Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

MEDLEAD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

1. Should the WP:MEDLEAD section be deleted or kept?

2. If kept, should the "disputed or under discussion" tag be removed?

Crossroads ^-talk- 18:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Original opening post follows below. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Noting that said “original opening post” was written by me, not as an RFC rather a response to the removal of a dispute tag when the dispute had not been resolved. I would not formulate an RFC on the removal of a disputed tag without consensus as a “keep or delete”. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:26, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There was no non-WP:SILENT dispute nor any active discussion, which is why the tag did not belong. More on this below. The closer definitely needs to address this tag matter and clearly lay out when it should be removed. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Not true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

That is from November 2019 and had been archived ages ago. I repeat, there was no active discussion or non-WP:SILENT dispute. Having a dispute tag there well over a year later is a disgrace. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:02, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Five thousand words on the talk page is not what most of us call a SILENT dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

---

Following on a malformed RFC that reached no consensus, WP:MEDLEAD remains disputed. Specifically:

Unnecesssary or redundant to WP:LEAD

• Many readers of the English Wikipedia have English as a second language (non-native language).
• When writing the lead, editors should ensure that they write a comprehensive summary of all of the main points of the article.
• It is sometimes useful to include citations in the lead, but they are not obligatory.
• Avoid cluttering the very beginning of the article with pronunciations or unusual alternative names; infoboxes are useful for storing this data. Most readers access Wikipedia on mobile devices and want swift access to the subject matter without undue scrolling.
• Two reasons for using them are: (1)As in any content area, direct quotes, data and statistics, or statements that are likely to be challenged should be cited.

Not necessarily accurate

• Language can often be simplified by using shorter sentences, having one idea per sentence, and using common rather than technical terms.
• One way to achieve this is to follow the order of the content in the body of the article, although this is not required.

Not relevant

• When translating content to other languages, the translation task force often translates only the lead; their work is facilitated by citations.

Disputed tags are not removed until ... the dispute is resolved.

My preference would be to delete the entire section as redundant to MOSLEAD, unnecessary or misleading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

• I entirely agree with your preference to delete the whole section. It is either redundant or a disputed fork of MOSLEAD and other MOS guidelines that disagrees with them. There is nothing medical about the contentious style described in that section, nor does it reflect best practice by the community. Crossroads below mentions WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and that is what this disputed section has become: a minority practice encoded in a "project guideline". -- Colin°^Talk 10:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - Thank you for your pithy, cogent summary SandyGeorgia. It says it all. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 23:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
• 1. Keep. 2. Remove the tag. It is a useful summary of WP:LEAD which people being pointed here regarding a medical article can read and digest easily. Why point them to MEDMOS and LEAD when it can be summarized here? Have it all in one place. We should not make it seem like leads are a free-for-all. Inexperienced editors very often insert their favored tidbits directly into leads or adjust the wording with no regard for the sources. There is also no reason to remove the encouragement to use common terms or to include citations for the reasons given. Particular sentences in the section can be discussed if needed. but more importantly, a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot be formed here to remove the section, as the 2020 RfC a higher level of consensus, on this exact question found that MEDLEAD is not going to be fully replaced by MOSLEAD. The fact is that those disputing its existence lost that RfC and the unfounded claim that it was "malformed" is irrelevant; Ymblanter's closure has authority, not anyone's personal opinion of it. Regarding the "disputed" tags, those are for actual active disputes, not for anyone to delegitimize and WP:FILIBUSTER material they still want gone post-RfC. Disputes are sometimes resolved by forcibly overruling the minority; WP:CONSENSUS is not unanimity and no one is obligated to WP:SATISFY the holdouts. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:45, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Struck portions that are no longer relevant; tweaked bold statement. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  Delete the entire section.You are quoting (out of context) one fragment of one sentence of the RFC, and excluding precisely the most relevant portions. And no one “loses” an RFC; particularly one that found no consensus because the RFC was malformed, yet found the support arguments were stronger precisely because they reflected global consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  You appear to be double voting. And you are quoting the RfC out of context. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, I didn't intend to be "voting" at all; the initial discussion was about the deletion of a maintenance tag, and you later converted it to an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  RFCs don't need to be votes, and in some cases, shouldn't be. RFCs on how to write things often produce sub-optimal results if you do try to vote on them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete the section. I agree that it's redundant to MOS:LEAD. Most of the subsection makes the same point as MOS:INTRO. The bit about citing data links to Wikipedia:When_to_cite#When_a_source_is_needed which is a supplement to WP:V and covers the situation just fine. The translation task force is (unfortunately) no longer active. I certainly understand the procedural concern, but it's okay for us to revisit issues that were discussed to "no consensus" a year later. WP:MEDMOS need not comment on every aspect of crafting a medicine-related encyclopedia article, just the aspects that are unique to medicine. Ajpolino (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

  A note since there's been much subsequent discussion. My first preference is still to remove the subsection as unnecessary. I see and appreciate RexxS' point-by-point breakdown of where the text differs from other guidance, but I don't agree that these points merit a subsection of MEDMOS. Tips on writing clearly for a broad audience (including those for whom English is non-native) should go at Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Technical_terminology, as they are not unique to the lead. I don't think med-related leads are intended to be more "comprehensive" than non-med-related leads, so perhaps that should be removed (or I should be educated)? The bit about the lead following the articles' section order is the only keeper for me. This practice appears very widespread for medicine articles, so I think keeping a sentence on that would be nice, perhaps at the top of content sections. Regardless of the outcome, I'd prefer to see the "disputed" tag removed. Not all paragraphs that have been disputed need the ugly tag to mark them as such. I think the tag is best reserved for sections actively being discussed. Ajpolino (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  Ajpolino Here's a good example of why we should have followed the advice of the closer of the last RFC to take these points individually, one by one, rather than a yes-or-no RFC :) :) I, for example, would be willing to compromise on other areas, while the order of the narrative in the lead is the single item that I most strongly oppose in the whole lot. It was imposed as a fait accompli across a broad swatch of articles, with almost every single installation done by one editor only, giving the appearance it enjoys broad consensus, which has never been established. This imposition often resulted in inferior or confusing prose. At Tourette syndrome, the forced order was awkward enough that I requested for years that the article not be run TFA; it has now finally been corrected. For a comparison, see User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox2#TS forced order of lead_narrative; every condition is different and a forced order doesn't always work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  PS, it was also the item in MEDLEAD that most prevented me from being able to bring dementia with Lewy bodies to Featured status; note that neither of these FAs follow the order that had been forced upon them by fait accompli. While LEAD already tells us to cover the main points, MEDLEAD was before forcing us to do it in a way that resulted in awkward prose for some conditions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:13, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  As an unimaginative prose writer myself, I found the structure to be useful. I think the current wording One way to achieve this is to follow the order of the content in the body of the article, although this is not required emphasizes that the practice is completely optional. That said, I've seen Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes – which twice reiterates that it is "suggested" – enforced like it came on stone from Mt Sinai... Anyway, if someone mass-reorganized leads based only on that text in the past, shame on them (I, for one, don't wish to dig through the archives for details). But I think there's some value to the suggested order, just like I find some value to the prescribed section title name/order. Ajpolino (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete It's redundant and will give rise to poor prose. Graham Beards (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
• I think it is worth examining the consequence of MEDLEAD.

Paracetamol is an old and uncontroversial medicine we all have in our bathroom cabinets. Not counting the infobox, the short lead currently has 30 citations, including 4 double citations and two triple citations. 10 of those cited sources are not used in the body of the article, which is a consequence of the lead being written for the defunct translation project, independently of the body. The sentences are short and stubby. There is no flow whatsoever. Half the sentences begin with "It..." Like random facts being fired at you at speed.

Diazepam is another old established medicine. Again the lead text has 30 citation, including 5 double citations and two triple citations. One source is cited 10 times in the lead but isn't used in the body; another cited 6 times and also not used in the body. Nine other cited sources are only used in the lead. Again the prose is stubby, choppy and lacks flow. A third of the sentences begin with "It..."

Compare with some medical articles that represent our best practice.

Complete blood count has one citation in its long lead. Sentences are a more typical length, and the paragraph flows along. No sentences begin with "It".

Immune system has no citations in its lead. Prose is normal. The word "it" appears twice.

Buruli ulcer has one citation in its lead. Prose is normal. The word "it" does not appear at all.

Tourette syndrome has no citations in its lead. Prose is normal. Only two sentences begin with "It..."

Contrast also with the most controversial figure in modern politics:

Donald Trump has no citations in its long lead. Neither does his replacement Joe Biden. Barack Obama has four.

How ironic that many of our medical leads read like they were composed by tweet late at night by Donald Trump. There is nothing "medical" about this dreadful choppy style of writing or with overciting the lead. Editors are better served for guidance on writing leads with existing consensus community guidelines, and to follow best practice rather than worst practice. -- Colin°^Talk 10:37, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems odd to say that only certain ones of those are the fault of MEDLEAD so it has to go; surely MEDLEAD covers and permits them all. And whether no/few citations is better is highly disputed. Politician articles are not comparable to medical and scientific topics. And certain clauses in MEDLEAD can be discussed and changed without deleting it entirely. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep - It's also worth considering the consequence of not having MEDLEAD which is not a guidance fork but an essential supplement. Without it we are left open to the banner of shame.

A tag that is very easy to add, but not so easy to remove. CV9933 (talk) 13:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

That banner template refers to the guideline Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable, which also links to advice on writing an accessible summary at WP:MOSLEAD. Why do you feel those general community consensus guidelines are so inadequate that if MEDLEAD was removed, our medical leads be filled with "banners of shame". -- Colin°^Talk 14:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry Colin, I respect your position but I gave my Keep rationale. I didn't make comparisons with our fellow editors and a late night tweeter which you most certainly did above and you should really strike that because it is offensive. CV9933 (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

MEDLEAD clearly isn't "essential" (your words) enough that the banner template has to refer to it to guide editors how to fix the over-technical article. I didn't comment on any editor, just the prose, which is awful and conforms to the contentious "advice" in MEDLEAD. -- Colin°^Talk 15:48, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• Note: I've converted this to an RfC. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

And now we have a new RFC, malformed precisely in the same way the last one was. The last RFC (poorly formulated by me, because it tried to address everything at once) ended at:

If somebody is interested in pursuing the cause further, I would suggest to try implementing changes one by one, identifying statements in MEDLEAD which the majority would perceive as problematic, and trying to change these.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

And yet, in spite of a No Consensus conclusion to that RFC, the disputed tag was twice removed by editors who did not take the suggested approach, and we now we have another RFC which asks the same malformed "yes or no" question, without attempting to address each piece. This is not an effective use of the RFC process (repeating the same problem that yielded no consensus last time). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I, for one, offered to discuss possible changes (see this archive, my 16:50, 17 August 2020 and 16:16, 16 August 2020 comments). But no one ever offered any; they have remained dead-set on deleting the section entirely or else keeping it tagged as disputed. However, it is clear that that RfC did not solve the problem. So:

• Note to closer: We need a binary, definite closure to the RfC. The previous closure lended itself to multiple interpretations and the dispute has continued for another whole year. This closure needs to be 100% clear, definite, and enforceable on the simple question of whether MEDLEAD should exist, and without a delegitimizing tag. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:25, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem, Crossroads, is the "advice" in MEDLEAD was, relatively recently in MEDMOS history, variously added by a couple of editors, without prior discussion and without ever having consensus. It has always been disputed and has always only reflected a minority editing style on Wikipedia. Generally, only statements that enjoy wide consensus should appear in Guidelines. Do you disagree with that? I think therefore the default position should be that this always-disputed section first be removed. Then editors who wish to add specific sentences of advice, propose them and gain consensus for them. That would be a most satisfactory step and in keeping with how guidelines should be created. We examine best practice, we agree on what can agree on, and we only add that. -- Colin°^Talk 19:51, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Your claims that it 'never had consensus actually' and is too recent are questionable, unsourced, and in any case not an unbiased analysis (since you seek to delete the section). WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is a thing; if some people didn't want the section, why didn't they fight it? If they did but didn't succeed and consensus went against them, then their ongoing disagreement with the majority is not relevant. I repeat that WP:CONSENSUS is not unanimity. The last time the community's wide attention and consensus was brought to it was the Jan. 2020 RfC. There was not a consensus reached there to delete it, even though that was a prior possibility. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure how to "source" the absence of something. Feel free to point me at the talk page discussion where "Language can often be simplified by using shorter sentences, having one idea per sentence, and using common rather than technical terms" was first proposed and agreed by the community. Or "follow the order of the content in the body of the article". Or the need to mention "English as a second language". These have all been removed, and yet returned without achieving consensus. So yes it was fought. There are disputes on these talk pages going back years, and disputes on article talk pages where editors have demanded unnecessary citations or have so over simplified text as to be ridiculous, or have reordered text and broken the flow. But you know, the most important evidence is that editors creating our finest articles, articles on difficult topics that have survived main page appearance, totally reject and ignore the guidance here. If a content guideline doesn't reflect best-practice in article-space, it clearly doesn't have consensus. -- Colin°^Talk 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
        • There doesn't need to be talk page discussion before making an edit. The "Language can often be simplified …" text was added by Doc James 29 October 2019, removed by you 12 November 2019, restored by Doc James 21 October 2019]. That's just part of the long-running animosity between the two of you, and there's no evidence that anybody else cared. The text has been stable since then and the assumption is that it enjoys consensus until shown otherwise. Presumably now that Doc James is absent from articles here, you find this the right time to remove as many of his contributions as possible. Why not stop wiki-lawyering about prior talk-page discussions or "achieving consensus" and actually debate what you find problematic about the text. It would appear the only problem is that it was written by Doc James. --RexxS (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Colin's mistake is to assume that edits have to have consensus before they are made. Wikipedia does not work like that and edits which not challenged are deemed to have consensus per WP:SILENT. It has only ever been disputed by Colin and it has reflected the style of the majority of editors working on medical content. The default position is that this section, which has enjoyed the consensus of most editors for considerable time, should remain until consensus is found to remove it. --RexxS (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
      • Edits to articles certainly do not have to be done before the consensus is established. However, non-trivial edits to guidelines certainly should. This one apparently does not "enjoy the consensus of most editors for considerable time", and I'll formally count myself in. While I do not often edit medical articles, I am as flabbergasted as Colin at the level of exposition in their lead sections, apparently inspired by MEDLEAD. And I had my run-ins with Doc James who, with all respect for his work, seems to have pushed the concepts of "simple language" and "same order as in article" disputed above, to the point of detriment of English language (cf Talk:Bed bug#First sentence). I used to think that the practice has been forged by a strong consensus at WP MED, but after the arbcom case I realize that the project had been plagued with disagreements for a long time. No such user (talk) 11:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

        RexxS is correct that bold edits can be made here, @No such user. Bold edits to policies and guidelines are explicitly permitted in WP:PGBOLD. (He's technically wrong about Colin being the only person who opposed it, but Colin did start the most recent discussion about it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

        RexxS is incorrect to say "Colin's mistake is to assume that edits have to have consensus before they are made". I didn't say that or assume that. I proposed that since this section has never had consensus, and since it is clearly disputed for multiple reasons by multiple editors in good standing, that the clearest path out of the mess would be to remove it and make separate proposals for inclusion. Although WAID is correct that WP:PGBOLD guideline editing is permitted, it isn't the recommended approach for contentious additions reflecting one's own personal editing style (WP:PGCHANGE, WP:WPEDIT and WP:TALKFIRST).

        There is a difference between articles and guidelines wrt consensus. If someone disputes a statement in an article and adds a {{fact}} template then it isn't (a) up to editors to find a source disputing the fact or (b) up to editors to come to a consensus about the fact itself. We instead answer a different and hopefully easier question: are there reliable sources for the fact and does the weight of quality secondary literature warrant its mention when discussing this topic? Editors then aim for consensus on those questions. If they can't find those things, the sentence is removed. But policy and guideline does not have external sources and there is no secondary published literature on editing medical articles for Wikipedia and original research is fine. So instead the minimum standard for inclusion in a guideline is "does this statement have consensus support among editors and describe best practice among the community". If it doesn't then it goes. It is that simple. So while WhatamIdoing is correct that anyone can add a brain fart / nugget of wisdom without asking first, all that matters for keeping it is whether it reflects the consensus of editors. And that's all that should matter for any closing admin.

        Wikipedia is a broad enough church that if one editor wants to write a lead strictly following the order of section in the article, and another editor likes the freedom to vary a bit if it helps introduce ideas for the lead in an economical way, then they don't have to fight to get their way of doing it into a guideline. Best if the guideline says nothing. Same for citations or sentence structure, etc. I'm sure we all have our idiosyncratic styles. All of us here want Wikipedia articles to be accessible, readable, reliable sourced, etc, and nobody is wanting the opposite in the guideline. But we have different approaches to that goal. Let us agree this is something we disagree on, remove it, and go our separate ways about writing great articles. -- Colin°^Talk 10:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

• Let's examine the assertions in the opening post. These are deemed Unnecessary or redundant to WP:LEAD:

  Many readers of the English Wikipedia have English as a second language (non-native language). - I have WP:LEAD and WP:MEDLEAD open and it is plain to see that LEAD makes no mention of second language. Yet it is a fact that editors would do well to bear in mind when writing medical leads; because the English Wikipedia is much larger than any other Wikipedia, it becomes the "go-to" medical resource for much of the world, and it is important for editors to understand that in their choice of words for the lead of medical articles. The advice is clearly neither unnecessary nor redundant.

  When writing the lead, editors should ensure that they write a comprehensive summary of all of the main points of the article. - LEAD only requires editors to "summarize the most important points", with no guidance on how to determine those. MEDLEAD is much clearer in requiring a comprehensive summary, a point only touched on in LEAD where it advises that the lead "can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". MEDLEAD extends and improves LEAD on this issue. It clearly is not redundant, and would only be unnecessary if someone believed that a medical lead should not be "a comprehensive summary of all of the main points".

  It is sometimes useful to include citations in the lead, but they are not obligatory. - this expands on LEAD's MOS:CITELEAD but not by enough, IMHO, to make it worth labouring the point.

  Avoid cluttering the very beginning of the article with pronunciations or unusual alternative names; infoboxes are useful for storing this data. Most readers access Wikipedia on mobile devices and want swift access to the subject matter without undue scrolling. - at MOS:FIRST, LEAD covers the part about pronunciations and alternative spellings, but omits the issue of alternative names, which is particularly relevant for drug articles. We should make it clear that the opening part of an article is not the place to list a potentially unlimited variety of proprietary names, so we can shorten the redundant part of this guidance, but we do need to document our convention not to provide alternative names in the lead.

  Two reasons for using them are: (1)As in any content area, direct quotes, data and statistics, or statements that are likely to be challenged should be cited. - This is indeed redundant to MOS:CITELEAD and it could be removed without compromising our guidance. The second reason is that the translation task force often translates only the lead, but I believe that the source for translations can be moved away from enwiki, so this guidance will eventually become unnecessary.

  The following are supposed to be "Not necessarily accurate":

  Language can often be simplified by using shorter sentences, having one idea per sentence, and using common rather than technical terms. - I disagree that this is inaccurate. Writing less complex sentences definitely lowers the bar on reading ability needed, and replacing jargon with common words is already policy. Nevertheless it could be argued that it may be over-prescriptive, and can lead to a lack of flow in the prose. This is not an easy balance to strike and it may be better not to mention in this context, although it could be better explained in a more nuanced way at WP:JARGON.

  One way to achieve this is to follow the order of the content in the body of the article, although this is not required. - this is clearly useful advice to fledgling editors who often have difficulty in working ouit what to put in the lead and how to organise it. More experienced editors will naturally choose to vary the flow of the lead to ensure that ideas build upon others, but that is certainly not proscribed by this advice, and it would be a disservice to new editors to remove advice that they may benefit from in their days.

I've agreed the point about translation. So that's my take on the issues raised. I apologise for not addressing the yes/no nature of the RfC, but I suppose I can summararise my views as Keep, but trim to what can be agreed as a compromise. --RexxS (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

RexxS, the problem is that, as past discussions got automatically archived without resolution, the dispute tags were removed without reason, and now we have another “yes/no” RFC, which was precisely the problem last time. Another unfortunate time sink, which does not evidence learning from history about how to put together an RFC that will yield a conclusive result. We cannot expect a definitive conclusion per the Garbage in/garbage out factor.

So I am still at, delete the whole thing, so it can be rebuilt if needed based on consensus, and not based on repeating failed history. The last discussion had a pinging problem that ended up at Arbcom, with a proposed finding, and we again have questionable cross posting in this new effort.

Considering the text has been continuously disputed for over a year now, through several instances of inappropriate pinging which failed to generate consensus for the text, it seems that is the only way we can begin to determine if there are any areas of compromise, without this tendency to dredge up old unresolved issues. Still at delete it all. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Of the various special features at MOS lead, the one which I think is probably hte most important is keeping the language as straightforward as possible for a multilingual reference work, which will also help the English speaking readers with less scientific background. Of the special features which should be removed, the most important is the excessive referencing. If the lead is written properly, referencing should not be necessary, unless there is a specific numerical fact.Of the various adaptations made for translation, this is the least helpful to the `en (Personally, I think thes ensity of referencing in most medical articles is excessive--we are a general encyclopedia that covers medical topics, not a mdical encyclopedia/ . Certainly we should reference more than a place like the popular lay medical sites, but we are not aimed at physicians.). DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The last discussion's pinging was of everyone from the 2020 RfC, which is appropriate per WP:APPNOTE; the ArbCom stuff involving a deceased editor was not about that at all. You have been told it was APPNOTE before. There was nothing wrong with that cross-posting either; it's a noticeboard and fringe theories are a problem in medical articles. Please do not WP:BLUDGEON the process. The only editors "continuously disput[ing it] for over a year now" are you and Colin. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] Also, if the section is kept, that tag will not be staying indefinitely if any editor still disagrees with some of the wording, as Colin has claimed. [10] WP:FILIBUSTER would apply to such behavior. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC) expanded Crossroads ^-talk- 00:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, if it were true that only two editors oppose this text, previous RFCs and other discussions would not have reached no consensus. Your statement is untrue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

One example, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete the section. While I may concede that it's useful to have WP:LEAD summarized here, so that the editors do not need to jump back and forth to get the complete advice, I agree with SandyGeorgia that it's best to delete the whole thing and start rebuilding it from clean slate, step by step and with clear consensus. As I said above, I'm appalled how leads of many medical articles are an unreadable, overcited mess written in 3rd grade English, wrongly or rightly based on MEDLEAD advice. No such user (talk) 11:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  Third-grade English is an exaggeration. Most of them score at the high school level. It's very difficult to get an accurate measurement, though, and there are all sorts of problems with readability scores in general. This webpage from the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality explains some of the problems with relying on them. (This comment gets a score of grade 9 according to the Automated Readability Index.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• delete per Graham Beards rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete, or at least pare down to med-specific material (don't rehash MOSLEAD), per SandyGeorgia, Graham Beards, et al. There is something here, but it can be gotten at much more concisely without setting up a WP:POLICYFORK of MOS:LEAD, basically. It should say something that, when distilled, comes down to "See MOS:LEAD. In addition, for medical articles also do/don't: X, Y, Z." I have a lot of experience at the "WP:Writing policy is hard" work of making MoS material agree with other MoS material, to not be redundant or just useless WP:MOSBLOAT, to be unlikely to cause POLICYFORKing, to be well cross-referenced, and to be supplementary in nature when that is what's needed. So, feel free to rope me into working on the redraft if/when it comes to that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:28, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, but trim to what can be agreed as a compromise per RexxS. We are deluding ourselves if we think most new editors have read or will read MOS:LEAD. Most of the objections can be resolved by a further Rfc. A proposal to rebuild from scratch will take for ever, & is likely to grind to a halt, leaving us with nothing. Johnbod (talk) 19:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
  • We are deluding ourselves if we think new editors read MEDLEAD too. The problem hasn't so much been that newbies lacked guidance on writing leads of medical articles, as that some experienced editors wanted a policy fork with which to demand medical articles conform to their own style. They say nobody reads the instructions, except it seems, people who want to hit you over the head with them. MEDMOS enjoyed 11 years without MEDLEAD. It is a relatively recent problem and one we could well do without. -- Colin°^Talk 21:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
    • Gee, since nobody reads the instructions, why don't we just delete MEDMOS and MEDRS and MOS too? Crossroads ^-talk- 22:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete the whole section. Specifically per the rationale provided by SandyGeorgia on 7 February. I don't find any of the text in the section particularly helpful, some are at odds with community practice, and most just duplicate MOSLEAD. I also agree that having these here tends to lead to a lot of conflict as I don't think they lead to particularly good writing. The general principles of having something that is easy to read and what not are already in MOS:LEAD. Lastly, regarding the instructions relating to the translation task force and second language speakers. This it the English language encyclopedia so I think that whatever words are required to describe the text in the lead is what should be used and it's weird and frustrating to have someone tell me I should not be speaking this language but rather trying to think about people who don't when I'm writing here on the English language Wikipedia. It's hard enough trying to write good prose for my fellow English language speakers. The purpose of this encyclopedia simply isn't for translation to other places (that's actually an off wiki project) or to help others understand what is written from a study of language perspective (that's the Simple English Wikipedia). Not to say these aren't very important projects and groups, but just that this isn't the venue for that. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:15, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete the whole section. Specifically per the rationale provided by SandyGeorgia on 7 February. Jaredroach (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
• Delete. It might be well intentioned, but it is resulting in leads being written in what reads to me like baby talk, with repeated citations at the end of every sentence (ie the same source cited repetitively short sentence after short sentence) that are often US focused (eg CDC material) & not the same as those in the body. The underlying code in med-project-owned leads (and I used "owned" deliberately) with all the hidden messages can also be extremely off-putting to editors not in the medical project. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Espresso Addict, if you find the hidden messages to be harmful in any given article, then I encourage you to remove them from that article. Some people find it helpful (especially if there's a problem with the first sentence or paragraph getting longer and longer, when the information logically belongs elsewhere in the lead), but when you're editing an article anyway, and it's in your way, it's okay to remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  WhatamIdoing: I've not found making any edits to medical project leads to stick, to the point that I've largely given up bothering trying to edit them at all. I'm not sure if the medical project realise the extent to which their guidelines – or at least the way in which their guidelines are applied in the wild – drive away editors with relevant expertise. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Espresso Addict very much so ... which is why this whole lead issue has mattered so much for so long. We have seen considerable deterioration in content precisely because new editors are discouraged from participating, and articles were pushed up to “GA” (not always worthy) and protected there, where the content in the bodies of the article is dated and inaccurate, while the leads are as you describe. And yet other editors can’t fix the issues because of OWNERSHIP. It has been a big problem, precisely as you noted. If I am ever part of that problem, please do approach me on my talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Faulty ping, Espresso Addict. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 19 February 2021 (UTC) What you describe is also part of why we so desperately need to reconcile both WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS back to something like what was originally written in them over a decade ago; they have become unreadable messes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:20, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks, SandyGeorgia – No, not you; I don't think we've overlapped on medical articles. I'm probably lazy and conflict averse, and should fight my corner harder, but I don't want my pleasure writing to be full of conflict and struggle, so I wander away to write bios of plant pathologists where I have no expertise but the water's calmer. And if an admin coming up 15 years/50k edits feels excluded... Espresso Addict (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

  Espresso Addict, can you clarify what you mean by "hidden messages". Are these the HTML comments like <!-- Prevention and Treatment -->, or do you refer to some other "message" such as an edit notice? These HTML comments presumably served as scaffolding when constructing the lead, and could be argued now form a restriction on editors ability to reorder content for readability. It is ironic that this contested MEDLEAD says "editors should ensure that they write a comprehensive summary of all of the main points of the article. One way to achieve this is to follow the order of the content in the body of the article" when many medical leads were written for the translation project, and completely ignored both existing lead content and also the article body. Instead they are an independent topic summary that bears no relation to the rest of the page in terms of content or sources. -- Colin°^Talk 14:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Colin: I meant hidden html comments. Most longer medical leads seem to be straitjacketed by them, and I don't think I've seen them used in that fashion in articles any other topic. They certainly seem to imply that one is not permitted to consider a different lead ordering or paragraph division. I agree that many medical leads look as though they were written straight down from one or two sources independent of the article content; sometimes they are substantially different from the text and it can be difficult to reconcile the two. I hadn't realised that was a consequence of the translation project. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  We should probably be holding a separate RFC on getting rid of them (or just start doing it), except that the damage to articles is so widespread that I suspect that will not be an easy task. Reconciling these leads that were written stand-alone to mimic NIH or CDC factsheets with what is actually in the articles has proven to me, more than once, to be daunting. They are the largest cause behind defeatured medical FAs; for five years, leads were maintained stand alone, with no regard for what was in the body of the article, and fixing all of that now is a chore. Autism is one dreadful example, and it gets 5,000 pageviews a day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  I deleted them from here [11] and will continue to do so whenever I come across them. Graham Beards (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  I don't think an RFC is required to remove HTML tags that no reader sees and no guideline mentions. Leads in medical articles do not belong to one project or one editor. Markup can, as noted above, be removed by anyone who thinks it is impeding their ability to edit the article. Mass removal would probably be better advertised before actioned, and discussed centrally rather than on one project noticeboard or one guideline page. It sounds like something a bot writer could do, as I'm sure we all have better things to do than spend time removing hidden markup. -- Colin°^Talk 16:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Mass removal of all hidden text would be disruptive. Some articles have that to forestall drive-by IPs changing text to their personal opinions without regard for sources lower in the article (a reason to have citations in the lead by the way) or for discussions on the talk page. This isn't to say that all extant hidden text is good, just that not all of it is bad and can be handled on a case by case basis. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:26, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Can you give an example? Graham Beards (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  Here, one of many: [12] And the burden of proof really lay with those proposing radical actions like mass removal of hidden text. That capability exists for a reason. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  That's not what we, well I, was talking about. It is the hidden headings that dictate the structure of the Lead. See the example I gave above. Graham Beards (talk) 20:42, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  No, that's not what is being discussed at all. If there are specific issues that affect specific articles, for which an edit notice or HTML comment offers advice, then those may be justified case-by-case. Many medical leads were created from a template with scaffolding corresponding MEDMOS sections, and the scaffolding left behind acts as a deterrent to editors improving the content if they think the lead should be structured differently. Imagine being told, by some historical editor, that you can only mention "transphobia" in paragraph two, and not in paragraph three, and "hate speech" goes in paragraph four. It isn't really the wiki way. -- Colin°^Talk 21:43, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  I'm happy for hidden html to be used to advertise specific consensus on wording, such as in trans woman or the umpteen coronavirus articles, although it's a shame the links to discussions aren't clickable. (I don't know if there's a way of making clickable-in-edit-mode links?) Also happy with notes of the form <!--The value for this given in XYZ popular review is incorrect, please don't change unless based on a different reliable source; see discussion on the talk page.--> or the like, where there actually is an explanatory note on the talk page.

  On the scaffolding instructions, how often do new editors or IPs actually try to reorganise the lead? It's surpassingly rare in my experience. Usually what they do is add new material willy nilly at the bottom that belong in the body, and I've not seen any evidence that instructions stop them. Personally I think the capsule sentence or two should usually form a mini-summary that then gets expanded in the succeeding lead paragraphs, so that what Google & the logged-out mouse-over text picks up is sensible, but this is contra-indicated by the structured summary that invariably puts symptoms up front. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  > if there's a way of making clickable-in-edit-mode links

  AFAIK that's not possible in any wikitext editor, and even in the visual editor (which lets you open regular links in another tab), you currently can't open links that are inside . One typical thing to do for a major content note (e.g., the lead sentence in Trans woman) is to supplement it with a FAQ or similar note on the talk page, and place the links there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

  @Espresso Addict and WhatamIdoing: I sometimes have put a hidden note in an article saying something like

  <!--Please review the discussions at and preceding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:No%C3%ABl_Coward/Archive_2#RfC:_Should_an_Infobox_be_added_to_the_page? before considering adding an infobox -->

  many browsers will allow you to highlight the url and then popup a right-click menu that allows "go to https://en.wikipedia …" which becomes a quick workaround for making an almost clickable link inside a comment, etc. HTH --RexxS (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete, per multiple arguments above, and specifically per the rationale provided by SandyGeorgia on 7 February. Basically, I think the stringency of the MEDRS guidelines should generally provide sufficient encouragement for appropriately close sourcing of the sorts of key biomedical claims that we want to get *summarized* and *explained* for general readers in the lead (and avoid encouragement of somnolent^{1 1 1 1 1 1... (ref. StatPearls, or whatever)} approaches, however well intentioned). Adding: Coming from a profressional background in medical writing, I also believe that we have enough scientific-editorial timber-scratching to do anyway, without unnecessarily ballast. What we really need to do, every time, is to try to make each individual lead as clear and helpful as possible for our *general* readership, while respecting and honouring our wp-encyclopaedic mandate. We know that it's the most read part of the article, and we want to try and get it right and make it clear each time for our interested readers. 2c, 86.186.155.212 (talk) 15:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep. How is having guidance on the lead for medical articles that different than having guidance on how we set up medical articles? For example, what if people want the history section in a medical article to come first? History sections usually comes first on Wikipedia pages. It seems to me that most medical editors would say it should come last per WP:MEDMOS. And what if someone wanted the culture stuff to come first? What's so bad about the order of the lead following the order of the article? The guideline doesn't demand the lead follow the order of the article. It's an option.

Higher up, someone linked to some big discussion. Well, from there,[13] I think John Cummings and some others have a point about writing leads for laypeople and translation stuff.

Higher up, I think RexxS has given pretty good reasons for why this guideline should have guidance on leads. I don't agree with having guidance on all the other things for setting up a medical article except for the lead. RandoBanks (talk) 10:13, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

RandoBanks, editors are not objecting to the idea of having guidance for the lead in medical articles. However, nobody has ever come up with guidance for the lead that (a) is anything to do with medical articles vs any other kind of article and (b) has any consensus among medical editors. MEDMOS does not actually say medical article sections "should" follow a certain order, and anyone who reorders an existing article "per MEDMOS" hasn't actually read MEDMOS carefully. We all want our leads to be accessible to lay people (many of those objecting to the simplistic advice in MEDLEAD are laypeople). We have historically found that the "optional" aspects of MEDLEAD are not considered optional by those who added them, and it just leads to trouble. -- Colin°^Talk 16:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello. WP:MEDMOS is guidance, I understand that. It guides users toward best practice. From what I understand, our guidelines are supposed to do that. While WP:MEDMOS doesn't say medical article sections should follow a certain order, medical articles usually follow a certain order. I know that with different types of guidance on Wikipedia, users say something about "per" some guideline. So when you say "We have historically found that the 'optional' aspects of MEDLEAD are not considered optional by those who added them", that can be said for all of our guidelines. Have you seen any of the discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style? Argument after argument there, and most of the guidance at Wikipedia:Manual of Style has less than "it is optional, everyone" wording.

I've looked around, and I can't remember seeing the history or culture section come first in a medical article. I think it's good that the culture section doesn't come first because I can't see that being best practice. So because medical articles usually follow a certain order, I don't feel it's anything to harrumph over where WP:MEDMOS says, "When writing the lead, editors should ensure that they write a comprehensive summary of all of the main points of the article. One way to achieve this is to follow the order of the content in the body of the article, although this is not required." Taking a look in the archives about the lead, and checking out that most of the discussions about the lead in the archives have been about citations in the lead, and what RexxS has said above me, I have a different opinion to yours. I agree with the thought that if this guidance is removed, then probably no guidance on the lead will be added to the page in the future. IMO, RexxS's approach of working out any kinks in the current content is the best approach. RandoBanks (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

It’s not labeled as such but Morgellons is pretty much History first, or almost first. There are others similar. Back to what was mentioned by Ajpolino in his Buruli example; this forced order seems to work for some disease model articles, but less well for others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Ketogenic diet, a featured article, has the History section first (after an introductory paragraph on Epilepsy), and parts of it are summarised in the middle of the lead. Tourette syndrome, another featured article, has aspects of history in various parts of the lead, where they are most relevant. Dementia with Lewy bodies has its sole historical lead-fact as a clause in the middle. The problems with the "retain and improve" suggestion have already been discussed, and aren't workable, as years of dispute over this show. It has at its core the wrong-headed assumption that non-consensus opinions added by one user should be retained in the guideline until editors can come to some consensus over their replacement. Most editors here think these one-person opinions don't belong here at all, and aren't keen to waste more time on them. They have caused enough damage already. -- Colin°^Talk 08:55, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

RandoBanks could you please be more specific? You said, "Taking a look in the archives about the lead, and checking out that most of the discussions about the lead in the archives have been about citations in the lead, and what RexxS has said above me, I have a different opinion to yours", but best I can tell, you have not indicated what view you have about citations in leads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Cites may or may not be placed in the lead. Depends. RandoBanks (talk) 11:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• Delete - there is no information in MEDLEAD that is by necessity applicable to medical leads only - all points apply to either all leads or all material in medical articles. It is counterproductive to have yet more guides for editors to wade through Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Current example of issues raised above

Ajpolino (unjustly) referred to himself as an “unimaginative prose writer” because he followed the order that had been established in numerous medical articles by fait accompli and found it useful, but an example from today shows that, while the suggested structure can sometimes work well for a disease article like Buruli ulcer, it won’t work for others— in particular, articles that don’t follow a typical “disease” model like FAs immune system, ketogenic diet, dementia with Lewy bodies or Tourette syndrome.

Because it is at Featured article review, I was looking at the overlap between menstrual cycle and menstruation (a whole ‘nother mess, but I digress). BOTH of these articles had leads that followed an order prescribed by inline HTML comments, and both of them as a result were pathologizing a normal part of being a woman, reducing menstruation to a disease, overemphasizing dysfunction, and covering topics out of order before they were defined. Please view the old and edited versions to see the problems, including the inline hidden comments which forced this disease model onto non-disease articles.

• Menstruation, the old version
  • Used the term “menstrual cycle” before it defined (or linked) it,
  • Did not define normal functioning of the menstrual cycle until the last paragraph
  • Discussed malfunctioning or disruption (disease model) in the second paragraph (before normal functioning was even described) even though PMS only affects about 20% of women !!!
  • Misrepresented the 80% figure relative to what the source says (this is the most clear example of male editing a female topic I have ever encountered on Wikipedia) to make it sound like most women have problematic periods (holy hysterics !)
  • Had the first paragraph diving into specifics before generalities were even defined.
• The version after I attempted to correct some of this (allowing for the fact that my computer is in repair and I am typing from an iPad, please fix anything you see):
  • Defines what menstruation is before it starts pathologizing women to PMSers.
  • Then correctly represents the 80% stat relative to normal menstruation.
  • Removes ridiculous citations where almost entire paragraphs are cited to one source, but the citation was repeated for each sentence.
  • And corrects other miscellaneous MOS issues and factual inaccuracies.

Same thing occurs at menstrual cycle. This is a clear example of how our content has suffered because of these lead prescriptions (not to mention no women tending these articles adequately) where these prescribed inline hidden comments had FOR YEARS discouraged improvements,[14] resulting in a normal part of being a woman being presented as we might present a disease like Buruli ulcer. This model did not work for either of the medical FAs I wrote, but it was doing a large disservice to women by pathologizing normal states. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This is a good argument for why order of presentation in the lead shouldn't have firm rules. But WP:MEDLEAD didn't say that it does. It says: One way to achieve this is to follow the order of the content in the body of the article, although this is not required. "One way" and "this is not required" are very clear that this isn't some sort of law. I'm not saying that the sentence should necessarily stay, but the text of MEDLEAD can't bear the full blame. It certainly didn't mandate hidden text. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

This "Do this but don't have to" wording also appears wrt the citations, and in practice it hasn't worked due to behavioural issues. It isn't so much a compromise wording as a stalemate between editors who only see their half of the sentence, use it as a leg to stand on, and edit war to retain their style. Crossroads, even if encouraging a certain order in the lead was a bright idea, nobody has explained what is medical about it. So really the place to argue for that sentence is MOS:LEAD. -- Colin°^Talk 09:57, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it's been our long experience that a pseudo-rule is worse than remaining silent on the matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  11:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Stub and redirect

After a community conclusion to delete MEDLEAD, User:Crossroads, added it back. From the edit summary, this seems to be in order to find somewhere to stick a WP:MEDLEAD shortcut, and to contain a see also link to to MOSLEAD "let's at least do a see also link to the main lead MOS page, so student editors and others directed here don't think it's a free for all (which they typically do)" I don't agree with this mindset that MEDMOS needs to be a one-stop-shop for anyone writing medical articles. If you want to learn the style guidelines for writing articles on Wikipedia, then WP:MOS is the place to go, and that will naturally lead to the relevant specialities. MEDMOS doesn't teach people where to place images or what kind of dash to write nor do we feel any inclination to remind people where that advice is through stubby content-free sections.

If you look at the top right of MEDMOS, there is a box (copied on the right here, with Layout expanded) with links to all the major MOS subjects, including the lead. That is the appropriate way to handle this. I've removed the section again. Let's not restore it please without gaining consensus for something medical to write about. The WP:MEDLEAD and WP:MEDLEDE redirects point to WP:MOSLEAD and should be considered historical. -- Colin°^Talk 07:41, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Blocked

Arbcom block, RandoBanks SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:26, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Uh, not of me, to be clear. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:54, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Gosh, that could have done with being a little less terse, Sandy! Yes, to be clear, it is RandoBanks that is blocked, along with ApproximateLand who popped up at Menstrual cycle. -- Colin°^Talk 07:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Oops, sorry ... I tacked it on here at the bottom because I didn’t want to add it to a hatted/closed discussion. (Now clarified.) [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Page numbers

There's been some dispute about citing journal articles. The main question is: Should we recommend standard citations, which list the full page range for the whole article, or narrow page ranges?

Should editors normally be using journal articles for content that appears on only one page in a long article? What happens when the page numbers haven't been assigned yet, or when the editor is reading it online and doesn't know what the official page number is? WhatamIdoing (talk)

Comment: We should define "standard citations". I think the distinction here is similar to Chicago's Note vs. Bibliography formats for references, but I'm not sure. ¶ For articles posted online before being published in the official print issue of a journal (APA - "Advance online publication"; Chicago - "Published ahead of print"), there are various ways to identify the location of a quote or a page supporting a statement. (I haven't checked yet if we already have an established procedure for such citations.) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 14:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This isn't about full citations vs short citations. This is about how to write the page numbers in the full citation. A standard (i.e., according to non-Wikipedia style guides, which are very consistent on this point) citation format for a journal article looks something like this:

• Expert, Alice (January 2021). "Size of the Sun". J Important. 95 (5): 162–71.

This format is used so that when you walk to the library and find the correct bound volume, you will know what pages in that to find the (entire) article on. Some Wikipedia editors think that it is too difficult to verify content if a multi-page range is cited, and they think the citation ought to specify only the single page (or maybe two or three pages) on which the supported claim can be found, like this:

• Expert, Alice (January 2021). "Size of the Sun". J Important. 95 (5): 162.

(This example assumes that the content supporting the claim can be found in the abstract, which is generally the case for medicine-related content.)

Which one do you think is the better approach? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:PROVEIT says "Cite the source clearly, ideally giving page number(s) – though sometimes a section, chapter, or other division may be appropriate instead; see Wikipedia:Citing sources for details of how to do this." However the referred guidance's Journal section merely says "volume number, issue number, and page numbers (article numbers in some electronic journals)", which suggests the standard page range for the whole article as noted above. WP:PAGENUM says "Specify the page number or range of page numbers. Page numbers are not required for a reference to the book or article as a whole." It goes on to say "If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title.". WP:IBID recommends against writing out the full citation for each and every page one might reference, and suggests using one of the shortcut methods.

So while specifying a single page like above might be fine for a single citation of that article, it isn't representative of how editors tend to deal with citing an article several times, and using material from several pages. I'm sure this has been discussed before. Was it at WT:MED or some general guideline talk page? It would be good to link. Do we feel this is something peculiar to medical journal articles, vs journal articles in any other discipline? You mention that the claim can be found in the abstract, and that this is "generally the case for medicine-related content". Is that really the case? Given that we generally cite reviews, and the abstract of many reviews amounts to "In this article we review the literature", I'm not sure. It may be so for systematic reviews looking at efficacy of one therapy, which can be summed up, but less so for narrative reviews looking at a range of things e.g. treatment options for a disease.

I think in a previous discussion, there was agreement that if the article was being cited as a whole, or for its conclusions (likely in the abstract) then the standard page range would be ok. But if people were picking out facts here and there, then perhaps page citations would help. The same goes for a book chapter. In Vaccine ingredients I cited the page (or sometimes two pages) within a book chapter, where the fact was sourced. One chapter was around 11,000 words. -- Colin°^Talk 17:14, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the nice summary in Colin's last paragraph, immediately above. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:22, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 140#Parkinson's again User:SandyGeorgia wrote "One note: for decades, we at WPMED have ignored a common requirement for verifiability with respect to page numbers (or section headings or chapters at least) being needed on lengthy sources like books, PDFs, or very long journal articles; see dementia with Lewy bodies#References, complete blood count#References and Buruli ulcer#references. I am not sure why we thought we didn't have to meet WP:V just the way every other content area did, but that was our standard. As you are adding new information, or verifying old information, please add a page number or section heading from the source.". This seems to be a requirement for citation precision coming from FAC. It is perhaps a feature of our better articles that they make extensive use of a few high quality comprehensive and thus lengthy reviews or book chapters, which are cited many times. This is less a feature of random medical articles, which tend to be more an accumulation of factoids that perhaps are more easily found in the source given.

I think there is a bit of a difference between an academic citation and the purpose on Wikipedia. Perhaps the common factor is when an article is being peer reviewed and thus subject to greater scrutiny than the end-reader would require. After we've peer reviewed it and awarded the gold star or GA, or the academic paper has been published, then maybe the typical reader is just using the citation as a means to locate more literature and examine the studies in detail, vs doubting that the text is really justified by the source. -- Colin°^Talk 18:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

AFAICT, "a common requirement" in that sentence means "two editors said so".

The practice on wiki, undisputed for at least a decade, has been to cite the entire page range. All of the automated tools provide full page ranges. However, what I'd really like to know is what you think would be best. Think about the articles you write. What makes most sense to you when you cite a journal article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Your example only mentions one scenario, which is where one is citing a fact so large in a journal article that it is noted in the abstract. If we ignore primary research, then I'm mostly thinking of the cases where we've cited a review of one thing for its conclusions about that one thing. In that case, I don't see any point in refining the page range to just the first page (abstract) or the last page (conclusions), say. I'm aware that in the past I've cited multiple facts from book chapters that are 20 pages long or journal articles that are a dozen pages long. I think in future I will make an effort on those to narrow down the citation, as I did with the vaccine ingredients article, which was my first attempt with the templates that support repeat citations. I'm not sure this is critical enough to make a MOS requirement, and I think if the community believe it is, that should appear on a general MOS first. -- Colin°^Talk 09:38, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Book chapters are technically out of scope for this question, unless they have also been published as journal articles.

If you cite a journal article that is a dozen pages long (which probably means 10 pages text, since the refs section can get long), and you are looking at an unpaginated electronic copy, would you bother with reducing the page numbers? How would you figure out what the correct page number was? I don't think that saying "well, it was in the middle, so that must have been halfway through the page range" would be satisfying. Or consider this paper:

Uygun, Özge; Ertaş, Mustafa; Ekizoğlu, Esme; Bolay, Hayrunnisa; Özge, Aynur; Kocasoy Orhan, Elif; Çağatay, Arif Atahan; Baykan, Betül (2020-10-13). "Headache characteristics in COVID-19 pandemic-a survey study". The Journal of Headache and Pain. 21 (1): 121. doi:10.1186/s10194-020-01188-1. ISSN 1129-2377. PMC 7552597. PMID 33050880.

is definitely not short, but it's an open-access journal, which means that there is no paper-based volume for it to have any page numbers. Would you change the citation style depending upon whether the journal had a print copy with page numbers vs. electronic only with a single article number? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

There is a PDF version of that article, which has page numbers, though they are numbers within the article, not within a publication. It looks like someone has take the care to format that PDF nicely to fit tables and diagrams on the page layout, rather than it being some auto-generated page from a flowing document like a webpage. But I agree there is a general problem that people don't necessarily read a paginated version of the article. Even for books, there are differences with electronic versions vs paper and with different editions. For your citation above, the pages parameter is 121 which comes from the PubMed citation but I don't know what that 121 corresponds to on any paper, and it isn't a range as one might expect. I tried adding a "section" parameter but the template complains. A formal citation is so long and complicated to read, that I do wonder how many readers would even know that the "121" is supposed to be a page number.

If we are using the {{sfn}} template for abbreviated multiple citations to one reference work, then the abbreviated citation more naturally indicates pages or section headings. I can even give a URL to the section

• Uygun et al 2020, §Discussion

And I'd say that the room to do this is another win over the ^{[3] 234} style of indicating a page. Being more precise is not an unsurmountable problem, but is it a priority vs all the other things we might spend time on to help the reader, such as PMC or identifying if the journal article is free to read online? I think where precision is valuable relates to the collaborative aspect of article writing. If you are working with others on the text (such as the recent collaboration on menstrual cycle), or if you intend to submit the article for peer review, GA or FA, then you are helping your mates and making life easier for them. But as an activity to help readers, it may well not be worth the effort, especially if the journal is paywalled. -- Colin°^Talk 11:08, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Even if a PDF version exists (and for traditional/print publications, it may have different pagination than the canonical version, because not all journals start all articles at the top of the page), I expect that most WPMED editors would click the PMC link (if any), because that's guaranteed to be free of paywall hassles.

My overall feeling is that if someone voluntarily wants to supply individual page numbers, that's okay, but I don't think that the traditional bibliographic style should be effectively banned. IMO WP:CITEVAR still permit page ranges greater than two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you have an example of this different pagination claim? Because the full citation typically does include a page range, so I don't really see how different PDFs could be page-numbered differently. -- Colin°^Talk 07:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Presenting an example would probably require sending you a photo of a paper journal. Imagine an article, in the full, printed-on-paper journal, that starts in the middle of the page. Now imagine that someone has made a PDF containing only that article. That PDF will either:

• start with a bunch of white space at the top of the page, or
• start with the article at the top of the page, with the result that the first page of the PDF will contain more sentences than the first page of the non-PDF paper version contains.

If you were looking at the PDF version in that second situation, how would you know whether a paragraph at the end of the third page of the PDF aligned with the third page in the print version?

(The "121" in that example is technically the article number rather than a page number. That journal doesn't do page numbers at all. The standard/external citation formats treat the article numbers as being equivalent to page numbers. You could think of it as them pretending that all articles in that journal are exactly one page long.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining the 121. I've found an example of different page numbers. PMID 30117265 is available as an Author Manuscript with this PDF version and in its final published form with this PDF version. The former has page numbers counting from 1 and is clearly a rudimentary export of a document as PDF, with "Table 1" and "Table 2" at the end. The latter is a very nicely edited PDF with "Table 1" on page 310 and "Table 2" on page 311. There's also a PubReader version which has a different number of pages depending on your browser window size and an epub version. I open that in Adobe Digital Editions and it says the article is 31 pages but the actual number of pages on my screen depends again on the window size, and when I have a large screen, I can fit about four pages worth onto one "page" and clicking "=>" takes me to page 5. So from that we see that the definitive, canonical version of the article is the final edited and published version which does have page numbers going from 309 to 320. The PubMedCentral variants are all derived from the author manuscript, which might be subtly different in more ways than just publication layout. Anyone without access to the publisher's version is going to find it hard to find page 311. That article, though, does have numbered and titled sections, which could be used instead, e.g., "§ 7.1 Attentional deficits".

For PMID 25424575 neither the publisher nor the PMC version have absolute page numbers, they all start from 1, though the formatting of both is essentially the same. I found a really old article PMID 3981577 where both publisher and PMC version have absolute page numbers. It is a bit random, really. I think it may be worth warning people to avoid specifying page numbers if they appear to start from 1 in the PDF or epub you are reading. And it may be that specifying sections is more generally applicable. I especially like how one can hyperlink to a section heading in some publications, which must make reviewer's lives better, though some section headings can be a bit wordy. -- Colin°^Talk 17:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

• I'm not advocating this be required by any means, just saying this is what I currently think is best: I now typically cite the full journal article page range somewhere, but then when I wish to cite certain factoids within a lengthy review I use {{sfn}} to make a short footnote that points back to the full-length reference and gives the page number for that factoid. That's what I did at Buruli ulcer, and am now doing at Dracunculiasis. The upside of this is that I can get the best of both worlds, a standard-format reference to the journal article, and a specific pointer to the fact of interest. The obvious downside is that I'd guess it's somewhat more opaque to a newbie editor. Also since it's an unusual style in the medicine-space here, I reserve it for articles that I'm largely rewriting. If I'm just stopping by to add a single reference somewhere, I'll leave it in the full page-range format folks are more accustomed to. Ajpolino (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

• I think I understand the issue better. My two cents: Citing specific pages (other than the standard page range for the entire article) should be an option, not a requirement. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 02:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Sidebar: One of the reasons I don't like APA citation style is that it encourages lazy citation, i.e., citing an entire lengthy article or book chapter (or even an entire book) to support a statement when the supporting evidence exists on one or two pages of the source. This forces the reader to slog through an entire article or book chapter to find the supporting evidence. Easy for the writer but difficult for the reader, which flips a core component of good writing on its head. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 18:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

• Didn't we just have this whole discussion a couple of months ago? Where was that? Johnbod (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  @Johnbod, I'm aware of several discussions. You might be thinking of Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 51#Page numbers, in which editors figured out that the "two-page maximum" was basically one editor's bold proposal and had no basis in any written guideline or policy. But you know how this happens: once you put a "rule" into a warning template, then people assume that the rule is real. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Ah, that's the discussion I remembered, and couldn't find. WhatamIdoing, why do you think this topic needs re-opened? The "rule" was removed from the warning template by Johnbod. I think that discussion just reinforces my thoughts above, that citation precision is often a thing done to make peer-reviewing those citations easier, rather than something necessary for WP:V. As you noted then, people can search for keywords to try to locate the supporting text within an article. That's no great hassle if it is just one fact one is puzzled about, but if one is peer reviewing many facts and citations then that starts getting tedious. I don't find convincing the argument that some other editor could insert extra facts, thus making a precise citation worse than an imprecise one. I've seen editors insert extra facts that came purely out of their own heads, in a way that looks like they are sourced along with existing text, so I think that is just a general problem made no worse or better by precision. -- Colin°^Talk 07:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

    Just for the record, removed by Nikkimaria in fact, after I suggested it at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 51#Page numbers. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

    Given how far the rumors diverge from actual practice, I think it would be appropriate for MEDMOS (specifically, because medicine-related articles have a very high proportion of journal articles among their sources) to state the common practice explicitly. It is much easier, if you encounter one of these discussions, to say "That's a false rumor, and there is a specific anti-rumor rule written down over here" than to have an argument about whether CITEVAR trumps someone's feelings about verifiability.

    Of course, if editors here think we should change the actual practice to something else, then I am willing to go along with that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for catching up late here; I have been crazy busy IRL.

• The problem of pagination from different versions (PDF, hard copy, etc) is a red herring; the issue of differences in pagination is easily overcome by several methods. On the question of examples, the pagination issue came up in multiple sources at dementia with Lewy bodies (PDF paginated differently from hard copy and some versions not paginated at all), and this problem is solved (easily) by specifying section headings from the source so as to avoid the varying page number problem depending on how PDFs are paginated. See dementia with Lewy bodies#References. I did encounter the problem in quite a few sources; it was not hard to deal with by simply using the |loc= parameter in the short footnote.
• I can't speak to the "rumor" of two editors and their two-page range, but common sense applies. A 15-page journal article might have 10 pages of notes at the end (citations, author information, tables and appendices, COI disclaimers, etc), and be actually only five pages of very general text, so that verifiability can be met without page numbers, or a 15-page journal article might be actually 12 pages of dense text so that page numbers are needed to meet verifiability. WP:V is policy; not by any means something two editors came up with, and when dealing with very long sources, we must supply enough specifics re page numbers, chapters, or some location such as section headings so that readers can verify text. For some unknown reason, med editors were not in the habit of doing this, but every recent medical FA has shown that it is just not that hard to do. Perhaps it is because when we were sourcing one conclusion to one review, the entire review did satisfy verifiability, but that is not always the case. At any rate, any editor can query verifiability at any time, so the editor adding the text is the one who should assure that the text can be easily verified, using common sense.
• Nikkimaria is mentioned above without a ping, and she knows as much about citing sources correctly as just about anyone (Ealdgyth does as well, but is quite busy, and SarahSV is deceased).
• Adding page numbers at the time one adds text is just good practice for ease of verifiability; it is not-- or should not be-- just a feature of FAs, but then many articles that aren't FAs don't meet many policies and guidelines. The idea that something should be optional, not a requirement, pretty much describes all of Wikipedia editing. Many articles have various deficiencies because "anyone can edit", and core policies aren't always met. That doesn't mean experienced editors shouldn't be doing their best to make sure verifiability can be met on any text they add.
• Every recent medical FA has shown how easy it is to better meet verifiability with chapters, page numbers, page ranges, or locations ... even when there is a pagination problem:
  • Menstrual cycle#References
  • Buruli ulcer#References
  • Complete blood count#References
  • Dementia with Lewy bodies#References
    • I think I forgot some ... but have been busy, but see the citations in all of these cases.

On the broader question, I don't support adding something to MEDMOS that is not in sync with WP:V, and the proposed addition would/could contradict WP:V. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:22, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

As Sandy notes, in some cases it will be entirely appropriate to cite the entire journal article - when it's general, when it's short, when a claim is really supported by the piece as a whole. There's no specific maximum number of pages permitted in a citation. On the other hand, when the piece is long and dense and you're citing a specific fact that appears in a single line buried in the middle, it's more appropriate to cite that specific page and/or provide a quotation to allow readers to more easily verify the fact. The question of differing source versions, online versions without pagination, etc, is really a separate issue from this. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:09, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, can you explain more about why you believe that "page numbers are needed to meet verifiability"? I understand how it could be helpful in the specific case that @Nikkimaria describes, but WP:V itself does not say that any page numbers are required at all, and it has never said that the page range must be "narrow". WP:V says some page numbers will "ideally" be provided. Things like ection titles and chapters are listed as acceptable alternatives. WP:V should probably add a qualifier to say that this only applies to long sources. We basically never add page numbers to newspaper articles, although every print daily includes page numbers.

(Fun fact: originally, WP:V didn't mention page numbers at all, and when it eventually did, in 2008, it only mentioned page numbers for books, not journal articles or other sources that might be expected to have page numbers.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess another way to ask this question is:

Would you outright ban editors from using APA style and Vancouver system in Wikipedia articles? Is folllowing those styles strictly going to result in rejection at FA? As a matter of logic, either editors can use these styles or we can require editors to specify individual page numbers in journal articles, but we can't do both. These are mutually exclusive options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Recommend American English spelling in those cases when spelling variant not yet decided?

I might be wrong but I think it's an unwritten rule in this WikiProject that if the language version is not yet set in stone (e.g. if an article uses a wild mixture of British English and American English spelling), then the guidance from this WikiProject is that American English spelling is preferred. Is that true? If so, would it be worth mentioning this in the Style Guide? Of course I know the rules around when to use which language variant (WP:ENGVAR) but I am talking about those medical/health articles that are either new or where the main editors are not yet sure which English variant to use, etc. I think in those (rare?) cases it would be useful if the WikiProject recommended American English spelling. EMsmile (talk) 03:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that American English spelling is preferred; that would breach core guidelines, and I may be recalling incorrectly, but I believe there was even an arbcase about same. We can't go over the heads of core guidelines and policy, and to my knowledge, in no case is American English the preferred version when there is a mixture. Perhaps you could explain where you got the idea of this "unwritten rule" in the medicine project? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:37, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Never heard of it. The closest MEDMOS gets to this is to see if an international standard is helpful to decide, with the idea of letting other people worry about finding a compromise. Most editors are from the US and most readers are too, who often make "helpful" corrections in articles that don't follow US spelling and grammar. If nobody spots that or cares, then US ends up predominating. Editors from non-US countries should write new articles or expand stubs in whatever English style comes naturally to them. -- Colin°^Talk 07:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually only about 42% of en:wp editors geolocate to the US; I think the readers' figure is even lower. Johnbod (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

No. We can't insist editors who create articles or expand stubs learn a grammar and orthography that is foreign to them. Professional prose that is consistent with WP:ENGVAR is enough. Graham Beards (talk) 08:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

I got the advice from User:Doc James back in 2014 when I was new in Wikipedia and joined based on his invitation towards people working on sanitation topics. Note he didn't say that articles have to be in American English. All he said was that if folks are working on an article and it uses a mixture of English language version and if those editors are undecided which English version to use, and they don't mind either way, and just want guidance, then we might as well recommend to them to use the American English. I found that a helpful guide when I was new. Many people are non native English speakers when they edit (like myself) and we really don't care which one to use as it's not hard to change from "s" to "z", "ou" to "u" and so forth (I've never noticed any grammar differences, only spelling). So personally, I think it would be a good guide to have. It's not meant to force anyone or anything. It's only saying if you (group of editors) are undecided and you don't mind then just take the American English version. I think it makes sense particularly for WikiProject Medicine which has more editors from North America than from Great Britain, it seems. Most of the disease articles that I have every looked at seem to use American English; perhaps because they draw heavily on publications by CDC and WHO, or because many great and active medicine editors are from the US. I think that's fair enough. EMsmile (talk) 02:39, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately the doc was wrong. That has never been any sort of policy here, & I'd question a number of your assumptions there (& the very odd comments you make on the differences), though of course quotations should always keep their original version. If WP:ENGVAR is actually followed, situations where "editors are undecided which English version to use" (except for new articles, where people normally use the version they are used to) are actually rather rare. It is not just North America vs Great Britain,, btw, Canadian English is poised between the two, and Indian, Australian etc etc generally closer to British English. Johnbod (talk) 10:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Johnbod has it right. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it is important also to remember that this isn't a medical issue. There may be more WP:MED members from N America than GB but the same is probably true of other projects and of the general demographic on WP. Wikipedia early on decided not to favour one language variant. If we went purely by numbers then of course US would win. I don't know why WP decided this but it does feel a wee bit empowering for those of us in the minority. Btw, Johnbod, interesting about the 42% figure, though that is presumably bigger than any other country. My European friends, who speak/write English as a second language, do so in US English, which is a bit sad. That isn't a huge sample, of course, and I guess it comes from US culture (movies, music, etc). I don't think source-language influences article language at all, except in quotes. -- Colin°^Talk 13:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that is bigger than any other country, by some way. I find non-native Euro usage mixed; at least while we were in the EU they were supposed to be taught BritEng in the schools, although at least in Germany they often weren't. Very often they are rather unaware of the differences unless their English is very good. If they've studied in an Anglophone country, that will naturally set their variant. Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree with what has been said above: users can't be forced to write in the variety they are not familiar with, and the ENGVAR guideline includes also medicine-related articles. And you can count on me promoting the GB variant, and even on telling you to call films, films ;) — kashmīrī ^TALK 13:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

If 42% of en:wp editors geolocate to the US then that's actually a huge chunk. And I never said that I wanted to "force users to write in the variety they are not familiar with". Just to reiterate what my thought process was, as it seems to have been misunderstood: it was about providing guidance in those (very rare) cases where some editors who are working together on a new or not-yet-settled article say "we don't mind which English variant to use; we are equally familiar with British and American English - which one should we use then?" I would have said to them "you might as well use American English in that case". Now I will say to them: "don't know". - Thanks for all your inputs. It's been useful to get this feedback. I think we can close the discussion now. EMsmile (talk) 14:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Are there any people who "we don't mind which English variant to use" but are (per Johnbod) sufficiently proficient in their English writing to know the difference, beyond a handful of well known words. There may well be a number of non-native writers who produce a mongrel form in delightful ignorance. I suspect then their English is weak enough that they have more important things to worry about than US/UK spelling variants. -- Colin°^Talk 15:33, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, I am one of those editors wo doesn't mind which English variant to use, and I know a few others amongst my German friends. But I don't have stats available. If I ever find hard figures on that, I'll report back. Whether I "produce a mongrel form in delightful ignorance", I don't know. Maybe! But so far, I've never had complaints from other editors about my spelling abilities. EMsmile (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

AltMed section

Let's talk about whether we should expand MEDMOS to provide more information about how to handle altmed content. Here's what we've currently got:

• Allopathy is potentially confusing to readers in different cultures, as it could refer to traditional enantiopathic preparations or to mainstream modern medicine, depending on context. Avoid using allopathic to describe modern Western medicine; instead use conventional medicine or mainstream medicine. Not all mainstream medicine is actually evidence-based medicine, and not all alternative medicine is traditional medicine. See Wikipedia:Alternative medicine for help with terminology.

It's the last two sentences that are relevant.

Notes from the to-do list:

• Turn bullet point on when to describe something as altmed into a section.
  • altmed vs folk medicine vs controversial vs disproven; avoiding altmed as disparaging term or a catchall for non-scientific
  • importance of representing that classification depends upon time and place
  • role of WP:DUE and WP:INTEXT attribution

    Comment: This section would benefit from more precise explanation(s) and examples. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 14:32, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the first question is: Should we? Or is this a WP:CREEPy idea (originally mine, so please don't be afraid to tell me that you think it's not worth bothering with)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Page-ranges in citations

The examples in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Templated citations use page-ranges like "2339–43", where the second number is abbreviated. Several years ago, a well-publicized RFC concluded that the second number of ranges should be fully written, with MOS:NUM updated accordingly. MOS:PAGERANGE even explicitly calls out page-ranges as an example that should follow that style, and the documentation-examples for templates such as {{Cite journal}} was also updated to follow that standard. Is it time to update MEDMOS to comply? I can't find a previous WP:LOCALCONSENSUS discussion to do things differently here. DMacks (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@DMacks, I doubt anyone will object, if you want to make the change.

I suppose that if someone were carefully following an external style (e.g., Vancouver system), which would be permitted under WP:CITEVAR, then there's a chance that external style would specify the shorter method for page numbers, but even allowing for such unusual situations, there's IMO no need for this page to recommend it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Suicide

Some recent edits:

• Guidance added by Bibeyjj: "The term commit in relation to suicide should be avoided. Suicide is not criminalised in most countries, so cannot be "committed" like a crime. The term commit is also significantly stigmatised (due to its association with crime). Alternative phrasing could include died by suicide or killed themself / himself / herself"
• Reverted by Spicy per RFC on Committed suicide.
• Revised guidance by Bibeyjj: "Terminology related to suicide, such as committed suicide, died by suicide, or killed themself is left to the discretion of the editor, and preferably should be based on what reliable sources say."

I agree the original text does not conform to the latest RFC result (and there have been many such discussions). However, the replaced text isn't good MoS because editor discretion and choice is the default on Wikipedia. So rather than educate other editors, it seems to exist merely to document an RFC result. MoS is big enough without documenting all the "no consensus" results.

I think text stating that someone killed themselves is far more likely to fall into the scope of our biographical guidelines than MEDRS. While some drug articles do mention suicide cases (e.g., Phenobarbital, Barbiturate and Barbiturate overdose), the writing in those sections is fundamentally no different to if the person had used a gun, rope, etc. Just because they used a medicine as a deadly poison doesn't make it IMO in scope for this MOS page. There are only a handful (I believe) of medical articles that could notably discuss cases or use for suicide, whereas there are hundreds of biographical articles that need to consider their language.

If one is talking generally, such as noting that barbiturates are deadly in overdose and their use for suicide is one reason they are no longer enthusiastically prescribed, I don't think it is even necessary to mention the "commit" word. So that can be eliminated simply as a matter of writing concisely. -- Colin°^Talk 15:05, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussing articles

Is there a central place for discussing articles that don't seem to follow the guidelines set out here? Should they be tagged somehow? In particular, the third paragraph of Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#Health_and_diet makes health claims based on news articles, not medical reviews. The related Adventist Health Studies cites a lot of publications from Loma Linda University (a Seventh-Day Adventist institution), and only one scientific article, all of whose authors are at Loma Linda. I'd think that the strong claims made here should require third-party reviews published in reputable journals. --Macrakis (talk) 20:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Making health claims based on news articles is not a question for the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. You can ask for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.

As for the substance, there is only one paragraph that contains health claims, and these are rather modest claims:

• lives 4 to 10 years longer than average [...] because they do not smoke or drink alcohol, have a day of rest every week, and maintain a healthy, low-fat vegetarian diet that is rich in nuts and beans.
• [strong] social networks [are another] explanation for their extended lifespan.

Before you bother disputing this, I would recommend first learning a little about the subject. The health claims are probably accurate, so it's likely that the only thing you'd be changing is the ref that's hiding behind the little blue clicky number. Keeping in mind that 99.7% of readers won't click on a single ref in the entire article, much less one of the ones in that specific paragraph, you might not think that's worth the effort. Not smoking alone adds years to your life. (I'd be surprised if the answer was only four years longer, since smoking a pack of cigarettes a day is often estimated to reduce life expectancy by at least four years.) If you went to your own healthcare providers and ask them what they think if you decided to never smoke anything, never drink alcohol, reduce your stress, and eat a healthy, low-fat vegetarian diet with lots of nuts and beans, they might be skeptical about your ability to make radical changes, but they would tell you that it was a health-promoting, life-extending plan.

If you are looking for some sort of research "purity" level, you won't find it. Almost every modern study done on the health of vegans has depended almost entirely on Adventists, because they're the only sizable group of people who stick with veganism for decades (vs a couple of years when you're young). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. I'll bring this up there. --Macrakis (talk) 16:54, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Suicide Language

The possibility of mentioning suicide language in the section "Careful language" was first raised by WhatamIdoing in last month. Based on this, I mistakenly wrote a statement contradicting Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 164#RFC: "Committed suicide" language. This was replaced with a statement that mentioned user discretion. This was reverted by Colin. I agree with WhatamIdoing that mentioning suicide language in WP:MEDMOS is important, as many psychiatry articles will mention it, as well as the few medical biographies where the subject killed themselves. I also disagree that "user discretion" on suicide language is obvious Wikipedia policy - clearly there is significant dispute continuing to this day. Mentioning the consensus (agreed to every year for the past 4 years) would be helpful. What do you think? Bibeyjj (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

We seem to have both written a talk page section at the same time. I think it would be good to collect examples of "medicine-related articles" that discuss suicide and the language used on them. There's more to considering the language around suicide than just banning the word "commit". We've had problems in the past where editors failed to agree on some issue (e.g. citations in the lead) and the text ended up with a kind of "you should do it, but you don't need to" compromise mess. I think it is better, if we can't agree on a community decision, to leave it out per Wikipedia:Avoid instruction creep. -- Colin°^Talk 15:29, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Colin, I am not home right now, but the talk page of Robin Williams has been a case … SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Robin Williams/Archive 9 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, and another point to consider. Major depressive disorder dropped "committed" in 2015, with the briefest talk page mention/agreement, and AFAIK there hasn't been any battle to restore that language. For all the handful of psychiatry or medicine articles that are directly in scope for this MOS, it may be far less trouble to simple make a change to the article, rather than stir up a Wikipedia-wide argument. You are more likely to find our medical sources avoid "commit suicide". For example, PMC 6068947, a source on Major depressive disorder, does not use that language, but does say "die by suicide" and "kill him/herself". So it may be that for our topics, the RFC conclusion to follow good sources aligns with modern best practice anyway. -- Colin°^Talk 15:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

We should probably have a general discussion (i.e., about much more than "commit") about suicide. Thanks, @Bibeyjj, for adding it to the to-do list.

Looking at the general practice, which I believe is one of the best sources for guidance, I see:

• Concision and a lack of detail is typical ("The cause of death was suicide").
• Sensationalism and sentimentality are rejected as unencyclopedic. It's often presented as a rather boring, bald fact: "He died in 1974 from suicide (*yawn*)", just like you would write "He died in 1974 from heart disease".
• Editors are following high-quality sources for both content and language (e.g., "commit" or not). This means that whatever news standards were in place when the sources were written affects both our content and style.
• Strong enforcement of WP:NOTHOWTO, especially in articles about people and events.
• The approach varies according to the subject. Most articles are about people or events. Only a handful are about the general subject (and many of those are in poor condition). There is – and IMO should be – a different approach to Death of Socrates vs Assisted suicide vs Robin Williams.
• We don't add boxes saying "If you're feeling suicidal, then call..." but we do add information about suicide prevention to many of the articles about suicide (e.g., to the top of Suicide methods [because some prevention efforts are method-specific, and prevention is one of the main academic reasons for studying individual methods] but not to Robin Williams).
• We tend, on average, to present suicide as a slightly negative thing.

Things that might be worth writing down include:

• Oversimplification is bad (e.g., "He killed himself because he stubbed his toe" – single causes are unlikely). Both "causes" and prevention efforts are complicated, multi-factorial, culture-dependent, and individual.
• Where to get help when you need it (e.g., "Ask at WT:MED")

I suggest this last one because the editors who hang out at some suicide articles tend to either be dedicated pro-suicide editors or people who have been personally affected by suicide, and the differing viewpoints can be difficult to manage.

Lastly, I believe that someone at the WMF wrote a blog post about World Suicide Awareness Day. If you're all interested, I could ask around and see whether they have any sources/suggestions for us. (I figure there's no point in re-doing the research, if we can reach someone who already did it.) Ping me if you'd like (work-)me to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I made a failed proposal at MOS/Words to watch which was about suicide language beyond "commit suicide",[16] based on a CDC source (but it's old enough that it still uses "commit suicide").

Also, see Reportingonsuicide.org/recommendations for guidance. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for that link.

If I had to choose between an encyclopedia article that used the disputed "commit" language vs a page that provides needless details and speculation about someone's death but doesn't use the "commit" language, I'd definitely choose the encyclopedia article. There are multiple things we could improve on, but IMO the "commit" dispute is not the most important one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Kolya, wrt the other language (words to avoid like "successful suicide, completed suicide, failed suicide attempt") that you proposed, I think the reaction you got just emphasises how we are going about such discussions the wrong way. We are at a naive amateurish level of debate, sort of like if Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions didn't exist, and every AFD was a mess of random argument leading to no consensus to delete anything, and Wikipedians spent more effort discussing article deletion than writing article content. You were asked if this was a problem on WP and the definition of a problem wasn't that some editors were in dispute and sought a consensus. Instead it was that many articles currently contained the wrong phrasing, and needed fixed. If few articles have the wrong phrasing, then it was suggested this isn't a problem worthy of documenting at MOS. But WAID above says "Looking at the general practice, which I believe is one of the best sources for guidance". However, I think that if you'd found thousands of articles with the wrong phrasing, that would be used as evidence that this is idiomatic language, that countless Wikipedians think is perfectly OK, and were aren't here to right wrongs. So you can't win. I get the feeling from most MOS discussions about changing word use for social (rather than grammatical or typographical) reasons, that those who oppose change will pick any argument that suits. If dissing experts helps then you'll be told that respecting experts is a fallacy. But if citing experts helps, then they'll be cited as an authority. Our sources use puffery, unsupported assertions, cliches and idioms, and their spelling, punctuation and grammar may fall below our expected standards. We have standards there that are largely in alignment with writing guides, which aim higher than actual practice. Yet if convenient to the argument, you will be told that we should use the same lazy, archaic and hurtful language our sources and other media do, and that it doesn't matter how many style guides or topic experts request otherwise.

For that reason, it may be healthier to just try to discuss or document the issues on the talk page, rather than propose the style guide is changed. That might lead to more thoughtful comments than we get when uninformed people just vote and tag on some rationale that seems to support their vote. -- Colin°^Talk 10:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Colin has well summarized what has been so frustrating about this debate. When the problem first appeared at Robin Williams, I had no firm opinion one way or another, but neither did I have any difficulty recasting the sentences at Lewy body dementias#Notable individuals and Dementia with Lewy bodies#Society and culture to avoid the “committed” word that offends some, without resorting to the awkward “died by”. I just wanted the edit warring to end, and was struck by the futility of going ‘round and ‘round with illogical approaches to a resolution. The main driver of much of the debate was opposition to “committed” because of one interpretation of that word (criminal in the UK), which didn’t seem like the best argument to be having (akin to arguing over the apostrophe in Downs vs. Down’s syndrome because of how the term is used in the UK, rather than just following the best sources).

The RFC was framed over a long period of time with input from multiple editors, and came to an overwhelming consensus. We seem to be left at a place of respecting sources and using common sense, until/unless something changes more universally wrt how sources talk about suicide. That is, it strikes me that we have a “word to watch” situation.

I agree we might say something somewhere in a style guide, but I don’t think this is the right one; I believe it is a better fit for Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, because we aren’t disallowing any choice, rather advising that certain phrasing might require careful thought and watching, and that we can take care to reflect sources, or that we can often reframe. And, this terminology is likely to occur outside of a context in which editors would think to check MEDMOS.

The RFC conclusion was:

The result is to not change policy, which allows "commit suicide," therefore no change is needed. In each article a multitude of word choices are allowed and editors can make editorial decisions through the normal process as to what sounds most natural, most informative and reads the best in each specific situation. A minority of editors think "commit suicide" is archaic, and if some other equal or better formulation exists and a change is made, we should not tendentiously revert it. Likewise, I would urge editors not to tendentiously remove "commit suicide" everywhere it is found. Perhaps the best idea is to see what the cited sources in each article say and follow their formulation. This will naturally cause us to track whatever trend exists in society.

Also, unilateral and hurried style guide changes are never likely to stick. Considering that we have two of our best WP:P&G editors present in this discussion and in this WikiProject (Colin and WAID), perhaps we can hammer out some wording to add to Words to Watch here, and once we are satisfied, propose it at that talk page to seek consensus for adding something. Slow and steady wins the race. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

If we wanted to address that single word without talking about the bigger issues, then it would probably be fair to write something like Although many people find the phrase commit suicide to be judgmental and stigmatizing, it is not banned. I doubt that would be as useful to article writers (as opposed to dispute-resolvers) as offering alternatives such as "The cause of death was suicide" or "He killed himself". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

I had also made this proposal in the same Words to watch discussion.

In response to Sandy, I agree that the RfC was well executed, but as with many RfCs, it seemed to me that the best arguments and evidence came about through discussion after the RfC had already gained momentum in one direction. My opinion is that the RfC consensus is in violation of NPOV because dictionaries and other sources clearly state that "committed suicide" is an idiom with negative connotations. However, virtually no good sources after 2018/2019 use "committed suicide" anyway (see Talk:Robin Williams and archives), so for now we may be able to find the best sources on a case by case basis without violating the RfC. Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:19, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

So let's have the good discussion here, without anyone trying to vote on specific details. What advice do you think would be helpful to editors? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:26, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I guess to let them know that the language has changed very quickly very recently,[17] so they may want to consider the age of the sources if they are using their language. Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:38, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

I think Sandy got it right in her opening comments ("When the problem first appeared ..") That attitude is expressed in guideline (WP:GRATUITOUS): "Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available". It also says "Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers" but that does prevent editors rewording material provided the replacement is as informative and well written. As Sandy demonstrated, our choice of words should be sensitive to their effect in terms of perpetuating stigma, prejudice and other negative attitudes towards groups that are disadvantaged in society. We may not always be aware of language problems, and only learn about them when someone points it out. And we also don't have to agree that the term was offensive or negative. Part of being civil and respectful is moderating our language when talking with or writing to others who may be more sensitive than us.

There are two places editors can learn about language issues wrt issues like suicide or disability. One is a Wikipedia guideline or essay or project discussion. But the other is the encyclopaedia itself. There's a whole Suicide terminology article (though large parts of that seem to be written by one user, and not very encyclopaedic). Unlike guidelines, our articles are required to cite people who have the first clue, who are topic professionals and experts, and who have already achieved the hurdle of having their advice or thoughts published by a reputable agency. It seems to me then that it would be better to ensure these topics are well covered by our encyclopaedia.

Then perhaps our guideline could contain general advice about being sensitive and careful about word choice in certain areas, and link to relevant Wikipedia articles. The win-win for that approach is our readers get educated too. -- Colin°^Talk 10:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Robin Williams suicide language pre-RFC discussion

Folks are ready for an RFC. I started a discussion at Talk:Robin Williams#Committed suicide pre-RFC discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"Wheelchair-bound" language

Related but separate, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#"Wheelchair-bound". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

And *sigh*. It's like infant school over there sometimes. -- Colin°^Talk 10:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Article Naming - Muscles

Currently, WP:MEDTITLE doesn't clarify the naming of articles on muscles. There is dispute over article naming, and whether the word "muscle" should or should not be included in names as a matter of principle.

Arguments for including the word "muscle":

• Disambiguation (per WP:PRECISE). The pterygoid muscles are the only muscles that could be confused with neurovascular structures. However, many other muscles could be confused for fascial structures that surround them. Bibeyjj (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
• As of 28/10/2021, all but 5 muscle articles include the word "muscle". Naming all articles with "muscle" ensures that naming is consistent (per WP:CONSISTENT) - this does not prevent changing the 100s of articles which do include the word "muscle". Bibeyjj (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  That is mainly because I WP:BOLDly moved many of the articles to form a rudimentary consistency. An admin took notice and moved most of them back, and also got some buddies to kill the consensus that would have moved Biceps to Biceps brachii muscle. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

• Reconizability (per WP:COMMONNAME). A lay person who is still learning anatomy will find an article more easily if it is named "muscle". Bibeyjj (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  I definitely agree that including muscle provides needed context to a reader, and in my experience, medical people that aren't anatomists often would add the word muscle when talking about it, because it is genuinely hard to tell otherwise. It becomes just a latin phrase. I would still want there to be a redirect from the TA name (i.e. without muscle), and for the article to explicitly mention what the TA name is (to help people learning about the topic) and in cases like biceps for there to be a redirect from biceps muscle. Honestly, having those redirects is a good workaround regardless. (Note: this comment was previously the second half of a comment I made in the next part; I have reordered for the sake of this discussion's structure.) --Xurizuri (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Grammar. Many muscle names are derived from or directly are Latin. Not including the word muscle makes the article title nonsense. For example, Biceps brachii on its own just means "two-headed ___ of the arm." Additionally, there is no consistency for using WP:COMMONNAME anyhow, since if there were, Rectus abdominis muscle would just be "Abs," which is undeniably the common name for that muscle. Invinciblewalnut (talk) 19:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  COMMONNAME is not normally interpreted as including whatever the most common slang or abbrevations are for a subject. Otherwise, we would have to rename rather a lot of articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  Latin sentence structure isn't our problem. Loanwords adopt the meaning we assign to them, and we use them as we understand them. So, it depends purely on what it means in English (or in this case, academic/anatomical English). And WP:COMMONNAME can also refer to the name most commonly used in reliable sources, which for the sake of anatomical articles are WP:MEDRS sources. So the name most commonly used in medical sources is relevant. If abs was consistently used in BMJ, then maybe we would rename the article. --Xurizuri (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Arguments against including the word "muscle":

• Common name (per WP:COMMONNAME). The word "muscle" is frequently omitted in scholarly works (for example, Terminologia Anatomica tends not to include the word). This can be seen in other examples as well 1. Bibeyjj (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

  WP:MEDTITLE does currently note that sometimes the TA name may need additional words to clarify it, so this doesn't preclude it. Biceps specifically I think is an edge case in this discussion, because it's well-known both medically and commonly as biceps. It's not like the scalene muscles or whatever, most people have the pre-existing context that it refers to a muscle, rather than just being some latin phrase. In cases like biceps, it should still have a redirect from the TA name, for the more anatomically literate reader (this statement was added during an edit). The reverse of this would also be my argument to agree that muscle should generally be included; it provides needed context to a reader. I would still want there to be a redirect from the TA name (i.e. without muscle), and in cases like biceps for there to be a redirect from biceps muscle. Honestly, having those redirects is a good workaround regardless. --Xurizuri (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC) // edited to remove argument for including muscle, because I'm moving that into the previous part of arguments for including muscle. Some copyediting to make each component stand alone. 23:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

• Concision (per WP:CONCISE). The word "muscle" adds to article titles. This has a multiplicative effect, where the word "muscle" is also used in all Wikilinks to the article. Bibeyjj (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

What are people's thoughts? Please add your arguments to the above (and sign) if you have anything to add. Bibeyjj (talk) 12:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I think you should have this discussion with Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's appropriate to have a discussion about the interpretation of MOS:MED (and presumably, potentially changing it) on the MOS:MED talk page. WP:ANATOMY doesn't own the anatomy articles - per Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide/WikiProject, No project can control another project, editor or set of articles - so they cannot create definitive advice on this. And my understanding is that definitive advice is what Bibeyjj is after. Bibeyjj has already notified them of this discussion, as is appropriate - this is obviously highly relevant to them, but again ultimately its not their decision to make. --Xurizuri (talk) 23:04, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

ANATOMY doesn't own the articles, but they are the editors most likely to know the subject well. If you want a good answer, you should be talking to them. Whatever's decided (if anything) can certainly come back here, but if the goal is a well-informed answer, this IMO isn't the best page to start on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi all, for my two cents - I'm not sure this is a problem we need to solve in MEDMOS. As you mention Bibeyjj there are lots of existing sitewide guidelines that article title should follow. I'd say we've only had a handful of discussions over the last decade about this sort of issue and I am in general not in favour of making more rules which makes the editing experience increasingly complex and makes it even harder for new editors to join us. What we probably need is what is happening which is some specific discussions about the edge cases and how these various guidelines are relevant. Tom (LT) (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

New section on suicide and self-harm

Imagine that you are talking to a new editor, who is willing to work on an article about suicide and related behaviors, or maybe about a person who recently died or who has disclosed a past suicide attempt. What could we write down here that would save you some time? For example, would it be helpful to have a page that says things like "Don't include speculations about the causes" or "These style guides [link][link][link] were written for news media, but they may provide practical background information that could be adapted to Wikipedia"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Since nobody has objected for a week since I proposed this, I've taken some of the comments above and some of the more relevant advice from external style guides and turned it into Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Suicide and self-harm. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me (not even close to an expert); appreciate the effort! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. I think it covers a lot of important ground. Nicely done.   — TARDIS builder^✉     ★       02:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Reads well.....should emphasize that it's not just medical related articles but medical related content.Moxy- 13:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

The media guides seem to be concerned more about recent events (which I suppose is "newsworthy") than about more general content (which I suppose isn't). In our terms, that would mean caring more about whatever celebrity died recently than about the article on Suicide. I agree with you that we need to be concerned about both articles that mention suicide and articles that are primarily about suicide, just like we'd always reject a claim like "Suzanne Somers cured her breast cancer by taking high doses of estrogen" regardless of whether someone tried to stick it in Breast cancer or in Suzanne Somers. Also, for the general articles, which connect to psychology/psychiatry, we have the benefit of MEDRS as well as editors' common sense.

Do you think it should be split to a separate MoS page? It's possible that putting it on a separate page would make it more obvious that it applies to all articles. Maybe it'd be enough to adapt MEDRS' line about "what is appropriate for medical content in any Wikipedia article". (Also, is it going to be too much for this page? It might grow over time, and we don't really want half of MEDMOS to be about a single subject area, no matter what the subject area is.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I am partial towards keeping everything in one place. But not fussed either way. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• "The cause of death was suicide" might not be the correct thing to write, just as you wouldn't say the cause of death was murder. Maybe change it to "The death was a suicide"? Kolya Butternut (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  There are lots of possible phrases, and I'm happy to have your best ideas in the list. What's important in the cancer/suicide example is that the wording is identical for both situations, to make the point about a suicide death needing to be treated the same as any other death.

  I get about 75K Ghits for the quoted phrase "the cause of death was murder" and 100K for "the cause of death was suicide", so those phrases are used. I had considered re-writing the sentence to "He died as a result of cancer/suicide" (which give me 450K and 220K Ghits, respectively), but it felt wordier last night. I suppose it's actually only one word longer, though. Do you prefer that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  You're right; "the cause of death was murder/suicide" is used more than I expected. We may not find the perfect phrase ... "died as a result of suicide" sounds redundant like "died as a result of homicide", but I would think we should go with the latter one which has more hits. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

  @Kolya Butternut, feel free to make that change yourself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  Done. [18] Kolya Butternut (talk) 13:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

  I like this new section. Like others have noted, I'm not entirely sure this MOS page is the ideal home for it, but that's a secondary concern to having it.

  The phrase "The cause of death was X" is rather passive and sounds like an epidemiology statistic or post mortem result rather than writing about a person. And "died as a result of X" to me just sounds like a wordy way of saying "died from X". However, I don't think all these words (suicide, cancer, murder, homicide) are equivalent. Some describe an act, specifically a human act, which doesn't apply to cancer. There's also the acute/chronic aspect to death where one has a chronic condition that ultimately led towards death, but the actual thing that killed you was something specific. I think the natural example pairings would be more "X died from cancer" vs "X died from suicide" and "Y was murdered" vs "Y killed herself". I like the advice about brevity and clarity and avoiding metaphorical and euphemistic language. We give an example of the latter ("lost her battle with depression"), perhaps an example of the former could be "passed away"?

  The advice "Language choices sometimes carry connotations that are not obvious to every editor. A term or phrase that sounds normal to you might sound stigmatising, offensive, or biased to someone else. Here are some common tips, but if someone suggests a change, try to learn about their viewpoint and see if a better approach can be found" (my underline) is applicable more widely than writing about suicide and self-harm. If that underlined portion was more widely followed, I think we could have done away with all the many MOS discussions and excuses to engage in culture war trolling and battles of the egos we suffer. This point (without the "Here are some common tips" bit) could be made more prominent, or reused as part of more general advice about word choices. -- Colin°^Talk 10:27, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Have removed the {{xmark}} templates -- they're not used elsewhere on this page and I'm not sure I've seen them on any MOS page, so I'm concerned about image overuse, and a bit more delicately I'm concerned about drawing too much visual attention to a particularly sensitive topic. Having participated before in committed-versus-died-by debates, I'm still not sure that saying "many" (versus "some") people object to committed wording is the ideal way to present a very, very nuanced issue. I didn't make the many-versus-some edit boldly, because while it's a small change textwise it's one about a fairly sensitive dispute. Vaticidalprophet 16:40, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet, are you talking about the sentence that says "The phrase committed suicide is not banned at the English Wikipedia, although many external style guides discourage it as being potentially stigmatising and offensive to some people"? It does not say that "many people" object. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

(The colored marks are used in some MOS pages but not others. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Lists or Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#MOS:DABBLUE. The chief benefit is that they indicate very clearly that this is a bad thing to do, for the sake of busy editors who might not closely read every word on the page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Template to say that an article comes under MOS:MED

Is there anyway to mark that an article needs to follow MOS:MED (and/or WP:MEDRS)? There's a significant ongoing issue in psychology articles where people are pretty convinced that articles relating to mental illness (particularly treatments) only have to follow normal article rules. It would be great to have something that can explain that, "no actually mental disorders are real disorders and you can't just do whatever", in a shortened form, rather than having to continuously clean up the articles and explain it to people so they stop doing it. Because {{WPMED/Evidence}} isn't cutting it - I have literally seen people remove it, because it isn't clear about why it applies (obviously that's not it's actual purpose, so it's very fair that it doesn't include it). Please ping me if you respond, otherwise I'll probably forget to check back. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC) // edited to add in the last line about pinging. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Xurizuri, what's the typical dispute? Is this usually about whether there should be a section called ==Signs and symptoms==, or more typically about things like what content belongs in an article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: it's about psychotherapies mostly, rather than specific conditions. And it's just a general reticence to believe that anything that isn't a physical treatment isn't biomedical, and therefore that anything that's not physical can ignore MOS:MED and WP:MEDRS. And therefore resistance when any attempt to apply them is made. It's most intense around the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Writing style section, and then of course anything to do with citations and sourcing. None of the current article structures suggested here apply overly well to psychotherapies (or psych tests, for that matter), so it's largely pointless to attempt to enforce those. I hope that clarifies the issue I'm talking about. --Xurizuri (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Xurizuri, it sounds like the disputes are about articles like Expressive therapies or Cognitive behavioral therapy. I'm not sure what in the ==Writing style== section would not be obvious for those articles. Can you give me an example of a sentence someone disagrees with in that section? (I can easily imagine people being upset by MEDRS standards, because that impinges upon what you can say on wiki. I can't imagine experienced editors being really upset about things like writing 'Smith' instead of 'Dr Smith'. That's the style for all articles, in all subjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, the entirety of the Citing sources section, and the line Wikipedia is not a collection of case studies, and excessive examples should be avoided. The ordering of sections also causes issues - some of that is because none of the Content sections guides are entirely appropriate, but there are some things throughout the guides that are consistent - largely because people really want to put history first, in line with many non-medical articles. --Xurizuri (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

@Xurizuri, we could create a suggested order for psychology-related articles, if that would be helpful. I usually find that section helpful if you are concerned that you're leaving out something important. The exact order is not required (imagine that I wrote that in bold, blinking, orange text).

The ===Citing sources=== section says:

• Do not provide a detailed analysis of an individual study unless the analysis itself is taken from a published reliable source. Wikipedia should concisely state facts about a subject. It should not discuss the underlying literature at any length. Generally speaking, the facts will be found in the conclusions or results section of a study, not in the detailed methodology. Articles that rely on secondary sources are less likely to fall into the trap of discussing the size of a single study, its methodology, its biases, and so forth. Thus, "washing hands after defecating reduces the incidence of diarrhea in the wilderness", not "An uncontrolled survey involving 132 experienced long-distance backpackers on the Appalachian trail in 1997 concluded that washing hands after defecating reduces the incidence of diarrhea in the wilderness."
• Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors. The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation. Always omit professional titles and academic degrees: use "Smith" or "Jones" rather than "Dr Smith" or "Prof Jones". It is necessary to specifically include such information only when a specific individual is being cited as an example of a person holding a minority view: You might write, "The AIDS Denialist Society says that HIV is entirely harmless", but just use a plain statement for the widely accepted fact, "HIV causes Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome."
• Do not publish your own views about studies.

Or, to put it another way, it says to write an encyclopedia article based on sources. What exactly in there do people disagree with? Do they want to write their own views instead of what the sources say? To promote the authors by saying that "Prof Dr I. M. Portant at Big University says..."? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes and yes. Having a psychotherapy-specific structure would actually be really helpful, it's difficult for someone to argue that they don't "count" as biomed if there's dedicated instructions. I can still see someone making the argument in terms of RS, but it would be a helpful starting point. And also, as you say, a lot easier to remember what to include - although I think having specifically history (almost) always towards the end is genuinely a good way to stop weird promo of the creators. People love to do promo. --Xurizuri (talk) 07:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Xurizuri, some people still think that what matters in science is the Great Man who did something or another, as if science were the product of an isolated individual and not the environment around them.

What would you suggest for the section headings? Is there an article that you think has a particularly good approach? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I would say that cognitive behavioural therapy has quite a good structure. CBT is different from a lot of other therapies in that the history of it is reasonably useful for understanding it, and that it contains multiple different therapies, but it's still reasonably applicable. The only major thing that would be a problem as a broad standard for all psychotherapy articles is that it has a separate criticisms section. I've drafted a combo of the CBT article, and the existing drugs and surgeries structures:

Therapeutic uses or Uses (how the intervention is used, along with evaluations of efficacy, and any relevant risks, if available)

Technique (avoid step-by-step instructions) - this is equivalent to the Description section on the CBT article

Methods of access (only when discussed in reliable sources; e.g. therapist, group therapy, online, etc)

History (e.g., when it was invented)

Society and culture (includes legal and ethical issues, if any)

Research: Include only if addressed by significant sources. See Trivia, and avoid useless statements like "More research is needed". Wikipedia is not a directory of clinical trials or researchers. Avoid promotional descriptions of early-stage interventions.

I'm on mobile currently and can't be bothered to replicate the wiki links. Technique doesn't seem quite like the right word, but it's a functional one for now. I'm going to run the draft past WP:PSYCH too, even if it's not appropriate for MOS:MED then it definitely would be for our own guide --Xurizuri (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we need something about validated instruments, assessment tools, etc ? Also, one problem at cognitive behavioral therapy is that it separates out a "Criticism" section. See the essay at Wikipedia:Criticism and how that leads to POV, as opposed to integrating criticism into each applicable section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Quick note, I have posted the draft at WP:PSYCH. I have unintentionally split the conversation into two places which was foolish.

To my knowledge, assessment tools etc aren't commonly directly relevant to given psychotherapies but it's very possible I'm wrong on that. I definitely agree regarding the Criticisms section, it wouldn't be good to actively encourage it. My thinking was that the content that is in the CBT article's Criticism section would be split like so: concerns about efficacy would go under Therapeutic uses, concerns about methodology of the therapy itself would go under Technique, and concerns about philosophy and ethics go under the Uses and the Society and culture sections (ethical and philosophical concerns). I'm not sure where the concerns with the way research has been done would go in the CBT article in particular (it's such a broad therapy group that all of the sections are just shy of being bloated), but generally it should be fine to put under Therapeutic uses. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Here's an example. CBIT (Comprehensive Behavioral Intervention for Tics) is a form of HRT (habit reversal training), and as the #1 recommended therapy for tics, is worthy of its own article, which I have never written. But ... how well it works would be assessed by using the gold standard Yale Global Tic Severity Scale. See also criticism worked in to section at Habit reversal training#Comprehensive Behavioral Intervention for Tics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh okay I see what you mean. That would be evaluation of efficacy I think, under therapeutic uses. I'm far from sold on it being there, but it would be hard I think to separate what it treats from how well it treats it without running the risk of accidentally presenting something as effective if it isn't - similar to the WP:CRITICISM essay you referenced before. One option - which I think I actually prefer - is to entirely flip the focus of that section. We could call it "therapeutic efficacy" rather than "therapeutic uses", so that the focus is on whether it works rather than on what people use it for. Although, a less technical word than efficacy would be better. Therapeutic effectiveness? (They're not the same thing, but efficacy is just as inaccurate for describing the section as effectiveness is, because evaluations of both concepts would get put there.) Or even simpler, therapeutic effect? Naming sections is rather difficult. --12:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

"There are two hard things in computer science: cache invalidation, naming things, and off-by-one errors." —Leon Bambrick [19]

I think it's appropriate for an encyclopedia article to include information about what it's used for as well as what it works for. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Renaming a section

There's a section heading "Citing sources". I think that should probably say "Cite sources, don't describe them". What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Your version sounds good to me. Ajpolino (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

There being no objections for two weeks, I have  Done this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Can we capture clinical knowledge in a systematic fashion?

It is very helpful to have standard terminologies used, esp. if there is a template which lets authors link to relevant external resources. Having some systematic way to compile various associations would make things like WikiData much more powerful if there was agreement on the attributes/predicates, and perhaps a greater reliance on controlled vocabularies, esp. SNOMED-CT (which can easily be extended for specific uses, and has extensive, curated, and detailed (far more so than ICD-10) coverage of disorders, procedures, drugs, cause of disease, therapies, signs/symptoms.

E.g. for an article on a disease it would be of use to systematically include, in a computable format (i.e. via templates), things like:

• Manifestations (signs, symptoms, laboratory abnormalities)
• May be treated by (drugs, procedures)
  • Indication
  • Risks of adverse effects
  • Effectiveness (i.e. risk of beneficial effects)
• Potential complications
  • Other diseases/disorders (SNOMED does have quite the coverage here) which may complicate the disorder
• Standard assessments of severity, degree, or stage
• Diagnosed by
  • Diagnostic criteria
  • Tests (sensitivity/specificity)
  • Pathology findings
• Has cause
  • Associated pathogen
  • Associated process
  • Associated exposure to ionizing radiation or other source of energy, physical force, or chemical substance
  • Associated genetics/genomics
    • Specific pathways/genes (SNOMED does not have great coverage of this, but other controlled vocabularies/knowledge bases, e.g. KEGG are excellent)
  • Risk factors

There are some similar efforts, e.g. disease cards. But, WikiPedia has the advantage of being a public shared resource which can, and should, meet users of a wide degree of levels of understanding. I.e. must be useful to clinical experts as well as the lay public. Much of the detail about a disorder is fairly easy to encapsulate for the expert, and this may be a way of including key aspects of a topic "off to the side". 2601:445:201:3780:1CE:A46D:5BA0:36A1 (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

You might be looking for Wikidata, which is also a publicly shared resource and that is entirely focused on machine-readable structured data. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest starting with this note at Wikidata from @Daniel Mietchen. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia could make more use of WikiData. WP:MED do use WD to auto-populate some fields of {{infobox medical condition}} and {{medical resources}}. However; I doubt you'll get much, if any, support for a boilerplate article template that calls on WD to "write" entire WP articles. Little pob (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

NHS language

Here's a good radio programme: BBC Sounds. Word of Mouth. NHS Language Use where Michael Rosen interviews some people in the NHS about language doctors use and the language of the NHS website. They refer to the following links:

• A to Z of NHS health writing
• Writing outpatient letters to patients
• Please write to me.

If you can't get the BBC Sounds in your country, you might be able to access it via a VPN. -- Colin°^Talk 15:04, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

MOS:MEDLANG in non-medical articles

Hi all

Somewhat related to the discussion above, but there's a dispute at Talk:Charles-Valentin Alkan over whether the provisions of MOS:MEDLANG (and in particular, WP:SUFFER) should apply across all articles, or just in articles that are on medical topics specifically. The sentence at the top of the page says that this is "the style guide for editing medical articles", which might rule out other articles, but it seems common sense to me that the sort of language appropriate to medical articles should also apply when discussing medical issues in other articles. If others agree, I think it would be good to note at the top of the section that the provisions of MEDLANG in particular aren't just limited to medical articles. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The consensus is that the scope of this MoS guidance applies only to medical articles. And it’s for good reason—the guidance would be somewhat absurdly demanding for articles on things like ancient military history, works of fiction, articles on criminal organizations, etc. in ways that might negatively effect our ability to write. The general warning agains ”drug abuse” out of concern for medical precision frankly doesn’t really matter when I’m discussing a novel or a cartoon character. A major plot point of Evita is that she became terminally ill and slowly suffered loss of her strength. And works of fiction, such as Romeo and Juliet do actually romanticize their suicides; we do not need to consider that “Suicide and self-harm are complex behaviors with multi-factorial causes” when discussing that piece of work. There are also many creative works where a person went in, attempted to kill themself, and failed to do so—the failure itself being a plot point. And I think it’s pretty fair to say that the guidance advising against "comments about how people reacted to a death" is not good guidance for articles that involve when an ancient general died in battle (or, more notably, for something like The Crucifixion) The guidelines were developed for the context of medicine and medical articles—stretching these guidelines as they are beyond that is over-prescriptive. — Ⓜ️hawk10 (talk) 14:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I may have forgotten something along the decades, but where is the "consensus that the scope of this guidance applies only to medical articles"? It applies to biomedical content AFAIK, wherever it occurs. Perhaps we need to adjust "This is the style guide for editing medical articles." Then the question becomes, is the speculation of one non-medical person (a pianist) relevant to an article, and I suggest WP:UNDUE is the real question here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Stephanie McCallum has suggested that Alkan may have had Asperger syndrome, schizophrenia or obsessive–compulsive disorder.[82]. Stephanie McCallum is a pianist; why is her post-humous speculation included in the article at all (and yes, using the word suffer in this context is dreadful). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe that SandyGeorgia may have missed the issue at the heart of Amakuru's post. It is not a matter of what language pianists may be permitted to use without censure; it is a question of whether the word 'suffer' or any of its declensions should be excised from non-medical articles in Wikipedia. I would submit that the importance of this question goes well beyond the particular case cited by Amakuru, and well beyond the word "suffer". If words are to be seized on, for whatever reason, by individual editors as infringing social standards and editors are to have to spend significant time defending standard English practice, we are on a slippery slope.

But let us take "suffer" as an example and examine it in more detail. I commence with some examples which I assume (I hope correctly) are non-controversial: e.g. "Napoleon suffered a defeat at Waterloo", "Gladstone did not suffer fools gladly", "Suffer little children to come unto me." These would not I think be subject to objection or removal (unless they were the target of a bot such as that used by the editor who started off the controversy on the Alkan article). If it is commented here that such examples are not relevant to Amakuru's case, I respond that Amakuru doesn't say so - and if there is a line to be drawn, he doesn't suggest where to draw it.

Now let's take as an example "Beethoven suffered from deafness." Take a look here. Beethoven was deaf. But he undeniably, I think, suffered from this deafness - he didn't just 'have' deafness. It affected his career and drove him to the verge of suicide. I cannot myself conceive that the use of the word "suffer" would be "dreadful" in the words of SandyGeorgia, and I cannot think that such personal and individual characterization should carry weight in the present discussion. But if it is not "dreadful" in the case of Beethoven, why should it be held to be "dreadful" in the case of Alkan? Once again, who draws the line? - who has the right to be arbiter of other people's use of standard English terms (even if those other people are mere pianists)?

In fact I find I cannot discern anything insulting, demeaning or dreadful, let alone anything that could affront others who suffer from a physical or mental syndrome, in expressing, sympathetically, that a historical figure suffered, or may have suffered, similarly. Hugh Macdonald, in Grove, writes that Alkan "was nervous in public and pathologically worried about his health." Alkan himself wrote to his friend Hiller in 1857 "Ma plus grosse et plus triste excuse est toujours ma santé, qui me laisse de moins en moins temps pour m'occuper de devoirs ou de plaisir." Can it be denied that Alkan was "suffering" from his poor health (as Beethoven was suffering from his deafness)? If historians (even if they are also pianists) deduce that he may have been subject to illnesses that caused him to suffer, they have a right to say so, and we as editors have the right to report it. We are not here to second-guess the opinions of recognized authorities.

In short, whilst I understand the case for suspending "suffer" in medical articles, I am thoroughly against the wholesale censorship proposed here. Best, --Smerus (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I suggest I am not the person missing "the issue at heart" here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Amakuru suggested that WP:SUFFER should apply to all articles, not just medical ones, despite the advice in the first sentence of MOS:MED. That's why we're here (and there, at Alkan) and that's the nub, or heart, of the matter. Others, including Colin below, have agreed to this narrower scope of MOS:MED. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Bad cases make bad law, and this is a VERY bad case-- not one around which we should be making decisions about MEDMOS, because the sample brought here has nothing to do with MEDMOS. If we had a legitimate case of good medical sources describing a person with a gory, horrific, painful, distressing or whatever adjectives/description one wants for describing an individual who is truly suffering, whether in a medical article or not, we wouldn't need this discussion. If sources describe an individual who is suffering, we might cautiously (recognizing that the word conveys a POV, so the sources had best support that POV) choose to use that word, in any kind of article, medical or bio. If an individual's Wikipedia article says that individual suffers from a condition, when the source says the individual was diagnosed with or has the condition, regardless if it's a medical article or a bio, that word should not be used, because it breaches WP:POV.

But in this case, we don't even have a medical condition, or sources that support a medical condition. I'm published in an operations research journal, and I write medical articles on Wikipedia (which probably means I have WAY more medical knowledge about all three of those conditions than a pianist), so does that mean I'm qualified to submit a journal article speculating about the psychological profile of Stephanie McCallum, a pianist? I took piano lessons 'til the age of 16; do I get to be taken seriously if I publish my opinions about Charles-Valentin Alkan's or Stephanie McCallum's music? I have no qualifications to discuss either, just as Stephanie McCallum has no qualifications to be making post-humous diagnoses, regardless if I can get it published.

The problem with that text even being in the article is covered by WP:DUE. Why is the text still in the article? Bring an example where sources truly support a person suffering with a medical condition, and then we can talk about how to apply this guideline with common sense. We are not discussing a case that makes sense or that has anything to do with MEDMOS. That's the "issue at heart" that is entirely being missed. This discussion is at the wrong venue, and forming opinions about how and where to apply MEDMOS around something that is just poorly sourced UNDUE material is a waste of bandwidth. Someone please remove the UNDUE text from that article, and bring an example of a real issue with the word suffer here for discussion.

Does MEDMOS need to devote a section to post-humous diagnoses? (I thought we used to have one.) If so, let's look at the textbook examples, via journal articles published by qualified individuals in medical journals of historical figures with legitimate post-humous diagnoses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Aside from Sandy's question about DUE (next, I suppose, we'll be getting asked if Steve Job's car mechanic is qualified to posthumously diagnose him with Covid 19 and whether he "suffered"). The common factor in both this biography and MEDMOS guidance is that to claim someone "suffered" from a medical condition is a cliche, a sign of lazy writing, unless one really is in possession of full facts that they did indeed terribly suffer from that specific named condition. We don't make that assumption about the general population of those with a condition (the aspect that concerns MEDMOS) but I fail to see how a pianist can make that assumption and diagnosis about someone who died long before they were even born. What is REALLY going on here, is that some people don't like being told what words are best avoided, and start going on about censorship or language police or whatever. Rather than trying to get along with other editors by saying, yeh, "had" is fine, they waste everyone's time having an argument on the internet about their right to offend people with their crass assumptions about medical conditions. This is behavioural issue, not a MOS one. -- Colin°^Talk 09:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

>Rather than trying to get along with other editors by saying, yeh, "had" is fine, they waste everyone's time having an argument on the internet about their right to offend people with their crass assumptions about medical conditions. This is behavioural issue, not a MOS one.

I agree that that's what's happening here. I don't think that we should make a declaration either way about the scope of MOS:MEDLANG in this case. (And I'm inclined to thing that MOS MED applies to relevant subsections of non-med articles if they describing medical content. Similar to how I think BLP applies elsewhere. But, I'm not well versed enough in the nuances of BLP... ) I think that this specific case falls under words to watch or tone or really anything else. I've been sticking to Med pages because those are clear cut (and shouldn't have any of the Mathsci-like drama) Mason (talk) 16:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Further to the above, I add here a comment I have just made on the CV Alkan talk page:

I am wondering if there isn't some culture difference here, with those against the word "suffer" being (I believe) all based in the US. In the UK attitudes it appears are very different. The National Health Service is a leader in 'correct' language: and yet a little research yields these examples:

Addenbrooke's Hospital : "The Acute Stroke Unit and the Lewin Rehabilitation Unit combine to make the Stroke Unit, caring for patients who have suffered a stroke."

St. Thomas Hospital: "We see people who have suffered a stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA)"

King's College Hospital: "If you think you or a family member are suffering with the symptoms of a heart attack you must dial 999 immediately."

I suggest in this light that editors on both sides of the pond seek to respect the language uses of each other, rather than seek to impose formulaic 'rules' where standard practices differ, or to patronise those who differ and call their practices 'dreadful'.--Smerus (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think national variety of English is a fruitful line of argument; I think usage is all but certain to vary among all English speakers regardless of nationality. I think "suffer" is uncontroversial, and I think WP should in this matter be conservative, and follow rather than attempt to lead, language change. It is sometimes appropriate for specialized usage to change ahead of general usage. If the medical community and the disabled community have changed their own practice, then it is appropriate for WP's style to reflect that of the sources. But it is too soon to take that as a mandate to change how everyone speaks English. This kind of essentially political (in the broadest sense) language debate is not uncommon here. One thinks of the wrangling over terms like "unmanned spacecraft", "maiden voyage", and so on. The way we talk when we talk about 19th-century composers is different from the way we talk about blood disorders or solenoid circuits, often because different people are doing the talking. The provisions of MEDLANG are limited by design, both to get consensus and to limit disruption. Regulov (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI:

1. NHS's style guide explicitly says that they don't use the term suffer

"We do not use "suffering from". We talk about people having or living with a disability or condition."

2. This discussion on the term suffer has already been addressed extensively on the words to watch talk page. No one is arguing that the phrase "suffer" should be censored. (I'm on a plane at the moment, so someone else while have to track down link) Mason (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I am delighted that User:Smasongarrison has recovered sufficient bandwidth to rejoin discussion on this issue, and I sincerely hope that, unlike previous occasions, they will retain enough bandwidth to respond to my comments on their contribution.

The NHS style guide to which Smasongarrison concerns everyday language use in a hospital or healthcare context. The comment cited by Smasongarrison, (“We do not use "suffering from". We talk about people having or living with a disability or condition”) is in line with the NHS’s completely reasonable intent “Use positive language and do not label people with disabilities and conditions.”. However, when it comes to emergency situations the NHS quite rightly does not flinch from using the word “suffer”. I have given examples above: here is another - "Newcastle's stroke service provides immediate specialist care for patients who have suffered a sudden stroke" – and I am sure that many further examples can be found.

What I think Smasongarrison needs to understand is what the NHS has clearly understood – that one cannot, and should not, “police” the use of words on a blanket basis, but should use them in appropriate contexts. No one wishes to risk offending those who have disabilities or medical conditions. Medical emergencies, (and descriptions of historical figures), do not, however, transgress that consideration. Where the word "suffer" cannot be reasonably construed as causing or risking offence, it should not be embargoed.--Smerus (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"I am delighted that User:Smasongarrison has recovered sufficient bandwidth to rejoin discussion on this issue, and I sincerely hope that, unlike previous occasions, they will retain enough bandwidth to respond to my comments on their contribution."

I'm glad you're delighted... but you're really not listening to the points being made here. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I'm not policing language. I'm really avoiding engaging you in this topic because I am exhausted by Mathsci's hounding about the stroke issue, and it is clear that you and he share similar views.

You insisting that autism is a condition that folks suffer from is offensive Offensive language doesn't "transgress that consideration". Mason (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT right back at you – please reread what Smerus and others have written, here and at Talk:Charles-Valentin Alkan. Worse, you allege things Smerus never said. You profess to avoid engagement on this topic, but then you do. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I have read what Smerus and others have written. I have tried to steer clear of changing individual pages, and have limited my current work to pages within medicine. I've stopped changing words related to stroke. I recognize that there's disagreement. The redo on Alkan was a mistake that I apologized for. Per the autism statement, that is in direct response to their behaviors, a.k.a. repeated reversions and arguments related to Charles-Valentin Alkan. However, I don't want to fight on the specifics, because I find that unfruitful. In terms of wanting to avoid engagement, yes, I don't want to talk about strokes, I don't want to debate the issue about individual people, but I did want to share that NHS had very specific guidance on it. Mason (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I have never said, or implied , still less insisted, that "autism is a condition that folks suffer from." I formally request an apology from User:Smasongarrison for this egregious misrepresentation and departure from WP standards. (Not, frankly, that I expect to receive it - I have come to expect that civility will prove something beyond their bandwidth, and we have Smasongarrison's own admission that they find specifics unfrutiful).--Smerus (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I really do apologize Smerus. My language was imprecise. That's why I struck it and included the summary that the characterization was inaccurate. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles&diff=1095285216&oldid=1095284227 In re-reading your posts, it was clear that your concern is about language use in general.

However, can you please stop with the snark? I really don't want to rehash specific arguments related to the Valentin Alkan debate because of all the baggage related to Mathsci hounding me for a month. Mason (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Smasongarrison. I have absolutely no wish to go over the old arguments with you again.--Smerus (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think MEDMOS applies to all articles, nor even to medical-condition aspects of all articles. if there is advice here that editors find useful elsewhere then fine. The guidance here, wrt "suffer", for example, is in the context of thinking generally about all people in the world who have a certain medical condition. The cliche that people "suffer" from medical conditions is one that the profession has sought to discourage, particularly in public facing writing like the NHS or Wikipedia. It is particularly contentious for conditions where those with them view themselves as just part of human variety. When dealing with specific people, such as in a biography, there is the possibility to discover how the person viewed their condition and use appropriate adjectives. Editors should judge whether the writer of their source really is confirming, with evidence, that their subject "suffered", or is guilty of stereotypical projection of their own opinion that the subject must surely have suffered, or is merely a lazy cliched writer reaching for the first word that popped into their heads. Anyone who uses the word "censorship" wrt guideline word choice really needs to read about Godwin's law. -- Colin°^Talk 09:36, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

• As a fresh example, please see ANI where TylerDurden8823 is being attacked for replacing "alcohol abuse" with "alcohol use disorder" per the guidance of bodies like the NIAAA. This issue of stigmatizing language seems to come up regularly for such conditions. We saw it with COVID and now it's happening again with monkeypox. There don't seem to be easy answers but perhaps the guidance here can help. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:50, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

  Sigh... Yes, also MOS Disability and MOS words to watch also. Mason (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Re: TylerDurden8823, the ANI and subsequent topic ban is a good example of how some supercilious editors prioritize enforcing the law (as they interpret it) while minimizing the fact that good editors are our most valuable resource. It's analogous to discussions about the Rule of Law. Here's an excerpt from a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on the topic, specifically from Section 7, Opposition to the Rule of Law):

"The criticism by Plato (c. 370 BC) has been the most enduring. From his perspective, which extolled the application of focused intelligence and insight by those in power, insistence upon the use of law in government was like a stubborn, stupid person who refuses to allow the slightest deviation from or questioning of his own rules, even if the situation has in fact changed and it turns out to be better for someone to contravene these rules."

"There are concerns about the mentality that is fostered by an excessive emphasis on the Rule of Law. In its most extreme form, the Rule of Law can have the effect of closing down the faculty of independent moral thought in the officials or in the ordinary members of a community, making them anxious in the face of uncertainty and distrustful of their own or others’ individual judgments. Sometimes it is important, for the sake of clear and courageous moral judgment, not to exaggerate the importance of something being required by law."

Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 07:33, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

References