![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
WP:MEDMOS#Writing for the wrong audience is one of my favorite sections, because I think it's very useful for many editors, without creating "rules". We don't write for (other) professionals and we don't write for (other) patients. This particular line:
was previously balanced by a line that said:
This seems to have disappeared sometime in the last couple of years, and I think it should be restored. Does anyone object? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the first thing we need to get on board with, is to smash the notion that Simple Wikipedia has any usefulness or utility for anyone. It has roughly 1/500th the readership of en-wiki, and I've never met a single person outside Wikimania or Wiki-meetups that was even aware of it existing. I've also never met anyone who actually edits it.
The second point is that it is rediculously out of date, and poorly maintained — and has no community interested in working on its medical articles.
And for a third point — it doesn't even do what it's supposed to do. Just take a look at this:
It consistently scores horribly in readability — so even if the articles weren't horrible, they aren't much more readable. In fact the only article I found on some of our most important topics that was at all useful was:
But, on the other hand, it's so horrible and short that it's useless anyway. It defines "safe sex" as: "to have sex in a safe way." That article saw 55 views in the past month — while the en-wiki one saw 25,000.
I think any argument that builds on the existence of simple-wiki should be ignored on sight. (Not direct at you SMcCandlish, but I don't think people realize how useless and ignored simple-wiki is. It's worse than Wikipedia Zero, and I'm entirely convinced that the only reason it hasn't been closed down is because it has a handful of editors who would get very mad if it did, while Zero was run by foundation employees). Carl Fredrik talk 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
If people want to save (and make "actually workable") the idea of applying some combination of the Simple English limited lexicons to WP topics, the eventual solution is probably integrating it into en.WP itself, as some kind of sidebar option. If the huge active editorial base of en.WP were also creating the simplified versions of articles, it would get done more often and better. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
About this, the lead has been discussed several times here:
Removing the entire section was somewhat... extreme, so I have restored it. We can certainly discuss this more. Jytdog ( talk) 14:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC) (added last bullet per note below Jytdog ( talk) 16:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC))
MOS:MED#Standard appendices says to Avoid the
See also section when possible; prefer wikilinks in the main article and
navigation templates at the end.
I'm curious about the reasoning behind this advice. Is there some property of Medicine-related articles specifically that makes "See also" sections problematic for them? I tried searching the talk archives for "See also", but the best I could find was
this discussion from 2012 which (starting from dolfrog's comment) briefly touches on the rationale for the guideline, with Doc James mentioning
WP:NOTLINKFARM. But I'd like to learn more about the reason for the guideline and its genesis - I'm wondering if it was originally hashed out on a different page, which is why I can't find it in the archives?
Colin M (
talk)
17:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Better question is who writes these new rules. Anybody can edit these Manuals of Style articles and make up ludicrous rules. Wikipedia is finished. Nashhinton ( talk) 17:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
Were should this content generally be placed? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
-- It's gonna be awesome!✎ Talk♬ 15:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)In medicine, an adverse effect is an undesired harmful effect resulting from a medication or other intervention such as surgery. An adverse effect may be termed a "side effect", when judged to be secondary to a main or therapeutic effect. If it results from an unsuitable or incorrect dosage or procedure, this is called a medical error and not a complication. Adverse effects are sometimes referred to as "iatrogenic" because they are generated by a physician/treatment. Some adverse effects occur only when starting, increasing or discontinuing a treatment.
Plenty of recovering addicts still crave drugs after two months or more clean, when their FosB levels would have normalised.I never even implied that DeltaFosB expression-dependently regulated the intensity of cravings. Even if I did, it would take more than two months for the expression of its downstream targets to subside back to normal levels, so I wouldn't have asserted that to begin with. You are making a lot of erroneous assumptions about what and how I think. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Although authors of the guidelines should be commended for not suggesting that addiction is a direct consequence of long-term benzodiazepine use, they do not do enough to clarify the distinction between dependence and addiction in this context. For example, they state that ‘patients should be advised that benzodiazepines may produce both tolerance and dependence, with the risk of withdrawal symptoms’. Several studies (reviewed by Starcevic, 2014) have demonstrated that dose escalation (i.e. tolerance) occurs rarely during a long-term treatment of anxiety disorders with benzodiazepines. In contrast, withdrawal symptoms after an abrupt cessation of long-term benzodiazepine use or precipitous decrease in the dose of benzodiazepines are common, although not inevitable; patients should be rightly cautioned about them, but not intimidated. The important point here is that pharmacological dependence (characterised by tolerance and/or withdrawal symptoms) denotes no more than a normal physiological adaptation to the long-term presence of a substance that affects the central nervous system (O’Brien et al., 2006) and that it is erroneous to consider as addicted all individuals who are dependent on benzodiazepines. Substance addiction is a compulsive drug-seeking behaviour, associated with craving and loss of control, which persists despite multiple adverse consequences (Shaffer, 1999). Addiction-like pattern of benzodiazepine use is rarely seen among patients with anxiety disorders who do not have another substance use disorder (Starcevic, 2014). Therefore, withholding benzodiazepines from such patients on the grounds that they cause addiction and substituting them for medications that may be more harmful represents poor clinical practice." So again, benzos cause dependence, but not addiction. The distinction between those two disorders is very significant. Dependence is relatively transient and generally very unpleasant; addiction is long-term, extremely self-destructive, and generally upends if not ruins a person's life for at least a few years. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 14:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
While physical dependence and withdrawal occur with some drugs of abuse (opiates, ethanol), these phenomena are not useful in the diagnosis of an addiction because they do not occur with other drugs of abuse (cocaine, amphetamine) and can occur with many drugs that are not abused (propranolol, clonidine)." ( page 367). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 15:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Research has long demonstrated that patients with no prior history of opioid abuse treated with opioid pain medications over extended periods do not experience euphoria—these patients are therefore unlikely to become addicted [1]. Still, there is a risk that a small percentage (3.27–11.5%) of patients treated with opioids for chronic pain may develop addiction or abuse with negative consequences, complicating the management of chronic pain [9]." To be perfectly clear, this source is saying that the misuse or "abuse" of these drugs as a euphoriant is necessary for the development of an opioid addiction when they're used to treat chronic pain. Moreover, from this review: "
The administration of opioids has been used for centuries as a viable option for pain management. When administered at appropriate doses, opioids prove effective not only at eliminating pain but further preventing its recurrence in long-term recovery scenarios. Physicians have complied with the appropriate management of acute and chronic pain; however, this short or long-term opioid exposure provides opportunities for long-term opioid misuse and abuse, leading to addiction of patients who receive an opioid prescription and/or diversion of this pain medication to other people without prescription." This is essentially the same assertion as was made by the preceding review. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 14:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
you have ridiculed my mainstream interpretation of tolerance and dependenceI'm not sure what you're talking about, as I don't remember doing this; can you clarify?
you are overly fixated on FosB to the exclusion of other important factors involved in addictionSee my reply to your comment above.
You appear to latch onto things to the exclusion of other important data and academic viewpoints and then POV push a narrow angle that in my view is out of context.That's a bold assertion. You're the one pushing a POV about benzos that contradicts sources. In any event, what viewpoints have I excluded then? I'm sure you can give me at least ONE concrete example of a viewpoint I've omitted. @ Literaturegeek: Also, I don't want a hand-waivey bullshit argument; cite a review that covers the viewpoint(s) which you're alleging that I've excluded. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The subject of benzodiazepines is controversial with a general consensus that the risk of physical dependence and tolerance is too high to justify long-term use for most patients.I never asserted anything about this being true or false. The only thing I've stated about benzo dependence is that it occurs at therapeutic doses, so I don't know why you said "
Yes some researchers and doctors publish papers challenging the mainstream consensus and you latch on to their arguably weak methodology as if it were the sole and only WP:TRUTH." I don't know how I've "latched on" to an opposing argument about that if I've never even commented on it.
My source is the U.K. guidelines in British National Formulary.Link the source.
My other evidence is that the community is roundly rejecting — with a strong consensus — your overly literal interpretation of the term overdose and it’s usage on our articles.Point to me an article in which I've used a "literal interpretation of the term overdose" in the article text. I'd really like to know because I'd like to see how you think I've incorporated that into an article. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think so, the fact tolerance and partial tolerance (a need to take increased doses to achieve the same effect) as a result of chronic use of stimulants followed by a withdrawal syndrome occurs is the very definition of physical dependence". Our article on Physical dependence doesn't describe it that way and it never did, even prior to my first edit; it has always qualified the withdrawal syndrome as one involving unpleasant physical/somatic symptoms, not unpleasant physical and psychological symptoms in accordance with your definition. All I said was "It's not the [definition] we use", as in, it's not the definition used in the article. I've added very little text to the article, but if you think what it says is wrong, then cite some sources and fix it. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
BNF is only available in the UK“ Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 00:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The NICE British National Formulary (BNF) sites is only available to users in the UK, Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories.
I haven't been arguing that they're not abused. I've been saying that if they're used the way they're supposed to be, the risk of addiction is negligible.- this is a simplistic and naive attitude. How does any doctor know whether a percentage of his patients unbeknown to him actually get euphoric on codeine/morphine. It is exceptionally common for people to minimise their enjoyment or overuse of things if society frowns on it. Look, I think narcotics and sedatives are highly effective and valuable drugs, but time and time again patients can become dependent or addicted despite their prescribers' best efforts. With vigilance, a decent prescriber can make them safer but nothing is 100% foolproof. The book referred to isn't bad but is simplistic and reductionistic at a psychological level (ummm... gambling addiction anyone?). It is a pity they don't get more input from psychiatrists and psychologists but whatever... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
this is a simplistic and naive attitude.Wtf? That's literally what the 2
The book referred to isn't bad but is simplistic and reductionistic at a psychological levelThat textbook didn't mention psychological dependence in the statement I quoted, so I don't know what you're referring to. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
These listed under both "side effects" and "overdose". They do not make sense under overdose as addiction and dependence are gradual processes well the subsequent withdrawal does not occur as a result of overdose.
This ref defines overdose "The inadvertent or deliberate consumption of a dose much larger than that either habitually used by the individual or ordinarily used for treatment of an illness, and likely to result in a serious toxic reaction or death." [5] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
ΔFosB accumulation from excessive drug use
Top: this depicts the initial effects of high dose exposure to an addictive drug on
gene expression in the
nucleus accumbens for various Fos family proteins (i.e.,
c-Fos,
FosB,
ΔFosB,
Fra1, and
Fra2).
Bottom: this illustrates the progressive increase in ΔFosB expression in the nucleus accumbens following repeated twice daily drug binges, where these phosphorylated (35–37 kilodalton) ΔFosB isoforms persist in the D1-type medium spiny neurons of the nucleus accumbens for up to 2 months. [1] [2] |
The original proposal for placing sections on "Addiction", "Dependence", and/or "Withdrawal" in articles on drugs implicated in substance use disorders is located at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/Archive_8#Section_ordering_for_addictive_drugs. There was unanimous consensus for the current approach at the time the proposal was archived.
Doc James seems to have a problem with it now despite agreeing with it back then; he wishes to move all of these sections to the "Adverse effects" section of drug articles even for drugs that lack the capacity to induce an addiction at low doses (NB: the reason as to why dosage of an addictive drug matters is that all addictive drugs have a threshold dose beyond which stable and long-lasting [i.e., phosphorylated] DeltaFosB isoforms start to accumulate, and without the accumulation of those isoforms, DeltaFosB overexpression is literally impossible; the overexpression of that transcription factor in the nucleus accumbens is the biomolecular trigger for the development of an addiction, hence, no DeltaFosB overexpression → no addiction). I won't accept this approach due to how grossly misleading the implication is; if there were consensus for it, I would actively oppose its implementation even knowing that I'd probably get banned for doing that.
So, in order to avoid implicitly suggesting that all addictive drugs with a clinical use carry the risk of inducing an addiction even at low/therapeutic doses in our articles, I am now proposing that these sections be placed in their own level 2 section instead of a level 3 subsection under either "Overdose" or "Adverse effects" (see MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices for how the layout of these articles is currently specified). Unless someone has another idea, this seems like the only feasible solution that addresses both of our concerns. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
This RfC is malformed given that up until today, these sections weren't "generally placed" in either "Adverse effects" or "Overdose". Their placement depended entirely upon the prevailing opinion in medical literature about the potential for individual addictive drugs to induce an addiction when used at commonly prescribed doses. In other words, the placement has been on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, I can't support or oppose either of the first two options despite having a clear opinion about them. The wording of the RfC does not take my position into account. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I see there is an agenda at play here, with claims that certain drugs are not addictive at "therapeutic" dose, only at "overdose".I'm sorry, what? I'm assuming you didn't read my explanation as to the mechanisms of how it arises at the top of this section (in small font). Developing an addiction is entirely determinsitic and is fully dependent upon an individual's genetic loading and the sustained dosing pattern of an addictive drug. If the dosage is increased above the threshold dose at which stable DeltaFosB isoforms readily accumulate within neurons, then an addiction is bound to occur in a significant fraction of people who are prescribed those doses, specifically, in people with higher genetic loadings for addiction. If the dose prescribed is below the threshold dose, those isoforms do not accumulate. If, after reading this and my explanation about mechanisms above, you still think I have an agenda, then it's clear you think I'm talking out of my ass when I explain how addiction develops, in which case, there's literally no point in continuing this conversation any further.
Your language about "entirely deterministic and is fully dependent" is just so wrong headed and I suspect driving your agenda.This would be you talking out of your ass. Try to read some research before you open your mouth and talk. You could have alternatively read the addiction article since it corroborates this statement with a citation to the statement: "exposure to sufficiently high doses of a drug for long periods of time can transform someone who has relatively lower genetic loading into an addict." To explain that for you in plain English since I know you're struggling with this stuff: that means anyone can become an addict if the dose is high enough.
I don't think Seppi has made the case for dependency and withdrawal to be sub-sections of overdose.That's because I'm not making the case that they go in the overdose section? Do you even understand what I'm advocating or are you just trying to argue with both Doc James and I for no apparent reason?
Addiction, just like having permanent toxic effects on an organThat is an entirely incorrect interpretation of an addiction; addiction may be lifelong due to learning, but its neuroplasticity is fully reversible; differences in brain structure and function from healthy adults are eventually undetectable with abstinence.
but there is no precise formula for working out therapeutic dose, and nobody except Seppi333 considers "overdose" to be any dose above that level.Lol? Really? Give me an example of an addictive controlled substance that does not have a maximum recommended dosage then. Also, it should be therapeutic doses, as I'm talking about a dose range, not a single arbitrary dose, when I say "a therapeutic dose" in generality. As all controlled substances have maximum recommened doses, that's the upper bound for that range. It's not an upper bound for what a doctor can prescribe, but it's the amount that the vast majority of prescriptions are less than or equal to in the US. In any event, the underlined part is you talking out of your ass again because you didn't know what I've stated here despite ranting about the absence of dosing limits like this. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 13:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Working out the dose to use is based on many factors, including the patient's response (genes in future), duration of therapy, how ill the patient is, what other drugs they are on, etc, etc. Let's leave the question of what is therapeutic and what is overdose separate from the toxic, addictive, dependency and other ill effects of a drug.True for some drugs; not true at all for controlled substances. I'd concede my point if there were uncontrolled addictive drugs, but none exist.
By putting "addiction" inside "overdose" one is claiming that therapeutic doses are not addictive and that the drug is only addictive in doses well in excess of normal doses. I don't think that is a common enough and proven enough scenario to warrant MOS change.Your notion that modern medicine is trying to turn patients into addicts deserves an extra
An alternate proposal is to group together all possible adverse consequences under a level 2 Adverse effects section. Where the sections Addiction, Dependence, Withdrawal, and Overdose have sufficient sources to discuss separately, they should be level 3 sub-sections of Adverse effects. If any of these are routinely linked together closely according to the sources, then they may be combined, such as in Addiction and withdrawal, or in Overdose and addiction. Any well-documented relationships between these factors will naturally be discussed in the appropriate section – for example, where addiction only occurs under circumstances of chronic overdosing. For what it's worth, my lay understanding of overdose (confirmed by reading through numerous results of a Google search) is that it is principally concerned with situations where too much of a drug is consumed. Whether that is 'too much' for safety or 'too much' to avoid issues of addiction is probably no more than semantics, and is the likely root of the disagreement between Seppi and James. -- RexxS ( talk) 11:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
It is clear that two editors here have their own idiosyncratic interpretations of language and are here to push an agenda. It is also clear that this MOS is being altered because of a dispute at Methylphenidate and wrong-headed use of MOS in which to settle disputes. Above Seppi33 is now resorting to throwing insults, and I have no wish to argue with such editors. What matters, with language, is how people generally use the terms and what our readers expect to find in sections and sub-sections. Misusing language because (a) you have misunderstood what a dictionary says and does not say about usage or (b) to push an agenda, is harmful to our readers. It is also important to remember that drugs are not always used in a therapeutic setting. This may include illegal usage of drugs but also legal usage such as smoking, vaping and alcohol.
So we have two editors with their reasons to choose idiosyncratic definitions of overdose and adverse effects in order to emphasise that methylphenidate is not addictive or causes dependence at therapeutic doses. And they want MOS to agree with this agenda so they can force it on one article. I strongly oppose this and agree with Doc James recent edit to the page to keep Addiction, Dependence, Withdrawal as Adverse effects and not under Overdose. -- Colin° Talk 17:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
simply to appease those who are here to push an agendaSuch as yourself.
I have a colleague, who is one of Canada's leading experts on toxicology, dependence, and addiction. Here is his CV page for reference. I explained the debate we are having, and asked for both his input and open source references. Here is his response.
I coauthored a paper a few years ago on addiction and dependence. It's open source. [3] The use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain has increased dramatically over the past 25 years in North America and has been accompanied by a major increase in opioid addiction and overdose deaths. The increase in opioid prescribing is multifactorial ... Dependence is absolutely a side effect. I discuss it here (although it likely won't meet your criteria for citation). [4] Withdrawal is a side effect too, in that it DEFINES dependence in its pharmacologic sense. It's a weird side effect of course, in that one wouldn't experience it if they kept taking the drug. But because dependence is a drug-related harm, and because it's defined by withdrawal upon cessation, you're on safe ground calling it a harm I think. I think most people recognize addiction as a potential harm of opioids, even though we don't know the true incidence. Tolerance - this is also a side effect, in that it (that is, a rightward shift in the dose-response curve) only arises because of exposure to the drug. I'm sorry I don't have a lot of other open-source reviews. If I find one I will send it along. Hope this is of some use. dave.
In current literature, there is a debate about the definition of dependence and addictions. If we reach consensus on the topic, I can pull textbook references. However, I agree that dependence, addiction, and withdrawal should be under adverse effects (which, to me, is synonymous with harmful effects). All are clinically undesirable effects we balance against positive effects like pain-relief. Ian Furst ( talk) 10:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I really like "harmful effects" User:Ian Furst. Might be better than side effects or adverse effects. Harmful effects and clear and concise. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Although the ΔFosB signal is relatively long-lived, it is not permanent. ΔFosB degrades gradually and can no longer be detected in brain after 1–2 months of drug withdrawal ... Indeed, ΔFosB is the longest-lived adaptation known to occur in adult brain, not only in response to drugs of abuse, but to any other perturbation (that doesn't involve lesions) as well.
The 35–37 kD ΔFosB isoforms accumulate with chronic drug exposure due to their extraordinarily long half-lives. ... As a result of its stability, the ΔFosB protein persists in neurons for at least several weeks after cessation of drug exposure. ... ΔFosB overexpression in nucleus accumbens induces NFκB
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
@
Doc James: See
my edit summary for explanation. I prefer option 1>5>4>2 in that order now since option 1 is more parsimonious than 5 and doesn’t necessesitate changing a lot of articles like 4. My reasoning about 2 was explained in detail somewhere in the massive blob of text that this RfC has become. The unexpectedly large number of erroneous preconceived notions and various misinterpretations in this RfC made me change my mind vis a vis my nihilistic edit summary. (struck since my meaning wasn’t clear; I was referring to most of the responses I quoted in green) If you want to close it, go ahead.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
00:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Right folks, can folks take a look at Amphetamine ( Talk:Amphetamine#Addiction_under_Overdose_vs_side_effects) as this falls under the category of what we've been discussing above? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi!
There is a discussion that I am participating in over at Talk:Abortion#Viability focused on the conflict between the definition of "abortion" as "the ending of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus" (status quo, Abortion) and the definition of an "unsafe abortion" as "the termination of a pregnancy by people lacking the necessary skills, or in an environment lacking minimal medical standards, or both" (status quo, Unsafe abortion). Under the current use of these two definitions, Wikipedia's answer to "what makes an abortion risky" completely overlooks the well-known increase in risk as a pregnancy progresses week by week.
I believe that the article Abortion is worse than it would be if we followed the suggestion to allow that a late termination of pregnancy (i.e. one after viability) were included with the definition of abortion, because it would give a much more informative answer to the average Wikipedia reader's straightforward question, "what makes an abortion risky?". 170.54.58.11 ( talk) 20:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the section on Coatracks and tangents. There is nothing specific about editors using a coatrack or going off on a tangent. Surely better if we can point to existing general guidelines on WEIGHT or sticking to the article subject. Are there specific issues here that frequently occur in medical articles and have a medical specific argument against/for. -- Colin° Talk 10:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
My post above in the lengthy pricing discussion got no response, so separating out here.
MEDMOS (for about a decade) recommended DMOZ specifically as an external link, but that text was removed in 2018 because DMOZ no longer existed. The new {{ Curlie}} template, which replaced DMOZ, was never added back in. (Sample [12])
Because this page is fully protected, unless anyone objects, I will submit an edit request to reinstate our long-standing text, but corrected to CURLIE from DMOZ. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Doc James, Colin, and WhatamIdoing: please let me know if I should submit edit request (2) as below. We need to get some stuff cleared off of this 800KB talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please let me know if there is any disagreement, so we can submit the editrequest and get this section dealt with. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
In the External links section:
and re-word it to:
{{
Curlie}}
template links to a directory based on the
Open Directory Project that contains many such links. For example, on the
Tourette syndrome page:gives:
Done After reading the discussion, it seems like there is no opposition to this change and rational arguments in favour (it also does not seem to be related to the pricing dispute).
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
09:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing I'm not sure it's a good time to speed up the archiving bot: I haven't submitted the edit requests yet to deal with this section and the next, and the page is protected. How about leaving the archiving time as before, but manually archiving any sections already addressed?
While I'm here, I view this DMOZ/Curlie thing as something that may not help, but doesn't hurt. There doesn't seem to be opposition if we re-instate it. Shall I go ahead and do the edit requests? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
What happened to Management as an alternate for Treatment in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes for those conditions where no treatment (in the conventional sense) is needed? It was long an alternate here and is now gone. WikiBlame is not working, so I can't tell why that occurred. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Edit request pending, so archiving bot will leave this section. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@ WhatamIdoing, Doc James, Signimu, and Kashmiri: please respond to Xaosflux below so we can finish up this section; this talk page is sprawling. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Please let me know if there is any disagreement so I can submit the editrequest and we can get this section dealt with. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I have removed some additions to the lead section. MEDMOS needs to stick to dealing with medicine/health article issues and not become some fork of standard guidelines. We already have guidelines on lead sections and on making technical articles accessible, so no need to add more. Given that "people don't read the manual", the shorter and more to-to-point this guideline can be, the better. As an aside, there is more skill involved in making an article accessible and engaging than just replacing words with more basic simple words. -- Colin° Talk 10:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Doc James, you have cited an off en-wiki document to justify your addition, rather than an on-wiki policy or guideline. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Doc James, you restored the lead text you wrote prior to attempting to achieve consensus and prior to posting your above "Disagree" comment. You are simply edit warring. As I made clear in my above comment, there is nothing James has written that is specific to medical articles. The same is true of any potentially complex topic on Wikipedia. We do not fork such guidelines. I really don't think James is in any position to lecture others about good writing technique. If it isn't specific and relevant to health/medicine, it does not belong here. If someone is including a "Reader Native Language by Language" chart in MEDMOS, then you can tell they are desperately trying to make point to meet an agenda, rather than stating something that has Wikipedia-wide consensus. Let's leave the advice on writing leads to the whole Wikipedia community, where those who are actually competent writers can craft competent guidelines. -- Colin° Talk 21:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding
this addition, which is also not based on consensus, we have had this discussion many times, and yet here we are again. O one of the reasons the Medicine Project guidelines were widely accepted years ago is because they did not contradict or extend beyond Wikipedia-wide policy or guideline, rather explain how to interpret policy or general guidelines for medical content.
This addition goes beyond
WP:LEAD, and because we have had this conversation many times and in many places, I am concerned about why it was again added as if it had consensus. This is a sample of the
broader WPMED disputes mentioned at ANI, and should also be tagged disputed and considered part of the same issue, where we see personal preferences being written into guidelines and being applied to broad swatches of articles (even FAs that comply with Wikipedia-wide policy).
Almost every piece of this non-consensus version of WP:MEDLEAD either extends beyond what WP:LEAD says, or is at variance with what LEAD says, or repeats what LEAD says-- the biggest problem is where it extends beyond what LEAD says and is used to impose a structure on leads that is at variance with what LEAD calls for and what is called for in Featured articles.
The lead of an article, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors or ambiguity. Around a third of readers of English Wikipedia, have English as a second language. Language can often be simplified by using shorter sentences, having one idea per sentence, and using common rather than technical terms. The British National Formulary for example often uses "by mouth" rather than "oral". It is also reasonable to have the lead introduce content in the same order as the body of the text. 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. It is useful to include citations in the lead, but they are not obligatory. Two reasons for using them are:Medical statements are much more likely than the average statement to be challenged, thus making citation mandatory.
To facilitate broad coverage of our medical content in other languages, the translation task force often translates only the lead, which then requires citations.
As can be seen by the concluding sentence, these extensions to Wikipedia-wide guideline are being imposed apparently to facilitate a different project, that is, translation of leads only to other languages, which has been a focus of WPMED for several years now, as opposed to focusing on having English-language articles comply with English-language policies and guidelines.
As in article editing, the burden to explain an addition should be on the editor adding the addition, so rather than have me go line-by-line to explain why all of this text is disputed, I believe it would be helpful for the editor(s) who want to add this text to go line-by-line and explain why they believe this text is supported by broader, Wikipedia-wide guidelines. It is not, and the application of this personal preference has caused FAs to be out of compliance with English-language standards only to make translation easier.
This text is disputed, and is part of the same problem discussed at the pricing ANI. A disputed tag should be added. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a fair bit of guidance recommending we use easier to understand language such as "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." and Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
"Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead"emphasises that the norm is to omit citations from the lead, where the text summarises the article. This is something that editors who write article body content, and then summarise that content in the lead, will find more natural, than editors who add factoids mostly in the lead. Secondly,
"The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". Can anyone please give examples where editors working on an article reached a consensus wrt the need for citations in the lead for a given sentence or claim? I can find reverts and edit wars, but have been unable to find examples of collaborative editing or editors respecting each other and working towards consensus. This suggests to me, that perhaps a dogmatic approach at odds with general policy and guideline has taken dominance. Further reason that we should not have a MEDMOS fork of community guidelines. I would, of course, be overjoyed to read of examples of an article-consensus approach to lead citations. -- Colin° Talk 15:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
CFCF, I have reverted your addition of a separate section heading here on talk, which separated the section I started from the section it was directly responding to, and mischaracterized the nature of the dispute.
As you are a very involved party in these discussions, I request that you refrain from closing discussions, archiving discussions, or altering other editors' posts. I also ask you to please take greater care to read the case being discussed. The disputed text involved much more than what you call language. Since we have a neutral admin following the page now, if you feel it necessary to alter, close or archive something, you might find it useful to query Barkeep49 first.
Barkeep49, this section (LEAD) of the guideline is also disputed, and is part and parcel of everything discussed at the ANI (an issue that keeps being added in spite of no consensus). Because the article is protected, I am unable to add a disputed tag. What would it take to make that happen? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is a sample from this week; it is the first FA I checked, the only one I have checked so far, and it is concerning that the first FA I checked after a not-so-lengthy absence from medical editing shows the very issues of concern (leads edited only, so that the body of the article is out of sync with the lead, and language in the lead oversimplified to the point of losing clarity, with the structure of leads altered in ways that do not lend the prose quality required of FAs). This kind of editing takes FAs out of compliance with WP:WIAFA, and valuable editor time (eg Casliber) is then needed for repair to avoid a WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
What I am asking is, considering the page is protected, how can we have an {{ disputedtag}} added to the WP:MEDLEAD section? I was also pointing out, ala full disclosure, that although this is a separate dispute from the pricing issue, it is also related, as this is another of the ongoing disputes that was mentioned in the ANI you closed. Would it be appropriate for me to add an {{ editrequest}} to ask another admin to add the disputed tag, or are you able to do it as part of the overall issue? We have a protected page because of the pricing edit warring, but there is a separate but related dispute in another section, which should be tagged as that section does not have consensus; it is an ongoing smaller matter that has been obscured by the larger pricing dispute. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
See discussion above, beginning at LEAD.
The WP:MEDLEAD section of this guideline page has been constantly disputed for several years, as can be seen in the page history. Multiple past local discussions have been used to claim local consensus, which is not apparent, ( sample 1, and sample 2), or not enough to override broader Wikipedia-wide policy or guideline.
The version of MEDLEAD that has been alternately removed and re-instated for several years here has a particular impact on Featured articles; FAs must conform with WP:LEAD because the lead is used to write the mainpage blurb. MEDLEAD is at variance with LEAD in ways that have an extra impact of the project's top content, as medical articles must now answer to two different lead guidelines. A sample from this week only (but repeated across many other FAs) can be seen at FA Schizophrenia.
The wider community should be involved in a WP:CENT RFC when a WikiProject guideline is out of sync with Wikipedia-wide policy or guideline, and local consensus has not resolved the problem. The specific issues are:
This page is fully protected because of a separate, but related, dispute. An independent admin, not involved in adminning the separate dispute, is requested to add
{{Disputed tag|section=yes|talk=Lead}}
to the WP:MEDLEAD section (using the "section =yes" option), as it will be some time before the separate dispute can be resolved via RFC and the page unprotected. It is likely that a community-wide RFC will also be needed to resolve this conflict. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment As Sandy indicated I thought it helpful for someone beyond me to respond to this request. I have looked into the matter and am happy to answer any questions you have or to serve as a second opinion as I remain UNINVOLVED. For reference I believe the key talk page discussion is here. In looking at the project page history, the dispute goes back to March of 2018 from best I can tell. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
{{Disputed tag|section=yes|talk=Lead}}
I understand that you could be confused about how a disputed tag is used, because the norm on this page/project has not been to come to consensus on disagreements, but this is the usual process for addressing a disputed guideline. It ended up at editrequest because I couldn't add the tag myself due to the protection, but there is no doubt there is a dispute; adding a tag is uncontroversial.
The usual procedure is to discuss with each other to develop a consensus, while this page tends to devolve to "me, too" or "I don't like it" discussion, and then claim a consensus. I am willing to go forward with a community-wide RFC if we are unable to come to local consensus. I am intentionally not putting up the RFC (so far) while we are formulating a different RFC.
I understand that some editors have said they see no problem with choppy prose and poorly worded leads in medical articles; many others have expressed that the prose damage is a problem, and that the deviation from Wikipedia-wide guideline (LEAD) is also a problem. We can let the community decide: I would be surprised if the community endorsed a WikiProject Guideline that deviates from Wikipedia's broader guideline. But I would much rather that WPMED not have to bring two issues from one page to the community in a short timeframe. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
that which has been discussed by hundreds of editors and is long-standing, CFCF, could you produce an example of hundreds of editors supporting these accumulated additions to MEDLEAD? Alternately, could you produce a dozen? A Wikiproject guideline can not extend beyond a Wikipedia-wide guideline. Local "Me, too" and "I like it" supports are unhelpful in any case, but particularly insufficient to trump a Wikipedia-wide guideline page.
If you could please engage the five specific issues, we might be able to come to consensus without a centralized RFC to consult the broader community. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Limited engagement, stalled discussion, broader RFC launched. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
We have agreement at MEDMOS that Management is sometimes preferred to Treatment, but we have an infobox that forces the term Treatment at {{ Infobox medical condition}}. We have the same for Symptoms v. Characteristics. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
|management=
. If the management
parameter is used instead of treatment
, the label changes to "Management". If both parameters are present, treatment
overrides management
. --
RexxS (
talk)
17:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@ RexxS and WhatamIdoing: I moved Treatment of Tourette syndrome to Management of Tourette syndrome, did a lot of updates, and now there is a pending changes box at the bottom of the article, that apparently I can't deal with. I thought I had the appropriate pending change-thingie, but don't know what the deal is here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
WP:MEDMOS#Writing for the wrong audience is one of my favorite sections, because I think it's very useful for many editors, without creating "rules". We don't write for (other) professionals and we don't write for (other) patients. This particular line:
was previously balanced by a line that said:
This seems to have disappeared sometime in the last couple of years, and I think it should be restored. Does anyone object? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:53, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the first thing we need to get on board with, is to smash the notion that Simple Wikipedia has any usefulness or utility for anyone. It has roughly 1/500th the readership of en-wiki, and I've never met a single person outside Wikimania or Wiki-meetups that was even aware of it existing. I've also never met anyone who actually edits it.
The second point is that it is rediculously out of date, and poorly maintained — and has no community interested in working on its medical articles.
And for a third point — it doesn't even do what it's supposed to do. Just take a look at this:
It consistently scores horribly in readability — so even if the articles weren't horrible, they aren't much more readable. In fact the only article I found on some of our most important topics that was at all useful was:
But, on the other hand, it's so horrible and short that it's useless anyway. It defines "safe sex" as: "to have sex in a safe way." That article saw 55 views in the past month — while the en-wiki one saw 25,000.
I think any argument that builds on the existence of simple-wiki should be ignored on sight. (Not direct at you SMcCandlish, but I don't think people realize how useless and ignored simple-wiki is. It's worse than Wikipedia Zero, and I'm entirely convinced that the only reason it hasn't been closed down is because it has a handful of editors who would get very mad if it did, while Zero was run by foundation employees). Carl Fredrik talk 21:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
If people want to save (and make "actually workable") the idea of applying some combination of the Simple English limited lexicons to WP topics, the eventual solution is probably integrating it into en.WP itself, as some kind of sidebar option. If the huge active editorial base of en.WP were also creating the simplified versions of articles, it would get done more often and better. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 06:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
About this, the lead has been discussed several times here:
Removing the entire section was somewhat... extreme, so I have restored it. We can certainly discuss this more. Jytdog ( talk) 14:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC) (added last bullet per note below Jytdog ( talk) 16:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC))
MOS:MED#Standard appendices says to Avoid the
See also section when possible; prefer wikilinks in the main article and
navigation templates at the end.
I'm curious about the reasoning behind this advice. Is there some property of Medicine-related articles specifically that makes "See also" sections problematic for them? I tried searching the talk archives for "See also", but the best I could find was
this discussion from 2012 which (starting from dolfrog's comment) briefly touches on the rationale for the guideline, with Doc James mentioning
WP:NOTLINKFARM. But I'd like to learn more about the reason for the guideline and its genesis - I'm wondering if it was originally hashed out on a different page, which is why I can't find it in the archives?
Colin M (
talk)
17:56, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Better question is who writes these new rules. Anybody can edit these Manuals of Style articles and make up ludicrous rules. Wikipedia is finished. Nashhinton ( talk) 17:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
Were should this content generally be placed? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
-- It's gonna be awesome!✎ Talk♬ 15:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)In medicine, an adverse effect is an undesired harmful effect resulting from a medication or other intervention such as surgery. An adverse effect may be termed a "side effect", when judged to be secondary to a main or therapeutic effect. If it results from an unsuitable or incorrect dosage or procedure, this is called a medical error and not a complication. Adverse effects are sometimes referred to as "iatrogenic" because they are generated by a physician/treatment. Some adverse effects occur only when starting, increasing or discontinuing a treatment.
Plenty of recovering addicts still crave drugs after two months or more clean, when their FosB levels would have normalised.I never even implied that DeltaFosB expression-dependently regulated the intensity of cravings. Even if I did, it would take more than two months for the expression of its downstream targets to subside back to normal levels, so I wouldn't have asserted that to begin with. You are making a lot of erroneous assumptions about what and how I think. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:12, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Although authors of the guidelines should be commended for not suggesting that addiction is a direct consequence of long-term benzodiazepine use, they do not do enough to clarify the distinction between dependence and addiction in this context. For example, they state that ‘patients should be advised that benzodiazepines may produce both tolerance and dependence, with the risk of withdrawal symptoms’. Several studies (reviewed by Starcevic, 2014) have demonstrated that dose escalation (i.e. tolerance) occurs rarely during a long-term treatment of anxiety disorders with benzodiazepines. In contrast, withdrawal symptoms after an abrupt cessation of long-term benzodiazepine use or precipitous decrease in the dose of benzodiazepines are common, although not inevitable; patients should be rightly cautioned about them, but not intimidated. The important point here is that pharmacological dependence (characterised by tolerance and/or withdrawal symptoms) denotes no more than a normal physiological adaptation to the long-term presence of a substance that affects the central nervous system (O’Brien et al., 2006) and that it is erroneous to consider as addicted all individuals who are dependent on benzodiazepines. Substance addiction is a compulsive drug-seeking behaviour, associated with craving and loss of control, which persists despite multiple adverse consequences (Shaffer, 1999). Addiction-like pattern of benzodiazepine use is rarely seen among patients with anxiety disorders who do not have another substance use disorder (Starcevic, 2014). Therefore, withholding benzodiazepines from such patients on the grounds that they cause addiction and substituting them for medications that may be more harmful represents poor clinical practice." So again, benzos cause dependence, but not addiction. The distinction between those two disorders is very significant. Dependence is relatively transient and generally very unpleasant; addiction is long-term, extremely self-destructive, and generally upends if not ruins a person's life for at least a few years. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 14:13, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
While physical dependence and withdrawal occur with some drugs of abuse (opiates, ethanol), these phenomena are not useful in the diagnosis of an addiction because they do not occur with other drugs of abuse (cocaine, amphetamine) and can occur with many drugs that are not abused (propranolol, clonidine)." ( page 367). Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 15:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Research has long demonstrated that patients with no prior history of opioid abuse treated with opioid pain medications over extended periods do not experience euphoria—these patients are therefore unlikely to become addicted [1]. Still, there is a risk that a small percentage (3.27–11.5%) of patients treated with opioids for chronic pain may develop addiction or abuse with negative consequences, complicating the management of chronic pain [9]." To be perfectly clear, this source is saying that the misuse or "abuse" of these drugs as a euphoriant is necessary for the development of an opioid addiction when they're used to treat chronic pain. Moreover, from this review: "
The administration of opioids has been used for centuries as a viable option for pain management. When administered at appropriate doses, opioids prove effective not only at eliminating pain but further preventing its recurrence in long-term recovery scenarios. Physicians have complied with the appropriate management of acute and chronic pain; however, this short or long-term opioid exposure provides opportunities for long-term opioid misuse and abuse, leading to addiction of patients who receive an opioid prescription and/or diversion of this pain medication to other people without prescription." This is essentially the same assertion as was made by the preceding review. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 14:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
you have ridiculed my mainstream interpretation of tolerance and dependenceI'm not sure what you're talking about, as I don't remember doing this; can you clarify?
you are overly fixated on FosB to the exclusion of other important factors involved in addictionSee my reply to your comment above.
You appear to latch onto things to the exclusion of other important data and academic viewpoints and then POV push a narrow angle that in my view is out of context.That's a bold assertion. You're the one pushing a POV about benzos that contradicts sources. In any event, what viewpoints have I excluded then? I'm sure you can give me at least ONE concrete example of a viewpoint I've omitted. @ Literaturegeek: Also, I don't want a hand-waivey bullshit argument; cite a review that covers the viewpoint(s) which you're alleging that I've excluded. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:18, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
The subject of benzodiazepines is controversial with a general consensus that the risk of physical dependence and tolerance is too high to justify long-term use for most patients.I never asserted anything about this being true or false. The only thing I've stated about benzo dependence is that it occurs at therapeutic doses, so I don't know why you said "
Yes some researchers and doctors publish papers challenging the mainstream consensus and you latch on to their arguably weak methodology as if it were the sole and only WP:TRUTH." I don't know how I've "latched on" to an opposing argument about that if I've never even commented on it.
My source is the U.K. guidelines in British National Formulary.Link the source.
My other evidence is that the community is roundly rejecting — with a strong consensus — your overly literal interpretation of the term overdose and it’s usage on our articles.Point to me an article in which I've used a "literal interpretation of the term overdose" in the article text. I'd really like to know because I'd like to see how you think I've incorporated that into an article. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 20:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
I don’t think so, the fact tolerance and partial tolerance (a need to take increased doses to achieve the same effect) as a result of chronic use of stimulants followed by a withdrawal syndrome occurs is the very definition of physical dependence". Our article on Physical dependence doesn't describe it that way and it never did, even prior to my first edit; it has always qualified the withdrawal syndrome as one involving unpleasant physical/somatic symptoms, not unpleasant physical and psychological symptoms in accordance with your definition. All I said was "It's not the [definition] we use", as in, it's not the definition used in the article. I've added very little text to the article, but if you think what it says is wrong, then cite some sources and fix it. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
BNF is only available in the UK“ Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 00:36, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The NICE British National Formulary (BNF) sites is only available to users in the UK, Crown Dependencies and British Overseas Territories.
I haven't been arguing that they're not abused. I've been saying that if they're used the way they're supposed to be, the risk of addiction is negligible.- this is a simplistic and naive attitude. How does any doctor know whether a percentage of his patients unbeknown to him actually get euphoric on codeine/morphine. It is exceptionally common for people to minimise their enjoyment or overuse of things if society frowns on it. Look, I think narcotics and sedatives are highly effective and valuable drugs, but time and time again patients can become dependent or addicted despite their prescribers' best efforts. With vigilance, a decent prescriber can make them safer but nothing is 100% foolproof. The book referred to isn't bad but is simplistic and reductionistic at a psychological level (ummm... gambling addiction anyone?). It is a pity they don't get more input from psychiatrists and psychologists but whatever... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 20:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
this is a simplistic and naive attitude.Wtf? That's literally what the 2
The book referred to isn't bad but is simplistic and reductionistic at a psychological levelThat textbook didn't mention psychological dependence in the statement I quoted, so I don't know what you're referring to. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
These listed under both "side effects" and "overdose". They do not make sense under overdose as addiction and dependence are gradual processes well the subsequent withdrawal does not occur as a result of overdose.
This ref defines overdose "The inadvertent or deliberate consumption of a dose much larger than that either habitually used by the individual or ordinarily used for treatment of an illness, and likely to result in a serious toxic reaction or death." [5] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
ΔFosB accumulation from excessive drug use
Top: this depicts the initial effects of high dose exposure to an addictive drug on
gene expression in the
nucleus accumbens for various Fos family proteins (i.e.,
c-Fos,
FosB,
ΔFosB,
Fra1, and
Fra2).
Bottom: this illustrates the progressive increase in ΔFosB expression in the nucleus accumbens following repeated twice daily drug binges, where these phosphorylated (35–37 kilodalton) ΔFosB isoforms persist in the D1-type medium spiny neurons of the nucleus accumbens for up to 2 months. [1] [2] |
The original proposal for placing sections on "Addiction", "Dependence", and/or "Withdrawal" in articles on drugs implicated in substance use disorders is located at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles/Archive_8#Section_ordering_for_addictive_drugs. There was unanimous consensus for the current approach at the time the proposal was archived.
Doc James seems to have a problem with it now despite agreeing with it back then; he wishes to move all of these sections to the "Adverse effects" section of drug articles even for drugs that lack the capacity to induce an addiction at low doses (NB: the reason as to why dosage of an addictive drug matters is that all addictive drugs have a threshold dose beyond which stable and long-lasting [i.e., phosphorylated] DeltaFosB isoforms start to accumulate, and without the accumulation of those isoforms, DeltaFosB overexpression is literally impossible; the overexpression of that transcription factor in the nucleus accumbens is the biomolecular trigger for the development of an addiction, hence, no DeltaFosB overexpression → no addiction). I won't accept this approach due to how grossly misleading the implication is; if there were consensus for it, I would actively oppose its implementation even knowing that I'd probably get banned for doing that.
So, in order to avoid implicitly suggesting that all addictive drugs with a clinical use carry the risk of inducing an addiction even at low/therapeutic doses in our articles, I am now proposing that these sections be placed in their own level 2 section instead of a level 3 subsection under either "Overdose" or "Adverse effects" (see MOS:MED#Drugs, treatments, and devices for how the layout of these articles is currently specified). Unless someone has another idea, this seems like the only feasible solution that addresses both of our concerns. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:23, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
This RfC is malformed given that up until today, these sections weren't "generally placed" in either "Adverse effects" or "Overdose". Their placement depended entirely upon the prevailing opinion in medical literature about the potential for individual addictive drugs to induce an addiction when used at commonly prescribed doses. In other words, the placement has been on a case-by-case basis. Consequently, I can't support or oppose either of the first two options despite having a clear opinion about them. The wording of the RfC does not take my position into account. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 08:43, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
I see there is an agenda at play here, with claims that certain drugs are not addictive at "therapeutic" dose, only at "overdose".I'm sorry, what? I'm assuming you didn't read my explanation as to the mechanisms of how it arises at the top of this section (in small font). Developing an addiction is entirely determinsitic and is fully dependent upon an individual's genetic loading and the sustained dosing pattern of an addictive drug. If the dosage is increased above the threshold dose at which stable DeltaFosB isoforms readily accumulate within neurons, then an addiction is bound to occur in a significant fraction of people who are prescribed those doses, specifically, in people with higher genetic loadings for addiction. If the dose prescribed is below the threshold dose, those isoforms do not accumulate. If, after reading this and my explanation about mechanisms above, you still think I have an agenda, then it's clear you think I'm talking out of my ass when I explain how addiction develops, in which case, there's literally no point in continuing this conversation any further.
Your language about "entirely deterministic and is fully dependent" is just so wrong headed and I suspect driving your agenda.This would be you talking out of your ass. Try to read some research before you open your mouth and talk. You could have alternatively read the addiction article since it corroborates this statement with a citation to the statement: "exposure to sufficiently high doses of a drug for long periods of time can transform someone who has relatively lower genetic loading into an addict." To explain that for you in plain English since I know you're struggling with this stuff: that means anyone can become an addict if the dose is high enough.
I don't think Seppi has made the case for dependency and withdrawal to be sub-sections of overdose.That's because I'm not making the case that they go in the overdose section? Do you even understand what I'm advocating or are you just trying to argue with both Doc James and I for no apparent reason?
Addiction, just like having permanent toxic effects on an organThat is an entirely incorrect interpretation of an addiction; addiction may be lifelong due to learning, but its neuroplasticity is fully reversible; differences in brain structure and function from healthy adults are eventually undetectable with abstinence.
but there is no precise formula for working out therapeutic dose, and nobody except Seppi333 considers "overdose" to be any dose above that level.Lol? Really? Give me an example of an addictive controlled substance that does not have a maximum recommended dosage then. Also, it should be therapeutic doses, as I'm talking about a dose range, not a single arbitrary dose, when I say "a therapeutic dose" in generality. As all controlled substances have maximum recommened doses, that's the upper bound for that range. It's not an upper bound for what a doctor can prescribe, but it's the amount that the vast majority of prescriptions are less than or equal to in the US. In any event, the underlined part is you talking out of your ass again because you didn't know what I've stated here despite ranting about the absence of dosing limits like this. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 13:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Working out the dose to use is based on many factors, including the patient's response (genes in future), duration of therapy, how ill the patient is, what other drugs they are on, etc, etc. Let's leave the question of what is therapeutic and what is overdose separate from the toxic, addictive, dependency and other ill effects of a drug.True for some drugs; not true at all for controlled substances. I'd concede my point if there were uncontrolled addictive drugs, but none exist.
By putting "addiction" inside "overdose" one is claiming that therapeutic doses are not addictive and that the drug is only addictive in doses well in excess of normal doses. I don't think that is a common enough and proven enough scenario to warrant MOS change.Your notion that modern medicine is trying to turn patients into addicts deserves an extra
An alternate proposal is to group together all possible adverse consequences under a level 2 Adverse effects section. Where the sections Addiction, Dependence, Withdrawal, and Overdose have sufficient sources to discuss separately, they should be level 3 sub-sections of Adverse effects. If any of these are routinely linked together closely according to the sources, then they may be combined, such as in Addiction and withdrawal, or in Overdose and addiction. Any well-documented relationships between these factors will naturally be discussed in the appropriate section – for example, where addiction only occurs under circumstances of chronic overdosing. For what it's worth, my lay understanding of overdose (confirmed by reading through numerous results of a Google search) is that it is principally concerned with situations where too much of a drug is consumed. Whether that is 'too much' for safety or 'too much' to avoid issues of addiction is probably no more than semantics, and is the likely root of the disagreement between Seppi and James. -- RexxS ( talk) 11:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
It is clear that two editors here have their own idiosyncratic interpretations of language and are here to push an agenda. It is also clear that this MOS is being altered because of a dispute at Methylphenidate and wrong-headed use of MOS in which to settle disputes. Above Seppi33 is now resorting to throwing insults, and I have no wish to argue with such editors. What matters, with language, is how people generally use the terms and what our readers expect to find in sections and sub-sections. Misusing language because (a) you have misunderstood what a dictionary says and does not say about usage or (b) to push an agenda, is harmful to our readers. It is also important to remember that drugs are not always used in a therapeutic setting. This may include illegal usage of drugs but also legal usage such as smoking, vaping and alcohol.
So we have two editors with their reasons to choose idiosyncratic definitions of overdose and adverse effects in order to emphasise that methylphenidate is not addictive or causes dependence at therapeutic doses. And they want MOS to agree with this agenda so they can force it on one article. I strongly oppose this and agree with Doc James recent edit to the page to keep Addiction, Dependence, Withdrawal as Adverse effects and not under Overdose. -- Colin° Talk 17:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
simply to appease those who are here to push an agendaSuch as yourself.
I have a colleague, who is one of Canada's leading experts on toxicology, dependence, and addiction. Here is his CV page for reference. I explained the debate we are having, and asked for both his input and open source references. Here is his response.
I coauthored a paper a few years ago on addiction and dependence. It's open source. [3] The use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain has increased dramatically over the past 25 years in North America and has been accompanied by a major increase in opioid addiction and overdose deaths. The increase in opioid prescribing is multifactorial ... Dependence is absolutely a side effect. I discuss it here (although it likely won't meet your criteria for citation). [4] Withdrawal is a side effect too, in that it DEFINES dependence in its pharmacologic sense. It's a weird side effect of course, in that one wouldn't experience it if they kept taking the drug. But because dependence is a drug-related harm, and because it's defined by withdrawal upon cessation, you're on safe ground calling it a harm I think. I think most people recognize addiction as a potential harm of opioids, even though we don't know the true incidence. Tolerance - this is also a side effect, in that it (that is, a rightward shift in the dose-response curve) only arises because of exposure to the drug. I'm sorry I don't have a lot of other open-source reviews. If I find one I will send it along. Hope this is of some use. dave.
In current literature, there is a debate about the definition of dependence and addictions. If we reach consensus on the topic, I can pull textbook references. However, I agree that dependence, addiction, and withdrawal should be under adverse effects (which, to me, is synonymous with harmful effects). All are clinically undesirable effects we balance against positive effects like pain-relief. Ian Furst ( talk) 10:56, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
I really like "harmful effects" User:Ian Furst. Might be better than side effects or adverse effects. Harmful effects and clear and concise. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:17, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
References
Although the ΔFosB signal is relatively long-lived, it is not permanent. ΔFosB degrades gradually and can no longer be detected in brain after 1–2 months of drug withdrawal ... Indeed, ΔFosB is the longest-lived adaptation known to occur in adult brain, not only in response to drugs of abuse, but to any other perturbation (that doesn't involve lesions) as well.
The 35–37 kD ΔFosB isoforms accumulate with chronic drug exposure due to their extraordinarily long half-lives. ... As a result of its stability, the ΔFosB protein persists in neurons for at least several weeks after cessation of drug exposure. ... ΔFosB overexpression in nucleus accumbens induces NFκB
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |dead-url=
(
help)
@
Doc James: See
my edit summary for explanation. I prefer option 1>5>4>2 in that order now since option 1 is more parsimonious than 5 and doesn’t necessesitate changing a lot of articles like 4. My reasoning about 2 was explained in detail somewhere in the massive blob of text that this RfC has become. The unexpectedly large number of erroneous preconceived notions and various misinterpretations in this RfC made me change my mind vis a vis my nihilistic edit summary. (struck since my meaning wasn’t clear; I was referring to most of the responses I quoted in green) If you want to close it, go ahead.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
00:25, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Right folks, can folks take a look at Amphetamine ( Talk:Amphetamine#Addiction_under_Overdose_vs_side_effects) as this falls under the category of what we've been discussing above? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 04:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi!
There is a discussion that I am participating in over at Talk:Abortion#Viability focused on the conflict between the definition of "abortion" as "the ending of a pregnancy by removal or expulsion of an embryo or fetus before it can survive outside the uterus" (status quo, Abortion) and the definition of an "unsafe abortion" as "the termination of a pregnancy by people lacking the necessary skills, or in an environment lacking minimal medical standards, or both" (status quo, Unsafe abortion). Under the current use of these two definitions, Wikipedia's answer to "what makes an abortion risky" completely overlooks the well-known increase in risk as a pregnancy progresses week by week.
I believe that the article Abortion is worse than it would be if we followed the suggestion to allow that a late termination of pregnancy (i.e. one after viability) were included with the definition of abortion, because it would give a much more informative answer to the average Wikipedia reader's straightforward question, "what makes an abortion risky?". 170.54.58.11 ( talk) 20:27, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I've removed the section on Coatracks and tangents. There is nothing specific about editors using a coatrack or going off on a tangent. Surely better if we can point to existing general guidelines on WEIGHT or sticking to the article subject. Are there specific issues here that frequently occur in medical articles and have a medical specific argument against/for. -- Colin° Talk 10:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
My post above in the lengthy pricing discussion got no response, so separating out here.
MEDMOS (for about a decade) recommended DMOZ specifically as an external link, but that text was removed in 2018 because DMOZ no longer existed. The new {{ Curlie}} template, which replaced DMOZ, was never added back in. (Sample [12])
Because this page is fully protected, unless anyone objects, I will submit an edit request to reinstate our long-standing text, but corrected to CURLIE from DMOZ. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:04, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@ Doc James, Colin, and WhatamIdoing: please let me know if I should submit edit request (2) as below. We need to get some stuff cleared off of this 800KB talk page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please let me know if there is any disagreement, so we can submit the editrequest and get this section dealt with. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
In the External links section:
and re-word it to:
{{
Curlie}}
template links to a directory based on the
Open Directory Project that contains many such links. For example, on the
Tourette syndrome page:gives:
Done After reading the discussion, it seems like there is no opposition to this change and rational arguments in favour (it also does not seem to be related to the pricing dispute).
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk)
09:30, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing I'm not sure it's a good time to speed up the archiving bot: I haven't submitted the edit requests yet to deal with this section and the next, and the page is protected. How about leaving the archiving time as before, but manually archiving any sections already addressed?
While I'm here, I view this DMOZ/Curlie thing as something that may not help, but doesn't hurt. There doesn't seem to be opposition if we re-instate it. Shall I go ahead and do the edit requests? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
What happened to Management as an alternate for Treatment in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes for those conditions where no treatment (in the conventional sense) is needed? It was long an alternate here and is now gone. WikiBlame is not working, so I can't tell why that occurred. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Edit request pending, so archiving bot will leave this section. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
@ WhatamIdoing, Doc James, Signimu, and Kashmiri: please respond to Xaosflux below so we can finish up this section; this talk page is sprawling. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Please let me know if there is any disagreement so I can submit the editrequest and we can get this section dealt with. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
I have removed some additions to the lead section. MEDMOS needs to stick to dealing with medicine/health article issues and not become some fork of standard guidelines. We already have guidelines on lead sections and on making technical articles accessible, so no need to add more. Given that "people don't read the manual", the shorter and more to-to-point this guideline can be, the better. As an aside, there is more skill involved in making an article accessible and engaging than just replacing words with more basic simple words. -- Colin° Talk 10:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Doc James, you have cited an off en-wiki document to justify your addition, rather than an on-wiki policy or guideline. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:10, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Doc James, you restored the lead text you wrote prior to attempting to achieve consensus and prior to posting your above "Disagree" comment. You are simply edit warring. As I made clear in my above comment, there is nothing James has written that is specific to medical articles. The same is true of any potentially complex topic on Wikipedia. We do not fork such guidelines. I really don't think James is in any position to lecture others about good writing technique. If it isn't specific and relevant to health/medicine, it does not belong here. If someone is including a "Reader Native Language by Language" chart in MEDMOS, then you can tell they are desperately trying to make point to meet an agenda, rather than stating something that has Wikipedia-wide consensus. Let's leave the advice on writing leads to the whole Wikipedia community, where those who are actually competent writers can craft competent guidelines. -- Colin° Talk 21:49, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding
this addition, which is also not based on consensus, we have had this discussion many times, and yet here we are again. O one of the reasons the Medicine Project guidelines were widely accepted years ago is because they did not contradict or extend beyond Wikipedia-wide policy or guideline, rather explain how to interpret policy or general guidelines for medical content.
This addition goes beyond
WP:LEAD, and because we have had this conversation many times and in many places, I am concerned about why it was again added as if it had consensus. This is a sample of the
broader WPMED disputes mentioned at ANI, and should also be tagged disputed and considered part of the same issue, where we see personal preferences being written into guidelines and being applied to broad swatches of articles (even FAs that comply with Wikipedia-wide policy).
Almost every piece of this non-consensus version of WP:MEDLEAD either extends beyond what WP:LEAD says, or is at variance with what LEAD says, or repeats what LEAD says-- the biggest problem is where it extends beyond what LEAD says and is used to impose a structure on leads that is at variance with what LEAD calls for and what is called for in Featured articles.
The lead of an article, if not the entire article, should be written as simply as possible without introducing errors or ambiguity. Around a third of readers of English Wikipedia, have English as a second language. Language can often be simplified by using shorter sentences, having one idea per sentence, and using common rather than technical terms. The British National Formulary for example often uses "by mouth" rather than "oral". It is also reasonable to have the lead introduce content in the same order as the body of the text. 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. It is useful to include citations in the lead, but they are not obligatory. Two reasons for using them are:Medical statements are much more likely than the average statement to be challenged, thus making citation mandatory.
To facilitate broad coverage of our medical content in other languages, the translation task force often translates only the lead, which then requires citations.
As can be seen by the concluding sentence, these extensions to Wikipedia-wide guideline are being imposed apparently to facilitate a different project, that is, translation of leads only to other languages, which has been a focus of WPMED for several years now, as opposed to focusing on having English-language articles comply with English-language policies and guidelines.
As in article editing, the burden to explain an addition should be on the editor adding the addition, so rather than have me go line-by-line to explain why all of this text is disputed, I believe it would be helpful for the editor(s) who want to add this text to go line-by-line and explain why they believe this text is supported by broader, Wikipedia-wide guidelines. It is not, and the application of this personal preference has caused FAs to be out of compliance with English-language standards only to make translation easier.
This text is disputed, and is part of the same problem discussed at the pricing ANI. A disputed tag should be added. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:12, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
There is a fair bit of guidance recommending we use easier to understand language such as "Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible." and Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 03:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
"Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although quotations and controversial statements, particularly if about living persons, should be supported by citations even in the lead"emphasises that the norm is to omit citations from the lead, where the text summarises the article. This is something that editors who write article body content, and then summarise that content in the lead, will find more natural, than editors who add factoids mostly in the lead. Secondly,
"The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus". Can anyone please give examples where editors working on an article reached a consensus wrt the need for citations in the lead for a given sentence or claim? I can find reverts and edit wars, but have been unable to find examples of collaborative editing or editors respecting each other and working towards consensus. This suggests to me, that perhaps a dogmatic approach at odds with general policy and guideline has taken dominance. Further reason that we should not have a MEDMOS fork of community guidelines. I would, of course, be overjoyed to read of examples of an article-consensus approach to lead citations. -- Colin° Talk 15:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
CFCF, I have reverted your addition of a separate section heading here on talk, which separated the section I started from the section it was directly responding to, and mischaracterized the nature of the dispute.
As you are a very involved party in these discussions, I request that you refrain from closing discussions, archiving discussions, or altering other editors' posts. I also ask you to please take greater care to read the case being discussed. The disputed text involved much more than what you call language. Since we have a neutral admin following the page now, if you feel it necessary to alter, close or archive something, you might find it useful to query Barkeep49 first.
Barkeep49, this section (LEAD) of the guideline is also disputed, and is part and parcel of everything discussed at the ANI (an issue that keeps being added in spite of no consensus). Because the article is protected, I am unable to add a disputed tag. What would it take to make that happen? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Here is a sample from this week; it is the first FA I checked, the only one I have checked so far, and it is concerning that the first FA I checked after a not-so-lengthy absence from medical editing shows the very issues of concern (leads edited only, so that the body of the article is out of sync with the lead, and language in the lead oversimplified to the point of losing clarity, with the structure of leads altered in ways that do not lend the prose quality required of FAs). This kind of editing takes FAs out of compliance with WP:WIAFA, and valuable editor time (eg Casliber) is then needed for repair to avoid a WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:30, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
What I am asking is, considering the page is protected, how can we have an {{ disputedtag}} added to the WP:MEDLEAD section? I was also pointing out, ala full disclosure, that although this is a separate dispute from the pricing issue, it is also related, as this is another of the ongoing disputes that was mentioned in the ANI you closed. Would it be appropriate for me to add an {{ editrequest}} to ask another admin to add the disputed tag, or are you able to do it as part of the overall issue? We have a protected page because of the pricing edit warring, but there is a separate but related dispute in another section, which should be tagged as that section does not have consensus; it is an ongoing smaller matter that has been obscured by the larger pricing dispute. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 03:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
See discussion above, beginning at LEAD.
The WP:MEDLEAD section of this guideline page has been constantly disputed for several years, as can be seen in the page history. Multiple past local discussions have been used to claim local consensus, which is not apparent, ( sample 1, and sample 2), or not enough to override broader Wikipedia-wide policy or guideline.
The version of MEDLEAD that has been alternately removed and re-instated for several years here has a particular impact on Featured articles; FAs must conform with WP:LEAD because the lead is used to write the mainpage blurb. MEDLEAD is at variance with LEAD in ways that have an extra impact of the project's top content, as medical articles must now answer to two different lead guidelines. A sample from this week only (but repeated across many other FAs) can be seen at FA Schizophrenia.
The wider community should be involved in a WP:CENT RFC when a WikiProject guideline is out of sync with Wikipedia-wide policy or guideline, and local consensus has not resolved the problem. The specific issues are:
This page is fully protected because of a separate, but related, dispute. An independent admin, not involved in adminning the separate dispute, is requested to add
{{Disputed tag|section=yes|talk=Lead}}
to the WP:MEDLEAD section (using the "section =yes" option), as it will be some time before the separate dispute can be resolved via RFC and the page unprotected. It is likely that a community-wide RFC will also be needed to resolve this conflict. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment As Sandy indicated I thought it helpful for someone beyond me to respond to this request. I have looked into the matter and am happy to answer any questions you have or to serve as a second opinion as I remain UNINVOLVED. For reference I believe the key talk page discussion is here. In looking at the project page history, the dispute goes back to March of 2018 from best I can tell. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 20:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
{{Disputed tag|section=yes|talk=Lead}}
I understand that you could be confused about how a disputed tag is used, because the norm on this page/project has not been to come to consensus on disagreements, but this is the usual process for addressing a disputed guideline. It ended up at editrequest because I couldn't add the tag myself due to the protection, but there is no doubt there is a dispute; adding a tag is uncontroversial.
The usual procedure is to discuss with each other to develop a consensus, while this page tends to devolve to "me, too" or "I don't like it" discussion, and then claim a consensus. I am willing to go forward with a community-wide RFC if we are unable to come to local consensus. I am intentionally not putting up the RFC (so far) while we are formulating a different RFC.
I understand that some editors have said they see no problem with choppy prose and poorly worded leads in medical articles; many others have expressed that the prose damage is a problem, and that the deviation from Wikipedia-wide guideline (LEAD) is also a problem. We can let the community decide: I would be surprised if the community endorsed a WikiProject Guideline that deviates from Wikipedia's broader guideline. But I would much rather that WPMED not have to bring two issues from one page to the community in a short timeframe. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:21, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
that which has been discussed by hundreds of editors and is long-standing, CFCF, could you produce an example of hundreds of editors supporting these accumulated additions to MEDLEAD? Alternately, could you produce a dozen? A Wikiproject guideline can not extend beyond a Wikipedia-wide guideline. Local "Me, too" and "I like it" supports are unhelpful in any case, but particularly insufficient to trump a Wikipedia-wide guideline page.
If you could please engage the five specific issues, we might be able to come to consensus without a centralized RFC to consult the broader community. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Limited engagement, stalled discussion, broader RFC launched. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:27, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
We have agreement at MEDMOS that Management is sometimes preferred to Treatment, but we have an infobox that forces the term Treatment at {{ Infobox medical condition}}. We have the same for Symptoms v. Characteristics. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:24, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
|management=
. If the management
parameter is used instead of treatment
, the label changes to "Management". If both parameters are present, treatment
overrides management
. --
RexxS (
talk)
17:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
@ RexxS and WhatamIdoing: I moved Treatment of Tourette syndrome to Management of Tourette syndrome, did a lot of updates, and now there is a pending changes box at the bottom of the article, that apparently I can't deal with. I thought I had the appropriate pending change-thingie, but don't know what the deal is here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)