Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Edit with VisualEditor

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 20 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171

Healing of periapical lesions

Hello friends! I present you with another orphaned oddity. It's such a weird title/scope. Should this be retitled? Rescoped? Merged somewhere? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree it looks a bit odd.

Title and scope:

• The first question on my mind before I opened it was, "which of the many structures in the body called "apex" does this refer to?".
• So something in the title that points to the context in which "apical" should be interpreted.
• So something "endodontal" in the tile or "(endodontology)" at the end.

As regards the orphanhood:

• all those articles mentioned above could link to it
• we could make a template for the category Category:Pathology of the maxilla and mandible to interlink this article to the other ones in that category.

Just some ideas. Hope it helps. Dr. Vogel (talk) 08:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

My primary concern here is scope/encyclopedic-ness, with de-orphaning a lesser issue. To me the title healing of periapical lesions sounds inappropriate for a Wikipedia article and reads more like the title of an instructional article. Your comment on the title/scope seems to illuminate further issues more given that even someone with medical knowledge can't clearly determine what it's talking about from looking at the title.

We could move it directly to periapical lesion to resolve the title issue, but to me the content reads more instructional than encyclopedic, so that wouldn't solve the overall problem. Personally my inclination would be to merge it, but as we don't have periapical lesion as an existing article, I don't know what the parent topic would be. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:SUMMARY form from a new section on Physiology of wound healing, or similar, on Periodontal disease should work. Klbrain (talk) 10:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I like Klbrain's idea.

I don't see any how-to contents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree too, good idea. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Merge biliary pruritus into cholestatic pruritus

Good evening Team,

I'm not really sure why we have separate articles about biliary pruritus and cholestatic pruritus. I am very tempted to merge biliary into cholestatic. The latter is a more commonly-used term, and it's also much more speficic and more about the actual cause of the presentation. And actually, given that the biliary one is just one sentence, I'm very tempted to just redirect it to its yes-developed twin, which also holds the most commonly-used term (at least in the UK).

If you have any objections please say :)

If no objections, I'll just leave it here for a few days and then do it. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Support; a bold merge seems fine to me as a synonym (or duplication). It has one reference, so will boost the referenc on the target by 50% (cough); hence a merge is preferred to a redirect. Klbrain (talk) 10:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

agree as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:34, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for your input guys. I've also made a couple of improvements to pruritus. Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm curious about this change to Itch:

| causes = Various skin disorders, environmental factors, allergy, skin infections, reduced excretion behaviour other medical conditions

| causes = certain infections, allergies and blood derangements

I assume that the old "environmental factors" was meant to include things like mosquito bites and dry skin during the winter. Those don't seem to represented in the new list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh dear, I messed that one up, I'm sorry. I was really eager to edit that sentence because of the broken English. Dr. Vogel (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Post-Finasteride sydrome

Dutasteride

• Dutasteride (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
• Finasteride (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Recent activity at these articles, which concerns me in light of the historic controvery and COI edits for these topics, and the significant shift in POV the new edits make. More eyes would be helpful. Bon courage (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that is definitely not a decided or settled controversy by any means. Those edits are POV pushing from one side of the debate with weak sourcing that does not overturn the strongest of our sources. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

What a series of blind rage edits. Nothing but reverts - and each with a comment that reveals complete absence of knowledge on the matter.

There is no controversy on the existence of adverse sexual effects. There is only a controversy on the persistence of the effects after discontinuation of medication (post-Finasteride sydrome).

They way in which valid sources are reverted that are fully compatible with WP:MEDRS is breathtaking. Please help. --Saidmann (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

What "valid source" did you have in mind? Bon courage (talk) 12:14, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

All sources that you (and your follower) reverted were reviews in PubMed-listed journals. Thus they were valid sources according to WP:MEDRS. Further, none of these sources was in disagreement with any other sources on this subject matter - neither concerning other sources in the article, nor concerning other sources anywhere in the academically published literature. --Saidmann (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Don't think so. Which source(s) did you think was usable? I think your edits had quite an effect on the POV of the article. Bon courage (talk) 12:31, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, your thoughts are utterly in error. They give the impression that you have not looked into any of the sources that you reverted. --Saidmann (talk) 12:45, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect. Anyway, since you seem unwilling to engage substantially with my questions I suggest we are done here & the consensus can stand. Bon courage (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Your questions had been answered by the way I used the sources. You reverted all of them by no-content-statements, like "weakly sourced". This is a problem of yours, not of mine. --Saidmann (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

A journal being in Pubmed does not make it a MEDRS source. An article being a review does not make it a MEDRS source. And please refrain from using words like "follower" to denigrate the opinions of other editors, thanks. This verbiage perpetuates a WP:BATTLEGROUND "us" vs "them" mentality. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 14:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's my analysis of two of the journals recently added:

• PMID 30651009 is a review in The Aging Male, a mid-tier journal, indexed not only in MEDLINE but also in the more restrictive/prestigious Index Medicus.[1]
• PMID 32435662 is a review in Neurobiology of Stress, a newer top-quartile journal that isn't indexed in MEDLINE.[2]

These are probably both acceptable journals.

The bigger question is not whether we can source claim X or claim Y, but what most researchers in most places think. For this, it might be better to step beyond journal articles to position statements that can be attributed to specific organizations ("The World Health Organization says...") and to medical school textbooks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• please (both) try to come to an agreement (also this conversation should be had on the article talk page), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:46, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
• It seems like some of these disputes rest on whether or not the article should be updated to reflect most current findings. The answer, as with all of these medical issues, is to ask: what do our best available MEDRS sources say? In the case of Dutasteride and PMDD, they actually say it's worth studying, but preliminary, so that is what we should report. I Think we still need to ask that question appropriately for the post-Finasteride syndrome questions leveled above, as per WhatamIdoing, the best way to do that is with textbooks and position statements. Not with single studies or narrative reviews if at all possible. In most cases, I think these things actually do need a rewrite, but they should not be rewritten from a POV as described above. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 18:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

  Okay I've updated the dutasteride article with stuff from the 2021 American Urological Association clinical guidelines and other well-regarded position statements and systematic reviews from reputable journals re: PFS and prostate cancer risk. I think we should probably update the finasteride article to match since most of this content is the same for the two drugs. Anybody able to help out on that? thanks. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 20:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Electronic cigarette and nicotine addiction

electronic cigarette (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

See this talk page section

An editor at this page (joined by a brand new SPA) is attempting to remove the text "nicotine is highly addictive" based on research reports from Public Health England [3] and the National Academies [4] which say, in effect "more research is needed to understand if the delivery system affects how addictive a nicotine product is". These sources also say that it could be more addictive based on the added flavorings and delivery mechanisms, or less addictive if limited in delivery and without other tobacco ingredients etc. These same sources say that trading smoking for e-cigarette use is preferable given the much lower health risks of e-cigarettes. Which is pretty undisputed at this point, but does not mean that it helps them quit vaping as well, so much as trading one for the other: [5] [6] [7]

And then we have reports, clinical practice guidelines, and systematic reviews from the NIH/Surgeon General/CDC/American Academy of Pediatrics/Cochrane/US PSTF/American Thoracic Society which say that nicotine in e-cigs is still highly addictive. And we have systematic reviews from other very trustworthy publications which say that it may not actually help people quit smoking (let alone quit nicotine), if done outside of a medical therapeutic relationship or otherwise supervised "quit" program: [8] [9] [10]

Can we get some assistance from some other editors with expertise in this area? Thanks — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 22:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal – moving Breast binding to "Chest binding"

A proposal has been made to have Breast binding renamed "Chest binding". You are invited to participate in this discussion @ Talk:Breast binding#Requested move 2 November 2022. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 14:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

RFD

Please see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 15#Wikipedia:CANCER, which proposes that this redirect be pointed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Hematology-oncology task force. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Assigning importance

I found that major adverse cardiovascular events page has no talk page, so I assigned it to Wikiproject Medicine. How can I make decision for this page's importance at Wikiproject Medicine? --LR0725 (talk) 08:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

[11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

CABG

Hey all, I have been told that the article I have been preparing for GA that (CABG) has a I think from a surgical / medical perspective" [12]. I am not sure if there are other RS on the subject that are dealing with the subject from a non-medical perspective. Can you please help me or guide me on how to improve the article? Thanks! Cinadon36 11:51, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's a request for a non-medical perspective. It sounds a bit more to me like a request for information about medically sound prevention and alternatives to the surgery, as well as information on recovery after the surgery. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Traditional chinese medicine education assignment

I just partially removed a post in Cinnamomum cassia for not being MEDRS. This appears to be part of a Wiki Education assignment on traditional chinese medicine. It would be a good idea if you guys kept an eye on what they are doing, it's almost bound to be problematic. SpinningSpark 16:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Here's the text you removed:

While Westerners use it as a spice and for its strong aromatic properties, Eastern medicine uses it as a drug and it is listed in the Pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China (CH.P).

There are two statements here:

• People from one culture choose to eat it because it tastes good (e.g., in Cinnamon rolls), and people from a different culture choose to eat it when they aren't feeling well (apparently under the same circumstances that people from that first culture eat chicken soup).
• Whether something is included in a particular list.

Neither of these two claims are, strictly speaking, Wikipedia:Biomedical information. It does not say (e.g.,) that it has any biological effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

• The claim that it is listed in Chinese Pharmacopia isn't medical information? In any case, that is not stated in the source, nor is the claim that their is a difference in Eastern and Western usage. The first part about spice use is already stated in the article. SpinningSpark 23:43, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  Chinese Pharmacopoeia is a list maintained by a government. Putting a name on a list, or taking it off a list, has no biological effect whatsoever. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The claim that any kind of "medicine" uses it as a "drug" is a medical claim. If someone put "in Western medicine chicken soup is used as a drug" that should also be deleted. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Not really. The fact that someone classifies a given substance as a drug has no biological effect or medical implications, and it is therefore not biomedical information. It needs a reliable source, but it doesn't need MEDRS' ideal type of source. It should be sourced, but it's sufficient to cite the pharmacopoeia itself. In case it's not clear, when you cite a pharmacopoeia to verify the claim that something is listed in it, you're using the pharmacopoeia as a primary source for describing its own contents, which means it's not MEDRS' ideal type of source. But that's okay, because this just needs a regular reliable source) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

A little background for folks less familiar with this: A pharmacopoeia is primarily concerned with consumer rights, rather than medical utility. They list what ought to be present (is ±10% the listed amount okay, or should it be ±1%?), how to store it, what to put on the label, and how to chemically determine that the right stuff is there.

For example, the USP–NF has an entry for plain old white sugar, which says things like "Packaging and storage: Preserve in well-closed containers." The chemical tests says things like "A 2.0-g portion shows no more chloride than corresponds to 0.10 mL of 0.020 N hydrochloric acid (0.0035%)" and "Place 50 mL of the clear liquid in a 250-mL beaker, add 50 mL of alkaline cupric tartrate TS, cover the beaker with a watch glass, and heat the mixture at such a rate that it comes to a boil in approximately 4 minutes, and boil for 2 minutes, accurately timed."

I've never seen anything about how/why the substance is used; they are unconcerned with what happens to the substance after it leaves the pharmacy.

Pharmacopoeias all over the world contain entries for things like a mixture of low-sodium salt, baking soda, and sugar, which sounds like the starting point for Honeycomb toffee instead of a drug. They have entries for food additives, and for "chemicals" that we normally think of as being food (e.g., table salt, alcohol, ginger, hot peppers, lemon oil, and honey are all in the US version). The fact that these entries exist doesn't mean that these entries are "drugs" in the sense that MEDRS cares about. We shouldn't jump from "X is used as a drug" or "X is listed in a pharmacopoeia" to "any mention of reality must meet MEDRS' ideal or be omitted". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Even if you're right that this claim does not need MEDRS (and ok, I concede this project is better placed to judge that) I was still right to challenge it. And I still think that it would be a good idea for this wikiproject to keep an eye on what this education course is doing. Getting you to take a look at them was the main purpose of me posting here. SpinningSpark 07:56, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree: it needs a source – just a plain-old-reliable source, not a MEDRS-ideal source, but definitely at least one source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Love is the drug I'm thinking of // Oh-oh, can't you see? // Love is the drug for me. -- Colin°^Talk 09:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Lung cancer

User:Buidhe has nominated Lung cancer for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Otoscope

Hey there!

I saw this article, Otoscope, and i noticed that there is a a section of the article dedicated to Use in Media, including uses in media without any valid citations. I checked the MOS for Medical related articles, and I didn't see anything relating to this section of the article listed in it. I was wondering if this was okay to remove, as it doesn't really make any sense why a medical tool used in standard checkups needs a Use in Media part in the article.

Best, Zekerocks11 (talk) 18:05, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Not really a medical issue. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content. Only an essay, but in accord with accepted best practice: "In popular culture" sections should contain verifiable information with sources that establish its significance to the article's subject. Exhaustive, indiscriminate lists are discouraged, as are passing references to the article subject.. See also this RfC [13]. Delete the lot as unsourced trivia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thank you. I brought it to attention here as it was a medical based article and thought it was the best place to bring it to attention. If there is a better place, just let me know. Best, Zekerocks11 (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is really a 'best place' for discussing this sort of thing. A common problem on all sorts of articles. If I see a bad case, I generally just delete it with an appropriate edit summary, and then watchlist the page. It's rare for anyone to actually contest removal, but if they do, you can point them at the essay and RfC above, along with MOS:POPCULT. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Alrighty. I'm new to this kind of thing and it seemed out of place to me so that's why I asked. I'll take note of that. Thanks mate! Zekerocks11 (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, @Zekerocks11, thank you for trying to improve these articles. If you can find a decent source for some, then adding that information is super helpful. If you can't find a source, or if it just doesn't seem like an important connection (e.g., a movie that shows one in the background for two seconds), it might have to be removed, and that's okay, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Understood, thanks Zekerocks11 (talk) 21:44, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Patient blood management: need to remove puffery

I think (?) that the actual medical claims down the article are reasonably sourced. However, it also contains a lot of non-medical, puffery material (e.g. "patient blood management is a patient-centric approach" looks good on a marketing brochure, but it has zero actual meaning in an encyclopedia article). I have cut the worst from the lead, but much remains. At that point I am afraid to cut actually useful content with the puff - if anyone wants to give it a go... Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 10:26, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion

Any input would be appreciated at: Talk:Sex reassignment surgery#Requested move 23 November 2022. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Pandemic's over?

Discussion could probably use medical editor input at

• Talk:COVID-19 pandemic#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2022

About whether Wikipedia needs to move on from the "stubborn" WHO and stop saying that there is still a pandemic.

Relatedly,

• Endemic phase of COVID-19 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

has been nominated[14] for GA. I am concerned this is in large part an assemblage of what various politicians have said at various times about COVID being endemic in their countries, with little explanation of what that means and/or how accurate it is. Bon courage (talk) 07:20, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

thank you for posting here...yes the COVID-19 pandemic article has not been easy --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Given that Ghebreyesus of the WHO said that "the end is in sight", I don't understand why any editor would seek to waste time getting it declared over by Wikipedia (as if that means much anyway) when it might actually be over in the not too distant future and then we would just change it without any controversy. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:29, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is any standard by which the pandemic could be deemed to have concluded globally. BD2412 T 22:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Lots of the endemicity content is actually emergent across many months and last year. I recently added a section on Lebanon from a source published in February. Malaysia transitioned toward endemicity in October 2021. The endemic article was spun off Living with COVID which was then integrated boldly back into the endemic article. While endemicity is a bit constraining it serves as the assemblage of endemicity/living with covid/new normal etc in aggregate. There's plenty of substance and nuance here and in the interest of building an encyclopedia it is beneficial to readers to include this material in the project, since sources observe it. We defer to sources and we use due weight accordingly. This is a subject that hasn't been well-represented on wiki and I am happy to have contributed significantly to the project by expanding it. As I said on the COVID pandemic talk page, the lead currently does not mention this material, which is not compliant with MOS. SmolBrane (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The transition to endemicity is an ongoing process at varying phases all around the world, so I don't see how that article could be stable anytime soon. Maybe in the future when the WHO has declared it no longer pandemic, and COVID policies have been stable for a while, it could be nominated if it meets the criteria, but right now I would suggest withdrawing the nomination and refocusing on documenting how things are right now, rather than jumping the gun and trying to edit based on ideas about how close or not full endemicity is. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Instability in the WP:GACR refers specifically to edit wars and content disputes, and the article isn't changing day to day. "Good faith improvements" and "potential instability in the future" are not grounds for failure either, according to the criteria. Editing on this article has been pretty straightforward and reasonably infrequent actually, not much different from the COVID-19 pandemic article which was also recently reviewed.

I'm also really interested in the general quality of the article currently; it doesn't need to pass if it isn't ready. There are six criteria for good article status and I'd love to hear feedback on the other five areas regardless. This is the first article I've created and I learned lots from the review of the COVID pandemic article. Based on criteria at WP:GVF I think the endemic article is certainly within the reach of being "decent". More editor participation on the article is desired--as per WP:GAN "anyone may nominate an article" and "nominators should respond positively to constructive criticism and work with the reviewer to improve the article" which is precisely my intent here. In my pursuit of collaboration and consensus-building the nomination will not be withdrawn. SmolBrane (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The article has a systemic POV problem. What is the purpose of relaying that Jair Bolsonaro said Brazil was entering an endemic stage in March 2022? He said a lot of stupid things. What actually is Brazil's status? There seemed to be a wave following Bolsonaro's pronouncements. We're in danger of Making Wikipedia an uncritical relay of politicians' anti-scientific talking points.[15] Bon courage (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if that source is due; they cite their own podcast--you could add it to the article, I suppose, but you know sources well and you haven't for some reason. Not a lot of substance in that article. Anyway, we defer to RSes of course--kindly aim your concerns of rigor at them. If 'endemic' is being misused by politicians it needs to be established by secondary sources. Some of these statements are coming from experts--the Lebanese commentary I mentioned earlier comes from Abdul Rahman Bizri, a specialist of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology. Unless you have a suggested edit I see nothing actionable in your comment here. SmolBrane (talk) 02:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

@SmolBrane, I skimmed over the article. I had a lot of paragraphs that said "On this exact date, someone said something". What I was hoping to find was something more like this:

"This country had lockdowns and other significant restrictions from March 2020 to July 2021, but then changed the policy in August 2021 to _______, and further loosened restrictions a year later, to the point that COVID-related restrictions are nearly the same as how they approach seasonal influenza. The two main differences are that healthcare workers and some others who experience any COVID-related symptoms must test negative before returning to work (which they don't have to do for flu) and that it's no longer unusual for people to wear masks indoors, which was nearly unheard of in this country before the pandemic started", maybe followed by a description of how the situation is going (e.g., case load).

I was really hoping for a general, non-politician-focused summary of the overall situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Most of my additions to this article were intended to be concise; you can probably find more context in the sources and expand the content if you find them DUE. Let's be clear that these are qualified individuals discussing endemicity, not simply some people saying some things. We don't have sources casting doubt on these individuals despite the fact that they are often politicians(often heads of states, in fact).

It's also possible that the sources simply don't offer what you are 'hoping for'; it is of course our job to follow the sources. It is not our job to try to project what endemicity might look like on the behalf of our sources. We have to assume that endemicity is endemicity; to do otherwise is WP:OR(analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources). SmolBrane (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

To take the example above, Bolsonaro is not qualified[16] for anything in the realm of science (or reality probably). Politicians say things for political reasons and that might include giving their country "good news" about the end of the pandemic, no matter whether it's true or not. Bon courage (talk) 09:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Of course Bolsonaro is not a qualified scientific expert. But he's a highly qualified person when you understand the statement less as a statement of scientific fact, and more as a statement of government policy. The wording of that sentence strikes me as quite carefully written: "the country is looking to downgrade COVID-19 to the status of an endemic." The linked source says "countries have expressed their desire to start treating COVID-19 as an endemic disease like the seasonal flu". This is a statement about future government policy plans. Science does not "have a desire to start treating COVID-19 as", well, anything. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:33, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

This article should reflect scientific knowledge, the only form of reliable knowledge. Hence articles not linking to WHO, Nejm, lancet etc, I simply dont click. Arguments based on media ...well are aimply not valid. Cinadon36 07:59, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• Note Talk:Endemic phase of COVID-19/GA1 has ended as a quickfail, with similar concerns being raised to here. Bon courage (talk) 09:34, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  There's more to this subject than science. Science doesn't determine whether we should do something or what we should call it. Science can tell you that requiring hospital staff to test for COVID frequently will reduce in-hospital transmission of COVID and staffing levels. Science can even, eventually, if the right data is collected, tell you whether the variable and lower staffing levels will kill more patients than COVID, and what the effect would be if the same was applied to influenza. But science can't tell you whether a given society should value reduced transmission in a hospital more than it values reliable staffing levels in a hospital, and it can't tell people how they should feel and how they should respond when their needs are being de-prioritized in favor of someone else's needs. This article needs some science, but it also needs some non-science. Don't be fooled by the slogan that non-science is nonsense. Human values are not nonsense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  I'm with you on this, and this fits nicely with another social media phenomenon that we'll need to watch out for lest it bleed into Wikipedia, which is implicitly using "science" to mean simply "suppressing transmission", and valuing that above all else. Science can tell you how to suppress transmission, but it cannot tell you how much to value normalcy, unhindered socialization, and so forth. It's pretty obvious that most societies at this point (except maybe the Chinese Communist Party) value things other than maximal transmission suppression.

  Mainstream scientists understand this, which is why reputable groups and public health agencies throughout the world have been updating recommendations and regulations to not simply be focused on case numbers and to account for the fact we have vaccines and so forth. We have to watch out for undue weight for the fringes on either side, both the "we should have done nothing" camp and the "restrictions for as long as the virus exists" camp. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:44, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

  @WhatamIdoing: Indeed, an interesting (lay source) article in The Atlantic[17] discusses how the term is contested in politics (and even among scientists) and how even some people think because it begins "end..." it means the "end of COVID". I'd prefer to see an article where pronouncements by various people are contextualized by a discussion of what endemicity is, rather than have an assumption it means something like "we're free!" and then listing people who've used the term. Bon courage (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Not sure what the goal with the sentiments here are. We have DUE material sourced to secondary sources. I feel like editors(including myself) are at an impasse, and I feel like I've made myself clear. There is a lack of suggestions here for editing. Perhaps a wider RfC or nomination for deletion should be attempted. Wider community input can resolve this issue one way or another and develop a precedent so we can stop talking past each other. Regards, SmolBrane (talk) 21:47, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is stated anywhere in guidelines, but IMO some articles just cannot be made GA at this time due to their controversial nature. If it was years from now, the pandemic having been officially declared over years ago, all Covid policies basically matching those of seasonal flu pre-Covid, and those haven't changed in years, then the topic will be much easier to edit. I look forward to that day, but we're just not there yet. In the meantime, a lot of good work can still be done. In fact, there's a number of articles and sections, like here, that document things like the imposition of restrictions in excruciating detail and that speak as if they are still in place, and like everyone is behaving like they did in 2020, which is not true. The end of these things and the ever-gradual return to normalcy need to be documented too. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned about the cursory rejection of GA status, it was mostly a nomination in the pursuit of improving the article in a nuanced way. I'm not sure if I got what I wanted there, but there is work to be done and I have limited time for wiki anyway. Getting any feedback in an active way is appreciated. Changes in COVID related interventions at the public health level need to be documented and I have been working in the relatively explicit area of endemicity for this reason. Many articles are not well updated and I am also trying to help POV to some degree by staying focused here.

More generally I am fascinated with how wiki deals with divergence in professional statements and what appear to be emergent POV forks and the related challenges. Not to mention the challenges of politicians making MEDRS-type statements. We outsource our rigor to RSes, and we cannot presume that non MEDRS RSes are misusing terms without sources suggesting as such. What concerns me is the sentiments in this section that seem to suggest that the secondary sources are not saying what they should. Endemicity is a big statement, and it needs accurate representation on the project. I will continue working in this area, and it will be telling to see how long the MOS:LEAD noncompliance(my opinion) remains on the COVID-19 pandemic article. Let me be clear that I am not trying to canvas on that matter, simply observing the issue as I currently see it. SmolBrane (talk) 02:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I won't even go look at the lead, to avoid being tempted to "fix" it, especially since I wouldn't be fixing it properly.

I would love to see (the sources existing so we could re-write the article to use) a regional or category-based approach. From what I hear, the public health positions of most low-income countries were tuned towards endemic status a long time ago. This isn't a case of "this one country"; it's a case of "the entire Africa continent, with one or two exceptions". Similarly, while it's easy enough to say "France did this" or "Germany said that", the EU countries did most things in concert, so the case is really "Europe, with one or two exceptions". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I had looked for commentary in Africa and elsewhere a few weeks ago but didn't find anything. What you hear may very well be the case but I haven't seen a source on it.

Ozzie10aaaa had made an image for the endemic phase section on the COVID-19 pandemic article but it only featured Mexico as an example. If it is straightforward to generate a similar image that demonstrates COVID status by region it would be helpful and productive. SmolBrane (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The Atlantic article mentioned by Bon Courage (above) [18] summarizes the situation regarding the definition of 'endemic' exceptionally well. Any editor thinking of modifying a relevant article may wish to consider it a "must read". Jaredroach (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I did read it and it does make some good points regarding us not really knowing yet what endemicity will be like, though I would be a bit cautious of treating one pop-media article as too much of an authority. The media isn't always good at getting a representative sample of experts, and even the best written article can become out of date as the situation evolves and as endemicity gets closer and possibly clearer in nature. The article notes some researchers who don't even agree that the flu is endemic, but of course the flu isn't pandemic either.

Since it isn't endemic yet we can't say for certain what it would look like, but when we do get there we should rely on sources describing that time, and even thereafter be ready to keep updating because things will still probably be normalizing after it's officially declared for some time. And right now describing some jurisdictions and health authorities who have moved towards endemicity, directly relevant sources are important for that as well. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:26, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the critical component of what you said about the Atlantic article here--I mean, it's literally titled "Endemicity is meaningless". Still not sure what the reticence is towards endemicity, the recent Finland addition comes from virologist Mika Salminen, the director of the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare--he has twelve thousand citations on google scholar... SmolBrane (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is challenging that Finland addition, nor should they. That doesn't mean it's truly endemic worldwide yet, but it is a noteworthy development. The situation is always changing and has been ever since the pandemic began, and so it's always taken a balance about being careful not to make excessive assumptions about the future while also not being stuck in the past, leading to good-faith disagreement. With time more sources and developments appear and it becomes clearer to all eventually. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:19, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

A "world view" from Nature earlier this year:

• Katzourakis A (January 2022). "COVID-19: endemic doesn't mean harmless". Nature (World view). 601 (7894): 485. doi:10.1038/d41586-022-00155-x. PMID 35075305.

again noting the disconnect between political and epidemiological uses of the term "endemic". Bon courage (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"World view" isn't a peer-reviewed research article, and is more about presenting the views of a particular scientist as far as I can tell. While it's correct that endemic does not in itself mean "do nothing", at the same time that article seems to take a stance of 'we should still fight transmission intensively with restrictions etc.' This should not be given undue weight; judging by how things have been going since then, it seems that most public health agencies are relaxing restrictions on personal behavior even while they do other things like focus on vaccination, etc.

Central to the issue, of course, is that knowing what endemicity will look like isn't even possible now, let alone in January 2022 when the Omicron variant was causing massive waves in cases and hospitalizations all around the world. We still don't know what endemic levels of disease from Covid-19 would even look like, so nobody can possibly know what society's response will or should be.

Also, "politics" cannot be entirely disentangled from this subject; as WhatamIdoing said earlier, "Science doesn't determine whether we should do something or what we should call it....But science can't tell you whether a given society should value reduced transmission in a hospital more than it values reliable staffing levels in a hospital, and it can't tell people how they should feel and how they should respond when their needs are being de-prioritized in favor of someone else's needs. This article needs some science, but it also needs some non-science. Don't be fooled by the slogan that non-science is nonsense. Human values are not nonsense." What endemicity will look like and what material on it should be included is not simply a matter for epidemiologists. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:30, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there can be a "peer-reviewed research article" of definitions, and it would just be the authors' views also. Unlikely to be a secondary MEDRS source on it. What endemicity is, is entirely science. How policymakers choose to react to it (or misrepresent it) is maybe important non-science. So long as these aren't blurred that's fine. Bon courage (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Anyway, maybe you could stop edit warring [19] to delete the comments of the head of the World Health Organization, the literal authority over what is or is not a pandemic? Pointing to WP:SYNC is a disingenuous justification since it was you who removed it from the other article just moments before. And when Ghebreyesus speaks about the "end of the pandemic", what is he talking about if not endemicity? Crossroads ^-talk- 06:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

This is an example of the problem. Taking sources that don't mention endemic covid and blurring them into service. WP:NOR is a core policy. Bon courage (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOR: Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research. Does anyone seriously believe that Ghebreyesus could possibly mean anything other than endemicity? Excluding relevant material about 'after the pandemic' or the like on the grounds that it doesn't use the magic word even though it is clearly the same topic is itself a huge problem. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:49, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

"Does anyone seriously believe that Ghebreyesus could possibly mean anything other than endemicity" ← yes; interpreting what "he means" is OR. This is one of the central points here. Editors trying to coerce everything to do with "good news" into meaning "endemic" is not what our good sources are doing (or in this case any source). Why should Wikipedia be doing something so odd? Bon courage (talk) 06:55, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Generalized hypoxia: all but one sentence fragment cited to the US Department of Transportation

Iatroapathetic topics part III! I recently linked to Generalized hypoxia (on account of this[20]), and it's a bit scant. It cites two souces, "A Quick Look at Reflexes", from the Health Encyclopedia of the University of Rochester Medical Center, and the non-inline cite to the "Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge: FAA Manual H-8083-25", by the Flight Standards Service of the US Federal Aviation Administration.

I would appreciate any improvements to the article, especially if it starts getting more pageviews from COVID-19 sufferers. Alternately, is there a useful merge or alternate target? Suggestions welcome. HLHJ (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

If Pbsouthwood is around, he knows a lot about what oxygen (and its absence) does to the body. Generalized hypoxia seems to mostly be about circumstances (like high-altitude settings) than about a disease. Tissue hypoxia, which appears to be the localized version (e.g., in case of infarction or stroke), redirects to Hypoxia (medical). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, WAID. I've used anemia as a target for now as it's more comprehensive and seems to apply regardless of the precise mechanism by which one's blood is pooched. The article seems to have once been titled "Hypoxic hypoxia" (which it defined as "insufficient oxygen available to the lungs", a somewhat different scope). I'm not up to judging if a merge is a good idea; I'd be glad if Pbsouthwood has a view. HLHJ (talk) 00:34, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

My knowledge of oxygen metabolism is largely related to the effects of variation in partial pressure in the breathing gas on underwater divers, who are usually in fairly good general health, and by extension, to effects due to hyperbaric and hypobaric exposures on reasonably healthy subjects. Not sure if this is likely to be of any use. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:28, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Turns out it is good enough to fix most of the problems. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 13:19, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The FAA source appears to be [21] and probably to be more precise [22], which talks about various types of hypoxia i.e. Hypoxic Hypoxia, Hypemic Hypoxia, Stagnant Hypoxia and Histotoxic Hypoxia (obviously from an avaition point of view). Does this actually support the article?Nigel Ish (talk) 10:22, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

A bit, but not much, but I have found and added more relevant sources, expanded a bit, and cleaned out a lot of tangential, unsourced, dubious, and out of scope content. What remains is mostly good. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:45, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Anemia is still probably a better link for the original purpose. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 12:47, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

I'll keep using anemia . Thank you very much, the article is much better. I'm still very confused by the ontology. Hypoxia (medical) says that hypoxia is generalized when it affects all tissues, and localized when it doesn't. That makes sense. But then altitude sickness, carbon-monoxide poisoning, anemia and circulatory hypoxia would be forms of general hypoxia, though presumably some tissues would be worse-affected. But the Hypoxia (medical) article lists low hemoglobin as a cause in its section on local hypoxia. And the Generalized hypoxia article seems to contradict the Hypoxia (medical) article on scope. A hierarchical list of forms of hypoxia, in order of the progression of oxygen into the body, like the one in Generalized hypoxia#Other types of medical hypoxia and Generalized hypoxia#Causes but more comprehensive, would be useful.

An article on COVID-19 and hypoxia would also be very useful, as it's now a notable, complex topic of high public interest (and there's some confusing pop science content out there). We have silent hypoxia, which is clearly related but different as you can get silent hypoxia (defining it broadly as hypoxia without distress) very fast by breathing helium (or any gas containing neither oxygen nor CO2, a fact the article does not note). HLHJ (talk) 18:20, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

The helium containers available to the general public have ~20% oxygen these days, for safety reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The precise meaning and scope of generalised hypoxia also bothers me. It is claimed to be synonymous with hypoxic hypoxia by the sources I used, but I agree that other sources appear to use it differently, and that the use in Cavezzi et al appears to be using it as a distinction between affecting all tissues and having localised effects. I would explain that in the article, but cannot find a suitable source. I will leave a comment on the talk page, maybe someone who is an actual expert will know where to look.

Balloon helium contains oxygen, technical helium (five nines - 99.999% He) does not. Both are available from industrial gas suppliers. Pure nitrogen is probably the cheapest and most easily available asphyxiant which you would not notice and would probably not be identifiable by standard pathology tests. Nitrogen has a large range of industrial uses, from fizzing beer to inflating tyres. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:53, 28 November 2022 (UTC)