The editing controversy and deletion appear to have happened eight to nine years ago when published evidence was scarce. There has been a bevy of published research since then including a JAMA Dermatology article. I have a reference list and will find it.
Wikipedia’s standard is to cite reputable, neutral published sources. We don’t need to worry about personalities involved (although edit wars do happen). We need to write an article grounded in published sources.
That sounds good!
We can also translate the German article, which includes most of the recent findings.
It is extremely important for research and public awareness that we have an article on PFS is translated in every relevant language.
As would attaching Melcangi’s latest paper
I will draft something with citations, possibly this weekend. I’ll probably publish/propose it in Wikipedia-English and then notify you here.
This is a good idea.
Thanks! That is really great.
I will send you the German article https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-Finasterid-Syndrom
translated by deepl
I started drafting the Wikipedia article. Thanks for the assist from @anon5006275 who sent an English translation of the PFS article on German wikipedia.
It may be challenging to get this article published because of the still-controversial nature of PFS; however we are in a much better position now than eight years ago because of a steady stream of articles in reputable journals such as JAMA Dermatology. We can also point to regulatory warnings from countries other than the U.S.
Here’s how the process works:
Here’s Wikipedia’s guide to making a new article:
A key principle of Wikipedia is NPOV, or Neutral Point of View. That means the page must not advocate for PFS; rather it must be a neutral, evidence-based description of PFS. Some research papers do not find evidence for PFS, or question its existence. Those papers will also be cited.
For a sample of a controversial wikipedia entry, see the Talk page for ME/CFS (formerly called Chronic Fatigue Syndrome):
That’s not even the article – that’s discussions of what should be in the article. CFS is a diagnosis that used to be considered spurious/psychological but has gained acceptance as a medical disorder.
Our best shot is if we show that we appreciate Wikipedia’s NPOV principle. We have to make a tight case based on the evidence, and cooperate with the editor community. (They have had problems with editors being combative and unwelcoming to new editors, but this is a known issue that the community has been working on.)
Thanks! Everyone’s entry to a new topic is wikipedia. So what you are doing will have a casscading effect! Thanks!
I spent all day on the article and just submitted it for review by Wikipedia editors. Here’s the message I got:
Review waiting, please be patient.
This may take 4 months or more, since drafts are reviewed in no specific order. There are 3,816 pending submissions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Pending_AfC_submissions
- If the submission is accepted , then this page will be moved into the article space.
- If the submission is declined , then the reason will be posted here.
- In the meantime, you can continue to improve this submission by editing normally.
I remember years ago Wikipedia were a lot more neutral but now they are no better than the fake news media in terms of propaganda.
I am convinced the finasteride editors are being paid by Merck. They have guarded that article with all they got through the years. One of the editors had a review opened against him, not sure for what reason, which found no conflict of interest. But I am sure there are various ways to channel money from pharma to editors - non-profit organizations, consulting fees, marketing contracts, etc.
I am sure that happens for other drugs as well, not just finasteride.
I hold that to be very likely. It would be helpful if we could prove hat. Maybe a good point to start is the researchers who constantly spread misinformation. Paying researchers for misinformation has been done by many industries (cigarettes, meat and diary industry, oil industry and probably the pharmaceutical industry as well).
The good news is that there is now a substantial body of research supporting PFS as a medical issue, including five meta-analyses. Eight years ago, this was not the case.
Any challenge to the article will have a hard time countering articles in journals like JAMA Dermatology and many others.
Just watch. 
You will be shocked how determined these editors are to protect “evidence-based medicine” from “advocacy”. They banned Prof. Belknap, and he was very measured and only used evidence to argue his points.
Thank you for the effort and time!
These paid pharma editors know the inns and outs of Wikipedia like the back of their hand so we have to be on our game to get it published and if it doesn’t go through a strong worded complaint should be put forward with all accumulating evidence to support our claims. I seen the level of commitment the editor here has went too so it wouldn’t get published it’s very suspicious.
Wikipedia most certainly must know that many of its editors are on pharma payroll. Of course the payments must be done indirectly. For example, Merck pays a PR firm that pays a third firm that works with outside contractors.
I don’t think this is illegal so I don’t know how there can be an investigation, but say a journalistic investigation would certainly uncover some bitter truths about our information age and, as always, about our species.
I have learned that a finasteride editor, Formerly98, was banned for lying about a sock puppet account in which he shared the same IP.
Another avid finasteride editor, Jytdog, who controlled the page for many years, was apparently editing 70 hrs per week but said he had a full time job at a biotech company which is clearly impossible if he wanted any sleep. He was eventually banned.
Of course during their productive years, these and other enthusiastic guardians of evidence-based medicine, who were most likely on pharma payroll, no doubt contributed to many hundreds of thousands of people taking finasteride. Of those, many thousands inevitably got PFS and had their lives destroyed.
Pretty impactful for a clean office job, isn’t it?
I personally remember reading the Wikipedia page back in the day when I was doing my research about finasteride. In comparison to it, PropeciaHelp looked positively delusional. No doubt that affected my decision to take the drug.
Well done for doing this!!! Better than the defeatist attitude we get a lot around here. I just roasted Merck on Instagram, they took 2 days to delete it. I’ve already posted it again hahaha. I’ve read heaps of comments slagging them off but they only deleted mine. Must have hit a nerve there 
Everyone should get on and ambush them.
Yes, bunny88, well done as well. I will also write something on their Insta, fb, twitter and their other channels.
We should organise ourselves to do this systematically. I am also thinking if my family and girl friend can write a comment from their perspective. Finasteride not only destroyed us, but took away sons, brothers and boy friends. They can tell from their perspective what changes they saw and what burden this means for whole families…
Wikipedia has had a policy about paid editors since 2015: they must disclose that they are paid:
Very interesting. If we could find out who got paid by who this would make a good article or docu