User talk:Doc James/Archive 80

update or omit

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WMMED/Reports

I would either update these pages or omit them from the WPMF meta page. Lucas559 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lucas559 Yes work in progress. Agree needs updating. You can begin adding notes there if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Building capacity

[2] I'm quite serious here. I understand that you'd like a fast solution to what you perceive as a major problem. But we really are having a problem finding people who are willing to put themselves in the way of the abuse that comes with the CU and OS bits (it's not uncommon for us to be seriously harassed), and are qualified, and actually do the work; two out of three isn't good enough or they're not going to be effective in the job. And they have to be administrators; the checkuser tool is worse than useless without the ability to block. Given your previous history of getting the medical translation project off the ground, you may very well be one of the small group of people who could bring some change to the moribund RFA area. The more administrators there are, the more likely that there will be a sufficient pool of talent interested and willing to develop the skills to identify and act against conflict of interest editing. In a lot of cases it doesn't need checkuser, anyway, it just needs a block button. And keep in mind that there are a lot of people who are indeed editing in good faith but whose CU results could be misinterpreted to suggest that they're gaining some benefit. I seem to remember a bunch of medical students from New York City once who found themselves blocked for adding links to excellent patient-centered information about common diseases. Risker (talk) 04:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Risker, I realize that their is no "fast solution". And see this as just one potential part of a broader effort to address this issue. Yes agree that we need more admins who are willing to spend time chipping away at backlogs. Those who take a lead on the issue of undisclosed paid editing need to still AGF so that cases such as the students from NYC does not occur. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) what happened with the students? Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Risker were these the Mount Sinai students? Can you provide some links to the issues so that we can take a look at them? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MERS Article

Hi! Sorry to disturb.

I'm not sure whether the current "listing format" of the diagnosis section on the MERS page is appropriate. Maybe, it'll be better in paragraph form?

Moreover, I'm not quite sure about the function of the history section, which as I remember is (in fact the "epidemiology" section) for diseases that were eradicated (like smallpox). The one there on the MERS page looks like a news outline but is it really necessary?

Thanks! ^{In dialogue with} Biomedicinal 15:32, 10 June 2015‎

User:Biomedicinal thanks for the note. Agree prose may be better. And agree the history section does not really contain history and should be merged with epidemiology or other sections. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:42, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nuklear

hi would you please block 80.42.22.237 as a sock of Nuklear. Edit warring at Loxtidine. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:21, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Vitamin D: society & culture?

Doc -- your revert seems overly strict to what is only a MEDMOS suggestion; as the example shows, it's a tangent to the information under such a section title. The alternate title of "Recommended intake levels and health claims" is common parlance in regulatory guidelines and food labeling, and is likely more readily interpreted by common encyclopedia users.--Zefr (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Recommended intake levels and health claims" is already present as subheadings. Repeating it twice is not needed IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Guidelines"? This would refer to intake recommendations, labeling statements on food packages, and potential health effects. "Society and culture" just is out of place on this page. --Zefr (talk) 21:05, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure would be happy with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

Dear Doc James, Thank you for your advice. I'm am new to wiki and have concentrated primarily on publication of peer-reviewed journal articles during my career. I would take kind exception to your suggestion that historical and classic references lack merit. If we had to repeat studies, simply because they were older than five years, scientific advancements would grind to a rapid halt. Also accurate citations for the sake of historical primacy are important. I hope my latest additions to this section may meet with your approval. Kind regards, Dr. UVB — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr UVB (talk • contribs) 23:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dr UVB Review articles take into account past references. Thus using review articles does not require the repetition of prior studies they simply put them in context with the totality of the literature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved it to the talk page so that we can discuss Talk:Vitamin_D#Vitamin_D_and_Cancer Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive trim leaving potentially wrong statement or at least unsourced statement behind

Hello Doc, I'd wish to note that https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anxiety_disorder&diff=660555781&oldid=660555399 is such an excessive trim that it leaves the statement completely unsourced, and potentially also wanting. I'm not a specialist when it comes to healthcare (know a bit but I'm far from a specialist), but when someone referred me to the page I noted it has some flaws due to this. Can you please take a look again at it and where applicable restore the source-link as well other text if needed?
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MicBenSte (talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a number of low quality sources have been added lately. Added a better ref. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 10 June 2015

News and notes: Chapter financial trends analyzed, news in brief

Traffic report: Two households, both alike in dignity

In the media: Arbitration case attracts media coverage; Wikipedia in Israel

Featured content: Just the bear facts, ma'am

Technology report: Wikimedia sites are going HTTPS only

Blog: Making Wikipedia’s medical articles accessible in Chinese

Biographies

Hi Doc James,

Are biographies relevant to Wikiproject Med? Here's a BLP of Alan Coates I have been working on with User: Wittylama. Just launched. Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not my area of interest. I typically stick we disease and medication related content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:55, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rabies

Thanks for catching that bit of vandalism and restoring the last good version. I hadn't noticed! -Pax85 (talk) 15:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I am seeing a fair bit of two different account vandalising one right after the other. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Project Med Foundation

"Wiki Project Med Foundation ... is an incorporated NGO in the state of NY"... Why haven't I found any information regarding this?96.52.0.249 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean other than [3]?

If you want another link there is this one [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:38, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[5] is a wiki. Is there not a page that lists [Wiki Project Med] reliably?96.52.0.249 (talk) 04:55, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for verification that the corporation exists, what is wrong with [6]?

There is also [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You could use [8] as a source to indicate you are the president, though something from [9] diffwise would be definitive.96.52.0.249 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe [10]. The organization is clearly convoluted.96.52.0.249 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is indecipherable as it stands. Nothing cited supports a conclusion that the "organization... [itself] is convoluted" or that the organization of the WPMF is convoluted, with convoluted defined, as is common, as "extremely complex and difficult to follow". Would this editor please re-state his his/her point? Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP should take their complaints to the article talk page. Making this fuss at an editor's talk and at BLPN is not warranted for something that is verifiable, uncontentious, and known to be correct. Johnuniq (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect by an outsider of a discussion already engaged in by the Talk page "owner" is unhelpful. This IP editor, whose aims are admittedly unclear, is nevertheless an editor allowed to edit at Wikipedia, and not a perfunctory pejorative for editing from IP. That IP editor, and all of us, should be allowed to count on the owner of the Talk page to determine which discussions he wishes to engage. Otherwise, the BLPN reference, sans link, is useless in argument. Another (registered user's) view. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 00:03, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

page Osteoporosis, which have been reverted

I've now had to correct the article TWICE :( Please leave it alone. Mike. [Editing from IP 88.144.66.66]

Ref does mention chronic pain. Stating pain is close enough I guess. There was no justification in the edit summary for the change. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, User:Ian Lancaster has come on and reverted this again. No opinion on the matter, just FYI, except perhaps that both acute and chronic is likely most accurate, generally (given for some, immediately experienced post-op pain does not become chronic). Cheers, Le Prof. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic pain makes more sense in the context of osteoporosis, since pain normally accompanies any fracture regardless of osteoporotic nature. Without a justification the change seems superfluous. Ian (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that chronic pain is better than simply pain. Agree all fractures are painful. But the sentence is looking at the longer period. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your most recent response plus....

Ok, thank you for responding to my questions at Kombucha and particularly for responding with the following diff: [11]

It appears that by your inclusion of my arguments in your reply (which only show in the diff, not in your reply on the TP) you are validating (agreeing with) my arguments despite the criticisms and/or incivility toward me by certain editors during the debate?

How were you able to harvest my prior comments in that same diff? I never knew we had such a feature where we could harvest prior posts in a discussion and include them in a diff without inclusion in the reply itself. Is it an admin thing? ^{added strike 16:13, 17 June 2015 (UTC)}
Re: RCT - I was under the impression that inherent beneficial properties and the mechanisms that cause a particular action in natural products (such as the inherent properites in a coffee bean, cauliflower, fruit, etc.), or that included essential nutrients, vitamins and minerals a body needs to function properly, or that were actually created by a natural process - (grape to raisen) - did not require RCT. The grape has x properties, and when it ripens into a raisen it has x properties plus or minus (or whatever). If research uncovers beneficial properties in a natural product that are known to be beneficial, and/or discovers other beneficial properties after it has undergone a natural change is it not a given that they have x, y, or z properties which are known to function in a positive way and play a positive role in our health? Why would it need RCT?
Were there RCTs that determined not all wild mushrooms are safe to eat, or that blueberries are good for you? :-)

Please don't mistake my curiosity and desire to learn new things as anything but what it is. When I do learn something it is learned well because I ask questions from different angles (the writer in me). When an editor I respect and admire responds to my questions, especially someone with authority, I trust that it's factual information until proven otherwise. Therefore when you responded to me at Proj Med, I felt confident in quoting your response. When you responded to my ping and started editing Kombucha, you turned the article in a slightly different direction by restoring some of the scientifically unsupported information I had removed. Removal of passages with inline quotes that were sourced to RS 2014 reviews, and replacing them with 15 year old reviews that do not include the most recent scientific research that discloses inherent properties of the product and/or process quite understandably confused me. What it appears you did was replace material that was supported scientifically per #3 above with older material that was unsupported and did not include recent research. How does that make sense?

One last thing I'd like to share. While it may not have been your intention, your actions appear to have emboldened certain editors who have repeatedly shown ill-will toward me. It felt like I had walked into the middle of a swarming beehive, and that isn't how it's supposed to feel when GF collaboration is involved. As an admin, shouldn't you have commented on the PAs and incivility? When left unchecked, it's the kind of behavior that elevates into hounding and harassment. Take a look at the discussion on my TP after I reverted the edits of one editor who reverted my edits, then he reverted me again. I also blanked two edit warring notices that were also unwarranted threats against me by another editor I politely reminded about edit warring first. While it appears as a simple notice, the truth of the matter is that they were unwarranted which makes them a threat, especially by an editor who simply showed up at the article, never joined in the TP discussions, and started reverting and hacking away at the article. I normally don't edit articles like Kombucha, but the behavior at such articles raises a lot of behavioral questions.

As a copy-editor/reviewer/rollbacker and most recently a volunteer at DRN, I may end up at an article about natural products or altmed, etc. I am quite capable of and prefer polite, intelligent discourse but when the discussion turns condescending toward me, or worse, uncivil as it did at Kombucha (by some of the same editors who were aggressive and/or uncivil toward me during the MfDs of my essay and also at Griffin) it requires intervention. Why are such behaviors by offending editors allowed to elevate, and then when the attacked editor puts up a defense, they are criticized and sometimes boomeranged? It's insanity. Doc, I'm weary of the unwarranted PAs and contentious labels - like being referred to as an anti-science advocate and other BS comments of ill-will designed to persuade public opinion against me. It is quite hurtful and certainly not helpful to the project. The PAs and beehive behavior are one of the reasons we are losing editors by the score. As I'm sure you are aware, we have several editors whose behavior is very disruptive and uncivil - baiters and hounders - they seem to forget there is a living breathing person on the other end of the discussion when they make hurtful comments. I hope you will be one of the administrators who can help eliminate those issues and make WP a happy place once again. Atsme^📞📧 14:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)Doc did not "include" your comments in his reply; the diff is misleading (maybe because of the use of VisualEditor or something which has oddly replaced many spaces with non-breaking spaces). Trust the Talk Page, not the diff. Alexbrn (talk) 15:54, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) With respect to natural products and RCT... It is not a given that if something contains certain properties, those properties will have an effect when the thing is consumed. In other words, even if we know that a product contains beneficial things x, y, and z, we cannot then conclude that consuming or using the product will result in the benefits of x, y, and z. It may be that the properties are not always beneficial (like vitamin e increasing lung cancer risk among smokers, or grapefruit juice reducing drug effect), or the bioavailability in the product is low (like iron in spinach), or that preparation affects the property (as when vegetables are pickled), or any one of a number of other situations. That's why an RCT is needed: it determines whether something that contains beneficial components actually has those beneficial effects. Ca2james (talk) 16:53, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's true, we can't throw in information about the properties of Kombucha and make conclusions that aren't made in RS. Luckily I finally found a (Redacted) [12] for this, and many other questions we've had (what is the history of the drink, for instance). petrarchan47 คุ ก 01:00, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have two separate issues:

For benefits one needs an RCT due to the placebo effect. Thus to show that X decreases Y it needs to be studied in a blinded fashion.
Toxicity often cannot be studied in that manner. Thus based on the precautionary principle we allow discussions of concerns with less than RCTs (this is common in all of medicine). One cannot study stuff looking for harm in pregnant human females in RCTs, one however can study benefits of stuff in RCTs in pregnant women -> one needs to have a good probability of benefit before the study will be allowed, thus DDT has been studied in pregnant people because malaria is bad.

User:Petrarchan47 is that study pubmed indexed? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The review is from 2000 and does not apear on PUBMED (and so isn't MEDLINE indexed either). I fixed the copyright infringement. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you all can help me, I just joined Project Medicine recently. I am not sure why you ask about the indexing. I'm simply trying to work on an article, and finding it impossible. All of my work was reverted last night, when it seems my citation could have simply been corrected so that there was no copyright violation. In this revert Alex erased all of my work. As you see, I had added a brief introduction to the idea of adverse effects. As it read previously, and now again, we jump straight into "adverse effects" without even introducing the subject. I was trying to help with the flow for the reader, and "rare" is what the article used to say about adverse effects when I first found the page, and it is included in the source I cited. I also added the fact that no causal mechanism for these negative effects has been elucidated - a fact cited in my source and in many others already in use. He also said something about "rubbish" related to antioxidants. That claim is well cited, and I didn't even add it. I just moved it from the bottom of the article where it seems tacked on, and where in his revert, it sits once again. Friends, that work took me almost two hours last night and now it is gone for no reason. I used to enjoy working on articles. But if I stumble upon certain areas of this encyclopedia, editing becomes more like a sword fight than collaboration. Gandydancer makes a similar remark on the Kombucha talk page. I'm not here to to fight - I am here to help improve the articles and make them more readable and informative. Can't we all just get along? I cannot accept that there are certain areas of the Pedia that belong to a specialized project or people high up within it, so specialized at normal editors can't contribute or feel welcome. petrarchan47 คุ ก 21:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To make health claims one needs high quality sources that comment on human trials.

"antioxidant properties" are not health effects but chemical properties. "Functional food" is not a health effect either but a social / cultural thing.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm appreciative of your response, however it doesn't apply to any of my comments or work. I did not add the antioxidant or functional food bit, I simply moved it from the bottom of the article. In Alex's revert of my work, he moved it back to the bottom but didn't remove it. petrarchan47 คุ ก 21:20, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is in the "chemical and biological properties" section. I do not see the issue with that? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: reliability of the source in Petrarchan's post, please see [13]. Appears to be a Canadian Journal, hope that's ok? Also, it appears to me that it would indeed require high quality sources if comments on health claims are to be made in Wiki voice. That isn't the case with kombucha which is a commerically produced beverage that is being sold to the public. According to RS(Med) it is perfectly acceptable to include mention of research as long as it is identified as such and sourced to RS such as the conclusions of journal reviews. Using inline text attribution when quoting an expert is also acceptable so I don't understand what the fuss is all about. We are not writing a medical journal - it's an encyclopedia for laypersons. It appears to me that the requirements you are placing on us for including general knowledge information is even more stringent than what is required for information included in peer reviewed journals, and I have an issue with that, Doc. We need to be more grounded. Atsme^📞📧 21:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly grounded. You want to make health claims, you need human RCTs. This applies to health products as it applies to medications. Yes we have high standards for Wikipedia. This is one of the reasons why people often trust us.

What appeared to be happening on that page was mis emphasizing the conclusions of the sources. The article is much better / more balanced now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are perfectly an expert, no question about that, and it is quite an honor for me to be involved in discourse with you - and I say that with the utmost sincerity - but that isn't the issue. The issue is being able to separate oneself from biases we naturally acquire as experts and it really doesn't matter what area of expertise is involved. Editors are not making health claims - that would be OR. They are writing passages based on RS per our PAGs and quoting using inline text attribution. UNDUE is when claims that are scientifically unsupported take center stage, such as with the toxicity and death claims which have no scientific basis whatsoever and are considered anecdotal per MEDRS. The potential health benefits however are supported by science but not RCT. PAGs say we can include that information as long as we properly identify it as such and don't state it in Wiki voice. Look back at all the medical articles you've written that include research. The only unduly emphasizing I have seen were the claims of toxicity which you have corrected, although I haven't been back to the article to see the changes since this morning. I thank you for your collaboration in helping us get these issues resolved. However, I am not convinced that the suppression of valid research stated in the conclusions of two 2014 journal reviews which indicate antioxidant and probiotic benefits is warranted. As long as the passages identify it as not confirmed in RCT, such information is compliant as it is scientifically supported by the research. Exclusion of that information is noncompliant with NPOV. Atsme^📞📧 22:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We mention that it is an antioxidant in the chemical properties section. Where that is a "benefit" or "harm" is another matter which requires an RCT to show. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Indexes" in the navigation boxes for medical / anatomical articles

Hi James, hope that you're well. I'm writing about the ongoing discussion about whether to delete an index box (and by proxy all the index boxes) that you've contributed to, here Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_June_7#Template:Infestation_navs. As you've contributed I hope other users do not consider this canvassing. I see these boxes as very useful for readers to navigate around Wikipedia, because it is very useful to have a way to link to all the different articles relating to a topic. I do also not consider these that difficult to use, as I think after one or two uses readers understand that "Index" links to templates whereas the templates themselves link to articles.

On the other hand, I recognise I may be biased in thinking that they are useful, as I am one of the main players in redesigning the set. So I'd like to ask you, are these useful? As you've interacted with many users physically and online you might also have a better understanding as to whether these are confusing / useful. If they are indeed useful, then I may consider pushing harder to retain what I think is a very useful and unique navigational tool. If they are only moderately useful, then I will consider compromising and pointing all links in the templates to an "Index of" article filled with templates, although this is a labor-intensive task with little benefit (in my eyes). Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Navboxes are generally useful. It is one of the ways I find articles within a topic area that need work.

I guess the question is should one just have some place within the heading of the sub navbox to click to go up to the navbox of navboxes. Rather than having the navbox of navboxes within the sub navbox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Heading

Copyright Violation Detection - EranBot Project

A new copy-paste detection bot is now in general use on English Wikipedia. Come check it out at the EranBot reporting page. This bot utilizes the Turnitin software (ithenticate), unlike User:CorenSearchBot that relies on a web search API from Yahoo. It checks individual edits rather than just new articles. Please take 15 seconds to visit the EranBot reporting page and check a few of the flagged concerns. Comments welcome regarding potential improvements.

->-> Comments. Should it be signed by me (a particular Wikipedian, personal touch) or something from a Wikiproject level (more professional perhaps)?

User:Lucas559 typically one signs templates when they use them. Also important to use {{subst:eranbotproject}} or else it gets confusing. Have adjusted the wording slightly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

hi

DocJames I could be mistaken but did you just revert me at the talk page? [14]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:47, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hum User:Ozzie10aaaa not sure what happened. What I wrote never appeared and instead I reverted you. Strange indeed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the labs problem is "all over the place", (BTW do you think the barium swallow in question would have been good for the article mention?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes would be good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Acid reflux

Hi Doc. First I want to congratulate you on your well-deserved election to the WMF board, and hope you find serving to be a rewarding experience.

Now, my issue. I'm not active editing the medical-related articles, so thought I'd start here. Acid reflux redirects to gastroesophageal reflux disease, but hiatus hernia § Signs and symptoms says, "while there are several causes of acid reflux, it does happen more frequently in the presence of hiatal hernia." Isn't "acid reflux" just a symptom, and isn't it presumptuous to redirect that to GERD, implying that everyone with the symptom (even if only mild or occasional) already has the disease. Seems they might just have a hiatal hernia, and not GERD. Perhaps acid reflux could be a broad topic disambiguation which lists the several causes of acid reflux, with links to articles about each of them, and also links to each of the diseases which may be caused by acid reflux, including GERD. As to causes, I found a talk page comment that frequently eating overly large portions of food (which seem to be normal in US restaurants) seems a likely one to me. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just found what seems a good article on the topic by Weil. This shouldn't just be a redirect. Wbm1058 (talk) 10:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A hiatus hernia is a risk factor for GERD. NIH has a good overview [15]

Agree we could have a page on gastroesophageal reflux (GER). The NIH deals with GER and GERD on the same page though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:50, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Doc! I wasn't aware that GER was the medical term for that, and that NIH overview of the distinction is great. If we're going to cover both in the same article, ours should be more like that one. Our single article has too much "D" and not enough GER... I only see the term "gastroesophageal reflux" appearing once in that article without "disease" following it, and that doesn't make clear that prolonged GER leads to GERD. Wbm1058 (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to see a GER article if you want to create one. Otherwise adding greater discussion of GER to GERD article is an excellent idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Who can get me review articles that are not free? I see such good ones and can't access them. I applied for a Cochran account but when I sign in they still want me to pay them.

Bfpage |leave a message 15:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ocaasi can help with that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 17 June 2015

In the media: Wikipedia wins Asturias Prize; printing out Wikipedia; HTTPS switch

Arbitration report: An election has consequences

In focus: Three weeks to save freedom of panorama in Europe

Op-ed: Making a difference in Wikipedia, one GA at a time

Technology report: HTTPS-only rollout completed; proposal to enable VisualEditor for new accounts

Interview: A veteran’s Wikipedia edits help him understand the brutality behind Yugoslavia’s wars

News and notes: Labs outage kills tools, self; news in brief

Featured content: Great Dane hits 150

Discussion report: A quick way of becoming an admin

WikiProject report: Western Australia speaks – we are back

Deletion of primary 2003 reference in the aortic stenosis page

Hi Doc James,

I noticed that you deleted my reference to the aortic stenosis article, stating that a primary citation is not required when the section is supported by a review. I am confused about how that conforms to the citation guidelines you posted to my talk page yesterday, particularly number 7: 'Every sentence can be referenced. We reference more densely than other sources.'.

In particular in this case I feel that the reference is justified precisely because the whole section is supported solely by a review. Wikipedia articles are themselves a form of review, and published peer-reviewed reviews still have flaws. I personally always want to know the primary source of important claims. In this case, the claim of interest is that male sex is associated with aortic stenosis. This may be well known in the medical community, but it is not well-known in the lay community, and it refers to a hot-button political and personal rights issue. For that reason, I feel that a reference to the primary journal article, which published that association and demonstrated significance at a p-value below 0.001, should be included here.

I am new to the Medicine WikiProject, so perhaps I misunderstand the policy on citation, so please let me know your thoughts on this topic, as I would like to reinstate the reference that you removed.

Thank you,

Michael Dacre (talk) 02:02, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:MikeDacre it is supported by this review [16] which is free access

When you open the review it gives two primary sources to support the fact it is more common in males.

We often just stick with high quality reviews and people who wish to find the primary sources can do so via the reviews or simply a pubmed search.

While we reference more densely more than one high quality secondary source is typically not needed. And adding primary sources to the secondary ones is not usual practice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification User:Doc James. That seems like a reasonable policy and I will attempt to stick with it in the future. Thanks for the help, and feel free to delete this section whenever you feel it appropriate.

Michael Dacre (talk - contribs - email) 05:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

request

hi, im requesting the talk page be moved from 8 days [17]back to 14 days (or 12) as it gives editors more time to comment, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ozzie10aaaa It was getting a little long. How about 10 days? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ok, 10 days sounds good, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Who would be interested in

a group of articles related to one company that appear promotional? See Robinson Fresh recently created. Doug Weller (talk) 20:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They need work. I've made a few very minor fixes. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i've reached out to the editor. i'll start there and move to the articles later - not good to bring up COI and get into content at the same time. If anybody wants to clean up the articles now, i am fine with that - i just shouldn't do it yet, to keep the conversation clean. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes appears to be an undisclosed paid editor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An important issue for possible collaboration

Doc, @Jytdog:, @BullRangifer:, et al. I have had increasing concern as I have been reading (attempting to assign as reading) various articles on classes of natural products with pharmacologic activity. The issue I have seen repeatedly—besides broad general disregard in plant and other natural product articles, for sourcing statements, at all—is a tendency, in that context, to include information that could only be considered dosing information. This is particularly egregious in cases where the natural agents are poisonous (e.g., cerberin, a digitoxigenin-type cardiac glycoside) or are psychoactive, with potential interest with regard to recreational use (e.g., ketamine).

Is there a general, permanent medical tag to warn readers that medical articles appearing in wikipedia are never to be used as sources of medical decision making, including with regard to dosing? If not, would you guys be interested in helping me craft one, and taking it forward, so safety of readers moves more to the fore in such articles as described? Otherwise, who has time and attention to ensure that particular articles do not drift in the direction of becoming erowid- or suicidemethods-like?

Respondez, s'il vous plait, ici (here). Merci. Le Prof. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Per the WP:MOS we do not typically allow dosing details. Toxicity is slightly different though.

Can you provide examples of the concerns you have? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Am aware of WP:MOS, but because I remove dosing/numerical data construable as suggestive of amounts needed to achieve particular dissociate states, whenever I see it, I cannot give you more than the two cleaned up examples above, where you will have to look at old versions of articles. Ketamine was particularly bad, and another was the related K-hole article, see here [18], where I removed an IM dose value to achieve this condition.

Bottom line, though—and I'm aware of the kerfuffle that arose at WP over labeling content as potentially offensive, years ago—if we can tag an article that is in poor condition with regard to sourcing, etc., it seems we should be able to put a more permanent label on articles such as ketamine, saying that medical articles appearing in wikipedia are never to be used as sources of medical decision making, including with regard to self-administration. Thanks for the reply. This is important. Let's take the discussion slow, and involve others (and move it somewhere else to save you space). Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I remove dosing info when I see it as well. We have a warning but it is not that prominent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email)

For a start, can you post the link that warning? Thanks. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 19:39, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding a medical disclaimer, I have attempted to get that idea accepted, and it was roundly rejected, as others think the standard disclaimer link at the bottom of every page is enough. It might be good enough in a legal sense, but I still don't think that's good enough as a service to readers of medical articles. I favor a visible medical warning/disclaimer box which isn't just a small link at the bottom. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to support you in a new round, Bull. Can you dig up what you brought forward before? So we do not start from scratch on a text? Thanks. Doc, feel free to move this discussion. Cheers. LeP 71.201.62.200 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of bad content out there on the net and basically none of it has clearer warning than us. People want information not warnings thus I am not a big fan of big warning banners at the top of all pages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On the need for tags/warnings, in general, we can agree to disagree. But on the matter of protecting the lives of readers, I ask that we resurrect this discussion, if not here, somewhere. The facts that [1] the best places have the disclaimers much clearer (e.g. Mayo, Harvard Med, Cleveland, UChicago, etc.), and [2] that other disreputable sites do not have them more clearly than us, is an argument in favour of something appearing, with some prominence, especially since the traffic that other venues pales in comparison to the traffic WP receives, generally. With visibility and imputed trust, comes responsibility. Cheers. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any prominent warning here at Mayo Same for Harvard

WebMD which has similar traffic to us is about the same [19] So goes with the NIH Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think I'd have to argue this clear, business liability-associated point, but see here [20], and here [21], and here [22], and here [23] for the "long-form" of the sort of things I am talking about, needing to appear in short form, with prominence, at WP. Those sites may not be fully consistent—certainly not in presenting disclaimers when discussing some disease states, but they are, moreso, in presenting drug info and medical decision support (emergency med, etc.). Bottom, they, as corporate entities, are legally very careful where information might be suggested as a course of medical decision-making.

Even so, all of this is missing the forest for the proverbial trees. Theirs are controlled sites, and, even so, they have clear disclaimers abounding; versus our uncontrolled context, where misinformation and dosing is likely to creep in and cause harm before we can do something about it, and we lack any such thing. There may be no evidence that the two Belgian young people, vegans, that lunched on oleander in the forest and perished for doing so,^[1] went to wikipedia to learn about the plants they would forage upon, but it is not inconceivable that people would do so, broadly.

^ Papi L., Luciani A.B., Forni D. & Giusiani M., 2012, "Unexpected double lethal oleander poisoning," Am. J. Forensic Med. Pathol. 33(1):93-7, DOI 10.1097/PAF.0b013e31822d33d4, see [1], accessed 22 June 2015.

And for that reason we have a responsibility to do what we can to protect them—removing dosing, removing extrapolations from compound classes to specific compounds for which there is no data, suggesting particular recreation effects for particular doses or preparations, making toxicologic information more prominent (i.e., making it appear before experiential, food, or recreational claims), and making warning language clear where a warning is due. In my view, as a widely consulted first source, Wikipedia needs to make clear, somehow, that self-experimentation is potentially dangerous.

A simple disclaimer would be consistent with these concerns. LeP 71.201.62.200 (talk) 20:35, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are here are our disclaimers [24] and specifically for medicine [25] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:06, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these Doc. Now, why cannot this medical disclaimer be the first thing a person sees, above particular articles? (Even if only a collapsed banner?) @BullRangifer:, what do you think? WOuld this accomplish what you earlier set out to do? And could you send us a link to the earlier effort not this? Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 05:05, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a look here

For context on the specialist sophistication of a particular active editor, you may wish to look here [26] and here [27]. Cheers, no reply necessary, delete as you wish. Le Prof 71.201.62.200 (talk) 20:08, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you review, for your own edification? Feel free to delete. Point is not to cause trouble, but that you have complete information on collaborations you develop. Cheers. 71.201.62.200 (talk) 05:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry not sure what you mean. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OAB - newbie edit

Thanks, will look up a number of references and get back. As Captain Oates said, I may be some time........... Ficklefulcrum (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:Ficklefulcrum Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

advise

Special:Contributions/109.155.60.103 I know your busy but that IP [28]keeps "bugging",(on my talk page) what should I do?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have made it clear you do not want their comments on your talk page. They should now stop so problem should be solved. If they continue let me know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:08, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RB

Hi James, I am the global digital manager for RB who own Gaviscon, Nurofen and Strepsils. We are creating a base for the brands and the science/history behind them - we are taking information from our own websites and resources we have created so we are not infringing any copyright issues. Please do not remove the pages while we are developing them as we are continually adding and editing them to ensure the best information is available. User:MandeepThandi

Dear MandeepThandi. You and your company appear not to have read our guidelines regarding WP:COI. Additionally you have not followed the requirements to release you content under an open license as explained on your user page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 23 June 2015 (UTC)me[reply]

List of emergency medicine topics renamed to Outline of emergency medicine (eom)

Outline of emergency medicine undergoing major expansion

Dear James,

I've been working on Wikipedia's topical guide to and overview of emergency medicine.

It has been renamed and reformatted into a Wikipedia outline, and added to the outline subsystem of Wikipedia's content navigation system.

So far, in addition to the above, I've:

stripped the column formatting to make way for the addition of descriptive annotations to aid in topic selection
integrated the content from the Emergency medicine footer template into the body of the outline
restructured the tree (order and subclassifications) to clarify familial (parent/offspring) relationships among the topics
adjusted the context of headings to clarify the relation of sections to the overall subject and reduce ambiguity
added some missing headings and links

I hope the outline is improving to your satisfaction. I will continue working on it as time allows.

Please take a look and make any corrections or modifications you wish.

If you have any questions, comments, or suggestions, please feel free to share them with me.

Thank you for all you've done in improving Wikipedia's medical coverage.

I'll see you around the encyclopedia!

Sincerely, The Transhumanist 20:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Adjusted a few things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New editor – should we help them or chase them away?

Hi again, I'd like to bring your attention to a new content contributor. Take a quick glance at User talk:Ghazal ghochani. I'm surprised, but glad, to see that they haven't given up yet. I noticed them when Vitamin D and cardiovascular disease popped up in a category I patrol. Someone added the {{cleanup}} template, without saying what needed to be cleaned up, which generates an {{error}} transclusion. I think they just need some help in learning how to properly integrate new content into the encyclopedia. Assuming that their sources accurately support the content they're adding. Wbm1058 (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC) And they aren't making copyright violations. Wbm1058 (talk) 07:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are terrible. Is this somebody dumping student work onto WP or something? "chase away" would be a good choice from what I'm seeing. Alexbrn (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That article is copied and pasted from here mostly. Will delete and block the user in question until we can get some clarification of what is going on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way User:Wbm1058 we have a copy and paste detection bot that flags concern here [29]. A background on the bot is at WP:Turnitin. Would love help in following up issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, now I recall that I even commented in the request for approval. Now I see that there is now a general queue in addition to the medical queue at User:EranBot/Copyright. Did Turnitin's bot flag Vitamin D and cardiovascular disease? Sigh, so may work queues, so few dedicated volunteers. At some point if the WMF is serious about this, they may need to start offering editors some modest financial incentives or rewards for helping with the queues that so few want to work in. I'll look at the current list and help a bit. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The bot was down for a few days because of the labs crash. What we need first is the WMF to help develop this tools so that they work faster/better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:00, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, Alexbrn. Right on. Trying to get these types of editors to improve is a pain. Furthermore, WP:Student editors most often stop editing Wikipedia for good after they've created their content (content that most often needs cleanup or deletion). Flyer22 (talk) 12:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Unfortunately getting them to use Visual Editor isn't likely to do anything to address this issue either. Wbm1058 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 June 2015

From the editor: The Signpost tagging initiative

Op-ed: Content Translation beta is coming to the English Wikipedia

Special report: Small impact of the large Google Translation Project on Telugu Wikipedia

Featured content: One eye when begun, two when it's done

Recent research: How Wikipedia built governance capability; readability of plastic surgery articles

Technology report: 2015 MediaWiki architecture focus and Multimedia roadmap announced

News and notes: Board of Trustees propose bylaw amendments

In the media: Turkish Wikipedia censorship; "Can Wikipedia survive?"; PR editing

Blog: 7,473 volumes at 700 pages each: meet Print Wikipedia

Arbitration report: Politics by other means: The American politics 2 arbitration

Ovarian cyst is in bad shape

Hi Doc James. Next time you are looking for a new project, please consider re-writing Ovarian cyst, which is in pretty sad shape and needs a professional touch. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey User:Diannaa Have worked on the lead of Polycystic ovary syndrome (our 84th most read medical article)[30] Ovarian cyst is also very highly read so will see what I can do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc. Regards, -- Diannaa (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the lead and a bit of the body of the article. User:Diannaa let me know what you think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Much better already. I have done a bit of copy editing and linking. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Translation

I have translated one med article into Haitian Creole and I am working on two more. I went to the 'spreadsheet' just now and saw that you were working on it. I wanted to document my progress. I am not working through translatewiki.net. So you aren't going to get any feedback from them about translating medical articles that I have done. So far I've only seen one med article translated by them. Just letting you know. I'll drop you a note now and then. The only med article that I translated and is complete on ht:wikipedya is Abcess.

Bfpage |leave a message 22:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. That content is translated is the most important thing. How it is done specifically is not to big of a deal. I see you have updated the table so thank you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Papi L., Luciani A.B., Forni D. & Giusiani M., 2012, "Unexpected double lethal oleander poisoning," Am. J. Forensic Med. Pathol. 33(1):93-7, DOI 10.1097/PAF.0b013e31822d33d4, see [1], accessed 22 June 2015.

[1]