Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Epinephrine
|
This case was closed because: "successful outcome.". Case was closed at 04:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC).. Parties: If you wish to resume this mediation, please file a new request. |
Click 'show' to view case details
|
|---|
Begin mediation[edit]Welcome to the mediation. The Mediation Committee has a heavy workload right now, hence the delay. I've read the article talk page and I think I get the gist of the dispute. Here are some questions regarding factors I think will be important:
Please sign, indicating your agreement to the above. Sunray (talk) 15:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Ronk01 talk, 15:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC) --WikiDonn (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC) Weakopedia (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Responses to questions[edit]Comments and reactions to the above would be welcome. Before we actually try to truly mediate this, I would ask you to consider a proposal that WikiDonn and I have agreed to, in which a macro would be used to display whichever name the reader types in. This is a reasonable proposal, as there is no clear advantage to either term for the majority of Wikipedia's audience. Ronk01 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC) Here is a link to my proposal on the village pump: WP:Village pump (proposals)#A New Feature to Solve Page Move Wars. However, I don't think we need to stop discussing this because the likelihood of that going over is slim, as shown by the attitudes of the responses (and I can't help but wonder that if it was such a simple solution, then why has it not been implemented already). I'm not sure if it is the job of the mediator to push for a change to all of Wikipedia that parties in mediation of one specific article have agreed to, but I really hope you will try. --WikiDonn (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Now, shall we begin? Any comments about my questions? If you agree, please say so. Then I encourage you to make opening statements. Sunray (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
To answer your questions,
In regards to additional participants, I have no objection to additional voices here. Ronk01 form an IP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.115.193.141 (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that some analysis of contributors may be necessary - not to determine motivation or about behaviour, more to do with how contributors themselves use the term, but I think that is not what you mean by above request. I agree to the above points and in general to uphold policy, especially NPA and civility. I will do my best to be concise, I think my first post served as a long enough introduction. Weakopedia (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC) Additional participants[edit]I thought I would join in (I am 86.156.228.191 and 86.170.246.77 from the Talk:Epinephrine) anyway in my opinion, the macro idea is a great one, another idea would be naming the page something like Adrenaline/Epinephrine however I think I read somewhere that having article titles with forward slashes are awkward.
I've considered JE19426's request to join the mediation and have a concern about that. Right now we have two participants, each taking a side of the issue. I think that addition of just one more participant would affect the balance and potentially make resolution more difficult. The Mediation Committee Policy mandates having one spokesperson for each side of the issue.[1] I've asked JE19426 if he would be willing to allow one or other of the participants represent him. Sunray (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
Opening statements[edit]Once you have pondered the above questions, would you each please make a brief opening statement of no more than 200 words describing your view of the dispute and opportunities for resolution? Opening statement by Ronk01[edit]In my opinion, Wikipedia editors are not slaves to policy, and when a policy does not benifit an article, we simply ignore it. Here, we have an issue of two names which are in theory, equally scientific. However, the World Health Organization (WHO) has decided that epinephrine is the most appropriate name, making it the International Nonproprietary Name (INN). In addition, the American Medical association, Japanese Medical Association, the Canadian Medical Association, the United States Pharmacopiea, the Canadian Pharmacopiea, the Japanese Pharmacopiea and the Medical Associations of several European states consider epinephrine to be more appropriate. The EU is considering changing their European Pharmacopiea to favor epinephrine, the British have been talking about changing the British Approved Name (BAN) to epinephrine. Clearly the United States is not the only nation using epinephrine, in fact, the majority of people using Wikipedia will recognize epinephrine thanks to serial medical dramas, not only those medical professionals who consider adrenaline to be a layman's term. So clearly, there is a signifigant advantage to the use of epinephrine, the majority of English-speaking medical professionals prefer it, and the rest of the population will recognize it. In fact, Adrenaline is very close to a brand name here in the US, Adrenalin (no "e"), which is why the INN decided to use epinephrine. Epinephrine does not damage the usability of the article, and any other argument is purely ethnocentric. There is no legatimate cause of action to change the title, the people over at the INN have already argued this to death, so could we please just leave good enough alone? Ronk01 from an IP (Public computer)
Opening statement by WikiDonn[edit]Adrenaline is the most widely used name around the world. Wikipedia, according to policy, prefers common names to scientific names. Even still though, adrenaline is well accepted in the scientific community around the world. Adrenaline is the most commonly used name by regular people in every country. The only country where epinephrine is used more in the scientific community is America. Even in America, most of the scientific community still accepts adrenaline. The only thing standing in the way of the article being called adrenaline is the INN. Wikipedia is not obligated to use the names given by an external organization, and there is no part of any policy that says that. No reason has been given why we should use the INN name, most arguments to use epinephrine have been countered, and most reasons to use adrenaline has been ignored. In short, adrenaline is the most widely used name around the world. Why should we use the name that is only primarily used by some people in some medical organizations in one country? --WikiDonn (talk) 17:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Opening statement by Weakopedia[edit][Moved from Sunray's talk page] I think the obvious questions is, why is this a recurring issue? Ronk and WD are fairly new participants, but the issue has been revisited many times over the past seven years, involving many editors. The answer, of course, is that this is representative of a larger disagreement throughout society and the world. Since the end of the nineteenth century the word Adrenaline has been in common use among all levels of society in the English speaking world, and even today the word Adrenaline is preferred by most Ensglish speaking people. In the past the proportion of people who had even heard of Epinephrine was even smaller than today, but this imbalance is slowly being redressed due to the abundance of American medical dramas on television and due to World Health Organization efforts to standardize names. However, in common use amongst a majority of English speaking people is still the word Adrenaline. Despite the WHO ruling some countries still use Adrenaline officially, sometimes compromising to write Adrenaline (Epinephrine). In fact there have been many cases of emergency medicine operators mistakenly picking Ephedrine in place of Epinephrine in a crisis and this has only bolstered opposition to the naming convention. Adrenaline is considered a special case where individual countries may have slightly different policies. Despite anything, the regular population still uses Adrenaline to mean the stuff that comes out of your adrenal gland and rushes round your body, even in America. American scientists (and Japanese and some Canadians) may use Epinephrine but the vast majority of regular folk use Adrenaline. It will always be, therefore, that there are editors wishing to revisit this matter, as within society as a whole there will always be people confused when they look up "Adrenaline rush" and find an article on Epinephrine. And when they find out that the only reason it is called Epinephrine and not the Adrenaline they have always known is that someone patented the word Adrenalin in America 110 years ago, they are likely to edit the page in line with the ideas of common name, this being an encyclopedia after all and not a medical text. This is an encyclopedia and is meant to be a general reference work. The article on Epinephrine mentions little of the history or the naming of the substance, and little to do with the use of the term "Adrenaline" in society. That isn't a general reference work, it is a page from a medical book. The article is not representative of societys use of the word, and that is why there is a conflict, and will likely be a conflict again and again with different participants. Perhaps a compromise could be to have a medical article on Epinephrine and a general reference article on Adrenaline, but if not then the current article needs to be expanded. That expansion would reveal more to the reader about why it is named what it is, and who uses the name. I would argue that this would only make it more clear to editors why the article should be called Adrenaline in a general reference work, despite what the WHO would like to see. If individual countries are allowed to challenge the WHO ruling on Adrenaline, should Wikipedia feel bound by the ruling? I would say not. Wikipedia is not responsible for forcing an uncommon name on the readership simply to comply with WHO rulings. Whenever common use of the word for the stuff that comes out of your adrenal gland changes in favour of Epinephrine then there will be fewer disagreements over the article title. Until then the encyclopedic thing to do is call the article what the majority of the readers will call it, Adrenaline, and expand the article text to show why that is the case. Much has been made of representation in reliable sources, yet the commentators have always restricted their search to scientific works - this is a general reference encyclopedia, we don't only report what goes on in the medical world, and we use a variety of reliable sources. Any goodfaith search shows that Adrenaline is the preferred term among English speaking people. I think that so long as the majority use Adrenaline there will always be editors who dislike being told by the WHO or anyone else that they can't say "adrenaline junkie" or "adrenaline rush" or "adrenaline-anything else", who will argue that common use clearly favours Adrenaline and that those arguing for Epinephrine are forcing a minority view which, although "official" in some parts of the world and common among scientists from certain parts of the world is not representative of common use, and who will therefore seek to change the article title. Since we are writing for the majority and not the minority (who in this case mostly have access to better quality reference works than Wikipedia anyway) the simplest solution is just to go with the majority. Weakopedia (talk) 07:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Topic 1 - How to apply WP policy[edit]In his opening remarks, Ronk01 said that in his opinion: "... Wikipedia editors are not slaves to policy, and when a policy does not benifit an article, we simply ignore it." It sounds to me as though this invokes, or reserves the right to invoke, WP:IAR, which states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." This is an important policy. Ronk01 also refers to the World Health Organization, the International Nonproprietary Name and various bodies with views on medical names. These will, of course be important in determining the article name. WP:TITLE, the policy for article naming, states: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources." He has listed some key sources. Let me begin this discussion by stating my perspective. I've edited and mediated according to WP policies for many years now. While they are not perfect, they are the foundation for what Wikipedia is today. In mediation, I find that they provide an objective lens through which to consider the views of various participants. I would like to have an agreement with participants in this mediation about how we apply policies related to article naming. What shall our approach be? What do we agree on with respect to WP policy? When and how do we invoke WP:IAR? Sunray (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that WP:IAR is an important rule, but it is not a trump card. This argument is hypocritical coming from someone who used WP:MEDMOS, which isn't even a policy, to support the argument that we must use the INN name. We are not slaves to the INN either. At least we can change policy. We cannot just use the INN name for the sake of itself. I have asked several times what the benefit of using the INN name over the common name is, and have not gotten a reasonable answer. I have explained regardless of any policy, why adrenaline is the better name, and even provided hypothetical conditions under which epinephrine would be more appropriate. Shouldn't the exception leave the rule intact? Under what conditions would adrenaline be more appropriate? Policy should not be enforced for the sake of itself, but it also shouldn't be ignored without a good reason. I have explained several times why in this specific case following the policy makes more sense and there is a consensus on the talk page to use WP:AT. If it states that: "Article titles should be recognizable to readers", doesn't WP:COMMONNAMES best support this? If policies "benifit the majority of readers of the enclyclopedia, and the majority of articles", then what is the exception to a change that benefits the majority of readers? --WikiDonn (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
As a paraphrase form COMMONNAMES: "Article titles should reflect common, accurate usage, instead of a more elaborate, formal, or scientific alternative" both terms are scientific, there is no third name. Further: "In determining what this name is, we follow the usage of reliable sources, such as those used as references for the article." The majority of refrences are epinephrine. The, instead of supporting Adrenaline, commonnames supports epinephrine. But, of course, I stated above that I believe that commonnames does not apply to medical articles as medical article should reflect current accurate medical usage of a term (which is why the uterus article is not titled "womb"), MEDMOS is a legitimate guideline that indicates proper usage of terminology in medical articles, MEDMOS states that INN names must be used to conform, that's why we don't use acetaminophin for the article on paracetamol, even though here in the US and Canada (the majority of the native English speaking population of the world) we call it acetaminophin. Paracetamol is INN, acetaminophin is not, thus we use paracetamol (Both terms, by the way, are just a scientific, INN simply chose paracetamol due to its lack of a trademark history.) Thus, Adrenaline has no basis for use here on Wikipedia, except for those ethnocentric few who refuse to accept international standards. Ronk01 (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I think I'll list some key text form WP:AT in bullet form and then comment on it. According to policy, article titles should be:
Adrenaline fits all of these best, and I would be happy to clarify why.
This points toward common names being the default, and using the technical names as the exception.
Caffeine is a drug, and since a drug is on the list, I think it is safe to reason that WP:COMMONNAME was meant to apply to drugs.
Once again, this points toward article titles using the common name unless there are clear benefits. Using the reason that epinephrine "is the scientific name" or "is the name supported by most established naming conventions" as a "benefit" to using the specialized name defeats the spirit of this policy. Furthermore, technically epinephrine is not neutral because, as Ronk01 pointed out, it is disputed between the organizations which name should be used. Therefore, the common name should be used on Wikipedia, as the organizations have not been able to decide themselves, but common usage has decided on adrenaline because is the common name in every single country. --WikiDonn (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
MEDMOS is a much more specific guideline, so in my opinion, it would be more appropriate to follow MEDMOS (in fact the medicine articles are the only ones with a manual of style that states that COMMONNAMES does not have the final say on article titles. I personally, believe that the more specififc guidelines are more useful in cases like this than less specific, all-encompassing policies. As I have stated before, this has already occured over at Paracetamol, so we have precedent here. Ronk01 (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I have as a matter of fact, epinephrine yeilds around 35,800,000 results, adrenaline, only 18,300,000. If we go to Google Scholar, epinephrine's prevalance in the scholarly world is evident, 317,000 for epinephrine, 241,000 for adrenaline. There is no question tha tepinephrine is the proper title. Ronk01 talk, 18:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
First of all, you seem to have a few misconceptions Ronk01. WP:AT doesn't state that we must use the name most commonly used in reliable sources, it states that we must use the most common name that is used in reliable sources. Adrenaline and epinephrine are both used in reliable sources, but adrenaline is more commonly used in general. In no way is epinephrine the common name. Therefore it does not benefit the article in any way to use epinephrine. Second of all, a google test yields 13,700,000 results for adrenaline, and 2,600,000 for epinephrine, which means there is a big difference in general usage. There is no question that adrenaline is the common name. A google scholar test yields 241,000 results for adrenaline, and 317,000 for epinephrine which shows a much smaller difference in the medical usage. So the usage in the medical field is somewhat larger for epinephrine, but in general, the usage is far more in favor adrenaline. Second of all, both adrenaline and epinephrine are used professionally. They are both used professionally in every country. Does any organization not accept adrenaline? Was any reason given for why the organizations chose epinephrine? Those are things you have not considered and we do not have to use the names given by these organizations without thinking about it. Any doctor or such will recognize adrenaline and realize what it is. The same is not true for everybody else and epinephrine. Since organizations use both terms, some prefer one, and some prefer the other, it is a POV to say epinephrine is more scientific. However, since adrenaline is mainly used by everybody in general, so it is more neutral to go with adrenaline. Epinephrine is not recognizable to most people. Given the google test, I would say the amount of people that recognize adrenaline only is about 13.7:2.6 which is more than 5:1 (in other words, only 1 in 5 people who know about the chemical will recognize the name epinephrine). Regarding the thing about trademarked terms, that was not my comment, and it actually is a part of the policy. But I was surprised when I saw it and I would agree that I have never seen it before, so it might be new. How is WP:AT less specific? Since this is a Wikipedia article, WP:AT applies as well. It is strongly in favor of adrenaline, but MEDMOS is only loosely in favor of epinephrine because adrenaline is not a proprietary name. Even if it was, it would still be better to use adrenaline because it is far more well recognized (and apparently that is now supported by policy). Guidelines do not exist to outright contradict policies, and since they are guidelines, they don't have to be interpreted as strictly as policies. Guidelines should not be used if they contradict a policy unless there is a consensus for it, and only if there is a good reason to do it other than the fact that the guidelines says so. And finally, nothing is more original research than asking your ten year old nephew's friend if they know what epinephrine is. --WikiDonn (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC) First of all, your first statement is patent nonsense, second, epinephrine is much more commen in academia. Third, you are using Google UK, I uysed an amalgation of both. Here in the US,, we cannot use adrenaline on any official forms, documents, or reports, the same is true in Canada, so your statement regarding usage in all countries is simply wrong. Just about every organization in the US and Cada does not accept Adrenaline (including The Joint Commission on Hospital Accredtation) While a dcotor would recognize adrenaline, it is considered a layman's term, and professionals using it professionally are loked down upon. AT is less specific because it is meant to encompass all Wikipedia articles, MEDMOS is meant only for medical ones. MEDMOS is unequivacobly in favor of epinephrine, since, and this is tha last time I am going to say this, Epinephrine is INN! POlicies are not meant to be interpreted strictly, thopse who do are called wikilayers. That was nto states to be original research, it was an example, and since it is not going to be used in an article, it doesn't matter! If this really must come down to it, we could consider this a dialectual debate, in which the name that was useed when the article was created is the one that the article keeps. Ronk01 talk, 00:36, 30 June 2010 (UTC) Refocussing[edit]
Please take your time. We won't solve this until we find things to agree on. Sunray (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
O.K., I'm back. A summary of my above wall of text would be:
--WikiDonn (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I was under the impression that posting would not be made until we both both were avalible. Anyway, my argument is as follows
Well, back to my actual job (hey, there's an amp of epinephrine next to my laptop, funny) Ronk01 talk, 17:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC) I don't know where you got the idea that I am using google UK; I use regular google.com. I live in America, and from my personal experience, epinephrine is never used by anyone else other than doctors. Epinephrine is most certainly not commonly used outside a medical context, making it medical jargon. Adrenaline most certainly is used in a medical context, and unlike you, I have the data to back it up (the search results). UK is not the only country that uses adrenaline in a medical context, all of them do! Some just use epinephrine slightly more. From previous discussion, I recall it being the case that the US is the only country that prefers epinephrine in a medical context. My arguments have nothing to do with lexical differences because adrenaline is the common name in every country! Finally, doing something to pander to the scientific community at the expense of the general reader harms this article, because Wikipedia is written for the general reader. --WikiDonn (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Well yopu are using a different version of google, because every google search gives it to epinephrine. Secondly, Japan, Canada, Australia (I believe) use epinephrine exclusively in medicine, and since only english speaking countries count here, the UK is the only major nation left. And when I say that one term is used more, I mean exclusively I have never, in my ten years of practice, heard a medical professional use adrenaline, with the exception of a trip to the UK. Epinephrine is used widely in the nlay community (I hear it insetad of adrenaline all of teh time) textbooks (including middle and high school). The only place you are going to commonly hear adrenaline in the US is in a purely non-scientific forum, such as skaters, surfers, and participants in adventure sports, and they don't even know what it means, or what it does. (In fact, I had a patient who thought that adrenaline was a surfer term but he knew what epinephrine was) So clearly, if a reader wants to gain knowledge about epinephrine, they are going to use the term epinephrine. And if you actually look at your google search results (34,000,000 for epi, 18,000,000 for adrenaline, a difference of over 16,000,000 hits in favor of epinephrine!) you will see that the majorit are not medically related, or even related to the compound, most are about video games. Do you really want the Wikipedia page about a lifesaving drug appearing with "Adrenalinejunkie.com?" May I also remind yo that the about clarification of opinions was not meant for purposes of attacking those opinions, it was meant for the mediatior. Ronk01 talk, 00:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC) I don't know what you mean by "my" google search results, but I never gave those numbers. A current search on google gives 13,500,000 for adrenaline and 2,610,000 for epinephrine, which is overwhelmingly in favor of adrenaline. A google scholar search gives for 242,000 adrenaline, and 333,000 for epinephrine, which is only slightly in favor of epinephrine. Your point of medical professionals using solely epinephrine is purely from your personal experience and point of view of a US doctor, yet the data sides with me. Are you saying that the UK put out 242,000 articles on adrenaline, while the rest of the world combined only put out 333,000? I think not. Furthermore, it's not just the COMMONNAMES part of WP:AT that sides with adrenaline, it's the whole policy! If a surfer is looking for info on adrenaline, they are going to be searching for adrenaline! That's why the article titles should be recognizable to most readers, and epinephrine is not. Not everybody looking for medical info is one of your patients, and you need to remember who Wikipedia is written for. Finally, a search for adrenaline on the WHO's very own website gives a plethora of results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDonn (talk • contribs) 03:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Wikidonn, you need to give us the exact address of the google you are using, because I am getting drastically different numers with www.google.com, also give us your search terms. Googel Scholar searches the entire content of the article, which means that a disimbaug get a hit too, this means that articles using epinephrine can get hits using adrenaline a keyword and vice versa. And my point about the exclusive use of epinephrine among medical professionals comes from JCAHO (The Joint Commission on accredaitation of healthcare organizations) policy, if a hospital or private practice dosen't follow those policies, they cannot operate. JCAHO explicitlystates that the USP names must be used in practice, no forms, and on patient charts. And since the USP (unlike the UK) follows INN, epinephrine is the only name legally used by US health professionals. The data sides with me here, Google sides with me, (except for your rather unusual Google), WP policy sides with both,or neither, professional use is with me here. By the way, the Google scholar discrepancy is easily explained with the fact that there are only two countries that really get hits on google scholar, the UK,and the US, so the small difference is explained by differing use of terms by locality (the definition of a dialectial conflict) Ronk01 talk, 05:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Sunray, I would greatly appreciate not having to defend my position a sixth time here, so I would appreciate some sort of moratorium on further argument, and discussion of what is already here. Ronk01 talk, 05:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC) Wikipedia doesn't mirror what hospitals are legally obligated to do, and using such a name only overcomplicated the names of articles. Wikipedia is not a medical journal. Once again, being the professionally used name is not a good enough reason to use it on Wikipedia, the important thing is that it is the name that most people use, which is adrenaline! You are the one with unusual google results, I am simply entering the words adrenaline and epinephrine into google. My google search for adrenaline is here, and the search for epinephrine is here. Typing in adrenaline -epinephrine gives 119,000,000 results, and typing in epinephrine -adrenaline gives 9,750,000 which is an even more staggering result in favor of adrenaline. It's a 12:1 ratio in favor of adrenaline. Like I said before, epinephrine is rarely used outside the medical context, but adrenaline is recognized by everyone. Most people know the name adrenaline. Most people do not know of epinephrine. Since titles are supposed to be the most easily recognizable without being overly scientific, policy sides with me. Finally, google scholar would not come down to UK vs US, because it has all the articles it can that are in English, regardless of what country it comes from, so that has nothing to do with it. It's a theory of which you once again have no data to back up. Excluding adrenaline from a epinephrine search and vice versa doesn't change the results much, so once again, if all the adrenaline articles came from only the UK, it puts out an awful lot more articles involving the hormone than any other one country. --WikiDonn (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Wikidonn, I clicked on your links, and got the resukts that I got before, is there any chance that Google somehow tailors search results to locality? If so, google cannot be used here. I will say this again, when most people say adrenaline, they usually have no idea that they are talking about a hormone! They are almost always talking about an "adrenaline rush" When someone (even from the general public says epinephrine, they always mean the hormone. So the term adrenaline as used by the general public in most english speaking nations has no sicentific context. (By the way a google for adrenaline -rush shows that about two million of the 18 million hits I get for adrenaline are for adrenaline rush) Ronk01 talk, 02:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Sunray, please post the results of the googling that you did earlier. Ronk01 talk, 02:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I have provided mass examples of adrenaline being used in a scientific context, and Ronk01 has provided no examples of epinephrine being used outside of a medical context, leaving epinephrine still medical jargon. It is not even required that adrenaline be used in a scientific context for it to be the title, and we already know that it is the most commonly used name overall, so why are we even arguing over this? I am tired of Ronk01 falsifying data. I provided my links, where are Ronk01's? Sunray, can you please verify whose search numbers are correct. Also, Ronk01, you are not psychic, and you can't say people don't know it is a hormone, or what they are thinking when they think adrenaline. Also, 2/18 being for adrenaline rush (assuming your numbers are correct) means only a small fraction of the results are for adrenaline rush (1/9), and that still leaves a majority in adrenaline -rush's favor over epinephrine. --WikiDonn (talk) 16:03, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, I do not need to give uses outside the medical context, since those uses would likely not refer to the medical, chemical, or biological properties of the drug, but the article does. Epinephrine is a subject to a rather specialised interest (medicine) we already have an article for adrenaline rush (the colloquial usage). What I am trying to say is that epinephrine is not used outside of the medical context because there is no reason for it! Epinephrine is a drug name, adrenaline is considered tantamount to slang in the medical community. However, I can give examples of common usage if you would like. In regards to your final segment, I did a informal survey of my patients (not suggesting inclusion in the article, WP:NOR does not apply) and 24% recognized adrenaline only, 50% recognized both, and 26% knew epinephrine only (survey of 100 patients across demographics by uninvolved parties (my nurse and medical assistants)) I think that google tailors their results to regions or something, because we are getting different results each time we google, (perhaps we could get a few other wikipedians to do some googling to verify this?) Ronk01 talk, 23:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Actually, if you can't give examples of use outside a medical context, that proves it is medical jargon, and Wikipedia avoids medical jargon because it once again overcomplicates articles, and makes it so only a select few will understand the words. Just because you do not like the data, doesn't mean you can ignore it, it means you're just wrong. Perhaps we could get a few other wikipedians to do some googling to verify this? Just look at the discussion talk page! It shows pretty much the same thing my numbers show! It shows a small amount in favor of epinephrine on google scholar, but an extreme amount in favor of adrenaline on google regular. Wikipedia also does not care what is "tantamount to slang in the medical community" because that is just your personal opinion, and even still, that has been refuted by the link to my search on the WHO website. Finally, the article on adrenaline is not of "rather specialized interest", because adrenaline is one of the most widely known hormones. Regardless of that, Wikipedia has lots of articles of "rather specialised interest" (other than medical articles) and the common names are used for them where possible so people who are not experts on the subject can recognize them! That's why we have the common names policy and why it applies to all articles! --WikiDonn (talk) 23:37, 9 July 2010 (UTC) Wikidonn, you are making the same flawed arguments over and over again! Use outside medical context (ie lay medical reffrences (which generally favor epinephrine, see the AMA guide to home health) is simply not relevant! This is an article about a medical topic, this is certiantly not general intrest like Bill Clinton, so commonnames (which could be interpreted to favor epinephrine) needs to be applied with care. Remember also that wikipedia polocies are not hard-and-fast rules, they do not exist simply to be followed, we cannot apply themn simply for their own sake at teh expense of the credibility of the encyclopedia. My Google gives me 32 million to 18 million in favor of epinephrine [4] vs. [5] quite a difference if you ask me! And I don't really care how we treat other articles, this is a medical article, one that needs nto be treated differently because of people's tendency (despite specific warnings) to use Wikipedia for medical advice, we have a responsibility to keep our articles in reflection to major medical trends, like evidence based medicine and INN. (I am actually planning on proposing a policy along these lines after this mediation) Wikidonn, if you cannot refute my arguments with something other than "COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES, COMMONNAMES! I am simply not going to respond. (and in regards to the WHO site, many of those articles are outdated, or translations, or from the UK, the WHO posts them because they are relavant, but try searching epinephrine) Ronk01 talk, 04:37, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Firstly I have never falsified facts, and I take the fact that you have suggested tyhat to be a personal attack, please assume good faith. Secondly, naming changes all of the time, currently, adrenaline is getting the boot in the scientific world (check the dates on all of those articles) because the INN chose to accept epinephrine. Demanding citation for all claims is a perfectly reasonable approach to such a controversial topic Wikidonn. I am willing to concede on any issue other than the page name, and quite frankly, I think that mediation is no longer a forum where this dispute can be resolved. Finally, You "final compromise" is hardly that, the name of that article has never been contested and both must follow the same naming system (INN) especially with drugd that are this closely related. Finally, norepinephrine is no more specialized than epinephrine, almost any time you see norepinephrine, in media, you see epinephrine right next to it. That is not a compromise,m and I refuse to accept this insult to my intelligence. Ronk01 talk, 01:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
WikiDonn: The following statements are directed at your co-participant, rather than at content:
Ronk01: While you avoided responding in kind and did stick to content, you indicate that you do not believe that mediation is an acceptable forum to resolve this dispute. I would like you to think about that. In my opinion, mediation is the last stop on this line. It is not an arbitratable matter. Request to you both: If you are both willing to continue we will need to make some changes to the process. I have gone back to my questions at the top of the page. I believe it was my error not to have secured agreement from you to commit to the process outlined. After all, each of the points is based on WP policies and long-established norms. IMO there is little hope of resolution of this matter if you do not make a commitment to try to follow the process outlined in my questions. I've added to them. I would like you to go back and indicate your willingness to follow that process. Once you have done so, I will outline some thoughts on how to discuss the policy aspects of this dispute. Sunray (talk) 15:49, 11 July 2010 (UTC) Sunray, I would regard the following statements made by Ronk01 directed at me rather than content:
On the things I said, they were based on the content of the arguments, and for the most part are backed up by policy (but I'd rather not start discussing the specifics of why right now). I was talking to you not him, and I was suggesting that given those things that were said, mediation isn't working. --WikiDonn (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
Determining elements of policy and guidelines that apply[edit]Let's take this by the numbers. With reference to the policy on article titles, what are the policy considerations that apply to this case? Please list them in bullet form below. Sunray (talk) 06:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC) From article titles:
In other words, not arbitrary naming standards.
Meaning that names are not necessarily the ones used most in the sources when the source uses medical jargon. Since adrenaline is used in the sources almost as much as epinephrine, there is nothing unscientific about it, and since it is used far more often outside the scientific field, it is better to trade off for common usage outside of the sources.
I can't put it more perfectly than this. Adrenaline, being one of the most widely known hormones outside the scientific field, it is of great general interest.
Adrenaline is not vulgar, but epinephrine is pedantic.
This means that common names are always preferred over scientific names, even if they are technically correct, which in the case of epinephrine is untrue. The statement: "Common names are preferred over scientific names except when a scientific name exists" makes zero sense. This policy applies to all articles, and there is no good reason this article should be treated any differently.
Just because the example given is in chemical nomenclature, doesn't mean common names aren't still preferred to scientific names. The fact that caffeine is mentioned and a drug means that this policy is still meant to apply to drugs.
Even if adrenaline is becoming used less in the scientific world (which there is no proof of), that is irrelevant because common usage still prefers adrenaline. Epinephrine has been the INN name for awhile and common usage has not changed. That may even suggest that the INN will change to adrenaline because they have failed to influence common usage, and adrenaline is equally scientific. Regardless, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and adrenaline is still used most often in common usage.
Meaning that technical names should be used if they are more accurate, but in this case, it is not.
This is the most important section when it comes to this issue. It states that specialized names should only be used when there is a specific reason on a case by case basis. Similarly to when WP:IAR is used, there must be a good reason for it. The statement that "Wikipedia must use INN names" is not a "clear benefit", it is an opinion. There is no specific reason in this specific case why the use of the specialized name over the common name benefits the article. Therefore since policy states that using a more scientific name for its own sake is not a benefit, the common name should be used. --WikiDonn (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC) Wikidonn, please condense your wall of text into concise bullets, like this:
Above I have summarized my policiy and guideline based arguments for review, I will be away from this mediation for a couple of days. Ronk01 talk, 17:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
You begin your summary by identifying consensus and use of reliable sources as important. Of reliable sources, you then state: "Meaning that names are not necessarily the ones used most in the sources when the source uses medical jargon." I didn't see this in the policy. What I did see was several references to the use of reliable sources, where possible. You quote the following line of policy: "The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." The word "interests" seems to me to need clarification and agreement between us.
You refer extensively to WP:MEDMOS. Since that is a guideline, I would suggest we hold off on discussion of it's importance for now. You also refer to the "Common name" section of the policy. Let's focus on that and park the MEDMOS material for now (see "Discussion" section below). Discussion[edit]You have surfaced several important aspects of policy. Now I would like to drill down until we get to bedrock. Taking it from the top and bearing in mind our goal of concision, please consider the following:
Comments? Sunray (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC) Ronk01's Response[edit]1. Unfortnately, in this case there are two editors with vastly different opinions on how this article must be named. This is not a simple content dispute in which a peice of contested material can be only partially included, or rewritten to acheive consenus; here there is no room for compromise, one editor must concede, either on their own free will, or by force of policy. The current consensus has stood for nearly a decade, and has only been contested for a few years, there is little reason to believe that the reader of this article is anything less than satisfied, otherwise many more IP comments would be seen on the talk pages.
Cordially,
Weakopedia's response[edit]
Further discussion[edit]we already have an article on the vulgar use of the name adrenaline (Adrenaline Rush) and certainly you can see that the actual scientific article is just that, scientific, which means that we need to pay attention to scientific naming protocol (which is why paracetamol is not named Acetaminophen, which is the common name, but the WHO recognizes paracetamol). It is nice to see that the new participant does his research; however, he should know that the only English-speaking nation that uses Adrenaline scientifically is the UK, everyone else follows international protocol. Those nations that do not follow INN are penalized for it. Finally, I cite policy which clearly states that "article titles must reflect usage in reliable sources" epinephrine is in the majority of reliable (read scientific) sources. Ronk01 talk, 12:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Remember, we have to consider the origin of each source, whether from the UK, or the rest of the English speaking world. Ronk01 talk, 19:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC) I think it is a fine plan, and I shall start looing for what reliable sources have to say about the matter. And I might take a look at the Paracetamol article to see what all the fuss was about over there - here in Europe we have always called it Paracetamol. Weakopedia (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Weakopedia, in Europe it is Paracetamol (by the way, that's what I call it) but in Australia (Fairly sure), Canada and the US it is acetaminophen, these make up the majority of the English speaking population. Ronk01 talk, 21:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Ronk01's Sources[edit]
Proposed Compromise[edit]One interesting thing that I have noticed is that in common (ie. non-medical)usage, "Epinephrine" applies to usage as a drug, while "Adrenaline" is used when referring to the hormone, a split, rather like Nitroglycerin/Glyceryl trinitrate might be a workable compromise, with the Epinephrine article discussing the medical aspects, and adrenaline discussing the anatomical ones. That means that INN would still be followed for the drug usage, and the more general interest and anatomical aspects could fall under adrenaline, which satisfies the COMMONNAMES argument. Comments? Ronk01 talk, 05:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Good idea, I can work on that after my rounds Ronk01 talk, 23:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC) Certainly. I have been working on finding the sources that would make an article on Adrenaline a worthwhile article and I hope to post something here today. Weakopedia (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2010 (UTC) I can have a proposal drafted by the end of today. Ronk01 talk, 16:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC) This idea sounds perfect. I actually was going to suggest this, but I thought it would be considered content forking, so I didn't bother. I recall reading something like this to involving MSG. One article is about the chemical compound and its properties, and the other is about its use in food. I also noticed the thing about adrenaline being used to refer to the hormone, and epinephrine being used to refer to the drug, so that solution makes sense since I also noticed this article has very little about how it is actually used normally in the body as a hormone. --WikiDonn (talk) 17:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC) Good to have you back Wikidonn, you might get in contact with Weakopadia, as he is currently working on a draft "Adrenaline" article, and I have begun working on a proposal to the3 community to be put on the talk page. Ronk01 talk, 17:43, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh dear, what happened? I do hope you heal soon. I'll only be working fiour days/ week for a while now, so I can get a bit more done. (Having residents do all of your work is nice). Ronk01 talk, 16:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC) Proposal for talk page[edit]During the course of the current mediation for this article title, located here, we (Ronk01, WikiDonn, Weakopedia) have noticed that, on average, the name Epinephrine is used primarily for the synthetic drug, whereas Adrenaline is used to refer to the hormone. A similar situation is seen at Nitroglycerine, where nitroglycerine refers to the chemical explosive, and Glyceryl trinitrate is used in a medical context. In that case, two different articles were written, one for the chemical itself, and one, titled Glyceryl trinitrate for the drug usage. What we are proposing here is something very similar, by splitting the article (with proper redirects and cross-links) into Epinephrine (drug) and Adrenaline (hormone) we are able to follow WP:MEDMOS, which requires the use of INN names, and WP:COMMONNAME, which requires that general interest topics (like hormones) use the name most commonly used by the general public. Additionally, a split would encourage further development of materials within each article. For example, the current page focuses heavily on drug usage, with comparatively little material regarding the hormone’s actions, and physiological function. Thus, by splitting the article, we are able to end the dispute, and improve the quality of both pages. This is a draft proposal for presentation on the talk page, please add/subtract and tweak as you see fit. Ronk01 talk, 17:51, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree that adrenaline rush would be superfluous (in fact we could move the article to Adrenaline (hormone) and add to it to produce the hormone article). The information about discovery should be in hte hormone article, with a basic outline in the drug article. The Takamine experiment is a classic, it is nice to see that you know about it, are you a medical professional as well?Ronk01 talk, 00:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, my only concern would be that both articles are sufficiently developed. Ronk01 talk, 16:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
No, it is more so that I want to ensure that the fledgling Adrenaline (hormone) article is developed properly, otherwise, my answer is an unequivocal "Yes" Ronk01 talk, 14:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes, it would, thank you. Ronk01 talk, 16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, I didn't mean to make it appear I was back, I just happened to be a computer, and even on vacation I use Wikipedia to look stuff up. I was looking at the article heptadecagon, and it said I had new messages. I noticed Ronk01's comment about the compromise, on my talk page, so I just dropped by to say how I felt about it. Now that I am back, Ronk01's draft looks surprisingly good. By "surprisingly", I mean it sums up how I feel quite well, even though I had little input lately. Now, my main concern is that this might be rejected by the community as WP:Content forking. Ronk01, do you think your statement will be enough to convince the community? Also, could I get a link to the draft article, and does it have to have (hormone) attached to it? I think it should just say something at the top like: "This article relates to adrenaline as a hormone, for the article on the drug see epinephrine" and vice versa, like the MSG pages I was talking about. --WikiDonn (talk) 18:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Closing mediation[edit]If none of you object, I think we can close this mediation as successful. My complements to the three of you. It is heartening to work with editors who have the best interests of Wikipedia in mind and who are prepared to consider alternatives to ensure that the best possible article(s) will result. If I don't hear a proposal to the contrary, I will close this on August 9, 2010. I will, however, maintain a watching brief on the article talk page and look forward to seeing the development of a new article. Thank you. Sunray (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
|