOUSELF content and if you need anything additional. MarthaLuke (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's really useful. Most of it can be used in the article pretty much as written. One small issue; the same page says

"The contents of this page are made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. NowMedical has dedicated this work to the public domain by waiving all of its rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission."

but at the bottom it says

"Copyright © 2016 NowMedical. All rights reserved".

I think you want to keep the CC0 notice and drop the copyright notice. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Guy Macon. The copyright declaration on the “ABOUTSELF” content here should be fixed now. Thank you. MarthaLuke (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I will try to get to this tonight or tomorrow. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Guy Macon. Just checking in on your review of the creative commons content and the requested changes above. Please let me know if there’s anything else I can do to be of assistance. MarthaLuke (talk) 12:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. Feel free to give me a nudge if a couple of days have gone by and I forgot something. I have a lot on my plate, but rewarding editors who work with us instead of engaging in undisclosed paid editing is a priority for me.

[ https://nowmedical.co.uk/nowmedical ] says "In 2015, the UK Supreme Court changed the standard used to determine which citizens qualify for government-sponsored housing in Johnson, a case NowMedical advised on" I am having trouble finding a case about housing with that name in List of United Kingdom Supreme Court cases

Could it be Hotak and others (Appellants) v London Borough of Southwark and another (Respondents) [2015] UKSC 30?[3] If so, where is the evidence that NowMedical was involved? --Guy Macon (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, with all respect for your good intentions, I've reverted your latest edit (and am considering whether to revert some others). WP:ABOUTSELF is not about inserting a corporate whitewash of what appears to have been a very troubled history. Yes, it could be invoked to cite the address of the head office, or reported earnings for the year dot, but not in this way. Please obtain talk-page consensus before acting on edit requests that substantially alter the entire article in favour (surprise, surprise) of the interested party. Let's be clear: this thing wouldn't have a page here if it weren't for the negative press coverage – it seems it isn't notable for anything else. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No need to ping me. When I edit a page I watch that page.

It is my considered opinion that the history of the company should be in the history section and that criticisms should be in the criticisms and controversies section, but if even one editor disagrees I won't push the issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This comment does raise notability questions, since the only press coverage about NowMedical is about the controversies, and the primary subject of those articles are political/governmental organizations that NowMedical provides services for. It seems unusual for a company of just over a dozen people to qualify for a page, but politics does attract a lot of media attention. In any case, about a year and a half ago a prior AfD resulted in no consensus.

Guy Macon, please would you still be willing to look at the "Specific Requested Changes" listed at the beginning of this string? @DGG: seemed to agree blogs should be removed. MarthaLuke (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask Justlettersandnumbers if they would object. I often handle edit requests from COI editors because I want to reward them for following the rules. I don't add anything that to my eye looks spammy or promotional, and in my opinion the requests made on this page were neither. On the other hand, I don't want to get into an argument with someone who doesn't like the edits. So your next step is to try to convince Justlettersandnumbers, and if that doesn't work, I would suggest posting an WP:RfC and letting the community decide. Let me know if you need help formatting an RfC. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guy Macon, DGG, any blog or other patently non-reliable source should be removed immediately, together with any otherwise unsourced associated content. Which source are we talking about here? – nearlylegal.co.uk? Are there others too? What the page needs is solid reliable sources such as this. As for dividing history and controversy into two separate sections, isn't that exactly what we don't do? The controversy is part of the history; since bad news makes better news than good news, that is what has received coverage. The strength of that coverage is reduced by being in only one major national newspaper; it'd be preferable to see something in the Times and the Grauniad too – is there anything? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about this as a way to go forward: MarthaLuke, could you please create a new set of suggested changes that address Justlettersandnumbers' concerns? I am still of the opinion that self-published sources are perfectly fine for noncontroversial claims such as who the founder is, what business they are in, previous corporate name, etc., but I am not the one you have to convince. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

and about the use of responsible self-published sources, I agree with Guy Macon . They cannot be presumed to be in error, it has to be shown. DGG ( talk ) 06:41, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers removed some material I added with an edit comment of "WP:ABOUTSELF applies to basic facts, not a complete whitewash job."

Here is some of the material I added that I call "basic facts" and Justlettersandnumbers calls "a complete whitewash job":

John W. Keen, whose background is as a general medical practitioner....

In 2016 NowMedical started advising local authorities on the medical suitability of taxicab drivers.

Unless we can come to an agreement on this I intend on posting an RfC, and in my estimation the consensus will be over 90% in favor of my edits being "basic facts" with the consensus for "a complete whitewash job" being in the single digits.

When I respond to edit requests from people with COIs, I think I do a reasonable job of making the edits encyclopedic and not a whitewash. I often have them go back and redo the request (usually because it is too detailed, sometimes because it is too promotional). And I never respond to any request where I already have a personal opinion about the product or service, so you won't see me responding to edit requests about, say, laundry balls or Raspberry Pi, simply because I am biased against the the former and biased in favor of the latter. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy Macon: @DGG: @Justlettersandnumbers: What is the next step to get a decision on this (one way or another)? I don’t mean to rush, but it has been six months and the edits I actually requested have yet to even be considered. Just trying to figure out next-steps to keep things moving along. MarthaLuke (talk) 16:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested help at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#An unusual COIN report. If that doesn't do it, I will post an WP:RFC. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Hotak and others (Appellants) v London Borough of Southwark and another (Respondents) [2015] UKSC 30.

[2] ttps://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2019-03/allocation-of-accommodation-and-homelessness-guidance-for-local-authorities.pdf

[3] ttps://www.nowmedical.co.uk/vulnerability.html

[4] R (on the application of the SSHD) v Asylum Support Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 1248 (Admin).

[5] ttps://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/good-medical-practice---english-20200128_pdf-51527435.pdf?la=en&hash=DA1263358CCA88F298785FE2BD7610EB4EE9A530

[6] ttps://twitter.com/lena_lena3002/status/1229362986407645189

[7] Shala v Birmingham City Council [2007] EWCA Civ 624, paragraphs 23 and 19.

[8] Guiste v LBC Lambeth, paragraph 41.

[9] Asylum Support case AS/14/09/31897, paragraph 14.

[10] ttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2018/587.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]