Wikipedia talk:Reference desk: Difference between revisions

fixing the shortcut link

{{editprotected}} please delete the lines 3-4 of tis header: I have a neon lightbulb that spells my name , I want to hook it up, what do I need?

These lines create a shortcut link back to the page in question, which overlaps with the edit link if first-section edit links are enabled.

This request is paired with a request on Wikipedia talk:Reference desk/header/leftside which adds a conventional shortcut box into the subtemplate. -Us_talk:Ludwigs2|Ludwigs2]] 05:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if anything needs changing. —  (MSGJ · talk) 13:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Header for the Computing Reference Desk

Can we tell posters to specify their operating system, computer make and model, and web browser in their posts? I just wasted 15 minutes giving advice to someone before I realized he was probably using Firefox (by his use of the word bookmarks instead of favorites). My advice was written for someone using Internet Explorer. This isn't the first time this has happened to me. We're not talking to these people in person. We wait hours for them to respond. We need to know all the details of their problem up front.--Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2012(UTC)

mobile accessibility

It was noted on RD:Talk that the refdesk header's floating elements had visual conflict with the iOS browser. Can this be addressed? SamuelRiv (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Removed text from top of Entertainment Desk

I removed this edit[1] which had been made at the top of

Side by side search fields

This may be the wrong place to write this, but I am having difficulty tracing through all the RefDesk Header templates. Recently (noticed 2013-01-13) the header has changed to the RefDesk pages. The Search Wikipedia and Search archives fields in (say) RefDeskMaths are now side by side and often cause the page width to exceed 100% requiring sideways scrolling as well as vertical scrolling. Could someone put them one after the other vertically. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Add shortcuts to Reference desk Language

I've add these shortcuts to Reference Desk Language and want it to show in the header:

• WP:Refdesk/Lang & WP:Refdesk/lang
• WP:Refdesk/Language & WP:Refdesk/language
• WP:REFDESK/Lang & WP:REFDESK/lang

--Tyw7  (☎ Contact me! • Contributions) 13:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Unprotected. There were only a few transclusions of this template and all of the subtemplates, so I've reduced the protection to semi-protection on all of them. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:18, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

article gripes

Along with the "We will not answer" section, there ought to be a line like "This is not the place to suggest improvements to a Wikipedia article; each article has a discussion page for that purpose." —Tamfang (talk) 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of question "‎Ideas for what to get a good friend of mine for her birthday"

I hope this is works for justification. The poster is a currently active troll and doxxer on RationalWiki, particularly with the personal details of the person they named in this particular Reference Desk question, and had left several links to this page from a page on RationalWiki. Please let me know if this is not sufficient justification, or if an alternate route must be taken to keep this removed. Thanks. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:49, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Shoot, wrong talk page. Please disregard. Noir LeSable (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request (minor); 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

First of all, pardon my ignorance if this is not the proper method for requesting the following:
The instruction section of this header states: We'll answer here within a few days -- This might give the wrong impression; it typically takes only a few minutes; an hour or two at the most. Therefore, my request is that this be modified (at the editor's discretion). --107.15.152.93 (talk) 01:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC) (modified:01:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC))

Layout problem

...related to vertical positioning of the "skip to bottom" item in the right column. See Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#Protection-template spacing. DMacks (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Topics are not desks

The list below "Choose a topic:" is not a list of topics. The addition of "desk" to each topic should be removed. Additionally, the different sections of the Reference desk are not separate desks; they are different sections of one Reference desk. So unless there are serious objections, I'll proceed to replace "Computing desk" by "Computing", etcetera.  --Lambiam 07:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"Choose" or "Select"?

I think "Select a topic:" is more appropriate terminology for the navigation column. "Choose" would be better for someone not having a concrete question but seeking a chat room to hang out in that suits their interests; here there is already an issue and the question is which section of the RD is appropriate.  --Lambiam 07:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Where are the recent archives???

I've just tried to look for questions archived from early November, and they are nowhere to be found -- the archives only run through October, and there are no recently archived questions here! So what happened, and where are they??? 2601:646:9882:46E0:C195:DC40:D019:40A6 (talk) 07:52, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean? Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/November 2023 exists, so do others. Which specific page are you having a problem with? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:38, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

 Skip to the bottom 

Removing your own posts

Just a reminder, if you wish to remove your own post because you feel it was ill-advised and someone has replied to it, either strike it out or at least leave mention of it's removal. Don't do this [2] as it confuses the thread and leaves the person who replied looking stupid. (I've already informed I-210 directly) Nil Einne (talk) 09:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. StuRat (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

(Possible) Medical advice question removed - Bornholms disease

I have removed this question which I believe is a clear request for medical advice. Note that the poster asks for treatment options. The question regarding her husband and daughter make it clear that this is not a theoretical question. - Eron^Talk 22:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I re-removed the answers because the guidelines say to, and because one suggested homeopathy, worthless mysticism which if adhered to to the exclusion of real medical help would result in harm to a person. DuncanHill saw fit to put them back. Do we have to go round with this every time? What's hard about "don't give medical advice"? Don't do it. This isn't a game or a philosophical battleground. Real harm can come to real people. --Milkbreath (talk) 01:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The answers which you removed and which I replaced were not medical advice. DuncanHill (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Read Bornholm disease and form your own opinion of the information there. As to your specific questions pertaining to medical advice, please discuss these with your doctor. Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 03:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me to be a request to improve our article, which is rather limited. They even offered specific suggestions as to what should be added. Although perhaps misplaced (the article's talk page might be better), we do sometimes entertain requests for improvements in articles on the Ref Desk, especially if the knowledge of Ref Deskers is required to do so properly. I've even heard "improving Wikipedia articles" listed as one of the primary purposes of the Ref Desk. The mention of family members seems to only be in the context of it not be highly contagious, meaning some change in the article might be appropriate (of course, this bit of OR would need to be backed up by a reliable source to warrant a change to the article). StuRat (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The original poster named a medical condition and then explicitly asked "Are there any cures?" and "What homeopathic treatment is available?" We aren't mind readers here. We can speculate on what the OP's "real" question was, but if the question as posted is not a request for medical advice - "Hi, how do you treat Condition X?" - then I cannot imagine what could be considered a request for medical advice.

Is it so important that every question be retained and answered that we bend ourselves in knots trying to explain how something which clearly reads as a request for medical advice really might not be? - Eron^Talk 17:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

What you did right and wrong with this removal:

1) You posted a discussion here. That's good.

2) You included the name of the Q in the section title here. That's good. But you didn't use a neutral section title, but rather explicitly stated that it is a medical advice request. That's bad. I fixed that.

3) You included a diff for the removal. That's good. You should also include a link to the Q itself, though, so we can determine it's current state. Here it is: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Bornholms_Disease.

4) You didn't include a link at the Q pointing to this discussion. That's bad. Without that, the OP has no idea that they are even allowed to discuss it, much less where to go. I fixed that.

5) You stated your reasons for thinking it's medical advice, that's good.

6) Some people think you should also notify the OP and any posters on their talk pages, but I wouldn't require that, myself. So long as you follow the previous steps they should be able to find the discussion of why their contributions were deleted.

7) As for the removal itself, deletion should only be unilateral when it's absolutely clear that it's a medical advice request. If there is any other possible way to interpret it, as there clearly is in this case, we should first reach a consensus here before acting. The consensus may go either way, of course. So, your unilateral removal itself was bad. StuRat (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Please stop changing section headers, StuRat. It breaks anchors from watchlists and user contributions pages. For that matter, if an editor creates an anchored link from the Desk, it breaks those too. Further, stop instructing people to come here first before removing requests for medical advice. That isn't what the policy says, for reasons which have been explained to you many, many, many times. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Just because people CAN unilaterally delete things doesn't mean that it's always wise to do so, as has been explained to you many, many, many, many times. Changing section headers wouldn't be necessary if people would follow policy and use neutral section headers in the first place (and the broken links aren't all that bad, they still go to the right page, just not to the right section). StuRat (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Which policy would that be again? - Eron^Talk 18:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This was covered not even a month ago, on this very page, by 74:

The talk page guidelines state:

Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it.

. An earlier section on editing others' comments also notes:

Section headers: Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property. To avoid disputes it is best to discuss changes with the editor who started the thread, if possible, but it is generally acceptable to change section headers when a better header is appropriate. This is under the purview of threads themselves being shared property rather than a single editor's comments.

You may disagree with StuRat's assessment of the original question, but I believe his behavior here is well-supported by Wikipedia guidelines. – 74  01:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

StuRat (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

That is Wikilawyering. An editor who removes a question for being a request for medical advice is under no obligation to express doubt he does not feel about his action. If the editor had had doubt, he should not have removed it, and that's what StuRat's modifications imply—that there was doubt, and that therefore the editor who did the removal was in the wrong. Stop changing other editor's words to make it seem like you are right and they are wrong. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

For much the same reason as it would be impolite and unfair to start a section titled "Milkbreath's failure to read guidelines", I support the assertion that section titles should be neutral and not presume the result of the discussion. "Removal of X" is a fact (assuming the editor actually removed it); "Removal of medical advice X" is not. – 74  21:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

How about "Mr. X moves the goalposts"? Now you're saying that factuality is the test. I thought that in Wikiworld nothing is fact except by consensus. But an editor's own report of what he himself did is not subject to test by consensus and is not fair game for surreptitious alteration. --Milkbreath (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please. (Undisputed) Facts are commonly considered neutral, but if you prefer, feel free to replace "a fact" with "neutral" in my comment above; the result (and my stance) remains the same. A section heading is not an appropriate place to post opinions. – 74  22:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

To call it a "possible" request for medical advice is opinion. Why is the one opinion better than the other? --Milkbreath (talk) 00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:ASF: "Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves". – 74  01:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It was a rhetorical question, and I'm sorry. That's my failing in this kind of thing, I tend to drift into sarcasm. The opinion that the question was not a request for medical advice but a "possible" one is just that, an opinion, and no amount of discussion will make it be otherwise. To put words in another editor's mouth is just plain wrong. If you want facts, the original editor wrote one thing, and now it says something else. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly … do not submit it." (I'm done arguing this point.) – 74  02:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering, as I said at the outset, but I'll play along to the end. I think I'm entitled to one of your pleases with an eyeroll—we don't change other editors' words on talk pages. And "merciless" doesn't mean "indiscriminate". To make it read "possible" is not to make it more neutral, it's to make it support your "stance". It is therefore much farther from neutral than a simple declaration of what the editor has done. My presence in this discussion is proof of its inflammatory nature, and inflammatory is not neutral. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"My presence in this discussion is proof of its inflammatory nature..." ? Does that mean every discussion in which you participate is inflammatory ? And why would that be ? Also, I don't think you know what neutral means. Saying it is or isn't medical advice would not be neutral, while saying it may be, that is, that's it's "possible medical advice", is neutral. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"To put words in another editor's mouth is just plain wrong." - This implies that the section headers of a talk page are owned by someone. They are not. If they were, we would sign them. As the quoted policy above stated: "Because threads are shared by multiple users, the original title becomes communal property". That is, anyone can edit the section title, if they have good reason to do so, such as to restore neutrality. StuRat (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As the original editor, let me be perfectly clear: I do not agree with the change in the section header that I created. I believe that it misrepresents my actions.

I do not remove questions that I believe are "possible" requests for medical advice. Were I to have some doubt about a question, I would either leave it in place for some other editor to deal with or I would raise the issue here, without removing the question. In that case, I would title the section something like "Possible request for medical advice."

Because I believed this was a clear request for medical advice, I removed it and posted here as a notification and as a courtesy, in accordance with policy. I did not post here to seek anyone's permission or approval for my actions.

Changing the subject heading makes it appear that I did something which I did not in fact do. It makes it appear that I removed a question that I thought might constitute a request for medical advice, when in fact I removed a question that I believed did constitute such a request. There is a significant difference to me. Deleting another editor's contribution is not something I take lightly.

The change to the section heading was not a helpful change, nor was it a change that added clarity. If anything, it removed it. - Eron^Talk 15:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Again, you're acting as if you own the section header. They section title is not supposed to be "your words". They are not to be used as a place for you to state your opinion, but rather a place for a neutral title about the discussion to follow. We should not use section titles to state what you believe to be true (that it was a medical advice request), or what I believe to be true (that it was a request to improve an article), versus the actual facts (that you removed the Q because you believed it to be medical advice). In the future, you might just want to say that the article was removed, and leave your reason for text below, if you can't phrase the reason in a neutral way in the title. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be direct: No, I won't. In the future, when I remove a question because it is a request for medical advice, I will title the report here "Request for medical advice removed." That is an accurate description of what I did.

I will also echo the advice of another editor that you review the content of WP:OWN. - Eron^Talk 16:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you read that, as you seem to think you own the section title. So, you're informing us that you fully intend to directly violate the policy on neutrality on section titles, by stating your opinion as if it is an established fact ? StuRat (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you not noticed that in spite of my disagreement with your change to the section title, I have not changed it back? That hardly suggests I feel ownership of it. As to the rest, whatever. I am informing you that I disagree with your overly strict interpretation of neutrality in section titles and that I will not be guided by it in the future. Good day, sir. - Eron^Talk 17:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's really no different than when news reporters refer to "alleged" murderers, at least until they've had a fair trial. To do otherwise would bias the trial. And, just as we are "innocent until proven guilty", we must "assume good faith" on the part of the OP, until proven otherwise. StuRat (talk) 17:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible for an innocent individual with no nefarious intent or lack of good faith to nevertheless act in such a way as to contravene Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. When we remove a request for medical advice, we don't threaten the original poster with a block; we don't set him in the stocks; we don't mock his failure to follow the letter of our rules. Instead we explain why his question was removed, we link to the policy, and we refer him to qualified experts who will be able to answer the question in a safe and professional manner.

The OP can be acting in completely good faith and still make an honest mistake. There are a lot of policies on Wikipedia, and we allow – indeed, encourage – new editors to jump in without reading them all. Reporting and fixing newbie mistakes doesn't constitute an assumption of bad faith. And where is the assumption of good faith due the experienced, competent, helpful Wikipedia editor who fixed the OP's error? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(unindented a bit) If I didn't assume good faith on the deletion, I'd have accused the deleter of making up reasons to delete other people's Q's. I didn't do that. I believe that they thought it was a medical info request. However, we should each be able to look beyond our own interpretation and see if there are other ways to read the Q. And, when there are reasonable ways to read a Q that aren't a violation of our rules, we shouldn't just unilaterally delete it, and leave a nasty-gram to them telling them they've violated the rules. We should ask for clarification from the OP. I really believe it was a request to improve the article, in which case our response was completely inappropriate. StuRat (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)It was a good call, and the removal was done properly. Well done, EronMain. I thought that this me-too was unnecessary when you reported the removal, but here we are. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with your interpretation. And I would find it more polite if you expressed yourself in terms of agreeing or disagreeing rather than telling me what I did "right and wrong" or "good and bad". - Eron^Talk 18:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Hear hear. StuRat, you might like to have a read of WP:OWN. Malcolm XIV (talk) 18:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't you be any more specific about what you disagree with ? For instance, do you believe that we should use neutral section titles, in accordance with policy, or not ? StuRat (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe and I still believe that the the original question should have been removed as a request for medical advice. I don't think it was "possible" medical advice. I don't see a need to use weasel words in the section heading. I don't see it as a violation of neutrality to clearly state in the section heading what I did - remove a question - and why I did it (I considered it to be a request for medical advice.

I have now spend about ten times as long here on the talk page explaining myself as I spent originally removing the question. I am uncertain that this is the best use of my editing time here. - Eron^Talk 19:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

If you said "I believe it to be a medical advice Q" in the heading, that might be OK (although we should really keep our opinions out of headers, too). But "Medical advice question removed" is stating it as a fact that it is a medical advice Q, not your opinion. That's both incorrect and non-neutral. You said yourself "It may in fact be that the posted question was simply a poorly worded request for background information or for improvement of the article"; this is why we don't state it as a fact that it's a medical advice request. And yes, I'm sure haphazardly removing things is quicker than a careful removal, but that's not much of an argument, is it ? Simply stating your concern that it might be medical advice here, then letting a consensus develop, would have taken even less of your time. StuRat (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It would not be possible to fully answer (at least one of) the OP's questions without providing implicit medical advice. Good removal. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

It certainly would be possible to update the article, as the OP requested, without giving any medical advice. StuRat (talk) 13:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the deletion of the question from the reference desk? I don't think anyone would have deleted the OP's post if it was on the article's talk page. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

As I'd said before, we do sometimes get requests for article improvements on the Ref Desk. I myself have done this when we have two articles which seem to contain conflicting info, and some expert advice is needed on resolving the conflict. Posting on the article's talk page is also a good idea, although infrequently visited articles aren't likely to get a response any time soon, if ever. StuRat (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. But when requests for article improvements conflict with RD guidelines, I think the guidelines should take precedence. Also, while this was a request for improvement to an article, if we respond here, we have no way of knowing that the OP will not construe the response as advice (per my comment above). Zain Ebrahim (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, we certainly could do better than just deleting the Q, as Eron did, if it was simply misplaced. I later copied it to the article's talk page, and provided a link from the Q. Article improvements have now begun. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Reccommended approach to perceived requests for medical advice

People get so fired up about this, don't they? This page alone is fair tribute to that, then there's the archive pages. I was thinking it'd be really nifty to make a nice, bright template that says something like:

Your question may be directed toward seeking medical advice. Specific requests for medical advice will not be answered. Please read the article example medical article and form your own opinion of the information there. As to your specific requests for medical advice, please discuss these with your doctor.

This doesn't then prevent other refdeskers from weighing in about any non-advice aspect of the question, and highlights the question as one to be careful of in answering. It may then be more appropriate to edit inappropriate responses and move them to the discussion page with an explanation.

I was about to fiddle around & make a template, but I've gotta go do some work-work instead of just loafing about. I'll come back and have a bash, but don't feel the need to wait for me if you want to have a go yourselves. Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 05:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

---

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. (Additional comments and/or signature.)

This question has been removed. Per the reference desk guidelines, the reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice, including any kind of medical diagnosis or prognosis, or treatment recommendations. For such advice, please see a qualified professional. If you don't believe this is such a request, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or on the Reference Desk's talk page. (Additional comments and/or signature.) --~~~~

---

• This question has been removed as it may be a request for medical advice. Wikipedia does not give medical advice because there is no guarantee that our advice would be accurate or relate to you and your symptoms. We simply cannot be an alternative to visiting the appropriate health professional, so we implore you to try them instead. If this is not a request for medical advice, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or at the talk page discussion (if a link was provided).

---

• This question has been removed as it may be a request for legal advice. Wikipedia does not give legal advice or opinions because there is no guarantee that our advice would be accurate or relate to your situation and location. We simply cannot be an alternative to visiting your legal professional, so we implore you to try them instead. If this is not a request for legal advice, please explain what you meant to ask, either here or at the talk page discussion (if a link was provided).

---

Perhaps one of these? – 74  07:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Those say that the question has been removed, but Mattopaedia's suggestion is to leave the question in place but add a big think-twice-before-you-answer-this warning. I think it's a good idea. -- BenRG (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when that approach was attempted before we still got a lot of people trying to actually offer medical advice. (Templates haven't been used, but personalized messages, polite requests, and stern admonitions have all be tried.) We're stymied largely by the 'casual' responders; editors who aren't familiar with our policy and who often assume that prefacing a remark with 'I'm not offering medical advice, but...' is sufficient protection. There's also a small group of editors who object to the rule against medical advice on principle, and who attempt to squeeze every possible loophole out of it.

If we leave the question in place – even with a warning template – we have to assume that every single editor who comes after will read, understand, and correctly follow the rules. We'll end up giving out medical advice whether we want to or not, as an inappropriate response may remain for hours before it is removed. There will be edit wars when responses containing medical advice are removed and restored. Threads will be derailed by long discussions that belong on this talk page rather than on the Desk.

In short, it's an idea with good intentions, but it won't work — it relies on every responder on the Desk to know and follow the rules correctly every time. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, prefacing a remark with "This is not medical advice" would seem sufficient to escape the category of medical advice (as defined). Similar constructs are used by lawyers many places online, and they would presumably know whether or not such a disclaimer was sufficient to avoid legal representation ("legal advice"). Further, Wikipedia's responsibility is to take reasonable measures to ensure that illegal responses are removed, not to ensure that no illegal responses are ever posted. I think the idea is worth some consideration; this recent question didn't devolve into a medical-advice free-for-all. Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate our response and give Mattopaedia's suggestion a chance? I'd add in a small-text reminder to respondents that medical/legal advice will be deleted. – 74  17:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

My strongest objection to all the templates is that they state that the OP absolutely IS requesting medical advice, while in reality that's only the interpretation, and often misinterpretation, of one person. If a consensus had been reached that is was such a request, then such a template might be warranted. Or, if people used more common sense and only unilaterally removed Q's that were absolutely clearly medical advice, as opposed to removing unilaterally those that might be under certain interpretations. StuRat (talk) 17:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

As I noted in the topic above, we are not mind readers. The question I removed essentially asked "How do you treat [Condition X]?" The poster went on to ask why his or her husband and daughter did not contract the condition, clearly indicating that this wasn't a theoretical question - there was a real person with the condition. I can't imagine a more clear request for medical advice. All that was missing was the explicit statement "I have [Condition X]."

It may in fact be that the posted question was simply a poorly worded request for background information or for improvement of the article. If that is the case, then the original poster can respond to the removal and explain what he or she really wanted.

StuRat, you are almost unfailingly critical of any removal of medical advice questions. What would you consider to be an absolutely unambiguous request for medical advice that could be removed unilaterally? What would be a question that you would remove unilaterally? - Eron^Talk 17:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

"My prescription is to take A pills of B, C times a day to treat D. But that doesn't seem to be working. Is it OK if I take twice as many per day ?" There is no possible interpretation of that Q which isn't a request for medical advice, so go ahead and remove it unilaterally (without a consensus). StuRat (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahem, "with presumed consensus" – 74  18:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked (yep, still true) those templates were quite editable. Feel free to rewrite them in a less absolute, more neutral tone. – 74  18:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, where do I go to edit them ? StuRat (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Typically, you can access transcluded templates by clicking the "edit this page" tab at the top and scrolling down to the bottom of the page. I have also added the links here for direct access:

• Template:RD-deleted
• Template:RD-med
• Template:RD-law

– 74  18:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I edited each to take some of that bite out of them, but for some reason the RD-deleted template doesn't show my changes. Sometimes that happens for a few minutes, but hopefully it will update eventually. StuRat (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The reason it doesn't show your changes is because you only edited the template itself, not the description of what the template says. I addressed that in {{RD-deleted}}, but you might want to change the others also. (not needed) Rockpocket 21:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Why is that template so much more complicated than the other two ? Is there some reason it can't be the same as the other two ? StuRat (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No idea. the {{RD-deleted}} uses more complicated wikimagic, but I don't understand what advantage it confers. Rockpocket 18:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The "magic" appears to have been added by Vector Potential with the helpful summary "edit" on 8 February 2008, then reverted and re-added on February 9th with the edit summary "testing". – 74  20:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• A request for medical advice is something along the lines of "how should I treat condition x?" Something like "What are the treatments for condition x?" is not a request for medical advice, it is a request for encyclopædic information. DuncanHill (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• Only in the UK. In the US, it's a request for encyclopedic information. In the US, if they dare spell it "encyclopædic", they risk being strangled with a ligature. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You have to look beyond that though - a simple rephrasing doesn't change what the question is. Because we're absolutely not allowed to offer diagnosis or treatment advice but we most certainly are allowed to leave legitimate questions unanswered - we have to err on the side of caution. So, whilst it's usually OK to answer questions of the form "What is the treatment for X?" - we can't simply say that these are the magic words someone has to use in order to ask the "What should I do right now to treat my case of X?" question. We have to use some judgement - and err on the side of NOT answering if we're in some doubt about the motives of the questioner. I hope we can all agree that it's better to leave a general case of curiosity unanswered than it is to potentially do some great medical harm. Even if someone isn't sick - if they have a particularly urgent/important need to know the answer to a "What is the treatment for X?" question then they should almost certainly STILL be talking to some kind of medical professional. I urge both flexibility and caution. SteveBaker (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

We cannot know the thoughts and motives of the questioner; assuming otherwise actually increases our liability exposure. Some law states that a means of communication cannot be held responsible for the content. An edited source of content, however, assumes responsibility for that content. So guessing what is and is not "medical advice" makes an implicit statement that we are accepting responsibility for content posted at the Reference Desk, eliminating a key legal defense if someone does something stupid with our "advice" (any advice, not just "medical advice"). We need a clear and unambiguous statement as to what constitutes "medical advice" (preferably from an outside source, e.g. Wikipedia's legal counsel) that we can set as policy and follow strictly to limit Wikipedia's liability. (IANAL, and this is definitely not legal advice.) – 74  22:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia's legal protection is not the primary issue (they have that covered with Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer). We just want to do the right thing to stop any misguided individuals from doing harm (in the case of offering advice) and getting harmed (in the case of following it). If no advice is sought and none offered, then we can't do any harm. To echo Steve above, were should err on the side of caution. It's better to leave a multitude of curious OPs with their questions unanswered than it is to cause a single case of medical harm. Rockpocket 22:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The logical conclusion to that line of thought is shutting down the Reference Desk. Have we set a date yet? – 74  21:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No it isn't. The logical conclusion is that if there is any reasonable doubt a question is a request for medical advice, then it should be removed first - by any editor in good standing - and discussed later. If the removal is later considered to be unreasonable by consensus, it can be added back. Rockpocket 21:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do point me to a question that you consider completely and utterly harmless. Hiding behind the "do no harm" mantra for (true) information is simply ridiculous—our failure to provide said information may do significant harm to the OP, the community, the world, the universe, etc. Any policy that requires mind-reading and prophecy is doomed to failure and abuse. – 74  21:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Here. I don't see any way this could reasonably be perceived as a request for medical advice and therefore see no reasonable scope for harm in answering it. You appear to mistake common sense for some mystical ability. Its not. If you feel unable to use sound judgment then don't remove anything, leave that to those of us who can. Rockpocket 21:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Too easy. If the OP really is seeing aliens then there is something seriously wrong with him/her, and the respondents downplaying that could lead to serious harm for him/her or others. But, in the spirit of the question, the response that "There are lots of bacteria in the gut that are very important" could induce the OP to attempt to increase his/her "important bacteria" count in some way that would be detrimental to his/her health (and potentially others through contagion). To have no risk we would need to remove this question. But then, if the OP really is seeing aliens a non-response could also lead to harm for him/her or others. The same logic applies to every question to a lesser or greater extent. – 74  22:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Then use your judgment to ascertain whether it applies to a greater extent or a lesser extent, and act accordingly. If you think the above example of pedantry is a reasonable interpretation then go ahead and remove the question. You'll soon find out that it is not. Rockpocket 08:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

(I have removed "Thank you and happy editing" from the ends of the RD-med and RD-law templates. I don't think we should be thanking people for violating the guidelines we clearly post at the top of each of the RD's - and: "happy editing" - bleagh! Let's try and keep it a bit professional. This is a stern warning to people who have broken our rules - let's keep it to the point - clean and simple. SteveBaker (talk) 21:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC))

Again, remember that these templates are placed because one person (who is often wrong) thinks the OP may have broken our rules. Most of the time, no consensus ever develops to support the placement of the template. With this in mind, the templates shouldn't have nearly so much newbie-biting potential as they do. Instead of saying "you've broken the rules", they should really say "one person thinks you've broken the rules, but there is no consensus that they are correct". In those cases where a consensus against the OP does develop, a harsher template would actually be warranted. StuRat (talk) 17:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

The same could be said of every template on Wikipedia. They are rarely, if ever, placed by committee. The are placed by individuals who (should) use sound judgment. While templates should never be rude, neither should we skip around issues with maybes and wherefores. Rockpocket 18:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Why should we state something as an absolute fact, when it's only one person's opinion ? Would we apply such a lax standard to answers we give on the Ref Desk or to Wikipedia articles ? StuRat (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Back to the topic

Marvellous! Now let's get back to my question. Here's my reasoning: I believe we should be leaving these questions on the RD because removing them does not do anything to inform people posting these sort of questions that its considered inappropriate. Yes, I know there's a bizillion other pages describing WP's policy regarding medical advice, legal advice and how many squares of toilet paper we should use per sitting, but I imagine most surf-by posters don't read that stuff because of a combination of WP:TLDR and WP:DGAF, and a splash of WP:NOOB. If we leave the questions there with a big, friendly, think-twice-before-you-answer-this type banner template, then would-be posters looking for a free consult, are not discouraged from asking a question, and they may not ask specific medical advice. Instead they may ask their question more generally. If, despite the warning, some other editor decides to answer the question, or part of it, in a way that might be construed as giving medical advice, then remove that response and post an explanation on the discussion page +/- the user's talk page. It just seems like a friendlier and more informative approach, to me. Cheers! Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 03:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Similar ideas have been proposed at least twice before on this very page. But, by all means, please go ahead and make your proposed template; at a minimum I support it. – 74  04:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe the roll-up/roll-down panel is a good way to hide the Q but still have it be available for those trying to understand why it's not allowed. StuRat (talk) 05:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

How about this?

Thanks for posting your question. Your question seems to be a request for medical advice. It is against Wikipedia policy to provide medical advice. You may find it helpful to read the article: Useful article, and form your own opinion from the information there. Any response containing prescriptive information or advice will be removed. More useful information.

.

Its at Template:RD medadvice

Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 02:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I don't really see any advantage to leaving the question in situ, in addition to the template. All that does is entice editors who disagree with the no medical advice policy to offer an answer. Then there will be edit warring over the answers rather than the questions. The template alone makes it perfectly clear what the problem is with the question, and if an OP is unable to work out what a request for medical advice is from that text, then leaving an example is hardly going to help. I like the template, though. Rockpocket 02:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

My comments:

1) I like including a way to refer them to an article. In some cases, we would want to refer them to multiple articles.

2) It needs to say "request for medical advice" more prominently, such as in a title section.

3) It also needs to notify the OP of their rights and what they can do if they feel the Q was removed in error.

4) I had to look at the pic for a while to figure out that it's a stethoscope. StuRat (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

What WP:RIGHTS? Rockpocket 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite that irrelevant essay, which deals mainly with copyrights, Ref Desk posters do have certain rights, like reposting it, possibly reworded, 2 (or is it 3 ?) times, and explaining why it's not medical advice, either there or at this talk page (if the deleter created a talk page discussion). StuRat (talk) 17:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Could you clarify what you meant by the 'right' to repost a question 2 or 3 times? A question removed in good faith as a possible request for medical advice shouldn't be reposted until there has been an opportunity to discuss the question on this talk page. Bear in mind, if you intended an oblique reference to WP:3RR that the 3RR explicitly doesn't entitle an editor to three reverts — particularly if those reverts contravene another Wikipedia guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Any post which is unilaterally deleted without consensus may also be unilaterally restored. This is the "be bold, revert, discuss cycle". Any Ref Desk guidelines which contravene general Wikipedia policies, guidelines, etc., are unenforceable. StuRat (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

We simply have no "rights" on Wikipedia (except to vanish or fork). If an editor wishes to repost questions he is free to do so - if he chooses - until such a time that he is restricted by administrative action, blocking or protection. That isn't a right, it is exercising a privilege (which will be withdrawn if abused). Rockpocket 17:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether you call them "rights" or "privileges" is just semantics, it has no effect on what OP's are allowed to do in response to a unilateral deletion of their post. StuRat (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Those who think a right = a privilege, are those that tend to find themselves in conflict with others. There is more than a semantic difference between a courtesy and an entitlement. Rockpocket 18:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

You can make up your own word, if you want, it still doesn't change the fact that the OP can repost, rewrite the Q, include clarifications, and state why their request doesn't violate the rules. StuRat (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That is not under dispute. What I do dispute is that we inform them of their "right" to do those things. Rockpocket 21:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Fine, then we should notify the OP of their "ability" to do those things. StuRat (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no redress when an editor abuses the privilege of removing others' posts. DuncanHill (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There is always a mechanism of redress. If you think an editor is abusing their privilege, then draw an admins attention to the situation. If that doesn't resolve the issue to your satisfaction, there is WP:RfC, WP:MEDIATION and WP:ARBCOM. Rockpocket 18:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no confidence in the ability of any admin to deal with another admin who is out of line, RfC is toothless and largely pointless, and ArbCom, though better this year than last, shew little interest in the anything short of major disruption by admins. DuncanHill (talk) 18:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Be that as it may, there still are mechanisms in place that the community as a whole endorses. If you have no confidence on how the administration of a volunteer organization is administered you have to two choices: either volunteer for a position of influence and enact change yourself, or leave and volunteer somewhere else. Rockpocket 18:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Current Template version: Template:RD medadvice – 74  03:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Rockpocket, My aim in leaving the question there for all to see is to attempt to teach by example. It's a regular occurrence that advice-style questions are asked, and we keep swatting them, then edit-warring over whether or not the OP sought advice. I really think it's a moot point whether or not the OP is asking for advice. The policy is that we don't give advice, regardless of the nature of the question. I find this framework more useful to work within, because it applies equally, regardless of the phrasing of the question. The teaching part is for OPs to see the style of questions that tend to get labelled as advice-seeking, so they may think, "Well, best not ask about it that way." I don't think it matters which approach we take, there'll still be edit warring, does it really matter if its over the question or the response? I'd like to partially answer that by reiterating our policy is not to give advice. AFAIK, there's no rule against asking questions badly, so perhaps its not appropriate for us to argue over the question.

Stu, You can use the optional comments field to add additional pages if you like. I've made the medical advice sentence bold, and made the picture bigger. I've put a bit of fine print in about "rights", for want of a better term.

Thanks to both of you for your input. Here's the new version:

Thanks for posting your question. Your question seems to be a request for medical advice. It is against our guidelines to provide medical advice. You might like to re-phrase your question. You may also find it helpful to read the article: Article, and form your own opinion from the information there. Any response containing prescriptive information or medical advice will be removed. Other useful comments such as links to other articles. Note to editors: Please ensure your responses are constructed so as not to be construed as medical advice! If you remove a response, please paste it and your reason for removal on the Reference Desk Discussion page If you feel a response you have given has been removed in error, please discuss it at the Reference Desk Discussion page before restoring it.

. Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 03:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It would seem to me that the "Any response containing prescriptive information or medical advice will be removed." line is aimed at editors and not the OP. Would it make more sense to put it in the bottom section? – 74  03:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks green back-to-front 4 guy! New version:

Thanks for posting your question. Your question seems to be a request for medical advice. It is against our guidelines to provide medical advice. You might like to re-phrase your question. You may also find it helpful to read the article: Article, and form your own opinion from the information there. Other comments Note to editors: Any response containing prescriptive information or medical advice will be removed. Please ensure your responses are constructed so as not to be construed as medical advice! If you remove a response, please paste it and your reason for removal on the Reference Desk Discussion page If you feel a response you have given has been removed in error, please discuss it at the Reference Desk Discussion page before restoring it.

. Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 03:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that this new suggested guideline will very quickly lead to the following scenario: OP wants medical advice. OP asks question. Editor wants to give advice despite policies against it. OP's question gets templated, which invites them to "to re-phrase your question." OP rephrases question to a hypothetical (or editor, helpfully, does it for them). Editor now replies to question with medical advice disguised as a hypothetical and, when it is rightfully removed, argues it is no longer a request for medical advice because its been rephrased. How exactly is this anything other than helping editors to wiki-lawyer around our guidelines? Changing the phrasing does not change the fact advice is being sought and offered!

I applaud your intentions, Mattopaedia, and I agree that it is the answers, not the questions, that are the real issue here. But I firmly believe this suggestion will (unwittingly) make the problem worse. Rockpocket 06:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following this discussion, and only came here after seeing this template in use. Personally, I think the present form is much too large and gaudy. We don't need to calling special attention to these sections, and even if we did want to do that, it isn't really Wikipedia's style to have multiple layers of colored borders. The content should be presented to the question asker in a direct and unambiguous way, but we don't need a giant box and graphic to do that. Dragons flight (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well said. I understand that there may sometimes be problems in deciding whether or not to remove a question. But if it needs removing, just remove it. People already get prominent warnings not to ask certain kinds of questions. If they don't want to read those prominent warnings, tough. If one more warning is thought necessary, then create Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous_or_whatever/Editnotice and put the short, simple warning there; people will then read it above the text box in which they ask their question. But no "Unsuitable question RIP" announcements are needed. -- Hoary (talk) 10:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of this template is different from a RIP; See here. Several respondents have provided meaningful answers that don't include medical advice (such as citing medical research that the OP was unable to find). If we'd simply removed the question outright then none of those responses would have been possible. While I admit that the current banner could use some… streamlining, I think it is a valuable way to handle requests that aren't necessarily seeking medical advice but which may draw medical advice, without dismissing the question out-of-hand. – 74  13:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Since the template is aimed at warning editors as much as informing the OP, I think a little color and structure make it stand out so that editors hopefully won't ignore it as just another response. Having an easily-recognizable "look" also allows editors to get the meaning at a glance; something that bare-text does not provide. Compare how often you read the text of a standardized message box vs. identifying it by its image. That said, the template could certainly be simplified somewhat while retaining these properties. – 74  13:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your feedback!

Rockpocket, I'm firmly convinced that the scenario you're describing has been happening, and will continue to until the demise of the refdesk. It's easy to figure out the style of question that will attract this kind of response, like the subway episode below (I'll comment on that seperately). So its also easy enough to figure out how to phrase a question so it sounds like no advice is being sought, when it really is. That's why I have a problem with removing questions - it's impossible to tell the difference between an innocent question on a medical subject, and a covert attempt to receive free medical advice. This happens in real-life too. Ask a doctor a medical question at a social function and watch them glaze over. I've learned to be careful in how I answer these sort of questions IRL and on-wiki. Most of the regular editors here, I think, have learnt to give appropriately informative, reliable answers (such as referring to articles) without stepping over the line of giving advice. Its sometimes hard to make the distinction, but fortunately we all watch each other pretty closely here. My reasoning is to draw attention to a question as one that can be interpreted as seeking medical advice, and urging caution in responding to it. The suggestion that an OP might like to rephrase their question, in my opinion, is simply to make the process more open. You may want to call that wikilawyering, I prefer to see it as operating within Wikipedia guidelines. (Comes from dealing with health care bureaucrats all the time)

Hoary, please see my comments to Rockpocket, and my earlier posts in this thread - it's not about the question, its about the answers we give, and whether or not they should be removed. The 'shrooms question Green back-to-front 4 guy highlighted is a pretty good example of this.

Dragons Flight and Green back-to-front 4 guy, I designed the template on a large monitor. When I look at it on my laptop, I agree it is ...prominent. I increased the size of the picture because poor old StuRat couldn't see it properly. I reduced the size of the note to editors because of the size of the template. I'm happy if you want to simplify the colour scheme (maybe I did go a little nuts there, but it looked pretty!), and if anyone knows how to make the picture automatically scalable go ahead and modify it. I think it is important to draw some attention to these questions, because they need to be handled carefully, and the graphic template does this much more effectively than a textual one could. The template, like all of Wikipedia, is a work in progress, so if you can improve on my work, then go ahead! Cheers, Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 01:16, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, all. I didn't notice this discussion until I made the changes, so I'm doing this ex post facto (har, har). I agree that the template is prominent. The pink/cyan/power blue color scheme is over the top, and the size of the template is indeed excessive. I've a little experience at streamlining template, so I attacked it with my usability chainsaw, as follows:

1. I played with about 10 different permutations of the image before concluding that it really adds no information to the template, so I removed it. Of all the changes I made, I most expect this one to be reverted because, well, people like images.
2. Each individual cell had every possible bell and whistle on it, including individually defined color borders and background colors. I removed some excessive bordering and scaled back the color explosion somewhat.
3. Much of the text was redundant, so I streamlined that considerably. The message is the same, but conveys it in roughly 1/3 of characters.

The result is here:

This question seems to be a request for medical advice. It is against our guidelines to provide medical advice. You might like to re-phrase your question. Thank you. Responses containing prescriptive information or medical advice should be removed and an explanatory note posted on the discussion page. If you feel a response has been removed in error, please discuss it before restoring it.

.

As you can see, it is still eye-catching, without being something of a sledge hammer. I hope I didn't step on too many toes, but there it is. – ClockworkSoul 20:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Request for consensus

Thanks Clockwork, I was really disappointed to see the picture go, but it is still prominent enough to attract attention, and I like your rewording.

On this and other threads, various editors have indicated varying degrees of support for the idea. Without putting it to WP:RfC, can we get some sort of consensus here about trialling this method for a while? 74 suggested a week, but I thought a month would be better, since it is subject to the randomness of postings, a week may not be sufficient time to gauge any effect.

Just to clarify, the rationale for use is as follows:

1. We cannot determine with any certainty the reason behind an OP's request for medical information, regardless of how it may be worded. Individual editors may form their own opinions, but those will necessarily differ from many other editors.
2. Leaving the question as is on the RD prevents acrimonious and devisive threads developing in the discussion page as to the OP's intent, and gives the OP the assumption of good faith.
3. Removing a question may discourage an OP from making further enquiries, and for that reason, may be seen as uncivil. Subsequent discussion also tends to become uncivil, as per points 1 and 2.
4. The Wikipedia guidelines currently say we should not give medical advice (emphasis added). If we assume good faith on the part of the OP, then we assume the OP is aware it is not appropriate to seek medical advice, and we should provide a response that is informative but non-advisory. It may be easier to decide if the responses are advisory or informative only.

Method of use:

1. Any question an editor believes could be construed as a request for medical advice should have the template banner placed immediately under the subsection heading. To do this, add {{subst:RD medadvice|Article|Other comments}} ~~~~ to the beginning of the thread, where "Article" is a relevant article to the question ([[ and ]] not required), and "Other Comments" is a free text field for further information, including links to other articles ([[ and ]] required).
2. Any response that is prescriptive (eg "You should try this...") or offers a prognostic or diagnostic opinion (particularly where a single diagnosis is given, and multiple diagnoses are possible), should be moved to the RD discussion page, with a comment to that effect in the RD thread, and a comment on the reason for moving the response on the discussion page. A possible exception to this may be where an exhaustive differential diagnosis is given and the OP is advised to see their doctor.

Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 23:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Please indicate your position below:

• Support. Favouring a one month trial. Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 23:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose. I appreciate Mattopaedia's good faith efforts to resolve this, but the guidelines are very clear. They do not say we should not "give" medical advice; they say "the Wikipedia reference desk is not an appropriate place to request medical, legal or other professional advice." Leaving medical advice requests in place is a wide open invitation for editors to provide medical advice while wiki-lawyering their way around the guidelines to say that they aren't really giving medical advice. - Eron^Talk 23:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose --Milkbreath (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Provisional Support. I believe a trial is warranted. I don't think we can accurately predict the results at this point. Perhaps a 1-month or 10-question (whichever comes first) trial? – 74  03:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support. One month trial. StuRat (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose. The guidelines as they stand are quite clear. Malcolm XIV (talk) 09:21, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• (ec) Please pardon the length of my comments.

Where does this idea that 'assuming good faith' means 'assume perfect knowledge of Wikipedia policies' come from, or the notion that correcting another editor's error – or informing them of a policy of which they may not have been aware – is in some way incivil? It's a pernicious meme in these discussions. Removing a question which violates our policies – just like the correction of any other error on Wikipedia – need not be incivil nor does it represent an assumption of bad faith. Care should absolutely be taken to make sure that comments left for the original poster are not bitey, and that the reason (including both the existence of the policy, and the reasons for that policy) are explained appropriately.

I agree that in general it would be presumptuous to try to read the mind of any Wikipedia editor, and that attempting to divine the intent of a poster is fraught with pitfalls. Fortunately, that is not what the present guideline calls for. Instead, when considering whether or not a question should be removed, we look only to the wording of the question asked. Specific criteria are provided. Elsewhere on this page, Kainaw describes an excellent and straightforward practical test: Can the question be answered completely without offering a diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment suggestion? If not, it should be pulled. This is an exercise in common sense, not psychoanalysis.

I'm afraid I can't buy the "prevents acrimonious and devisive threads developing" on the RD talk page argument. Instead of having a single discussion about a given question's removal, we'll have a new thread for every answer removed. While it's possible that the conflicts will die down out of sheer exhaustion, I have my doubts. It's very likely that the lone effect will be a reduction in the quality of the process' outcome, as editors get tired of, or fail to follow, the multiple fragmented discussions on the talk page or bicker over premature declarations of consensus.

I am utterly gobsmacked extremely concerned at the suggestion that a comment offering "an exhaustive differential diagnosis" might be considered acceptable, even if that advice is accompanied by direction to consult a physician. The majority of editors at the Desks are not trained or qualified to do a proper differential, and few who are certainly know better than to do so here. That proposal is akin to saying "We should allow medical advice, but only if it's good and thorough". Few of us are competent to make that judgement; those who do have the appropriate qualifications almost certainly know enough to take their medical licenses and run the other way if asked to endorse the anonymous internet opinions of armchair physicians.

Finally, this approach has one serious – I would in fact say fatal – deficiency. Under the present system, only a single post (the original question) has to be evaluated and (if necessary) removed. Under the proposed system, every single response must be carefully scrutinized. Questions more than a few hours old tend to receive less attention that questions that are at the very bottom of each Desk's page. Medical advice might be offered and not detected (and removed) for several hours, if at all. Even if an offer of medical advice is removed, there is no way to determine if it was read (or worse, acted upon) by the original poster. The purpose of the medical advice guidelines – the prevention of harm to all involved parties – is badly undermined. The current procedure only requires that one person correctly recognize a problem question and remove it for further discussion. (Even if that person makes an error, the question can be restored without harm taking place.) The proposed change,however, only works if everyone knows, understands, and follows the medical advice rules. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the "differential diagnosis" comment is off-base; Mattopaedia, would you be willing to strike this "possible exception"?

Fair enough. Done Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

While the current "policy" is intended to prevent medical advice, it requires the "evaluator" to make a judgment call not on whether a response *is* medical advice, but whether a question's responses *will be* medical advice. This can be wrapped up as "Can the question be answered completely without offering a diagnosis, prognosis, or treatment suggestion?" but then we're left to speculate and debate what a "complete" answer is (and it might be worth noting that Reference Desk guidelines don't require complete answers either).

Another common theme (or, if you prefer, "meme") in these discussions is the "do no harm" rhetoric. Nobody has yet managed to convince me that requests for "medical advice" are the only questions capable of causing "harm", nor that any risk whatsoever is justification for removal. I stand by my assertion that, if absolutely no harm may be done, the only possible action is to close the Reference Desk. If we take a less hard-line approach to minimize (but not eliminate) potential harm then the same standards can be applied evenly across all questions, medical advice or otherwise. This doesn't mean I want any OP to come to harm (far from it); I just object to this overly dramatic appeal to emotion being used to arbitrarily remove a particular category of questions. Why are "Can I survive a fall from an airplane without a parachute?" and "How do I juggle chainsaws?" less dangerous questions than "Will chicken soup help a cold?"? – 74  02:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• You're at best only substituting one opportunity to display good judgment and common sense with another. Better to use that judgment once and be done by removing the question than to argue interminably over every little point every time. The template should be put back the way it was (maybe a little gentler in tone, though) because what's to stop an editor from linking to his pet cure? Any wiggle room seems to result in a tango. Not you, Tango. --Milkbreath (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No templates were harmed in the making of this additional template.   :-)   – 74  02:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• In addition to striking the "differential diagnosis" statement, I'd like to see a provision to remove questions that are unanswerable without providing medical advice. I realize that such a clause might be abused to remove everything (defeating the purpose of a trial), but I *do* believe some questions shouldn't be asked or answered at the Reference Desk. – 74  03:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not? There's more than one way to skin a cat. I see no reason why we can't be flexible. In fact, I think that sort of flexibility is crucial on the reference desk. The guidelines do not now, and never will, provide a suitable approach for every situation. I am happy to work with both methods, because I can conceive that a situation might arise as 74 described. Anyone else?Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 03:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Is_the_Ganges_River_drying_up.3F

I think he asked the question so he could make his follow-up comment. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:39, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

That's possible, but certainly not the only possibility, so I'm not willing to call the OP a troll. StuRat (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

If you look at an editor's history and see that they do practically nothing in article space, that should be a red flag. --Milkbreath (talk) 18:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Half of one's edits being to the mainspace is suspiciously low? I'd better get my act together before I get accused of trolling, then. Algebraist 19:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, we don't limit reference desk services to Wikipedia contributors with X article-space edits. I'd want to see a significantly more flagrant violation or a continued pattern of behavior before any labels were applied. And I'm pretty sure my article-space contributions fall short of somebody's standard, somewhere, but that hardly makes me a troll. – 74  20:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever. I still think that's what it was. Don't you? --Milkbreath (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Since I apparently failed to communicate this above: No. – 74  21:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if it was. However it would be the sort of thing I'm willing to do anything about without more evidence of consistent behaviour in this regard Nil Einne (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Computer reference desk: ban evangelicizing for different operating systems

Frequently people misuse a question about some problem with eg Windows as a pretext to try to persude you to use a different operating system. This gets very irritating, and contributes nothing to answering the question.

Regardless of the intrinsic merits of the other operating system, it is very counter productive and in fact actively dissuades rather than persuades.

It is also an unrealistic idea - I'm not going to throw away the months of work getting Windows how I like, and have more months of work finding out to use another operating system and getting it how I like, with its own set of problems and bugs, just to solve a small problem.

Its like having the desk haunted by evangelists who try to convert you to their religion at every opportunity.

Wikipedia is not the place for this harassment. So I suggest banning them. 89.240.206.134 (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this can be annoying, at times. But there are other times when this may be warranted. If the O/S isn't specified by the OP, answers for different O/S's are quite appropriate. StuRat (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been accused of pushing Linux in the past by people who are so quick to start a fight that they do not read my answer. For example, if a person asks for a "free" program to convert a video from some format to another and the answers given aren't worth much, I will note what the Linux program is and suggest that the OP do a search for a Windows version of the program. If you read the answer, I am pointing out that there is a free program to do it in another operating system, so it is likely that the same program exists in some form in Windows (and, since I don't use Windows, I have no interest in hunting down Windows ports of every program I use). This notion of harshly jumping on anyone who hints at anything other than Windows has been terrible at times. I've seen people chastised for suggesting programs like GIMP. Since there is a Linux version of GIMP, we are apparently not supposed to suggest the use of it to Windows users. -- kainaw™ 21:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Look: we're volunteers, offering to help people free of charge. Our guidelines include neutrality, which we somewhat manage to achieve. Our guidelines do *not* include stifling a particular type of response or suggestion because you personally find it offensive. The response to this question was friendly though not overly helpful; I get that. It was not, however, justification for these responses. If you don't particularly care for the responses you receive, feel free to ignore them. If you feel that our Reference Desk is full of "harassment" then I suggest you take your questions and comments elsewhere. I fully support suggesting alternatives to everything from Algorithms to Web browsers, including operating systems when relevant. (I don't know if I've ever suggested Linux before, but I certainly will if I deem it an appropriate response.) – 74  22:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Was this (proffered immediately above by the ever-helpful 74) an example of how "people misuse a question about some problem with eg Windows as a pretext to try to persude you to use a different operating system" and of "harassment"? Or are you asking about some other edits? If you're asking about other edits, please supply the "diff" for one that you find particularly obnoxious. (For a "diff", just look in the "history" page for the particular reference desk page, ask to see how versions differ, and when you've found an offending edit, copy its URL and plonk it here, like [http://a_very_long_URL_for_the_ edit this]. Discussion is likely to be more productive when all agree on what it is that they're talking about. -- Hoary (talk) 05:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

89.240, we certainly can't/won't/shouldn't block people for those posts, that would be totally contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. But I'd like to second the request that people not make them. I'm repeatedly surprised that the people who post these replies don't understand, even after the fact, why they offend people. It's like saying "have you considered moving to Europe?" to someone who's having trouble with their local DMV. Maybe you'd have fewer bureaucratic hassles in the UK, maybe you'd have more, it's hard to predict. Either way it's ridiculous to suggest the move. Moving to a new country is a big deal, it's not something people do in response to a minor inconvenience on the advice of a stranger on the Internet. There's not much you can do in reaction to that kind of suggestion except get offended or laugh it off as a joke. There seems to be a huge gulf between what "switching to Linux" means to Linux geekspeople who are already using Linux and what it means to typical computer users. -- BenRG (talk) 13:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your response puzzles me. First, I see almost no parallel between (a) changing the OS on your computer (or adding an OS to it and using the new one) and (b) moving to a different country. Secondly, I have never been addressed or (so far as I know) referred to as a "geek" and regard myself as a typical computer user, yet I routinely move among Linux, OS X and Windows. Thirdly, running such programs as Firefox under Linux is virtually the same as running them under Windows (or OS X). Fourthly, the typical (or anyway the stereotypical) computer user makes little use of the command prompt and so is untroubled by real differences between COMMAND.COM and (for example) bash. Of course none of this is to deny that there are some programs that work on one of these OSes and not on another. -- Hoary (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, "Linux geek" was clearly the wrong term here. I didn't mean it as an insult. I think of volunteering on the ref desk as a pretty geeky thing to begin with.

I think we just have very different ideas of the difficulty of switching operating systems for "the average user". For the many people who essentially use their computers as typewriters the operating system hardly matters, but those people are never going to be able to install an OS on their own, whether Windows or Linux, no matter how friendly the installer. They'll need a more savvy user there to help. Furthermore, these are the kind of people who call tech support, and tech support probably won't help them when they have a nonstandard OS, so they will be dependent long-term on other people for help. It's a pretty big deal. People who use a larger variety of apps, possibly including expensive vertical apps, may be more computer savvy but obviously have their own set of problems with moving. Additionally, suggesting a move to Linux as a way of avoiding malware doesn't make much sense, at least in this context. Linux offers two kinds of protection against malware: no native support for running Windows software, and putting you in an unprivileged user account by default. The first of these is more of a negative than a positive for most people, and the second is just a difference of installation defaults (pre-Vista). Some Windows software won't work in an unprivileged account, such as some games, but that's generally software that won't run in Linux either and for which it's likely that no suitable Linux replacement is available. If the original poster was willing to go to such lengths to avoid the startup-scan delay, then I would suggest just disabling the startup scan, which is probably not doing anything useful anyway. Antivirus software exists mainly to protect the people who use computers as typewriters from running every DancingFrog.exe program that people send them. If you don't run unsolicited executables, don't download software from web sites that you wouldn't buy a used car from, use XP's built-in firewall, and keep up to date with security patches then the antivirus software probably isn't providing any added value. I suppose this should go in the original thread and not here, but anyway, switching to Linux still seems an extremely disproportionate response to the OP's problem to me. Even if you don't feel that way, I think in point of fact many people do.

And I suppose I should add that it's rude to complain about advice freely offered, and I can understand people taking offense at that too. -- BenRG (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I have a thick skin. It's rare for me to take offense at anything. (Well, five minutes or so within the movie Borat....) I understand that although a "geek" used to be the man in US funfairs who stereotypically bit the heads off chickens, it has now supplanted "nerd" as a term of mild condescension or even affection, so certainly no offense on that score. But I'm not a "geek" in any sense in view of my sketchy (or worse) knowledge of much material relevant here. ¶ You make some good points. However, you also say things with which I disagree. If I think of installing Linux in the context of your average Windows-using questioner, I don't have in mind Gentoo (which I've never tried) or similar; instead, I'm thinking primarily of Ubuntu and its derivatives. Installing this is, I think, easy. In fact, it's remarkably similar to installing Windows: you just have to be patient while it guesses what hardware there is. One difference is that Windows assumes (demands?) that it is all you want, whereas a Linux distro does not; and perhaps the way it phrases the question may puzzle or even alarm the inexperienced person (I don't remember). Another is that a Linux distro asks one or two more questions that Windows doesn't, such as whether you want Ctrl and CapsLock keys switched around. I am not claiming here that Ubuntu and the like are happy with all printers, scanners, etc. ¶ I understand that a great many people need to run such programs as Illustrator that require a proprietary OS (or a flawless simulation thereof). However, the great majority of the people I know use their computers for simple processing of words, simple spreading of sheets, viewing photos and PDF files, browsing, blogging, MyFaceBookery, and emailing. (No, no games. Maybe my part of the world is atypical, but here games are played on handheld devices.) Additionally, they must be able to manipulate files produced by, and produce files manipulable by, MS Office: fairly unproblematic, at least if the stuff done isn't intricate. And they have fast net connections and -- thanks to such (admittedly advertising-laden) sites as zamzar.com and resizr.com -- can do more and more of what they want online. Well, Windows, OS X or Linux will suffice. (And I suppose that *BSD would too, though I've never tried it.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:22, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The trouble is you're presuming two things. 1) The person is savvy enough to install Windows. The reality is a lot of people are not. The fact that installing Ubuntu is as simple as installing Windows is therefore somewhat irrelevant. Also most of these people are barely comfortable enough with administring and using Windows, and whether you like it or not, switching to another OS is different enough that they are unlikely to want to do it. Particularly since with Linux it's likely to be far harder to find someone in real life who can help them 2) Despite that the person is ill informed enough not to have considered Linux/*BSD. The reality is most people who can easily install and use a new OS have likely already considered Linux. I have. Indeed I've even install FreeBSD before and for that matter Hackintosh on an AMD. I've decided none of them are for me. The reality most people who are comfortable with installing and learning a new OS are likely to be similar to me. They've ruled it out. Perhaps they're wrong here, but pushing it to them when they're asking for other advice is far more likely to annoy them and make them avoid Linux then use it. And BTW, make no mistake. Anyone who does administer their own computer is likely to find learning to use Linux a chore. Of course it's not extremely difficult and for some it's worth it. For many it's not. Even learning Vista is a task in itself and that is (or can be) far more similar to Windows XP then Linux or *BSD ever will. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

When you talk of "pushing" Linux, do you just mean "suggesting", or do you mean something stronger? If the latter, please give one or two relevant diffs, because I haven't recently seen any putatively obnoxious "evangelism", whether for Linux or for anything else. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It's funny you should mention that; I gave almost that exact response to a question that I thought merited it. Are you suggesting that doing so was offensive? – 74  13:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(I think it was fine given the context.) -- BenRG (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is my own perspective bias, I do seem to see many responses that are "Well you could do easy fix X or just switch to Linux!" which is the kind of advise that should be discouraged. Changing operating systems, especially for a basic user, is an unneccessarily over the top response for a simple problem, akin to amuptating the arm for having a hangnail. While it is true that Linux offers many (often free) alternatives to Windows, people work with what they are comfortable with, even if it is an inferior product. Livewireo (talk) 16:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Again with the oh-so helpful analogies. Only in a fictional world where amputated limbs could be regrown at will and body modification was taken to the extreme would switching to Linux be "akin" to amputating an arm. FWIW, I don't think every computer problem response warrants a "or you could switch to Linux!" rider, but I strongly believe that providing alternatives is at least neutral and sometimes beneficial. Anyone is free to ignore or dispute responses that they personally disagree with, but no one should attack or censor responses because they personally disagree with them. – 74  20:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your sarcasm is noted but preaching the good word of Linux should be a last resort rather than the first. It is an extreme alternative for a basic user, which many of our advice-seekers are. Livewireo (talk) 21:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I actually don't disagree with that (other than the unnecessarily inflammatory "preaching the good word"). I'd like to think that is how we generally handle things, but we admittedly don't always succeed. In all such cases, though, the correct course of action is to take your complaint to the respondent's talk page and/or provide a refutation, and both of these actions should be handled civilly. – 74  23:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

While I won't not support a ban on such responses, I would generally discourage people from making them particularly in response to minor issues (Kainaw's sort of responses are fine) and also feel 89's response to Hoary is largely appropriate (the comment at the end was a bit uncivil and unnecessar), even justified. I think BenRG makes a good point. Few people are going to suggest you emigrate if you complain about some problem in your country. Indeed I think most would agree such a response is ridiculous. While changing OS is obviously nowhere nearly as big, it's still a very big deal for the vast majority of people. Perhaps a better example would be if you have a minor annoyance at work and someone suggests you change job or if you have a minor issue with your partner/spouse and someone suggests you break up. Let's not forgot most people who aren't aware of Linux don't even know how to install Windows themselves. For those who are more computer adept and are aware of Linux and could likely install and set it up fine they've likely already ruled it out for whatever reason (may be they can't be bothered learning a new OS, may be they've already got all the programs they want and don't want to have to change). Either way, it's only a very small minority who are likely to find such responses helpful. Remember just because you're a volunteer and trying to help doesn't mean people who are seeking help don't have a right to feel frustrated when you provide a answer that is next to useless. Many people don't like to ignore a useless reponse (perhaps more so in forums and usenet then here) because they fear if others think it has already been answered they won't get so many useful responses. To use my personal pet peeve, I sometimes in the past have asked about computer products. In the past I used to specifically mention either that I live in New Zealand or that I don't want other suggestions. Despite this, it wasn't uncommon I would get useless responses giving me New Egg links. Nowadays I've taken to specifically mentioning that I don't want alternative suggestions and that I live in New Zealand so New Egg links are useless to me. (This usually works but even then not always.) I'm not suggesting there is a simple line between 'helpful' and 'unhelpful' and there are of course many cases when you simply don't know if your suggestion will be helpful. Indeed I'm sure I've given many responses here and elsewhere that people have found useless. But I think a little common sense will go a long way. Ask yourself, is it likely the OP has not properly considered (whether because unaware or under misapprehension about) my suggestion? If not, is it likely my suggestion will be helpful? Particularly if the OP has specifically asked about (or excluded something) or if the suggestion is drastic (changing an OS) to a minor issue then the answer is probably no. If you still believe your answer may be of use, then phrase it in a non-pushy way where you recognise the issues. For example, rather then rambling on about the advantages os another OS just offer it as a suggestion and acknowledge that it will be a big change but suggest it may be worth it. Similarly if someone has ruled out something, politely ask if you may know the reason. Nil Einne (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

"Remember just because you're a volunteer and trying to help doesn't mean people who are seeking help don't have a right to feel frustrated when you provide a answer that is next to useless." I strongly disagree. There is no "right to feel frustrated" and demanding a volunteer provide you with information *you* deem worthy reeks of entitlement. I try to provide relevant information, but I expect civility in return. Is that really too much to ask? – 74  05:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Nil Einne: While changing OS is obviously nowhere nearly as big [a deal as emigrating], it's still a very big deal for the vast majority of people. [...] If you still believe [a suggestion to change OS] may be of use, then phrase it in a non-pushy way where you recognise the issues. For example, rather then rambling on about the advantages os another OS just offer it as a suggestion and acknowledge that it will be a big change but suggest it may be worth it. I keep reading assertions that changing OS is a big deal. They're backed up less often with evidence than with analogies. I don't think it is a big deal; or rather, I don't think it need be a big deal. Neither do I pretend that all will necessarily go smoothly. ¶ Like 74 (but much less knowledgably or energetically), I try to provide relevant information. And I suppose I expect civility in return. On the other hand, if I don't get civility in return I don't much care. What does surprise me is that when somebody then makes a charge that persons unspecified in edits unspecified have "rammed" an unsuitable suggestion "down the throat" of a questioner (here) or have engaged in "harassment" (here), this leads to soul-searching, etc. I have so far seen no sign that anybody has attempted either to ram anything down anybody's neck or to harass. I've asked for diffs but none has been forthcoming. The IP who made both those charges is still around (e.g. here); but if he or she isn't sufficiently interested in this business to elaborate, I see no reason for this non-issue to take any more of people's time. -- Hoary (talk) 06:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

With one or two overly-well-known-exceptions, we don't ban things here, so this proposal seems to me to be a non-starter.

Yes, proselytizing in any of its forms can be annoying. We already discourage that sort of thing rather strongly in the general RD guidelines:

Personal opinions in answers should be limited to what is absolutely necessary, and avoided entirely when it gets in the way of factual answers. In particular, when a question asks about a controversial topic, we should attempt to provide purely factual answers. This helps prevent the thread from becoming a debate.

In general, if an answer is not useful, it's up to the original questioner to decide. I don't think it makes sense (it would certainly set a very bad precedent) to try to suppress an entire class of answers as being not possibly useful to any recipient.

(And, though I guess I'll reveal a bias here, I personally think that if fewer people were locked into the straitjacket that is Microsoft Windows, if more people were aware of its glaring deficiencies and were willing to honestly consider the technically superior alternatives, the computing world would be a much better place.) —Steve Summit (talk) 01:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Shrooms - Advice removed

I removed the following response because I believe it constitutes advice on how to consume a substance that is unsafe, and illegal in many jursdictions.

OR: A few friends have had bad experiences that "changed their life". I heard of one person who could "never quite get out of the trip" and deeply regret doing them. There are also numerous positive experiences with positive life changing experiences. If you or anyone you know takes psychoactive mushroom, try to gather as much info as possible on the specific species consumed, try to get advice from the seller and if possible, do it legally, it ensures to some degree quality and good advices. Try to always have someone "clean" and responsible if it's a group experience. Have the experience in a secure place, not in public, if outside in nature make sure you have emergency phone numbers. In any case make sure you have everything you might need at hand: water, crisps, cola, smokes, anything you might miss and might ruin your experience. You can expect long term , chronic use of any hard drug (well hard in the sense that it is really intense and mental) to have serious repercussions, especially social and psychological such as desocialization, exacerbation of preexisting psychological conditions (depression, paranoia, mood swings, ...). Please post relevant links you might find online, thank you. 190.17.201.142 (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 06:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

He did provide some extremely cogent advice, though: don't even think about tripping without first stocking up on those most crucial of supplies: crisps, cola and smokes! ;) Rockpocket 06:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but perhaps the advice should have been truncated to "Don't even think about tripping." Perhaps even more cogent? Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 00:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Matt, I am the OP, and I can assure you I was not asking for medical advice when I asked the question. Rather, I was looking for links/sources/information regarding the effects of long term use of mushrooms...information is readily available for almost every other illicit drug that deals with the side effects and such of long term abuse that the RD helpers could (without violating medical advice policy) link to; I could not find any/much information about mushroom use and I find the RD to be an excellent resource when all else fails. Thanks for your concern though, and I promise, cross my heart, that I won't take any of the responses given as medical adivce ;)...Even the one you removed. --71.117.38.74 (talk) 02:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. You may be aware I'm currently in the process of trying to effect some change in the way "perceived medical advice" questions are being handled by the refdesk. I accept your word that you weren't looking for advice, but even if you were it shouldn't really matter. What matters is the way people respond to these sort of questions - case in point: the response I moved to this thread. It seems to me this strategy worked out quite well - you got your information, and no "advice" remains in the thread for your post. And the links posted may be useful to others, which wouldn't have happened if your question was removed. Thanks again, Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 03:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I posted the offending response. I'm sorry if you thought it was out of line Mattopaedia. Re-reading it I was expecting to think the same way, but then even though it's certainly not as well referenced and maybe neutral as the other answers provided to the original question, I still think it was a worthwhile answer. Although the question was more about long term use, I added advice on how to render the occasional consumption safer because I wasn't sure if that was also underlying in the question. I'm not quite sure "Don't even think about tripping." would be a much more balanced advice. I won't try to go into any kind of justification for using psychoactive drugs although a long case could definitely be made. I tried to give a short but balanced testimony on the experience of a few people I know who have done mushrooms. I disagree with your statement that I provided advice on HOW to consume the substance - I feel like you're accusing me of showing someone how to dissolve heroine. I only pointed out some ways to make an experience safer. Your point about psychoactive mushrooms being unsafe is pretty much the problem of the original question and its lack of serious references. I think you should have justified more extensively your removal. I understand, though, that it could have been taken as an encouragement, somehow, to consume the stuff even though it is actually mainly pointing out the negative effects of long term mushroom use. I still think your removal was mainly spurred by some righteous moral view that 'drugs are bad' but I would greatly appreciated if you could show me I'm wrong. If you would like to we can continue this discussion on my talk page at user:Keria. 190.17.201.142 (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed (possible) request for medical advice

I removed a request for medical advice here.

The OP experienced the sudden, unexplained onset of a serious symptom (coughing, difficulty breathing) and asked us to explain what might have caused it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Good grief, it was not a request for medical advice. Many people felt the same and left the carriage all at the same time. I was talking to them about it outside. But still, if you want to call it that, go ahead – I won't revert. By the way, I resent slightly the way you refer to me as "the OP", as though I'm just some fly-by-night n00b poster, rather than a regular and experienced RD editor. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

No offense was intended; we use 'OP' all the time on this talk page to refer to the 'original poster' of a question. The idea is to de-emphasize the identity of the poster, so that we can look at the question or comment in a more neutral light. We don't want to give the impression that this is some sort of name-and-shame ritual.

I appreciate that you're a Wikipedia regular, but I'm not comfortably bending our rules on that basis. I'm even willing to go out on a limb and announce that I fully trust you not to take anything we tell you as medical advice. The problem is that we can't offer diagnoses to some editors and not others, and we shouldn't give the impression that it's sometimes okay for us to give medical advice. While I know that you know better, the 'fly-by-night n00b posters' are going to find it confusing. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe Richardrj when he says it was not a request for medical advice. DuncanHill (talk) 15:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Duncan. Ten, you're not addressing my central point, which is that my question did not constitute a request for medical advice. What if I had put "Is it possible for a subway carriage to malfunction such that riders experience coughing and difficulty in breathing?" Would that have been a request for medical advice, in your view? --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That's always a twitchy sort of question, isn't it? If your first question on the topic had been that one, we probably wouldn't be here — though some sort of framing story ("I'm writing a medical mystery drama"; "I've heard that the London Underground has some haunted carriages"; etc.) would help to avoid raising suspicion. If you were to do it now, of course, it would be obvious that you were still seeking the same medical advice, and simply demonstrating that as a Wikipedia regular you knew how to game our policy. I hope you don't choose that course, and I would discourage you from trying to take advantage of the good faith of other Deskers by doing something deceptive like that. I know it would put me (and anyone else who notes this thread) in a bit of an ethical bind — should we ignore the new post because it obeys the letter of the policy, or should we stick up for the principle and spend the rest of the day getting yelled at on this page? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

He can't be "still seeking the same medical advice" when he's already said he isn't seeking medical advice (unless you want to call him a liar). DuncanHill (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Er, he would still seeking the same information: a diagnosis based on his described symptoms. Wrapping that request in a different package wouldn't change that, since we already know – based on his own previous question – that he would be describing his own symptoms. You can't put that particular toothpaste back in the tube. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Ten, I wouldn't dream of putting you in an ethical dilemma caused by your own overzealous interpretation of our guidelines (guidelines which I support 100%, by the way, and I have removed questions on this basis myself in the past). (Apart from anything else, I've got a couple of good answers now.) But your position is simply untenable, as is amply illustrated by your own admission that my rephrasing of the question would have been acceptable, and also by my suspicion that an alternative rephrasing along the lines of "I observed such-and-such behaviour among a number of riders on the subway; could this have been caused by mechanical malfunction?", even closer to my original, would also have passed muster. Finally, you still haven't engaged with my counterargument (not merely an assertion) that this was not a request for medical advice. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 15:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see the inconsistency in my position — we've long held that questions on medical topics are acceptable ("What are the common causes of shortness of breath?") whereas questions seeking diagnosis are not ("I have shortness of breath; what's likely to be causing it?"). The guideline – and I – both recognize that distinction. I'm also aware that it can be a fine line sometimes.

In your particular case, your question tripped several flags that are in the guideline.

We can, of course, answer general factual questions about medicine and medical conditions, taking special care to base our answers on reliable sources, but these facts must not be construed to apply to any particular individual for purposes of diagnosis or treatment....

Any posted comment containing a diagnosis...in response to symptoms presented in a question, is considered inappropriate for the reference desk, as are questions that seem to be implicitly or explicitly requesting such advice....

A diagnosis is the process of identifying a medical condition or disease by its symptoms.... An example of a diagnosis: X says "I'm having memory problems". Y responds "you might have Alzheimer's disease"....

The difference between what is and what is not acceptable has to do with both the answer and the question. If a complete answer to the question may be given without interpretation of the condition of any actual person, it is acceptable to answer the question. If an interpretation of an actual person's condition is necessary for a complete answer, the question is asking for some form of diagnosis or treatment advice that is not allowed....

Verify that the question asks for medical advice as detailed above. Typically a poster will ask about one or more symptoms, and solicit an opinion about diagnosis (What is this?).... The symptoms will be those of the poster, or ascribed to a friend or relative....

In this case, a specific individual – you – identified yourself as having had specific, transient symptoms ('[sudden]...tightening in [his] throat', 'began to cough', 'harder to breathe than normal') under specific conditions, and sought explanations for his (temporary) condition. A complete answer to your question would require us to guess what substance (if any) you were exposed to, and confirm that your symptoms were potentially the result of that exposure. ("Sounds like exposure to tubeworm spores; they're active in the underground in late winter and early spring.") For clarity, could you restate your counterargument? I'm not seeing a direct rebuttal of the assertion that you're presenting us with symptoms and asking for an underlying cause (diagnosis). Feel free to unindent a bit, too — we're getting awfully deep in the colons here. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I believe Richardrj had no intention of asking a question that was over the bounds of any Wikipedia guideline, and I believe that he asked his question in good faith. Nevertheless, the medical advice guideline is fairly explicit on this point. He described a number of his own symptoms ('[sudden]...tightening in [his] throat', 'began to cough', 'harder to breathe than normal') and asked us to explain what might have caused them. A wide range of conditions and triggers come to mind, none of which we can or should offer as a diagnosis. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Boy, this one is right up against the line. The deciding factor is Richardrj's lungs. I can't think of how to answer without involving the lungs of the real, living person who asked the question and asking follow-up questions that are best asked while looking though one of those round mirrors with the hole in the middle you wear on a band around your head within sight of a framed diploma and license. If it matters, I think "the OP" can walk away from this head held high. --Milkbreath (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The question asks for a diagnosis based on symptoms. As far as I know, those symptoms are symptoms of many lethal conditions. The odds of an RD regular's family suing the WMF after his death is small, and the odds of the OP actually making any decisions based on the responses are also slim, so perhaps most people don't consider it serious. However, any response that might be understood as telling him not to see a doctor after experiencing difficulty breathing strikes me as unethical and dangerous. JackSchmidt (talk) 16:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It was clear from the question that the symptoms subsided as soon as he left the carriage and that they were experienced by multiple people. That makes it a question about what was going on in that carriage, not a request for a diagnosis or suggested treatment of a medical problem. You don't need medical advice after the event. Questions should only be removed if they are obviously requests for medical advice, standard practice in ambiguous cases (which this is, at worst) is to leave the question there and put a warning reminding answers to be careful what they say. --Tango (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tango, that's exactly what I would have said in response to Ten's call for clarification above. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Your symptoms may have been the result of an underlying condition; there may also have been longer-lasting effects which are not readily apparent to you now. With that I'm getting dangerously close to medical advice. I'm rather hamstrung by ethical and policy considerations; I can't comfortably explain to you why an explanation of your symptoms would constitute medical advice without actually giving you the advice. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think we're undesirably close to medical advice anytime the question is of the form "I have/had these symptoms- what could be the cause?". I don't think anyone did anything wrong here. OK, so the question wasn't meant as a request for medical advice, but removing it was still the most prudent thing to do in my view. Instead of arguing endlessly about it here, why not just quickly rephrase the question and move on? Friday (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to do that, (a) because I've already gotten a couple of good answers; and (b) because Ten has already said above that he would even consider deleting a rephrased question, secure as he is in the knowledge that I would be sneakily requesting medical advice by the back door, so to speak. --Richardrj ^{talk email} 16:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I call for an immediate preemptive block! We cannot tolerate Richardrj hypothetically violating Reference Desk guidelines!   :-)   – 74  22:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I took Richardrj to be an observer of an event that made me really curious about the smell or gas in question which was imho handled perfectly by CookatooErgoZoom and effectively answered the question. Did no-one else relate to that? ^{(apols if I overlooked anyone)} Julia Rossi (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Call for straw poll

---

Tally

• No - 74.137.108.115 [3]
• No - StuRat [4]
• Yes - A Quest For Knowledge [5]
• Yes - hydnjo [6]
• No - Julia Rossi [7]
• Yes - Malcolm XIV [8]
• Yes - Sean [9]
• Meh - Mattopaedia [10]
• Yes - Nil Einne [11]
• Yes - SteveBaker [12]
• Yes - Franamax [13]
• Yes - Lanfear's Bane [14]
• Yes - Milkbreath [15]
• Yes - 10draftsdeep [16]
• No - Steve Summit [17]
• Yes - JackSchmidt [18]
• Yes - Rockpocket [19]
• Yes - Scray [20]
• Yes - Captain Disdain [21]
• Yes - Axl [22]

(as of this date/time by hydnjo (talk) 19:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Was this question a request for medical advice?

• No – 74  15:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Consensus isn't decided by a vote, and there's an ongoing active discussion. Please don't try to cut things off like that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

From the "ongoing active discussion" I see 4 users who apparently disagree with your actions and you. You seem to take it upon yourself to be the guardian of all things Reference Desk, and I object. If this thread turns out like nearly every other removal, it will drag on for days until everyone simply gives up and moves on. I'm merely requesting an opinion poll on a simple question. subsection renamed – 74  16:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's also possible that an unknown number of editors completely agree with TOAT but can't be bothered to rehash the same arguments time after time when the outcome is generally certain. Now of course, the thoughts of silent actors generally shouldn't influence decisions, except that we know they tend to come out of the woodworks when edit wars break out over the stuff. It should be noted that the discussions to create the medical guidelines, and the later discussions to actually enforce it involved more than four editors, as I recall. I can't knock someone for repeatedly upholding a guideline (and I'm sorry, but "I have X symptoms, what caused them" is the stereotypical request for medical advice, even if nothing of the kind was intended) even when a few editors disagree. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I fully agree with your first statement. That's exactly why I called for a poll. If the "silent majority" supports this removal, this would have been an *excellent* place to display their support without getting into an interminable argument—that is, it would have been if it hadn't been contested as an "unconstructive" poll and derailed into the argument proper. – 74  20:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to call for straw poll here. Consensus is often determined by a vote or, if you prefer, a "!vote", such as on the AfD pages. You just don't want a straw poll because it will make it absolutely obvious that you used poor judgement in unilaterally deleting a Q where there is no consensus to do so, when it should have been discussed first. And having a straw poll doesn't cut off discussion, either. If anything, it encourages discussion. StuRat (talk) 18:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it constructive discussion? We've now had the apparently-mandatory attacks on my character from you and DuncanHill, and we've now got eight editors agreeing that the question was a request for medical advice (including me) and four disagreeing (including the OP). Several editors have indicated frustration regarding the gratuitiously mean-spirited approach that you and Duncan have taken.

I didn't want to delay a poll to conceal my 'poor judgement'; I wanted to delay a poll because I was hoping to avoid the unecessarily combative and polarizing discussion that comes from trying to divide editors into camps, I didn't want to have editors trying to judge the dispute before there was an opportunity to everyone to have their say, or to present and develop their arguments. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Consensus on matters like this is determined solely by TOAT. DuncanHill (talk) 16:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

  That's just trolling. Please keep such nonsense off the talk page. Friday (talk) 16:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I won't even bother to read the comments above because I seriously doubt there is anything different from all the debates that have gone before it. In order to provide a complete answer to this question, you must diagnose why this particular person would have had the reaction. You can provider partial answers without any diagnosis, but not a complete answer. If you cannot provider a complete answer without diagnosis, it is a request for medical advice. Any debate that is not limited to "Can we answer this completely without medical advice?" is a useless waste of time. -- kainaw™ 16:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to quote here from the Medical Advice guidelines:

"All reference desk editors are volunteer contributors who are subject to existing Wikipedia guidelines, which specifically state that Wikipedia is not to be used or relied upon for professional advice (see Wikipedia:disclaimer). Even if such advice were permitted by Wikipedia, it is not possible to conduct examinations of users with medical problems anonymously over the internet. The Reference Desk is not an advice page, and moreover there is the real possibility of doing harm to readers by advising them on medical issues—either because the advice is dangerous or because it discourages them from seeing a medical professional. Therefore medical advice must not be given by question-answerers, and should not be requested." (emphasis added)

I believe that what is key here is the idea that there is the possibility of doing harm. Given that possibility, where there is any doubt about whether or not a question is a request for medical advice, it should be removed. We should err on the side of caution. Put another way, what is the potential harm associated with not removing a request for medical advice, as opposed to the risks of removing something which is not actually a request for medical advice?

• If we don't remove a real request, then the poster may receive incorrect or dangerous advice which could lead directly to physical harm.
• If we remove something which isn't actually a request, then the poster doesn't get an answer, and other posters are denied the opportunity to provide an answer.

I think on balance the harm associated with non-removal of a real medical advice question outweighs that associated with the removal of a non-medical advice question. Why are we tying ourselves in knots trying to prevent someone from not getting a non-medical advice question answered by a bunch of strangers on the Internet, instead of being concerned about preventing someone from getting a medical advice question answered by a bunch of strangers on the Internet? - Eron^Talk 18:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, absolutely not a request for medical advice. StuRat (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:20, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. It would appear that a call for a "straw poll" has resulted only in a continuation of the discussion from the previous section albeit with a different header which can be misleading. Since I'm already here I'll comment with a response to Richardrj:

Nah, I wouldn't worry about it. Oh, you didn't say, did you or any of the other passengers have any continuing symptoms er.. never-mind, it was probably nothing anyway. I wouldn't bother reporting it because they'll probably say that "it was just one of those things". That way if no one reports it well, it never happened no matter how many people don't report it. Also, I wouldn't report the incident to my doctor because he'll probably say the same thing - don't worry about it - then send you a bill for information that you're getting for free here. Please delete after reading this before someone gets well you know upset that I've tried to help you out ya know! -hydnjo talk 19:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• No, not a medi-request, more like a situational question. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• I would say Yes, but given that this is increasingly the StuRat homepage, where any deletion (or suggestion of deletion) is attacked by precisely two editors until the opposition gets bored and gives up, I don't really know why I'm bothering to offer an opinion. Malcolm XIV (talk) 22:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. I don't really understand or agree with the no-medical-questions policy, but given that I don't care enough to lobby against it, I have to concede that "my throat seized up; care to conjecture why?" does indeed qualify. --Sean 00:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Meh. Its possible to interpret Richard's question as a request for advice. Its also possible to interpret this as "I wonder why this happened? What sort of stuff can make that happen?" - which is not a request for advice, but information. Scroll back up. Look at the length of this thread. It is ridiculous. People are taking things personally and getting all offended, and posting some (hopefully poorly thought through) inflammatory comments. This, people, is what I really want to see becoming a thing of the past at the refdesk. It doesn't matter how Richard, or anyone else for that matter, frames a question. What matters is how we answer it! (At this point I'm visualising an evangelical James Brown shouting Do you see the light?!) TOAT has already pointed out that an OP's intent may differ from the apparent intent of their question. So have I. We can't be responsible for people's intentions, or how they phrase their questions. I think removing questions simply the wrong way to go because we can never be sure of the intent behind a question, and this thread really highlights that. The only thing we can take responsibility for are the answers we, collectively, provide - and that's where we need to focus our attention. Look at the Shrooms question. Here I plonked in my bloody huge banner (that may need some further work) and removed what I believed to be an inappropriate response. Other useful links were provided by other refdeskers and the OP wrote back saying thanks for the help. Done, finished, easy. I need a coffee! Mattopaedia ^{Have a yarn} 02:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Very well put. I think history has proven we cannot accurately judge the intent of the OP; attempts to do so merely result in long, acrimonious "discussions" like this one. I, for one, am ready for a change. – 74  03:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Those who oppose the removal of a question on the grounds that the OP might not have intended it to be a request for medical advice are also trying to judge the intent of the OP. We can't judge the intent, but we can judge the question as it is put to us - and on those grounds, questions that look like requests for medical advice, and which will get responses that look like medical advice, should be removed. No judgement of intent is required.

The problem with leaving the question and worrying about the answers is, who will police the answers? I know that I won't try to provide medical advice, and I am sure none of us participating in this discussion would, but what about others? If we remove the question, there is one deletion required. Who knows how many responses will have to be deleted - as medical advice - if we leave the questions? And then of course, each removed response will get its own topic on this page, with various editors criticizing the removal and suggesting that the intent of the answer wasn't really to provide medical advice...

By the way, I won't be taking part in the straw poll as I don't think it is appropriate to submit another editor's judgement to a vote. I will say that I agree with that judgement in this case. - Eron^Talk 04:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Lol do you really think simply removing responses is going to help? I can imagine it will lead to a lot more drama where every single removed reponse is debated non stop. More significantly perhaps, it doesn't help when the OP is really seeking medical advice. Are you telling me that when the OP says "I have blood in my urine but I'm too lazy to see a doctor, where can I get advice on my condition" it's fine if we just direct them to Hematuria and remove 18 hours later when someone notices the response telling them not to worry about it? Nil Einne (talk) 04:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, just look at all the scathing responses to the "Shrooms" removal above; it makes this thread look like a tea party. Your comment below (and others like yours) is *exactly* why our current process fails—constant debates with the same tired arguments and no meaningful conclusions breed apathy. Will a new system work? I don't know, but if there's a chance I think we should try it. Perhaps we could slap some sunset clauses on it and run an experiment for a day or a week. If it fails we're no worse off then we are now. – 74  05:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason there was no fuss in response to the Shrooms removal is because it was an IP's answer that was removed. Try the same tactic with an answer made by few well known Ref Desk regulars and we'll see a very different outcome! That said, Mattopaedia has made a good case to at least give his proposal a try. I don't object to that. Rockpocket 20:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes (I've kind of given up discussing medical advice questions but since it sounds like people are going to use the poll to push their view I felt I needed to express my view) Nil Einne (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - I don't see why there should be any debate here. Per the very first sentence of our guideline: "The Wikipedia reference desk is not an appropriate place to request...any kind of medical diagnosis...". Our OP said: "I was suddenly aware of a tightening in my throat. I don't recall there being much of a smell, but I began to cough and it was certainly harder to breathe than normal." - this is without doubt a description of a set of symptoms: Coughing, Constriction of throat, Difficulty in breathing...and not caused by some strongly pungent odor. This could very easily relate to some kind of medical condition - it fits the symptoms of at least two conditions I could think of. Then we get: "What could my reaction have been caused by?" - which is clearly asking for a diagnosis of that condition. How could this POSSIBLY be anything other than a request for a medical diagnosis - which we're simply not allowed to give. QED SteveBaker (talk) 05:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Easy... If you answered it and you don't want to admit you were wrong, you can rationalize about the intent, what you can answer, similar questions in the past, how it could be phrased differently... and so on. It is amazing how easy it is to twist one thing into another once you start rationalizing. Soon, you can be good enough to start arguing about what the definition of "is" is. (This is why I try to keep it simple now. There is only one rule: Can it be answered completely without diagnosis or treatment advice? No? Then it is a request for medical advice.) -- kainaw™ 05:23, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - close enough, it dealt with symptoms and diagnosis. If the same symptoms recurred, the OP could make assumptions based on "advice" given here by enthusiastic amateurs determined to have something to say on every question. Those assumptions could prove fatal. Thus, medical advice. Franamax (talk) 06:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Description of symptoms followed by a request for advice. Lanfear's Bane | t 09:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - I guess we're "voting" after all. --Milkbreath (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

  It's a straw poll - I guess the intent is to determine if a new consensus has emerged. Clearly it has not. SteveBaker (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes -with slight reservation. I spent so much time reading and contemplating the question that I felt obligated to proceed and make a choice, but I still see both sides of this situation. I maintain that a simple modification of the question would have significantly altered the outcome.10draftsdeep (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
• No. The tightening-of-the-throat-in-the-subway question did not strike me as asking for medical advice. It is, to be sure, the type of question that can generate, in the liability paranoia arena, the same sorts of concerns as are induced by medical advice questions. Are those liability paranoia concerns overblown here? I have my opinion, but since that's not the question here I'll demur. —Steve Summit (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

To Steve and whoever else is watching this. I don't think that the main concern behind this discussion has to do with liability, our disclaimer properly deals with a "random-person-on-the-internet" offering medical advice. Our (well some of us') concerns have more to do with offering advice (medical in this discussion) although sometimes incomplete or incorrect but well meaning might be construed as authoritative. It sometimes is but sometimes isn't and so therefor it could do harm - who is to arbitrate? There is no medical review board here so some of us think the safest path is to avoid any response to medical requests for advice by removing the request. Others argue that the question should remain in place but with warnings regarding the quality of the responses (even providing a glaring WARNING) to be wary of the advice provided herein. As you know, some folks will see what they want to no matter the warning so, what are we to do with the next "painless suicide" question that comes along, parse the intent? hydnjo talk 02:42, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The deal is VERY simple. We have a guideline. In Wikipedia-land, to change a guideline requires a consensus to change it. A consensus means "near unanimity". There is nothing remotely close to a majority who wish to change it - let alone a consensus. There is zero point in debating it because nobody appears to be sitting on the fence ready to be convinced. There are firmly held views on both sides. So the rule stands. SteveBaker (talk) 01:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, obviously (only voting because I can already see people attempting to use the poll the justify their favored position). Rockpocket 02:51, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
• Yes - Answers could be expected to help the OP decide whether to seek medical attention. We must avoid influencing that decision. --Scray (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. And no. But mostly yes; the question included a description of a physical symptom the poster clearly experienced and was about what caused it. (Why no? Because he wasn't really asking for medical advice, he was wondering what could cause symptoms like that in him and other passengers. I don't think it's quite the same thing, and in a perfect world, we'd distinguish between the two. But that ain't where we are.) I'm not a big fan of the "no medical advice" thing when taken to a ridiculous extreme (typically seen when someone pounces on a medical question that's clearly not about medical advice), but I don't think we should diagnose anyone over the internet. (That said, I do think there's a whiff of hypocrisy in the air when answering a direct question is very bad but offering an encyclopedia article about the very same topic is perfectly all right. What, it's okay if someone stumbles on a certain piece of information and does something very stupid with it without someone specifically directing them there? I kinda fail to see the moral there.) -- Captain Disdain (talk) 14:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yes - Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

archive contents pages broken links

See this thread over at the Village Pump. I'm sure many of you have noticed the broken links sprinkled through e.g. Archives/Humanities/February 2009. As mentioned, I think the offending bug in the archiving bot is mostly fixed now, and invite y'all to let me know if you notice any more of these glitches going forward. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the notice. StuRat (talk) 04:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed (possible) request for medical advice ("osseous structures")

I removed a request for medical advice here: [23].

We cannot offer advice in interpreting the results of medical tests; the OP should be taking these questions up with her physician. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The OP wrote the following: "Can anyone put in simple terms what osseous stucurs and soft tissue uptake, and osteo blasic lesions mean". It seems to me that she was looking for information, not advice. Isn't that, you know, what we do? – ClockworkSoul 04:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The doctor provided the diagnosis, the OP just asked us to explain what the terms mean, which is exactly what an encyclopedia, online or otherwise, should do. StuRat (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The OP also wrote "I blanked out at the doctors and did not understand the bone scan results." She wanted information about her own medical test results. She needs to get that from her doctor, not from us. Her doctor knows her case and can advise her about what those things mean in the context of her medical situation. We cannot. We don't even know why she had a bone scan done in the first place. - Eron^Talk 04:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is here: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#Osseous_structures_and_soft_tissue_uptake_in_L3_vertebra. StuRat (talk)

The terms the OP provided are not accurate medical terms. "Osseous stucurs" gets 0 google hits. I could assume that her doctor might have said "osseous structures" (248,000 hits) but now I am playing doctor and guessing at things. Then I google "osteo blasic lesions"; that's another 0 hits, but it suggests I look at "osteoblastic lesions". Now I'm not just playing doctor, I'm playing oncologist. This is not a question any of us should go anywhere near. The OP did not even clearly hear what her doctor said; she needs to go back and get a proper explanation. Any other advice would be irresponsible. - Eron^Talk 05:17, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I very much disagree. Very much. She is asking us for a definition, and we can give that to her and decline to cross the line to medical advice. It will allow her to ask more informed questions when she does discuss the issue further with her physician. – ClockworkSoul 05:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Eron apparently holds it against the OP that they don't know how to spell medical terms. StuRat (talk) 05:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's try to be nice. However, that the OP recalled the terms well enough to try to spell them out suggests that she heard them just fine. It's quite clear what she was trying to spell. – ClockworkSoul 05:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So an M.D. is now required to copy edit? I believe we could provide links without providing advice, but the last medremoval "discussion" is barely more than a day old and I've no interest in reviewing all of those arguments. – 74  05:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I'm confused, Is SB the original poster? -Hydnjo (talk) 05:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

No: the original post is here. – ClockworkSoul 05:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Ten didn't provide a link to this discussion from the Q. I've now added the link. StuRat (talk) 05:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks StuRat ClockworkSoul, I didn't understand why people were referring to SB as she unless I missed out on a previous "outing" ;-) -Hydnjo (talk) 05:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't you mean to thank ClockworkSoul ? They are the one who answered you. (I was planning to, but they beat me to it.) StuRat (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes sorry, fixed attribution - Hydnjo (talk)

S'all good. I don't work for credit, anyway. ;) – ClockworkSoul 06:33, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to ignore these interminable talk page discussions because they wind me up. And I'm not going to get into a discussion regarding the ethics of medical advice on these pages (although I will note that we're quite happy to discuss financial matters, for example, and some people give exceedingly firm religious advice, which is extremely contentious) but surely we don't have to jump on everyone who asks for information? After all, WP quite openly has pages on Positron emission tomography, osteoblasts, Osseous tissue and even, most controversially, defines osseous. OK, so we can't and shouldn't interpret someone's medical results, but I think it's not asking too much for us to define an unfamiliar word or two without drawing any conclusions. Gwinva (talk) 05:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The answer given is problematic for (at least) the following reasons.

• It contains at least one apparent factual error (later pointed out by another editor) — 'cancerous' lesions are by definition 'malignant'; they cannot be classified as 'benign'.
• It contains statements of fact that are not directly supported by reference to articles or outside reliable sources: "...certain kinds of cancer (especially breast, lung, prostate, thyroid and kidney)".
• It offers an interpretation – granted, not a particularly helpful one – of the poster's medical results: "soft tissue uptake of the tracer can mean anything, or nothing at all". This sort of diagnosis directly contravenes the guideline on medical advice.

I think that in this case the responder waded in with the best of intentions, but did not generate the best result. While Eventualism is a fine philosophy for Wikipedia articles, it's not a suitable approach to helping people interpret their medical test results.

From a policy standpoint, the decision to reinstate the question and offer a response was out of line. Less than two hours had elapsed since the removal, and there were clear objections raised on this talk page. No consensus had emerged that the removal was inappropriate, and we should err on the side of caution. On the last question seeking medical advice (responsible for another teapot tempest above) a small group of editors were declaring a consensus against the removal a few hours in, where a sizeable majority now support the initial assessment of the question.

At this point, we don't know if the original poster is even still reading responses. Did she just take the first answer and run? In the absolute best of faith, we've given her a mix of useful information, speculation, interpretation, and outright error. We meant well, but we fell short. That is why we have the guideline. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The OP isn't asking for an interpretation of her test results. She just wants definitions of some of the terms in the interpretation. I think we can answer this without reference to her medical condition. So the question is fine. The guidelines provide clear guidance on dealing with inappropriate answers. If you don't like the answer, why would you delete the question? Zain Ebrahim (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The question is asking for definitions—unfortunately for the OP, she provided her reason for asking—so it can be fully answered without providing any advice. I agree with the reinstatement. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

• I also support reinstatement. Milkbreath had performed a careless "throw the baby out with the bathwater" deletion of everything, including the link to the discussion here, so I reverted it. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this question a fair bit, and reading the comments here. Nothing I've seen has persuaded me that this can be answered without violating the guidelines on medical advice. Several editors are of the opinion that the OP is only asking for definitions of a few medical terms. I think this ignores the context. Here is the original question in its entirety:

I blanked out at the doctors and did not understand the bone scan results. Can anyone put in simple terms what osseous stucurs and soft tissue uptake, and osteo blasic lesions mean. The are in my spine. I already had MRI and this was the result of bone scan. results said PET tomogram would be useful.

Very confused

Reading only the second sentence makes this look like a request for definitions of three medical terms. But that ignores the rest of what the OP said: she received the results of a bone scan; she did not understand what her doctor told her; and these three things she is asking about are things she has - things that are affecting her and her health directly. I don't think she is just asking what the definition of "osteo blasic lesions" is. She wants to know what it means to have them in her spine. She is confused about what she has been told. She needs information about diagnosis, prognosis, treatment options.

Context is crucial in answering questions. We routinely ask OPs to provide more context - "What country are you in?" "When did you see that movie?" "What OS are you using?" So why on Earth would we opt to completely ignore the context here, especially when that context makes it clear that we are dealing with a medical question?

Calling this a simple request for definitions would be like responding to "I have a knife sticking out of my chest. What are some ways to stop bleeding?" with a link to Band-aid. - Eron^Talk 23:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it would be like answering "I was recently stabbed and the doctor said the knife just missed the interior venkava, what's that ?", with a link to inferior vena cava. In both cases, the Q can be fully answered without any need to give medical advice, diagnosis, prognosis, etc. StuRat (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Digression to real life

How would a real-life reference desk respond to this (and any other medremoval) question? Having never actually seen a reference desk, let alone asked a medical-related question, I'm curious if they have policies similar to ours. (Anecdotal evidence is acceptable.) – 74  05:39, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

They would be referred to a medical text, such as Gray's Anatomy, and, if the librarian had time, they might find the appropriate pages for the terms in question. StuRat (talk) 05:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

We have all of this information here. No need to refer them to an opaque clinical textbook of mostly non-pathologic anatomy. I'm restoring the question on the grounds that we don't have to give advice to respond (wasn't that suggested as a possible defining characteristic of a question to be removed for medical advice reasons?), and I'm responding to the query as we should: with wikilinks to wikiarticles. – ClockworkSoul 06:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is the edit. I've reinstated the query, and replied appropriately. – ClockworkSoul 06:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think you did a fine job of providing information without giving medical advice. I cringe, however, because I doubt your answer will survive the night. – 74  06:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, 7⁴! Yes, the whole point of the RD is to provide information (without giving medical advice), but I'm afraid that something of a "medical advice" witch hunt may be brewing. It seems like common sense that simply asking whether a post can be responded to without medical advice should be the litmus test for defining medical advice queries. Removing posts should be a last resort (even if we do have a pretty new template). – ClockworkSoul 07:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The pretty new template is actually proposed to be used *instead of* removal for all but the most egregious medical-advice questions. – 74  07:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Librarians and libraries take this sort of thing very seriously, and "proceed with caution" is a significant guideline. These links show some of what the Maine State Library tells its librarians about medical advice: here, here, and here. Some quotes:

• "While all patron questions are important, health related questions can have life or death consequences. And even when the stakes aren't quite that high, helping patrons find information to make sound decisions on health issues can be intimidating."
• "The first and foremost guideline is to inform patrons that you cannot give medical advice. Beyond that, tap into your best reference desk training to conduct a sensitive interview with the patron, locate multiple sources, and identify the authority and credentials of each source--all this without analyzing, interpreting, or advocating for any of the content"
• "Helping library patrons find answers to legal and medical questions can pose challenges beyond just finding answers. Library staff have to balance helping patrons with being careful not to give legal or medical advice. This makes it especially important to be prepared for these types of questions and to provide both staff and patrons with training and tools to help them find, evaluate, and use legal and medical information

It's clear from reviewing these guidelines from a real library staffed with professional reference desk staff that answering medical questions isn't simply a matter of handing over a medical text and maybe - if there's time - helping to look up terms. Librarians are trained in responding to these types of questions, and they still proceed very carefully. Hands up, everyone here who has the "training and tools to help them find, evaluate, and use legal and medical information?" - Eron^Talk 15:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Quite a few people at the Ref Desk have such training. However, even when it is actually medical advice the patron is seeking, they advise to "locate multiple sources, and identify the authority and credentials of each source--all this without analyzing, interpreting, or advocating for any of the content". When it's not medical advice they are seeking, but they merely want definitions of medical terms, as in this case, none of this caution is necessary. StuRat (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh - puh-lease - you know better than that StuRat - I know you do. Please let's not rehash all of these old debates. All you know is that some people here CLAIM to have such training - neither you nor I have any idea whether they are what they claim - or whether they are annoying little school kids who want to sound 'big' by acting professional - or whether they are crazed - but clever - psychopaths with a desire to issue subtly bad medical advice in the hope of doing whatever mischief they get their kicks from...or anything in between. Doubtless some people here do know their stuff - but equally doubtless, others don't. Our OP's (in particular) have no way to know who is genuine and who is not...and neither do we. Anyone who has hung out on Wikipedia for long enough knows full well that there are an enormous number of people on this site who are not what they claim. This is an anonymous site (yes, even if you have an account). We can't know whether the people answering are what they say they are or not. Hence we cannot assume that people here have any appropriate training whatever.

Dude...give it up - we have a solid guideline - you know damned well that Wikipedia rules require you to get a clear consensus to overturn it. You're not going to get a clear consensus because you're in the minority and there are no people left who have not already decided their position in the face of every argument you've put forward over the past year or so. Every time you bring it up - resolve to prevent you changing the way we work here hardens - people are not being convinced by your point of view here. Consensus means that to affect change you have to have near unanimous support for your position - and you're not even close to that. This question is RESOLVED. Please - just find another subject to rant about - this is getting seriously tedious.

You may be right that there may be a small overreaction to medical-ish questions right now - but do you REALLY not understand why that is? Do I have to spell it out for you? Well, perhaps I do - so let me tell you, as honsetly as I can: There is a perception that you (and one or two others) are trying to whittle away at the "No Medical Advice" rule bit by bit - by pushing it into a corner, framing precise 'magic formula' forms of words that would always get around the rules...that kind of tactic. Hence people react by overstepping the other way. The present (slight) overreaction is ENTIRELY 100% your fault. If you would PLEASE just give this up and STFU about medical questions, then I absolutely guarantee that the overreactions were seeing from time to time will go back to normality. But so long as you keep up with these entirely non-subtle insidious tactics - any hope of a return to normality is impossible because those involved know only too well that when one side compromises and the other hasn't given up the struggle - then the whittling away starts all over again from the new compromise position...and ground is given unnecessarily. I'm really getting to old to fall for these kinds of tricks.

Trust me on this one. Just stop posting on this topic and things will get back to normal. Keep this crap going and the position will harden and harden and you'll just get more and more frustrated. Sooner or later (as these things invariably do on Wikipedia) you'll make a booboo - fall foul of some Wikipedia principle and the blocking and grief will begin. So remove the spiderman costume - get off the notable german listed building and let's get back to answering some of the great questions out there.

SteveBaker (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if I'm one of the "one or two others" you are indicting, but quite frankly I find your rant patently offensive. – 74  01:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your concise, point by point rebuttal of my arguments. SteveBaker (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

74: If you've only been editing since this past January as your edit history suggests then no, I don't think that SB is meaning to include you with his "one or two others" comment. -Hydnjo (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I will not be engaged in mudslinging. If you'd like me to take your complaint seriously, try rewriting it in a neutral and npa manner. – 74  01:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

We (the collective majority here) have been doing that continually for at least a year now. The question is answered. The debate is truly over. SteveBaker (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"STFU about medical questions" is hardly the type of statement that invites a discussion. And your "Sooner or later (as these things invariably do on Wikipedia) you'll make a booboo - fall foul of some Wikipedia principle and the blocking and grief will begin" line seems to be saying that Admins on the side of unilateral deletion are just waiting to block me on some pretense. I certainly hope they aren't as petty as you seem to think. You also seem to acknowledge that there have been overzealous deletions recently, yet blame these actions on me, as opposed to those people actually doing the deletions. Don't you think they have any responsibility for their own actions ? StuRat (talk) 05:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest I'm not inviting a discussion - we've had that - over and over and over for the past year or more - what I'm inviting here is that you drop it because it's changed from a reasonable discussion over some area of doubt - to a small minority who have ZERO chance of changing the guideline who simply will not give up on a totally lost cause. It's tedious and unnecessarily contentious that you and a couple of others keep banging on about it. SteveBaker (talk) 21:11, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Systemic Beta Hemolysis Infection

I just wanted to call attention to this question so that the next time somebody says we remove anything remotely medical, well, you get the idea. --Milkbreath (talk) 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

May we have a link ? StuRat (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the link. (However, the way you added it by changing your original post ([24]) makes it look like I was nuts to ask you to add a link.) 17:56, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Right. Sorry, didn't think of that. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As I have been attempting to point out each time (and I'm sure I haven't made it clear enough)... This is easy. That question may be answered completely without diagnosis or treatment suggestions. Therefore, it is not a request for medical advice and should not be removed. I really wish the entire policy on this was reduced to one question: Can the question be answered completely without diagnosis or treatment advice? -- kainaw™ 04:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing this is a medical advice question. Rather Milkbreath was simply using this as an example to show that not all questions related medicine are removed Nil Einne (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant to point out that the example isn't necessary. The rule is very simple, but the arguments rationalize it into a complex mix of opinion and speculation. -- kainaw™ 05:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, what seems simple to one person may be different, or complex, to another. Without Total Enlightenment, it's hard to know who is right. If you didn't want to discuss this, you could have just left it alone. --Scray (talk) 13:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Kainaw's criterion (how cool does that sound?) gives us a structured and nearly-objective test to determine if a question seeks medical advice. If we used this, each thread here would merely discuss whether a question can be fully answered without providing diagnoses/prognoses/treatment suggestions (or without reference to the questioner's medical condition). If the question can't, it should be removed. This is simpler than arbitrarily debating whether an OP wants advice. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2009 (UTC)