Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Applied behavior analysis - assistance requested

Edit with VisualEditor

This page has been mentioned by a media organization: Sarah Shamim, Dwayne Oxford (June 14, 2024). "Wikipedia war: Fierce row erupts over Israel's deadly Nuseirat assault". Al Jazeera English. Retrieved June 14, 2024. Wikipedia was able to address the issue of misinformation about the virus spreading on its platform, however, with projects like Wiki Project Medicine, a community of doctors and scientists,working to correct wrong information.

There is a new page that was recently created that may interest this wikiproject, Diagnostic overshadowing in autism. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 20:09, 8 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Circumcision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A couple of new editors have showed up who do not accept that WP:MEDRS ought to be followed. The talk page could really use a bit of attention from folks who are familiar with the guidelines. - MrOllie (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This topic is fraught at the best of times. Am I to understand Donald Trump has now made some remarks on the topic? if so, that would raise the temperature further ... Bon courage (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, during an address to Congress a few months ago he called funding circumcision for HIV prevention 'waste'. MrOllie (talk) 12:40, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The new-ish editor earned a partial block for Wikipedia:Edit warring after several editors provided the required warnings and MrOllie reported the problem at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Chaptagai reported by User:MrOllie (Result: 72 hours ).

This article is indefinitely WP:SEMI'd. It's also listed in the Wikipedia:Contentious topics. Do we feel like this worked ("good enough"), or do we want to pursue more significant CTOP restriction models (i.e., WP:Enforced BRD, WP:1RR, or Wikipedia:Consensus required restriction)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 12 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi everyone. I would like to explain what this conflict is about.

The article circumcision (in the section "Sexual effects") currently categorically states that "[t]he accumulated data show circumcision does not have an adverse physiological effect on sexual pleasure, function, desire, or fertility." The prior discussion of the issue can be found here.

I think current version of the article violates WP guidelines (neutrality, evidence standards, NPOV) for several reasons:

(1) Statement misrepresents sources: The statement misrepresents and distorts the conclusions of the extant reviews, which are much more nuanced and riddled with disclaimers and qualifiers. For example:

• "An objective evaluation of the impact of circumcision on sexuality is still challenging"; "a negative outcome has not yet been entirely proven" [1]
• Circumcision is "unlikely" to adversely affect male sexual functions [2]
• "there is not sufficient data to establish a direct association between male circumcision and sexual dysfunction." [3]

None of these reviews categorically states that it is proven that there is no effect and that this question is settled.

Even the review by the highly conflicted pro-circumcision advocates Morris and Krieger states that "[t]he highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect" [4] which includes two qualifiers: "suggest", which is far less categorical than the phrasing in the article and that it's not all of the evidence, but only the "highest-quality studies", so even they at least acknowledge that there are conflicting studies, which the article completely ignores.

(2) Scientific debate and conflicting evidence not even mentioned: The article doesn't even mention that there is an ongoing scientific debate on this topic and that numerous conflicting studies exist. The academic debate and the substantial body of conflicting evidence is being discussed at length in the reviews, for instance, even Morris and Krieger state that in two seperate reviews that "[w]hether circumcision impairs or improves male sexual function or pleasure is controversial" [5] and that "[a]ctive debate concerns whether male circumcision (MC) affects sexual function, penile sensation, or sexual pleasure."[6] The latter review also contains and in-depth discussion of the ongoing debate among scientists, e.g., for work of Bossio et al. 2016, which Morris and Krieger note has been criticized by Frisch, Rotta, and Van Howe et al. and Earp. Conversely, Morris and Krieger discuss critiques by themselves and others, e.g., of the studies of Frisch et al. and Bonselaer et al.

Morris & Krieger (2013) also state that "[i]mpairment in one or more parameters was reported in 10 of the 13 studies" [7], so at least 10 studies showing negative outcomes existed even 10 years ago already.

Despite all of this, the article in its present form only states that circumcision has no effect, which is not what the reviews say (see (1) above), and it doesn't even mention that there is an ongoing debate among researchers, nor are the multiple conflicting studies that do report negative effects even mentioned.

(3) No systematic effect vs. no effect at all": The article currently states and suggests that there is no negative effect on sexual outcomes under any circumstances and names no exceptions. Morris and Krieger (2020) - the authors most favorable to circumcision - point out that while they conclude that circumcision does not systematically affect sexual outcomes, "[t]hat is not to say that neonatal MC will never have an adverse outcome that might impact sexual function or pleasure" [8] and that serious complications, though rare, can lead to long lasting damage to the penis and adverse effects on sexual health. That this possibility exists is uncontroversial. Again, the article doesn't even mention this possibility, whereas it is common practice in Wikipedia to list even rare adverse effects (e.g., anaphylactic shock for certain medications).

I want to be very clear that I do not seek to change the general conclusion that the available evidence suggests that circumcision has no proven systematic negative effects on sexual pleasure and function. My goal is to correct the misrepresentation of the conclusions of the reviews (1), point out in the article that there is a scientific debate and that conflicting studies exist (2), and include the possibility of adverse effects (which is uncontroversial) in the rare event of severe complications (3).

I am convinced this would improve the article. Chaptagai (talk) 09:19, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chaptagai, I'm a little concerned about your statements on this subject. For example, you say that the experts are "highly conflicted", by which you mean that one of them belongs to a relevant medical society and the other has invented a relevant device that he has no financial stake in. It's the kind of overstatement that makes me think that the anti-vaxxers will be telling us tomorrow that members of the American Academy of Pediatrics are all "highly conflicted", and expecting us to remove high-quality medical sources written by experts with any connection to the kind of medical societies that one would expect experts to be associated with.

Then you say that complications aren't addressed (from the lead: Bleeding, infection, and the removal of either too much or too little foreskin are the most common acute complications, while meatal stenosis is the most common long-term, and a whole section on Circumcision#Adverse effects, which sounds like addressing complications to me...) and lean into the idea that a rare complication such as a serious infection could result in long-term damage or even death, which is true. It's also true that if you don't circumcise newborn boys, then they have a slightly higher chance of incurring long-term damage or even dying from the increased risk of UTIs.

So despite the amber lights already flashing, I have had a quick look for WP:MEDRS-type sources. If you wanted to find some specifically sexual harm from circumcision, then you might look for sources about docking (sex) and foreskin fetishization. doi:10.1177/13634607231199407 looks like a reasonable starting point. It's not much, but there doesn't seem to be much in reality. For example, doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_35-1 says Therefore, an evidence-based consensus based on this detailed evaluation of the literature is that if there is any effect of circumcision on various sexual parameters, then the result of circumcision is likely to be perceived as beneficial and writes in the conclusion that Currently available evidence suggests that circumcision does not have any adverse effects on sexual functioning and pleasure. doi:10.1080/0092623X.2025.2499141 says circumcision appears to improve several aspects of sexual function (e.g., The analysis results indicate that circumcision significantly increases sexual satisfaction in men), and to be equal for other aspects, but nothing is worse. doi:10.1038/s41443-020-00354-y says Many studies have proven that MC has no negative effect on sexual function...There is enough literature supporting the fact that childhood circumcision has no negative influence in sexual function per se. It goes on to say that a men who dislike being circumcised may have worse body image and may incorrectly blame circumcision for unrelated sexual problems, just like men who dislike being uncircumcised have body image problems and blame the lack of circumcision for their problems.

In other words, if our article says that circumcision doesn't harm sexual functioning, the article is correct. If you want sources that say this directly and unambiguously, then swap in the ones I quoted above. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @WhatamIdoing, thank you for your detailed reply. Here is my response to the points you raised:

"Highly conflicted": First, whether you want to call Morris and Krieger "highly conflicted" or not is besides the point, what I wanted to point out is that they are staunch supporters of default neonatal circumcision - the most extreme position in the debate - and even they acknowledge that there is an ongoing scientific debate on this question and that a substantial body of studies exists that points to a possible negative effect, and they discuss this research in detail in their reviews. Against this background, it's just not right not to even mention in the article that there is a scientific debate and that conflicting studies exist.

Complcations already mentioned: Yes, they are mentioned in the "Adverse effects" section, but it is not mentioned there that these rare complications, if they occur, can cause severe long-term harm to sexual pleasure and function, which is what Morris and Krieger point out. I don't think it's important whether that is to be included in the "Adverse effects" or "Sexual effects" section, I just think the article has to mention this, which it doesn't at this point.

Harm for docking and foreskin fetishization: Thanks for pointing this out, I think the possible harm for people who wish to engage in these practices can be mentioned, too.

What do the reviews really say: My problem is that the reviews - also those you cited - are nuanced, include qualifiers and use a much more cautious and equivocal phrasing and that this should be reflected in the article, which currently it is not as the article categorically states that ther is no effect without any explanation or further elaboration. For instance, you quote Marco and Heil [9] as saying "Many studies have proven that MC has no negative effect on sexual function...There is enough literature supporting the fact that childhood circumcision has no negative influence in sexual function per se." But in their "Conclusions" section, they also state that: "Current research suggests that circumcision status may be related to sexual functioning. The nature of this relationship is unclear as it can also be affected by many factors previously discussed that are difficultly measured due to their subjective or environmental complex nature". This is my whole point: This review (and most of the others) does not draw a definitive, categorical conclusion one way or the other. It leaves the possibility open that there may in fact be a negative effect as found by many existing studies. The article doesn't reflect this. And, yes, in line with doi:10.1007/978-3-031-08956-5_35-1, it would be absolutely appropriate to state in the article that the effect could also be positive as there are studies that found this, too.

What I missed in your reply is a comment on the question if the article should mention that there is an ongoing scientific debate on this issue and that studies that found negative effects do exist and are being discussed at length in the reviews (including those of Morris and Krieger). Do you believe this shouldn't be mentioned at all? Chaptagai (talk) 05:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, and you're actively disrupting the page. Major medical organizations are (from what I can tell) unanimous on the matter and selectively quoting individual studies to push the views you want isn't going to fly. You're now unanimously opposed by 7 contributors with widely diverging views and positions and yet you keep reverting over and over again. CapeSundewed (talk) 07:36, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stop these false and nonsensical accusations. Major medical organizations do not unanimously state that circumcision causes no adverse effects on sexual pleasure and function. If you think so, please provide sources. A second editor is on my side, and if you think you have a majority of WP editors on your side, why are you trying to remove my RFC? Are you afraid that other authors could be made aware of this discussion? Even if I am opposed by several authors that doesn't mean you can shut down a discussion because of that. Chaptagai (talk) 08:11, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The World Health Organization states that it doesn't. You keep mentioning "other major medical organizations" but never specify which ones you are talking about. What medical group? CapeSundewed (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? I never mentioned "other major medical organizations." I was always referring to the existing reviews on the topic. All sources are provided above. Chaptagai (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NHS: "possible complications of circumcision can include permanent reduction in sensation in the head of the penis, particularly during sex" [10] Chaptagai (talk) 14:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's already been at least half a dozen RFC's about circumcision and sexual pleasure. Redoing the process until it achieves the result you want is the personification of bad faith. We're not going to put claims that directly go against WHO into the article. CapeSundewed (talk) 08:29, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interested editors can join Talk:Circumcision#Request for comment on the inclusion of studies showing adverse effects of circumcision.

To those opposing the RFC in general: Please let it run its course. If you have concerns about it, please read the FAQ at the top of Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment, and if you need help with it, please ask for help on that talk page. The RFC 'regulars' are pretty nice people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this edit, User:Elmas yildiz linked the words "type VII collagen" to our article Collagen VI. I would ask them, but they only have 22 edits and haven't edited for six months, so I suspect they might not answer. I am guessing this is an off-by-one error, but since I am a mere computer programmer, I would like to confirm with someone who knows something about medicine. Should the right link be to Collagen, type VII, alpha 1? --GRuban (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban, I think it should be Collagen, type VII, alpha 1. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On the Reliable Sources Noticeboard: A user claiming to represent Healthline says they want Wikipedia to reevaluate the 2023 decision to blacklist Healthline from Wikipedia. ScienceFlyer (talk) 15:02, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ovulatory shift hypothesis has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at noticeboard. [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we're going to have an ArbCom case about articles related to transgender health care. The list of "parties" is uncertain, but any editor is allowed to provide relevant information once the case is underway. If you have information related to this subject, you may wish to read Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration#Evidence and argumentation to learn more about how you might be able to help.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alcoholism has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aspirin has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could anyone email me PMID 39577905? I doubt it can be used in an article, per commentary, but I need to see it to be sure, because ... top journal and top content expert = could be DUE somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure sent Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Doc James ... interesting commentary and questions, but nothing I can add or change anywhere, best I can tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by medical condition has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 10:09, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WebMD is included in WP:MEDRS as usually being suitable for uncontroversial information, and a search for current usage gives ~2,250 results. In contrast, Healthline is deprecated and blacklisted, a result that isn’t likely to change given a recent RSN discussion. However, looking at that discussion, it seems to me that the two sources have a number of similarities:

• Like Healthline, WebMD fails to meet the basic standard of rejecting homeopathy; the main page for homeopathy claims that "research is mixed". Other pages include quotes such as you may want to try homeopathic remedies rather than antibiotics [12] and some research does show that homeopathic remedies may help control blood sugar [13]. I checked a couple of other types of alt med and found similar issues.
• Both sites have been criticized for misinformation, among other things (see WebMD#Criticism; the article is arguably more negative than Healthline's, as Healthline#Reception contains a mix of positives and negatives).
• Also, I found published comparisons for two topics (diabetes and fractures). One [14] rates the sites as having similar quality (see Table 2; WebMD has a slightly better DISCERN score and a slightly worse CRAAP score), and the second [15] finds WebMD to be slightly worse (Table 7, DISCERN score). The latter also rates Wikipedia as having the highest score out of all websites evaluated.

There are certainly some differences as well (e.g. Healthline is also owned by Red Ventures), but the above points still indicate major concerns. As a result, should the reliability of WebMD on biomedical topics be reconsidered? And if so, should it also be taken to an RfC at RSN? Sunrise (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing I've used webMD for was to verify that the colloquial term "flare" was commonly used to describe symptom exacerbation in non-medical settings. I couldn't find a MEDRS source (and also whether a colloquial term is used is not biomed info, so doesn't need a MEDRS source).

I'm inclined towards depreciating WebMD, as anything that's uncontroversial enough to be on there should also be in a MEDRS source. Even if it does mean I need some other source to verify that people say "flare" and mean more symptoms. Daphne Morrow (talk) 09:17, 30 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we could remove WebMD from the sentence in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Other sources. I don't think it is necessary to expunge all uses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against that but why treat WebMD differently to Healthline? Daphne Morrow (talk) 03:04, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prior discussions showed some level of support for WebMD.[16][17][18][19] I don't remember any favorable discussions about Healthline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just redirected Microvascular ischemia to Ischemia. Is that the best target? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Seems that Microvascular Ischemia page had nothing written on it anyways. DrTheHistorian✎ 15:19, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed a title change for Kernicterus page to Bilirubin Encephalopathy, but since this article has few traffic the proposed change hasn't had a single comment yet. I'm posting it here so it can get attention and input on its talk page regarding the title change. DrTheHistorian✎ 15:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DrtheHistorian, if you don't get any objections in the next few days, please feel free to WP:Be bold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Tartrazine (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

A couple of editors wanting to add material on animal studies show tartazine makes skin 'more transparent'. Could use eyes. Bon courage (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neurodiversity has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.Plasticwonder (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Neurodiversity#RfC-Relevant or not has been withdrawn. There is an active discussion on the page (above that section). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The is when construction for definitions is pretty universally panned by usage manuals for a variety of reasons (circular, imprecise, not time-related, etc.). Of all articles using this clause, a disproportionate number appear to be found in articles on biomed-related topics. I have fixed Breech birth and Nuchal cord. Here is a partial list of other articles using the is-when clause, either in the lead sentence or in the body:

Thanks, (edit conflict) Mathglot (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legal history of cannabis in the United States has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Electronic cigarette article has a number of issues including over-long sections and statements that are not well supported, and sometimes directly contradict, the cited reference. There is a fair amount of recent discussion at Talk:Electronic cigarette, including a list of related articles that could also use attention. The editors there seem eager for help addressing problems created by an editor who has since been tbanned from editing this topic. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you are short of time please could you at least check the lead of Health effects of electronic cigarettes and comment on the talk page of that article. As that lead is now excerpted to the electronic cigarette article any improvements you suggest for that might be read by a lot of people or picked up by AI and so have an effect on the real world Chidgk1 (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you only have 10 minutes please please please check the first paragraph of Health effects of electronic cigarettesChidgk1 (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of possible relevance to us:

• Förstner KU, Albers M, Rebholz-Schuhmann D, Seidlmayer E, Castro LJ, Lippert K (28 May 2025). "Open Life Science Publication database (OLSPub) – Strengthening the Biomedical Research Community by Building a Resilient and Sustainable Solution". Zenodo. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.15533302.

Proposed as an open and designed-to-be-available drop-in replacement for PUBMED which, it is feared, is not long for this world – at least as a freely-available resource. Bon courage (talk) 05:04, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello WikiProject Medicine members,

I am seeking feedback on a draft Wikipedia biography of Dr. Henry Xiang, a physician-scientist and injury epidemiologist. He is Professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at The Ohio State University and Founding Director of the Center for Pediatric Trauma Research at Nationwide Children’s Hospital.

Dr. Xiang has published widely in trauma, pain management, and digital health innovation (e.g., virtual reality for pediatric pain and AI-supported triage). The draft includes independent media coverage (e.g., ScienceDaily, Pediatrics Nationwide), NIH and CDC-funded research, and multiple national recognitions.

The article is here: User:HenryXiangNCH/sandbox

Any feedback on notability, neutrality, or references would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you!

Henry Xiang — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenryXiangNCH (talk • contribs) 15:57, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• (moved as it was posted in odd place)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW the article/draft your indicating is redlinked?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is actually here: User:HenryXiangNCH/sandbox. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but there is no possibility of this draft being accepted as an article as it stands. Please read Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Notability, andWikipedia:Reliable sources. Wikipedia articles are not CVs or resumes, and they need to be almost entirely based around, and cited to (with proper in-line citations), sources independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:10, 8 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the article Peripheral vasculopathy has been proposed for deletion (WP:PROD). The first sentences summarize the subject this way:

• "Peripheral vasculopathy is a general classification for disorders of the blood vessels relative to a person's arms, legs or extremities including peripheral vascular disease."

The nominator wrote this summary of their concerns:

• "This article resembles a dictionary entry"

If you agree or disagree with deletion, there are instructions on the deletion notice for what to do.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 01:31, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the PROD tag. Being a short stub about a notable subject is not a valid reason to delete an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:41, 9 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]