Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 100

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 95←Archive 98Archive 99Archive 100Archive 101Archive 102→Archive 105

Detailed presentation of clinical effects of a drug

What are folks thoughts about this kind of detailed presentation of Trifluoperazine#Effects? (copied below).

Effects
Trifluoperazine versus placebo for schizophrenia[1]
Summary
Trifluoperazine is an effective antipsychotic for people with schizophrenia but it increases the risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects.[1]

References

  1. ^ a b Koch, K; Mansi, K; Haynes, E (2014). "Trifluoperazine versus placebo for schizophrenia". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1 (1): CD010226.pub2. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010226.pub2. PMC 6718209. PMID 24414883.

I have seen this kind of thing with regard to receptor binding affinity but have never seen this before, that I recall. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

The Cochrane folks seem to be doing this. Lena08041993 would you please explain the plan here? thx Jytdog (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Look useful on the page about the medication in question. Might be useful to abbreviate it further and remove some bold as:


Trifluoperazine is an effective antipsychotic for people with schizophrenia but it increases the risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects.[1]

References

  1. ^ Koch, K; Mansi, K; Haynes, E (2014). "Trifluoperazine versus placebo for schizophrenia". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1 (1): CD010226.pub2. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010226.pub2. PMC 6718209. PMID 24414883.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I am pretty opposed to this. This gives a tremendous amount of WEIGHT to Cochrane content, which as I have noted several times here is too often driven by some ax the authors of specific publications are grinding, and is being added by people affiliated with Cochrane. This is GLAMish activity gone awry, in my view. Jytdog (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
It is better. We already regularly present data-driven content about adverse effects, in the Adverse effects section, and we ~sometimes ~ (not always) present content about evidence for efficacy in the Medical use section. Have wondered for a while now about how and if we should present detailed content about evidence. People keep wanting to add clinical trial data from primary sources and that is definitely not good. At least this is from reviews.
In terms of the format, it is unclear to me why there is an "economic outcomes" row. Did some folks decide there should be a standard template and if so where was that discussion? And no, I don't like the table. We write prose. And the table gives a tremendous amount of WEIGHT and is spammy for Cochrane in my view.
In terms of implementing, this has been getting stuck in various places. It should be under "Medical use".
In the specific content implemented above, each "Findings in words" notes the strength of the evidence, and there is a redundant column for "strength of evidence". The repetition is not needed. That is just bad execution in this one instance, perhaps.
I have not reviewed the actual content to see how well it reflects the source yet, nor checked to see if this specific source is mainstream or another wacky one. I no longer take it for granted that Cochrane reviews are solid. Also two cochrane reviews were done at the same time - PMID 25003310 and PMID 24414883 but this only summarized the latter. Which is odd. It does raise the question of how to deal with multiple reviews in this table format. Jytdog (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree should go under "medical uses" of the medication in question.
Agree that we do not need duplication between the "findings in words" and the "quality of evidence". Best to go in the latter. I imagine the row for economic outcomes is there as evidence was looked for regarding that. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
The table also conflicts formatting-wise with the infobox now at Trifluoperazine and creates a big white space (e/g this version). No idea how this would function on mobile. We shouldn't be using this table format i think. Jytdog (talk) 12:41, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Have fixed the conflict formatting wise. On mobile the infobox takes up the whole width. This is why for diseases we moved much of the prior infobox to the bottom of the article. We should likely consider shortening infoboxes. Show / hide does not appear to work on mobile (something I did not know). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
I prosified it here. Jytdog (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay sounds good. Have trimmed some overly technical stuff and clarified the ref along with adding further refs to the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a big slew of these User:Lena08041993/SecondBatch and User:Lena08041993/FirstBatch Jytdog (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry for not replying earlier and causing this confusion Jytdog. I used the subpages you mentioned to create/work on these tables. The plan with the table is to share the "Summary of Findings" from a review with people who might be affected by the topic (patients/providers of healthcare) and this table layout seemed best to oversee all the information. Since the table can get quite big (such as Trifluoperazine) the collapse function was added. It was not my intention to promote or spam content about Cochrane, thats why I used the wording "A systematic review" instead of "A Cochrane review" when posting to articles (unless the review was already mentioned). But I get your concerns about the posts now. Lena08041993 (talk) 14:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks so much for replying and for working to improve WP!
This is interesting on two levels - first, should we more regularly provide this kind of detailed data on efficacy, across our drug/intervention articles? We typically don't now. And second, is the table format OK, or should this be prose? This thread just opened and folks will weigh in over the next few days. If you could hold off on implementing further until we get a sense of the consensus that would be great. Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
re collapsing ("Since the table can get quite big (such as Trifluoperazine) the collapse function was added"). I note that table-collapsing does not work in mobile view (table is always uncollapsed=shown; no show/hide button). The design should keep this in mind. Best general solution I can think of is: try to use a section(header) to contain the large table (which is collapsible in mobile view). Of course this works best if the table is ~alone in the section. -DePiep (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Another design feature we could look at is:

"A review of trifluoperazine found low quality evidence that it was effective for people with schizophrenia, however, it appears to increase the risk of extrapyramidal symptoms.[1] (further details)"

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Koch, K; Mansi, K; Haynes, E (2014). "Trifluoperazine versus placebo for schizophrenia". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 1 (1): CD010226.pub2. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010226.pub2. PMC 6718209. PMID 24414883.

I've been involved with the group at Nottingham University on the design of these tables and on the tracking of their use, so I'm naturally happy to see them continue as I believe they add a useful precis of information in that particular field (schizophrenia) which helps to make those articles more easily comparable with each other. I think we should always be open to new techniques to present information on-wiki and I'm keen to see how this one works out. I've promised to assist in an evaluation of how this initiative turns out in six months time or so, and everyone would be welcome to add their views. As the discussion here has petered out, I'm going to suggest to Lena that she now continues to add the tables and invite other WPMED regulars to track of how the roll-out is working. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Lana has continued, like this, which i reverted. I do not agree that these tables are a good thing, pretty strongly, for the reasons described above. How shall we arrive a consensus on this? Jytdog (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
As I stated above that I would suggest she continues, I've re-instated the table at Risperidone. There is no requirement for consensus prior to making an edit, and Lana has already waited a week now as you asked earlier. How long do you want someone to wait for consensus to develop from a moribund discussion? I do believe, also strongly, that these tables are worth experimenting with, for the reasons I described above. As the presence or absence of the tables is a binary choice, I don't see any possibility of common ground to form a consensus on, sorry. --RexxS (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thinking about it, perhaps I should expand on why I see these tables as an improvement to the articles. Examples of the readers that I think would benefit are those who might read Management of schizophrenia and want more information than is available from the table there. That table is reasonably good by the way, but has almost no sources later than 2014, so may be due for an update. I envisage that we should be creating a category something like Category:Treatment of schizophrenia or Category:Management of schizophrenia (which is best?) that encompasses Risperidone and the other anti-psychotics as well as Music therapy and similar treatments that have been examined. In each case, a standard layout showing the strength of evidence for differing treatments allows for better comparisons by ensuring that all the factors are presented. I certainly don't see these as 'set in stone', but I do think that this sort of presentation offers something that we don't presently have. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
And now I seem to have been unfortunately drawn into an edit-war with Jytdog over this issue. While I appreciate the work he does in WPMED, in this case I disagree completely with his objections on the grounds of WP:PROMO. I have no reason to promote Cochrane, other than that I respect the work they do, and I believe they generally (not always) represent the highest quality of sourcing we have available. I would very much appreciate more opinions on this issue. TIA. --RexxS (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Thanks for giving your further thoughts. As I noted in my OP, adding this kind of content is being done across a large swath of articles, exclusively using Cochrane reviews, by people interning with Cochrane. This is GLAMish activity and like much GLAMish activity it falls very much on the borderline between promoting Cochrane and improving WP. The singular use of Cochrane reviews (have these folks looked to see if there are more current meta-analyses done outside the Cochrane library?); the starkly different formatting; and otherwise great WEIGHT given to these tables pushes it over toward PROMO.
And while this whole project invites people to be bold, there is also a very clear ethos that if you are going to do systematic changes across a whole set of articles, the general practice is that you get consensus first.
Pressing forward after objections have been raised is a further sign of COI/PROMO. This is what I mean by PROMO.
Am just looking for clear enough buy-in from everybody that this makes sense... also the concerns about how this works on mobile are pretty important. Would you please weigh in on that Rexxx? thx Jytdog (talk) 17:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Concerning the mobile version of the pages: There are already lots of not-collapsed tables in the articles- especially when it comes to pharmacological data. The Risperidone article mentioned above is a good example for this. There are no more tables to be posted and by now there was no solution to the mobile-view issue, but I will have another look for it (and possibly auto-collapse the other tables I come across?) Lena08041993 (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the further clarification, Jytdog. I do understand your concerns and I appreciate that there is a often a thin line between enthusiastic newcomers and promo. On the one hand, Lena is doing an internship with the Cochrane Schizophrenia group, so is mainly involved with their work and may not be aware of other other, newer reviews. On the other hand I've always felt that Cochrane is "on our side": they are crowd-sourced and dedicated to the same objectives as us – making the best health-related information available to everyone, but they do have a much larger base of actively-involved experts than we do. I believe we have the opportunity to tap into their resources and develop relationships as "natural" partners, We're a long way from that at present, because outside bodies still have a steep learning curve to manage before they can contribute comfortably to Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I'm encouraged by the fact that they seem willing to try, as in this initiative. I really don't want to see them discouraged, so I'm prepared to AGF on their intentions for the present, and I hope I can persuade you and other WPMED regulars to do so as well.
As for the issues of collapsing tables on mobile view: in my humble opinion, that is a problem for the developers on mobile. There is a clear need for collapsible content in many places, and we don't do ourselves and the project any favours by compromising the desktop view, simply because the devs haven't implemented the same functionality in mobile yet. Unfortunately, my experience is that unless there is pressure for improvement, nothing much gets done – and that is a shame, considering the ever-increasing use of mobile by our readers. I can quite happily write collapsible content in apps that I develop for my own phone and tablet, so I'm not expecting any potential arguments about it being "too difficult" to hold water. Anyway, I know that it's terribly helpful in this case, but my position is remains that these sort of issues need to be sorted out by the devs, not the editors. --RexxS (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia article mixed with Starwars

Has been published in 4 peer reviewed journals per [1]. Confirming the issues with peer review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

OMG!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not making wp:legal threats here, but in principle could the WMF sue the publishers for infringement? Would it serve any purpose? I suppose that the copied articles now need to have {{reverse copyvio}} applied.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The WMF won't take any action, they have no standing. It's up to the actual copyright owners, the individual editors who created the copied material, to enforce their rights if they wish. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the paper has been taken down by the three sites that published it. It seems that may have been embarrassed by the thought of leaving it up, so I doubt we'll need the template applied. It's worth noting here the "journals" that accepted the fake paper:
  • International Journal of Molecular Biology: Open Access (published)
  • Austin Journal of Pharmacology and Therapeutics (published)
  • American Research Journal of Biosciences (published)
  • American Journal of Medical and Biological Research (wanted $360 to publish)
Just as a quick reference for regulars who may come across these masquerading as legitimate sources in our articles in future. (Don't worry, I've used an insource: search to make sure there are none at present). Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I get a regular stream of offers to publish in journals and attend conferences. This is a common scam within publishing. It basically reinforces that we need to be careful as the DailyMail is not the only source out there that regularly publishes BS. These are often fly by night "journals" published from peoples appartments / a PO Box. Not worth wasting time or legal funds on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
  • the section header is some of the worst clickbait ever! btw I love neuroskeptic. The blogpost which i read with some glee, where they described what they did, is here. They attributed WP so there is no legal issue - they describe what they did and how they footnoted it in the blog post.
As a please please, please avoid citing churnalism sites like phys.org and sciencedirect. thx Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I am also happy to see what they did. They used WP to expose a problem within publishing. Yes the blog post is a better source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I had never see "roget" used a verb before. Jytdog (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
this is also of interest, key quotes Of the 38 experts, 35 (92.1%) received industry payments , One observation (payment in excess of $2 million) was omitted because ... , the mean income from the industry was $39,316. But I see no solution in wikipedia, we just have to wait until (if) they clean up themselves. --Stefan-S talk 15:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Another day, another COI

Is being edit-warred into with weak sources by an IP representing the "Pritikin Longevity Center"[2]. Needs eyes or admin attention. Alexbrn (talk) 16:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Hum...
Article contains the text "A meta-analysis of 864 type 2 diabetics found that 74% on oral medications left the Pritikin Longevity Center within three weeks free of these drugs, their blood sugars in normal ranges, and 44% on insulin left insulin-free."
Supposedly this is based on fig 3[3]
Text says "Overall, the combined effect of lifestyle modification on diabetes over five studies (38, 39, 40, 41, 43) and 864 subjects is shown in Fig. 3."
38 does not mention diet in question[4]
39 is NOT about blood surgar but about LDL cholesterol and included 7 diabetics[5]
40 does not mention the diet[6]
41 does not mention it either[7]
43 does not mention it either. And is not about diabetics.[8]
Crasy... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:12, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
If the IP is who she says she is, she has been working for Pritikin for 25 years, and is a director of the organisation. -Roxy the dog. bark
This source[9] is by "Christian Roberts" who works at the Pritikin Longevity Center. No COI disclosure in the paper.[10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
While you're working on that article, would you mind saying what the diet actually involves? "It's a fad diet" is not sufficient information to differentiate it from the candy bar diet. Given the criticism about flatulence, I'm going to guess that it might be a high-fiber diet, but maybe someone who's already looked at the sources could actually write down something about what the diet involves? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
  • The Pritikin diet is actually one of the least faddish of diets. It essentially amounts to incorporating the FDA recommendations of ten or twenty years ago into a specific diet: minimize fats and cholesterol, eat lots of whole grains, fruits and vegetables, limit alcohol, don't smoke, minimize salt, etc. There is indeed little hard scientific evidence for it, but really it's hard to find solid science supporting any sort of dietary recommendation. I don't think it is right to lump this diet together with stuff like Paleo, etc. Looie496 (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The concern is more the company that sells it "Pritikin Longevity Center"
The papers that the marketing department are trying to add were from James Barnard and Christian Roberts whom are "consultants" for the company per their website[11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
How exactly do you "sell" a diet like that? Selling a book that tells you not to eat beer and doughnuts all day, sure. But selling the diet itself? Do they actually sell the food? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Did you look at the website? It is trademarked.
Yes they are selling the meals[12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia is trademarked. The existence of a trademark doesn't mean that it's sold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
True which is why I linked to were they are actually selling the food. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Inverse Warburg effect

Sourcing problems and the nature of the article text raises the suspicion of plagiarism. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 05:03, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

See also Inverse Warburg theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), by the same editor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red's new initiative: #1day1woman

Women in Red is pleased to introduce...
A new initiative for worldwide online coverage: #1day1woman
  • Create articles on any day of any month
  • Cover women and their works in any field of interest
  • Feel free to add articles in other languages, too
  • Social media hashtag campaign: #1day1woman

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --

--Ipigott (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

thanks for info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Pain during childbirth significantly decreased due to a lack vaginal nerve endings

Opinions are needed on the following wording dispute: Talk:Vagina#Pain during childbirth significantly decreased due to a lack vaginal nerve endings. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Improving Transfusion Knowledge on Wikipedia

Fresh Frozen Plasma

I was at a recent conference (International Society of Blood Transfusion) and have got transfusion specialists interested in helping to make transfusion knowledge better on Wikipedia. However I think I need help on how to do this, because I think with additional content some pages will need to be split and I will need to add some stubs for colleagues to amend/ add to. Can I get some assistance from a more experience editor on how to start developing this. TransfusionDoctor (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Splitting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
TransfusionDoctor, if you can figure out what you want to do, then people on this page can help you figure out how to do it (or help you figure out whether your initial idea is the best place to start). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Also, you (or anyone) could probably take Serious Hazards of Transfusion to WP:DYK for a few hours on the Main Page if you wanted. The bit about only using male donors for FFP would probably make a fun hook. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:05, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
I sent the article to DYK: Template:Did you know nominations/Serious Hazards of Transfusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
Awesome WAID!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


Diets

I cruised through much of Category:Diets yesterday and found that, as one might expect, it's a pretty bleak landscape. As some discuss downright dangerous ideas, it needs more attention. The subject area falls neatly in the cracks between wp:WikiProject Medicine, wp:WikiProject Food and drink, wp:WikiProject Books, and the dormant/defunct wp:WikiProject Health and fitness. Is anyone up for doing some inter-guideline coordination work? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Alexbrn busts his butt to keep this NPOV but it like kudzu; User:Zefr does a lot of good work there too as does User:Roxy the dog and yes they could use help. Thanks LSD. (never noticed that acronym of your name before!) Jytdog (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
And if people need admin help with things leave a note here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
...Opens the doggy dictionary to find out what kudzu actually is... Roxy the dog. bark 19:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Nasty stuff, right? Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, the dust bowl was no party either, so invasive soybeans might have been a good decision on balance. Perhaps we just need some more wild goats, both to keep it in check and to feed our coyote cousins. :-)
Reading the kudzu article, my hindbrain kept saying knotweed, but upon further investigation, they must be distant cousins, both planning world domination, probably in a sort of pincer movement. -Roxy the dog. bark 21:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Perampanel

Editor with an WP:APPARENTCOI is edit warring here (first as an IP and then with a named account), re-arranging the section order, downplaying side effects, removing ambiguity. Would be useful to have other eyes. Thx Jytdog (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi protected for two weeks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Burns

We have a number of IPs repeatedly removing one of the causes of burns highlighted by the WHO per Talk:Burn#Gender related. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 1 August 2017 (UTC)


Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy

Is this really a "controversy" that is documented in pertinent RS? Much of the sourcing seems to be synthesizing the topic from sources that do not discuss any such "controversy". (Also posted to WP:FT/N). Alexbrn (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I think there is some evidence for a difference of opinions among good quality reliable sources. The table at Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy #Summary table of data shows several conflicting views from multiple sources. I would have thought that our WP:NPOV policy would dictate that we report and attribute those differing views without taking sides. I agree that there's nothing I could see that calls this a "controversy", but I'm pretty sure that the topic of "Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease" is notable and the sources are good. WP:SYNTH specifically warns against combining multiple sources to reach a conclusion not stated in any of them, but I don't see that the article reaches any conclusions (perhaps except calling the topic controversial). Would the solution be to rename the article to Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease and replace the word "controversial" in the opening with "differing"? --RexxS (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
(EC) Agree...and remove Category:Medical controversies. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
We have Cardiovascular disease#Diet which spins out into two articles: Salt and cardiovascular disease and Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy. So I think just ditching "controversy" from the title might do it. What concerns me is that Out There there seems to a conspiracy theory that runs something like this: we have been subject to the malign influence of Big Sugar™ who generated a lot of fake science about cholesterol's harms to keen us in sugar's thrall. But now The Truth is coming out and the evil of carbohydrates is being fought against and we should all be eating high-fat diets. That I believe is why this is being framed as a "controversy" (see e.g. this book). So far as I can see, reputable sources don't see it this way. (Add: If you look at Sugar#Cardiovascular disease you will see a lot of non-MEDRS sources being used to make that case that sugar is the real culprit here, while fat is a-okay). Alexbrn (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The story about how the recommendations against fat came into existence is an interesting one. Was initially based on really poor evidence.
Over the years the evidence have not supported concern regarding total fat intake. The recommendation remains to replace saturated with unsaturated based on tentative evidence. Concerns regarding dietary colesterol have also been removed. Agree with removing "controversy" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I happened to notice this thread while trying to figure out if Wikipedia has a clue yet. It looks like things are glacially moving along. As a student of natural foods for 46 years I, and most people into natural food, have long known that the issue that matters most is expeller-pressing (the colder the better) versus high-temperature solvent extraction [13]. The latter method creates synthetic chemicals not found in nature, and so the body has not evolved to deal with it. Looking at the reviews in Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease controversy shows that the real problem is that they are getting contradictory results due to the fact that they don't differentiate between those 2 forms of extraction in their studies. If they did, then the studies would come to more definitive conclusions in my opinion. This is my point about reviews sometimes being just a stirring of crap. If the reviewers are clueless, and the studies are clueless, then the review is clueless. I don't see much real peer review of reviews. At least this article allows more WP:NPOV significant viewpoints, and no single review is written as holy writ in the narrative voice of Wikipedia. Peace out. --Timeshifter (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Overfat

Obesity-waist circumference

The concept of being overfat is in the news this week. (This is too much adipose tissue, regardless of height/weight ratio.) We don't seem to have an article on it yet. Normal weight obesity the closest related concept that I could find, but overfatness additionally includes most people who are overweight and obese, so it's not the same thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

If there isn't enough for an article; a subsection at Adipose tissue + redirect would be an option (cf. Organ fat. Little pob (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
There's also underfat. I've seen claims that the WHO is going to recommend the overfat/underfat concept as a useful approach, so I expect that we could find sufficient sources. They're looking at a simple waist circumference measurement, which is cheaper than scales – you are overfat if your waist circumference is more than half your height. To determine that, you just need a piece of string. It doesn't even need to be a measuring tape. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
And at what ratio is one underfat? Alexbrn (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
good point/question--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Overfat is obesity. Underfat is a type of malnutrition specifically underweight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's quite right. Obesity is usually defined by BMI (which is purely a height:weight ratio), which means that some bodybuilders are defined as being "obese" but not "overfat", and that many people are "not obese" but are actually "overfat". Similarly, bodybuilders can be underfat without being underweight.
Underfat seems to be defined by the percentage of body fat. I think that "underfat" is anything under 10% for men and 20% for women.
Anyone who's interested in the subject could start reading papers such as PMID 28097119. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
This is the definition of obesity "is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have a negative effect on health"[14]
It is usually diagnosed based on BMI as BMI has been found to be useful at the population level but obesity IS NOT simply a high BMI as neither bodybuilder nor pregnant people are considered obese. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think the word "overfat" is actually a standardized medical term. "Obese" has a fairly standardized/uniform definition in medical literature. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Overfat appear to me to simple be a newly invented term for obesity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This is a viewpoint without formal support from WHO etc. I would not create stubs but appropriate redirects. Were these terms to gain traction in the literature, we can always create longer articles based on the best quality sources. JFW | T@lk 22:44, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

But what are the appropriate redirects?

Doc James has redirected overfat to obesity. Problems: That article's second sentence defines the concept in terms of BMI. And you can be overfat while being overweight but not obese, and you can be overfat while having normal weight. The redirect implicitly defines "overfat" as meaning someone with a very high weight:height ratio, when the main point of the concept is to identify people who have a normal weight:height ratio but still have too much adipose tissue.

Doc James has also redirected underfat to underweight. Problem: The article sentence defines the concept entirely in terms total weight (compared to height or age). It also implies that every person who is "underfat" will also be "underweight". Competitive body builders have normal weight or higher, but are significantly underfat (half to two-thirds the lower end of healthy fat tissue). A person with muscle atrophy can be underweight but still have normal fat levels.

So far, I've been unable to find a good target for redirecting these to. Everything I've considered feels misleading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It's a concept introduced by independent authors but without much authority. I really think the redirects are reasonable, and I don't think we should be creating articles specifically to accommodate the new coinages just because there's some chatter in the press about it. Happy to be shouted down, but I think we risk WP:RECENTISM. JFW | T@lk 00:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm always up for a good redirect. I'm just not convinced that these are very good. Perhaps it's a problem to be solved by expanding the subjects of those articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't accept that it's the place of Wikipedia to cater for every neologism coined by trying to pander to the media's continuous need for fresh copy. If "overfat" does eventually become accepted as being defined as "too much adipose tissue, regardless of height/weight ratio" by a significant number of reliable medical sources, then I'd be happy to see that as an addition to the obesity page – and we'd have the sources to accurately write a section describing the phenomenon. In the meantime, Doc James' definition ("it's the same as obese") or the Collins English Dictionary ("having a higher proportion of fat in the body than is normal or healthy") are just as good a description of the term as anything coined by Maffetone, Rivera-Dominguez, and Laursen, and a redirect to obesity is adequate for now. --RexxS (talk) 18:21, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Overfatness, as contrasted with overweightness, appears in PMID 5318614, which is a review written more than half a century ago. This 1906 pediatrics book says that overfatness in infants is due to overfeeding and interferes with walking. This 1936 paper says that overfatness causes causes heart disease in women. The word appears in PubMed in reviews in every decade since the 1960s (and in hundreds of non-reviews), and outside the veterinary context, it commonly appears specifically in contrast to the focus on body weight.
Outside the human medical context, the word overfat itself appears in 1572, in the Antwerp Glossary. While I admire a certain amount of conservatism in language, I do not think that we can sustain the claim that it is a neologism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
And yet, outside of PMC5206235, I don't see a single article that defines overfatness as "too much adipose tissue, regardless of height/weight ratio". The other articles you cite all seem to be concerned with the relationship to "excess morbidity and mortality", i.e. "a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have a negative effect on health" – which is the definition of obesity according to our article. Although I accept that overfat is not technically a neologism, it is a deliberate re-purposing of an existing word to a new, more specific meaning, which is about as close as you can get to a neologism for a word that somehow already exists. --RexxS (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about that. Overfat has always meant too much adipose tissue. How could it be re-purposes to mean something that it has always meant? That 1936 paper says that the difference between women who have heart disease and women who don't is overfatness, which sounds exactly like the kind of thing that modern sources are saying.
Obesity, on the other hand, says "Obesity is a medical condition in which excess body fat has accumulated to the extent that it may have an adverse effect on health. It is defined by body mass index (BMI)...", right next to a nice little table that indicates that no matter how overfat your body composition is, and regardless of whether you have accumulated excess body fat to the extent that it has harmed your health, if your weight:height ratio is okay, then you might have normal weight or be overweight, but you're definitely not obese. (But maybe that part of the article just needs to be corrected?)
I wonder, in a historical context, if we might say quite the opposite: About forty years ago, the term obesity was narrowly re-purposed to a new, more specific meaning, that of a height:weight ratio that tends to strongly correlate with overfatness in Class I, II, and III obesity, but which assumes that everyone else is fine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Misplaced draft that may be of interest

It seems that an attempt to move a health related user sandbox to main space resulted in LeslieDeLeon/sandbox. —PaleoNeonate - 15:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

some text might be useful for Alcoholism and/or Addiction...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:05, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. I've moved it to a plausible name. It needs work, but it's mostly likely to get that work done if it stays in the mainspace. (I haven't looked to see whether we already have an article on the general subject. If so, it should be proposed for a merger – maybe next week, though.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The author seems to have found it under the new name of Alcohol and drug use among university students, so that's a relief. A new page patroller tried to redirect it to Drug education, which is only tangentially related (e.g., mostly about programs rather than actual drug use, and mostly about children instead of young adults, etc.). But the original author reverted that, so that hurdle has also been passed. So far, this all seems pretty typical of what even a carefully guided new editor has to deal with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Our readers

The recent survey at m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Brand awareness, attitudes, and usage research (July 2017) may interest those of you who talk about Wikipedia and its readers (e.g., to funders and universities). It includes information about whether people know that they can edit (three-quarters of them already do), why they haven't edited themselves (leading reason: fear of making a mistake), etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:06, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Another bit of work about Readers' motivation:

  • The most common reason to read the English Wikipedia: You saw something in the news, and you wanted to learn more about it. This is about 30% of the surveyed readers: at that moment, they were at Wikipedia because of something they'd seen in the media.
  • If you are already familiar with the subject that you're reading, then you're probably reading popular, central topics on leisure subjects, and you like long articles. This is the guy who is reading up on his favorite sports teams.
  • People who are reading for work or school tend to read exactly the subjects you would expect, and they are more likely to read the whole page than others. If education is your main motivation, then work on basic subjects that students will read when they're trying to complete their homework.

See m:Research:Characterizing Wikipedia Reader Behaviour if you're interested in knowing more about readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, that is useful. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
This is an interesting slide. Many feel that we are not "free of advertising" and the younger group more often realizes that we are not free of advertising. Hopefully this will help support efforts to decrease undisclosed paid editing / ads here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Change to each of MEDMOS and PHARMMOS re leads

This hasn't been contested, but i just wanted to note that last week I updated discussion in MEDMOS about the LEAD here and likewise at PHARMMOS here.

This was to help solidify the move many of us have been making toward de-cluttering the first sentences, which is especially important for mobile viewers. In case anybody wasn't aware of it, the WMF reading team found en-WP leads to be generally so cluttered that they decided to start adding the "description" field from Wikidata to en-WP articles, so that people on mobile could quickly see what articles were actually about. Which they stopped doing, but left us with an obligation to actually address the issue. A good discussion about this was held at FAC, here.

Am just calling attention to this as i am not certain of the consensus for this - adding that was perhaps a bit ahead of the curve and these MOSes should express consensus not try to force it. Jytdog (talk) 22:30, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks User:Jytdog, saw the change and approve. Basically putting usual practice into policy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
User:CFCF you have removed some - would you please review the above and the links there and explain your objections? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There is just one very major issue with this — that I'm not sure many here have noticed. Google ranks our pages by relevance, and one of the most important factors that ties a page to a search query (if not the single most important factor) is whether it appears early in an article in bolded text. I've experimented with this a few times, including names or moving them to the rather new synonyms section of the infobox — and the effect is massive. It can bring a page from the top result to appearing on the second or third page.

This has a major impact on readership — and I think we need to have a long and hard discussion about synonyms before we decide on relegating them to the infobox. Until Google takes into account synonyms in the infobox we need to be very wary of this. Carl Fredrik talk 23:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

User:CFCF do we really know if this is true? Can you provide me pageview histories that show this?
These graphs[15] should show such an effect clearly if it exists.
If you provide evidence I will bring it forwards to Google. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:04, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay one example Sept 25 2016 all the names were in the lead sentence[16] I moved them Sept 30th[17] Here is the last year of viewership[18] Not seeing an effect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Another example
Aug 18th 2016 moved the synonyms to the infobox[19]
Here is the viewership[20] Not seeing any effect.
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Third example. May 28th 2017 moved to infobox[21] no obvious effect[22] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:42, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll try to dig up some good examples, give me some time. It has a lot to do with how common the different synonyms are whether or not it matters. Carl Fredrik talk 03:34, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Carl that a long and hard discussion about synonyms and trade names is warranted before we make changes to two longstanding guidelines that apply to thousands of articles, including several FAs. I'd also like to remind everyone that the Manual of Style and all of its sub-guidelines are subject to Discretionary Sanctions before folks start to get too WP:BOLD with changes and reverts. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

I can be convinced by data. I have just provided three examples were it did not make a difference. The change is just supporting the current common practice of not putting uncommon names in the first sentence of medical and medication articles that has been slowly carried out over the last few years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Not putting uncommon names in the lead is fine, and (in the case of drug articles) not cluttering it with a bunch of trade names is a good idea. But IMHO, moving all alternate names and pronunciation to the infobox doesn't make the lead clearer, just less informative. MOS:LEADALT, MOS:BOLDSYN and WP:PRON already provide definitive guidance on this. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 05:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Fvasconcellos, this is not coming out of no where. Did you read the discussion at FAC here, and the stuff that led up to it? (historically that was first this, followed by this, then this RfC? This is not de novo nor are the underlying issues about dealing with mobile viewers insignificant. (Pleased to meet you btw - I don't think we have interacted before) Jytdog (talk) 05:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Sure, I do not think we are proposing moving ALL alternative names, we are just talking about moving the uncommon ones and keeping just the common one in the first sentence. This is what I take from "raft of alternative names"
Pronunciations do not belong in the first sentence. We are an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Per MOS:BOLDSYN "the title and significant alternative titles". Which means non significant alt titles should not be bolded.

Per MOS:LEADALT "The title can be followed in the first line by one or two alternative names in parentheses"

Per WP:PRON "Several infoboxes provide for a pronunciation entry. In such articles there is generally no need to repeat it in the lead."

That is reasonable and is what Jyt more or less added here. By the way at LEADALT there are also guidelines for specific subject areas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:07, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

generally agree w/ Doc James(though Carl brings up some good points...IMO)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I would agree that we should discourage unusual names, but when names makes up to ~20% of mentions in the literature or common vernacular it is likely to bring in a fair amount of search traffic. Here is a very clear example of when a redirect caused us to lose traffic through this name: [23]. No corresponding increase can be found at the redirect target.
The problem about finding statistics here is that we have no way to know how many readers we are getting from Google.
I'm also currently travelling and can't give an exhaustive list of examples — so I'd be very grateful if we could give this some time before adding the next text (at least in full). Carl Fredrik talk 23:31, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
A redirect is very different from whether X appears in the first paragraph or somewhere else in a page. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is a bad example, and there are a bunch of qualifiers that should be added to that one.
Here is a far better example. The drop in December perfectly corresponds to removing "pulled muscle" from the lede:
https://tools.wmflabs.org/pageviews/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&range=latest-365&pages=Strain_(injury)
The gain corresponds to putting it back in the lede.
This is of course a very common synonym. We need to look at cases like this. Carl Fredrik talk 23:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Need more time for examples, it is possible these are not decreasing views significantly, but they do have an impact on search rankings — I have examples, but they will take time to prepare. Carl Fredrik talk 23:59, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
That is a redirect issue and if look at these graphs [24] it is not clear what story that tells.
Happy with the further changes by CFCF and SV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I stated in WT:PHARM#USAN etc in drugbox that we should use notes to include alt names for drugs since they often have many synonyms, but I'm not sure if/how text bolding impacts search rankings if/when it occurs in notes. So, based upon the effects of the bolding that I've added today to the alternate names which I've also listed below on their future search rankings (redirect traffic is a proxy for this), using bolded names in a note could be an ideal solution to avoid cluttering the lead with names while increasing search rankings. I realize that these rankings can vary across devices, so the search rankings I've listed here are really just here for personal reference; the effect of bolding on the redirect views statistics is likely the better measurement for me to compare here.

For reference, this is a permalink to the redirect views to the amphetamine article for the period 1 month prior to August 3rd, 2017. Keep in mind that the effect on search rankings and traffic that I'm testing here is not necessarily the same thing as the effect of including bolded names in the first lead sentence. So, CFCF may still be correct even if this bolding produces no effect on search rank or traffic. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, I'd suggest using the redirect views tool to assess the impact of redirect traffic on total article traffic instead of the page views tool. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:38, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I feel pretty retarded for stating that redirect views would be a (decent) proxy earlier; redirects obviously contribute to their target's webpage ranking (based upon the number+weight of incoming links to the redirect), but bolding an alternate name intuitively would increase the webpage ranking of the article itself, not redirect page with the same name. Redirects are seldom highly ranked in google search.
In any event, testing what CFCF proposed isn't even necessary; there's ample literature on the weighting of text styles in webpage ranking: [25] [26] [27] [28] [29], among others. The effect of bolding a term on article webpage ranking is likely most significant in the instances where a specific phrase is bolded in just 1 Wikipedia article; I'm assuming the bolded terms in a Wikipedia article are weighted according to some variant of the tf-idf algorithm, since bolded terms that occur even in the middle of an article, like the "blood–cerebrospinal fluid barrier" term in the middle of the choroid plexus article, seem to significantly boost pagerank for the article even when other articles use the unbolded term more often (e.g., "Choroid plexus" occurs on the 1st page of search for the BCSFB; the redirect page "blood–cerebrospinal fluid barrier" and the incoming links to that redirect also contribute to this ranking though).
Bolding the same term in 2 WP articles that are highly relevant to the term still seems to significantly boost webpage ranking for both pages; I'm basing this statement on "signaling cascade" being bolded in signal transduction and biochemical cascade, where signaling cascade redirects to the former article; those articles are the first 2 results I get when I search the term "signaling cascade" in google. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:40, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I have not see any evidence that bolding makes a difference or having alt names in the first sentence makes a difference with respect to pagerank / pageviews.
I prefer putting alt names in the infobox than putting them in a "note" after the first word in the article. Also believe that alt names should be covered under society and culture within the body of the article aswell. I prefer less bolding rather than more. A wall of bolded text I find annoying. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

the above section does not say clearly that 'complications' should be under any particular section, I have placed it under 'signs and symptoms'[30] per [31] as a subsection, please change if there is a different opinion(and discuss at MEDMOS/talk[32])thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks good Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

EarlySense

Mass MEDRS violations. QuackGuru (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

This edit[33] was copied and pasted from one of our previously undisclosed paid editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
We have a ref here[34] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Sharing Wikipedia offline medical information in the Dominican Republic

Offline Innovation, a 5-minute documentary on this project

Hello. The Signpost recently published an article which I wrote.

In the article I mention WikiProject Medicine's development of health content and interest in providing that information to everyone. I am sharing here because I thought it would interest people here. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:41, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry excellent write up. Thank you for that :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
good info[35]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Adjusting the meta CU policy wording

RfC on Meta Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Is your intention to allow Checkusers to go fishing for sockpuppets when someone is suspected of having an undisclosed conflict of interest? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
It is pretty evident there that James is looking for clearer WMF policy support for permitting the existing WP usage: it should be usable to more completely find the socks of an existing puppetmaster. I can't see any good reason we wouldn't want that. There's a secondary issue where a puppetmaster runs socks just to mask a COI. Again, why wouldn't we want that to be detectable by CU? LeadSongDog come howl! 20:21, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that the policy he proposed changing is a WMF policy. I think it's a normal community policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
Am looking for clarification to run CUs on accounts involved with paid editing which appear to be socking. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, that's not what you wrote. What you wrote is that you want to run CUs on accounts that you suspect of being paid editors, regardless of whether they appear to be socking. You did not include any limitation about "which appear to be socking".
Your proposed wording, "to prevent contributions without disclosure as defined by the TOU", means "It's okay to checkuser *anyone* that *any* editor suspects of being an undisclosed paid editor, without limitation". It does not mean "anyone that any editor suspects of being an undisclosed paid editor AND we have some reason to suspect socking, but NOT if we don't have any reason to suspect socking (beyond the fact that at least one person suspects the account of being a paid editor)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
There is judgement required for making all these decisions. When is there enough evidence to suspect socking? Really anyone could be socking which does not mean we run CUs on everyone. The same applies to suspected paid editors. It needs to be an obvious case before a CU should be run IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:26, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
The question is whether it should be reasonably "obvious" to someone solely that the account is (possibly) paid – even if there is no "obvious" reason to suspect socking (that's what you wrote) – or if it needs to additionally be reasonably obvious that the account is socking (the original policy).
Two accounts that add similar content in similar ways indicates a risk for socking. A single account waxing enthusiastic about a product might be paid (or might be someone who confused Wikipedia with the Amazon customer reviews section), but it does not indicate a risk for socking. Is it your desire to checkuser all of them, or just the first one? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I am interested in checking a specific type of undisclosed paid editing account. These account make 10 to 12 very minor edits and wait 7 days to become auto confirmed. They than publish a 2,000 word article perfectly formatted in a single edit and never edit again. They are always socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
What you wrote isn't limited to consistent patterns like that. The breadth of "checkuser anyone that anyone suspects of paid editing for any reason" is probably drawing more opposition than your goal needed. "Socks (for example, a new account that behaves like a previously identified paid editing account)" probably would have sailed through with almost no opposition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes "new accounts that behaves like a previously identified paid editing account" would work as well. I guess I could try that on the next round. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing Maybe something like "a new account that behaves like a previously blocked paid editing account" would be clearer? The current difficulty is that even when a new account is editing like a previously blocked paid editing account, unless those other blocked accounts have been active in the last 3 months CUs often deny the request saying that it is stale. Would be good to specify that the other accounts have been blocked not just identified to limit the use to this specific case. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:17, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

That would be clearer, but (a) I'm not sure that you want to limit it only to blocked accounts or (b) that you will ultimately be satisfied with something quite so narrowly drawn.
It would probably makes sense to talk it over at Meta, if a subsequent round is needed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Sex reassignment surgery#Title Change

Editors here might want to weigh in on Talk:Sex reassignment surgery#Title Change. The topic of WP:MEDRS is being debated in addition to a rename. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this here. The proposed change is to the title and the primary term on the page (while keeping a reference to the old term, Sex Reassignment Surgery, for google search purposes). UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has already been closed, and the account that began the discussion has been blocked for using multiple accounts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Oshtoran syndrome

I stumbled upon Oshtoran syndrome this morning. At quick glance, this article seems almost hoaxish. The linked references either are tangentially related or refer to self published, non peer reviewed articles. Could those with more experience and medical knowledge take a look? only (talk) 11:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

found[36]...the book doesnt inspire (professional)confidence...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I saw that too. If you look at the description of it, the description is the first sentence of our entry on it. If I had to wager a guess, it's an evook version of our article. only (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
well in that case............PubMed The following term was not found in PubMed: Oshtoran[37].--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
I found nothing in Google Scholar or Google Books, and barely anything in a plain old web search (after excluding ebook copies of the Wikipedia article).
While it may not be a "hoax" (which implies an intention to deceive), it is probably not verifiable as a recognized disease entity in any reliable, WP:Published sources – and certainly not outside the handful of researchers who seem to have 'discovered' it.
We should probably send this to AFD as being too soon. Also, Special:WhatLinksHere/Oshtoran_syndrome shows links from several other articles, so there will be cleanup work elsewhere. Before going to AFD, it would probably be useful to strip out or tag unreliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: the reason I was wondering about a hoax is because of this source that they keep providing at this article plus the ones that link to it: https://issuu.com/mostafaabdollahi/docs/oshtoran_case_study. You can only see the title clearly. Then if you go to page two, you can faintly see that the entire page is simply lorem ipsum filler. The case study isn't actually anything more than a title page. only (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
If it's a hoax, then they've gone to a bit of work, such as creating https://issuu.com/oshtoran.syndrome and https://patient.info/forums/discuss/oshtoran-syndrome-513740 It's possible, but perhaps that's more work than someone would put in just for a joke. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
We've had some impressive hoaxes. Whatever the case, people too often use Wikipedia to promote novel ideas, theories, etc., hoping to popularize the matter through Wikipedia and have the topic picked up and spread by other outlets (even decent sources). That is likely what is going on here, hoax or not. Probably best to AfD the article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Some of the refs do not mention the condition in question :-(
We have one small group who has done a ppt.
AFDed it. Not seeing enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:24, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Fringe medical views promoted by undisclosed paid editor

This article appears to have been created by an undisclosed paid editor. It promotes fringe ideas about "holistic vision improvement" and other areas of alt medicine. He may well not be notable, in which case AFD is the best bet, but I'm having some internet issues right now so can't do WP:BEFORE. SmartSE (talk) 11:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

will look[38]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Neuroticism & Google memo thing

Some MEDRS issues; some disputes over very old, primary refs .... Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

commented[39](and keeping eye on[40])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:57, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jytdog: It is considered polite to notify people you're talking about on other talk pages, instead of canvassing for support.
I am here to ask a simple question: Does a psychological personality trait concept (neuroticism) fall under the purview of medicine? --Nanite (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
  • to add to this, I got an email from a reporter who wants to write about how the Google memo thing is affecting WP and she said that this article is part of that mess. The google engineer made the claim that women are more neurotic than men.
I was unaware of that. I noticed that a bunch of bad sourcing got added to the article and that the sourcing was badly done there. But we can apparently expect more drama over this, perhaps.Jytdog (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
Nanite, why does it matter? A WP:WikiProject is a group of people that likes working together. Whether this (or any other) group of people wants to support any given article has no effect on the article content, applicable guidelines, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:43, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Acute radiation syndrome

Haematopoietic syndrome of radiation sickness

the above article could use some help(edits), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)



Lysergic acid diethylamide listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lysergic acid diethylamide to be moved to LSD. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)


Rigvir

Hello,

I was wondering if editors with more medical knowledge and Wiki experience could have a look at this article about anti-cancer virotherapy drug Rigvir (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RIGVIR). It has been discussed before and nominated for deletion due to lack of references and poor quality. At that time there were almost no sources in English available and there is still no new medical research that would match MEDRS, but in the past year Latvian media has written extensively and critically about Rigvir, so I've tried to reflect this in Wikipedia.

The new sources are the following: Extensive overview of Rigvir history, problematic advertising and evidence level, article in a pharmaceutical magazine, translated with the help of Latvian Skeptics Association

Public broadcasting service article - Rigvir registration and compensation status to be reviewed

Article from the main investigative magazine in Latvia - 3 Latvian medical associatons request to remove Rigvir from Latvian drug register due to insufficient evidence of efficacy, to review clinical guidelines and to evaluate conflicts of interest (Google Translate version)

Extensive story with more details about registration and status, in Russian, from main news portal, Google Translate version

There are quite a few more articles in Latvian and Russian from trustworthy media sources in Latvia, but, since I'm a Wiki newbie, I am not certain these would be accepted, unless translated? I would really appreciate some comments from experienced medical editors - how could the article be improved and are these new sources OK?--KC LV (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

commented at article/talk[41]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi KC LV,
Any language is good. (Here's the policy, in case anyone asks you about it.) Sources do not need to be translated. If another Wikipedia editor needs to check the source, and does not read Russian or Latvian, then they can use machine translation or ask one of the many multilingual editors for help. (The same general idea applies to sources that aren't free to read on the internet: if someone needs to check a page in an expensive book, then we can figure out how to get it, through WP:RX or WP:TWL or old-fashioned methods, like interlibrary loan.)
News articles are usually weak sources for biomedical information, but they can be very good sources for business information (e.g., patents, sales, profits, manufacturing locations, etc.). An article about a drug should contain both medical and non-medical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft at Articles for Creation

Hello, folks. We have a draft at Articles for Creation that addresses a newly-defined type of language disorder. The draft is at User:Deevybee/sandbox. My particular concern is that virtually all of the draft is being sourced to journal articles -- some of them quite recent -- so it seems that there might be some question as to whether all of its statements are widely accepted as correct.

Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. If this topic is outside the scope of your project, please let me know and I'll seek assistance elsewhere. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

there is a redirect already which goes to Specific language impairment (on article 'title'...Developmental language disorder )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for following up on this. The draft's creator is seeking to replace that redirect with the material in her sandbox. And the issue we face at Articles for Creation is whether that material is appropriate for Main space. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
so,[42] there are two subsections 1.2.1 and 1,2.2 on that topic, anything additional can be added there...IMO, however more opinions should be sought for consensus{BTW...[43]per MEDMOS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the copy edit work on the draft. Thank you also for the observation about seeking consensus for the best location of the material. That's good advice and we'll be sure to follow it.

But I'm still left uncertain as to the issue that prompted my original posting. I was under the impression that WP:MEDRS discouraged the use of recent journal articles as sources, preferring textbooks and the like. Has this changed? Or are the journal articles being used in this particular draft not a concern under WP:MEDRS? Your thoughts on this will be appreciated.

NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Deevybee/sandbox#References..ive not looked at all the refs, but obviously many are beyond 5 years and/or primary per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)..some such as:
Thank you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
In answer to your question about sources, MEDRS encourages recent review articles from peer-reviewed academic journals, and discourages recent primary sources from peer-reviewed academic journals. In simpler terms, if the article says that the author read a hundred articles and is summarizing them, than that's usually good, but if the article is about research personally performed by the authors, then that's usually bad (except when it's not). Recent textbooks are good, but they tend to be a bit out of date, so they're probably not so helpful in this particular instance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Fissure of the nipple

Proj Med editors are invited to participate in discussing the possible deletion of this article. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 10:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

more opinions please(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I really don't see that this needs to be its own Wikipedia article. WP:Stub articles are not ideal. Until this topic has enough content to be more than a stub, it should reside at the Nipple article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that depends on whether you think that the subject of the article includes or excludes the same skin condition when it is caused by breastfeeding (i.e., Cracked nipple). The ICD-10 category includes both fissues and fistulas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why that would prevent the fissure of the nipple topic from validly residing at the Nipple article. If we want to have a comprehensive Nipple article, both fissure of the nipple and cracked nipple should be mentioned in the Nipple article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I guess that the reason why one should read about nipple fissures/crackles is either breastfeeding difficulties or breast disease, not that one just wonder about nipples. Suggest that fissures/crackles could be mentioned in "Other breast conditions" section in breast disease and "Breastfeeding problems" section of the breastfeeding difficulties article. Dr Curat (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

If your watchlist is blank

Heads up on a technical change: if your watchlist looks blank, then go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and make sure that the number is not set to zero. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

thank you WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Would this technical change be the reason why I no longer have little green triangle which used to expand a group of edits to an article when clicked? My watchlist seems to be behaving rather erratically recently. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's the same change. Several things are moving around with watchlists. Peter, can you tell me what your watchlist settings are? Your settings for "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" and "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist" are probably the most important. I'll try to find out what's going on, but a lot of devs are traveling for Wikimania and its hackathon, so it may take a bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Last time I looked it was working again. It seems to be an intermittent problem. Could this happen with slow internet? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
"Javascript that hasn't finished loading" seems to be a popular explanation for problems like that. Are you using Firefox? (It seems to have more problems along those lines than the other popular web browsers.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Firefox on desktop, Chrome on laptop. Seem to have much the same problem on both. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Free access to sources

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 56#The Wikipedia Library Card platform if you have access to WP:TWL resources. Also, if you don't have access to a huge university research library, but you'd like to have access to good, expensive sources, then do please sign up through WP:TWL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

great info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Which medical sources available through TWL would be best for discussing disability? I had a brief look at the ScienceDirect sources and it seems to split the social stuff (which would be useful for discussing the social model of disability) and the purely medical stuff (which would be useful for discussing symptoms, onset, prevalence, etc.) and you can only sign up for one. I know I'm not eligible at present, but this would be an incentive to me to sign up, if I could get uni research library-level sources that would be useful for my projects on WP. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Sea buckthorn oil & cancer

The fruit of the sea-buckthorn

Some disagreement on how/whether a source should be used to describe the "potential medicinal properties" of sea buckthorn oil. More eyes welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Yeah, there seems to be a feeling that animal and cell line studies cannot even be mentioned in an article, which I find deeply troubling. I'm also quite concerned about Alexbrn using a buddy to circumvent WP:3RR, but that's possibly another discussion -Kieran (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
They shouldn't be mentioned to imply health benefits, especially when taken from a very poor source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
But that's what successful animal model and cell line studies do -- imply (potential) clinical benefits. They don't demonstrate those conclusively, or provide hard evidence of them, but they most certainly do suggest them. What you are saying is that we cannot ever mention them at all, which, again, I find deeply troubling (particularly as someone doing cancer research). -Kieran (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I say no such thing. Such research does not imply benefits; it implies rather "more research is needed". It is deeply ironic that the text you summarized from this article speculated that the "anti-cancer" potential of this oil was down to its vitamin E - which is perhaps the canonical example of how "promising" lab results do not translate into positive human health effects (quite the opposite). We shouldn't be using this old, rather silly source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
"More research is needed" is exactly the kind of thing that MEDMOS says that we should not be including in articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are the two versions that have been proposed:

(1) Several studies on rats, mice, and human cancer cell lines have shown that buckthorn oil can have anti-carcinogenic properties, but no human clinical trials have been undertaken to confirm these.[1] Reviewers have suggested that the apparent anti-carcinogenic properties may be due to the presence of compounds, such as vitamin E, with known anti-cancer activity.[1]

(2) Laboratory work is examining sea buckthorn oil for its potential properties, although there is no evidence as of 2017 that it has any effect on human health.[2]

In (1), I like the idea of saying that the effects are probably due to already known compounds. For editors who are inclined to cry "PROMO!", I think that this will actually discourage people from buying it. (Why buy that? You could just get some Vitamin E instead.) Also, note the "Reviewers have suggested" line: This is not a primary source.

In (1), I also like specifying the "rates, mice, and cell lines", since I think that more clearly indicates the early-stage nature of the research than the generic "lab work". Assuming it's factual, then I'd prefer "basic research" to either of these. If this has transitioned into applied research, then we could fairly summarize this stage as "early pre-clinical research" if people don't like mentioning rodents and cell lines.

In (2), I kind of like the vagueness of "potential properties", although I might specify "medical". (It is presumably not being investigated as for its nutritional properties or its lubricating properties.)

In (2), I don't believe that the line if "no evidence that it has any effect on human health" is actually true. If it contains Vitamin E, then we actually do have evidence that it has "effects" (many of them bad) on human health. It would probably be more accurate to say "no evidence that it prevents or cures cancer in humans". It would unfortunately by too SYNTHy to then add "and Vitamin E, which this oil contains, might cause cancers", unless we can find a source that explicitly says that in the context of buckthorn oil. (Also, it cites a 2006 source while saying "as of 2017").

I think we could probably find a compromise between these two, but overall I think that (1) is somewhat better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Concerning #2a, sea buckthorn oil is available as a dietary supplement and as either a whole oil product or ingredient in skin care products, so there are potentially different effects and clinical studies possible on various body functions, but there have been no such studies on what is a rather rare botanical source notoriously discouraging to cultivate and harvest. For #2b, the current statement represents the vagueness of the one source: sea buckthorn pulp and seeds both contain oil and vitamin E in amounts not yet defined quantitatively for their compartmental differences. Interpreting the sentence specifically for the article topic, it is true that "there is no evidence that it (sea buckthorn oil) has any effect on human health." --Zefr (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I've found and added a review that says cosmetic/skin care uses are the primary market.
That source additionally contains these sentences: "Sea-buckthorn berries have an impressive vitamin content [12, 24, 25]. They contain mainly vitamin C [11–14, 20] (approximately 900 mg%, depending on the variety), but also vitamin A, that is alpha- and beta-carotene (up to 60 mg%) and a mixture of other carotenoids (up to 180 mg% in total). Moreover, the berries contain tocopherols, that is vitamin E (110 to 160 mg%), folic acid (up to 0.79 mg%) and vitamin B complex group, i.e. B1 (0.035 mg%), B2 (up to 0.056 mg%) and B6"...
That looks like enough quantitative information for even someone like me to be able to figure out some unsafe consumption levels, using nothing more than information contained in Wikipedia at mg% and Hypervitaminosis E, and overdosing is certainly "an effect on human health". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I cannot believe that PMC 5438513 made it through peer review. Full of woo and promotional language about these berries like: The oil is used as a soothing agent after cosmetic procedures e.g. peelings, baths, masks, hair removal. Its presence in shampoos, hair conditioners or preparations used after dying or permanent wave treatment guarantees recovery, supports regeneration of damaged hair, restores its elasticity and ensures smoothness. Due to a high content of unsaturated fatty acids and related fast rancidity process of sea-buckthorn oil is recommended that it is used in the form of capsules for cosmetic products. It is also significant that sea-buckthorn oil, thanks to its intensive colour, improves skin tone after direct application on skin, giving it a fresh and healthy appearance Snake oil much? The authors disclose no COI. If that is the case, this is clearly an example of overenthusiastic academics.
The journal is Lipids in Health and Disease (about page) published by biomed central. The editor in chief of the journal is Undurti Narasimha Das (article created just this March, single editor, promotional) has been trying to develop PUFAs as cancer drugs since the late 1980s' (see here) and the journal lists his current affiliation as UND Life Sciences, a zombie startup company (been around a while, no evidence it has gotten funding or gotten anything done) trying to develop PUFAs as cancer drugs.
The journal has an impact factor of just around 2.
It obviously has very bad peer review, and we should treat articles published by this journal with caution, and use them only as back-up when we have strong sources supporting content.
Unsurprisingly this piece is cited on the websites of companies selling woo-driven cosmetics, like this one.
Gah. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
"Anything above 1" is our usual hope for impact factors, so two's not that bad.
I'm not the least bit surprised by the claim that it "improves skin tone": putting any orange dye on your skin would do the same, and outside of Western cultures, that's generally considered a positive quality. (For white people, "orange" means "you need a different spray-on fake tan".)
I think that there's nothing quite so reliable for saying that this is basically cosmetics than a recent review from two women from a reputable Polish university extolling its many virtues for cosmetics. "This is makeup (makeup is not chemotherapy)" is IMO an excellent basic POV for this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Jytdog. IMO extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. Looking at the refs supporting some of the claims in that paper and they simple do not.
What this paper proves is that peer review does not mean much. But than we already knew that. It also explains how the Wikipedia article on mitochondria when mixed with Star Wars was publishable. Added comments to pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
WAID I realized that here, as you have elsewhere, you are just trolling. I tend to be too earnest and take other people at face value, and completely missed that you do this. I will stop taking the bait. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not trolling. This stuff – even if some shyster is trying to add it to the nearly endless list of Stuff Sold To Desperate Cancer Patients – is actually used in cosmetics. I firmly disagree with your POV that this is a "bad ref". Sure, they're enthusiastic about it, but they also provide details about chemical analysis, extraction methods, and actual, legitimate commercial uses. I realize that the US $200,000,000,000+ cosmetics industry is of little interest to you or the average WPMED editor, but that actually is what this stuff is used for. EWG's database lists almost 200 different cosmetics products containing this oil. It's incomplete (doesn't include this $1-per-mL moisturizer, for example), but there's nothing about cancer in there.
I understand the initial reaction to some of the enthusiasm in that report. "The oil is used as a soothing agent" – sure, but any GRAS vegetable oil is going to be soothing to irritated skin after a chemical peel. Or butter, if you like that better. However, the fact that this isn't a unique quality to this particular oil doesn't change the fact that this oil is one of several oils that is actually used in that setting.
But I do not see any reason to believe that this source is wrong in saying that this product is primarily used in cosmetic skin care, or that it has a poor shelf life, or that the oil is used in shampoo (such as one or this one) or any of the other non-medical facts that you reverted here. What makes a source reliable isn't that it is unenthusiastic about a product. What makes a source reliable is that we can rely on it to get it right for whatever points we're using it to support. In the end, I think that this source knows enough about the cosmetics industry that we can use it to talk about non-medical cosmetics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Zeb A (2006). "Anticarcinogenic potential of lipids from Hippophae--evidence from the recent literature". Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. (Review). 7 (1): 32–5. PMID 16629511.
  2. ^ Zeb A (2006). "Anticarcinogenic potential of lipids from Hippophae--evidence from the recent literature". Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. (Review). 7 (1): 32–5. PMID 16629511.
I am sorry you do not see anything wrong with using a source that ~looks like~ it is a solid part of the biomedical literature but is a steaming pile of promotional woo. There were one or two editors who added promotional garbage to this article, the one about the plant species, and the article about the genus and i have gone all the way back to the genus article to rework this. I will end up back at the oil article later this week probably. There is actuallyl significant use of this plant and extract in China and Russia and other eastern european countries and significant agricultural production there, and many products on the market using it. That can all be made clear using sources that are not advertisements masquerading as scientific discussion. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
If a source mixes stuff that is clearly false unsupported with correct stuff unfortunately the false unsupported stuff tarnishes the entire source. It is sort of like plagiarism, if a source is plagiarism it sort of tarnishes everything within it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
That is the case for nutrient contents in separate compartments of the seed and pulp oils. Reputable sources have not published methods and results for such analyses, and where nutrient contents are described, such as in the source WAID found, other non-credible statements and claims contaminate credibility of the whole source. WP's usual source for reliable nutrient assays - the USDA National Nutrient Database - contains no entry for seabuckthorn fruit or its oil, probably because the crop was never successfully farmed in the USA or Canada. Even though seabuckthorn has cultivation success and many products and uses in Eastern Europe, Russia, and China, there appear to be no reliable sources for nutrient assays in these countries. --Zefr (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Zefr, it appears that that nutritional information was published in a Pakistani biology journal: Arif S, Ahmed SD, Shah AH, Hamid A, Batool F, et al. Determination of optimum harvesting time for Vitamin C, oil and mineral elements in berries sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) Pak J Bot. 2010;42(5):3561–3568.
As you noted, this is unlikely to be found in regions where the plant isn't grown/of commercial interest. If anyone's curious, then please note that the impact factor for that journal is almost exactly at the worldwide average for a crop sciences journal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Doc James, please name one fact – any one fact – in that source that is "clearly false". If you can relate to the content that Jytdog removed, which includes sentences such as "Sea buckthorn oil is used in shampoo and other hair care products" and "Sea buckthorn oil is frequently used in cosmetics products, especially topical products marketed for aging skin and dry skin.", then so much the better, but I'll settle for any single fact that is "clearly false", even if it isn't related to anything in the article.
Jytdog, the definition of woo can be found at wikt:woo woo, which defines it as a belief in "supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations." Do please tell me how "This is used in shampoo" is evidence of paranormal beliefs. If not, then I suggest that you might be better off trying sentences like "Parts of this source use language that is common in fashion magazines, such as 'recovering' from oil-stripping hair treatments by smearing a few drops of oil in your hair, and that jargon is completely unfamiliar to old white guys like me" instead of "a steaming pile of promotional woo". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This bit "sea-buckthorn oil protects against infections, prevents allergies, eliminates inflammation and inhibits the aging process" is unsupported. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Doc James, "unsupported" does not mean "clearly false". I agree that no citations were included in the abstract, but there certainly are citations to support those statements elsewhere in the paper, so I can't even agree that this is "unsupported".
To their credit, they don't claim that these are truly unique qualities for this oil; most topically applied oils prevent some infections in certain situations (e.g., if moisturizer reduces the likelihood of the skin cracking), reduce skin inflammation, inhibit that aspect of the 'aging process' known as thin, dry skin, etc. They cite PMID 16870801 and PMID 22770766 (both reviews) for one particular mechanism that they mention briefly with respect to this sentence, so I think we can reasonably claim that these are "supported", even if we're personally skeptical of the effect size, the likelihood of significant benefit for the dose usually encountered, whether plain old vegetable oil would be just as good, etc. (Other mechanisms for these same effects cite other papers, of course; e.g., the first section after the abstract also deals with skin inflammation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Generally it is the job of those proposing ideas to support them. If something is unsupported it is not appropriate here. Making health claims as definition as that needs an RCT and non are provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Please click the link to the PubMed abstract for the first review that this paper cites in support of this claim, and find the words "review of the voluminous literature, including randomized controlled trials" under the description of the methods. If this source actually needs RCTs for us to be able to cite it to say that one commercial application of the agricultural product is putting it in shampoo, then it apparently has met your standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyrights

[1] [1]

References

  1. ^ a b Zielińska, Aleksandra; Nowak, Izabela (2017). "Abundance of active ingredients in sea-buckthorn oil". Lipids in Health and Disease. 16 (1): 95. doi:10.1186/s12944-017-0469-7. ISSN 1476-511X. PMC 5438513. PMID 28526097. This article incorporates text available under the CC0 license.

The 2017 review is in the public domain. QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not. The review is CC-BY. Only the underlying data is CC-0. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is. See "This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated."[45] Just use the CC-notice. QuackGuru (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I read that earlier. I'm marking the key words for you. "This article" is CC-BY (see the /by/ in the URL?); "the data" is public domain (/zero/ in the URL).
Also, we don't use the {{cc-notice}} unless we have copied content (e.g., sentences) out of the source and directly into the Wikipedia article (as if the sentences from the source were written by a Wikipedia editor), so that template shouldn't be used like that anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That template must be used for copying content directly into the Wikipedia article. It must be used with the CC-notice like that when copying content. QuackGuru (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that correct attribution must be given if you copy content directly into a Wikipedia article. However, "copying content directly into a Wikipedia article" is not the same as "citing the source to support a fact, at the end of a sentence that you wrote in your own words". When you are merely citing the source to support a fact, at the end of a sentence that you wrote in your own words, then you do not include a template that says you copied the sentence out of the source that you're citing.
  • The correct attribution for that source would be {{CC-notice|cc=by}}, not {{CC-notice|cc=zero}} – assuming that you were actually copying "text" (=exact word used in that template) out of the source, which nobody is planning to do.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Those templates say "This article incorporates text..." from the source. Do you think that those templates should be used when "this article" does NOT "incoporate text" from the source? Don't you think that saying "this article incorporates text" from the source, when you know that the article does NOT incorporate any text at all from the source, is telling a lie, stating a deliberate untruth about whether "this article" actually "incorporates text" from the source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license. This is CC-notice 4. Is this the correct template? QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That is the correct template if and only if "this article" actually "incorporates text" from the source.
My question for you is: What is the correct template when you do NOT actually incorporate any text at all from the source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
No template for attribution is needed if no content is copied. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That's true, but there's more to it than that. The template is not appropriate unless "this article" actually "incorporates" text from the source. Incorporating means that it's "mixed in the body" of "this article", e.g., without it being obvious to a potential re-user that any "text" in "this article" is licensed by someone other than the Wikipedia editor.
You should not use this template if you are merely citing or directly quoting a source (i.e., what we've done on this non-article page). You only use this template if you are actually incorporating text from the source into an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Where is the policy that illustrates when the  This article incorporates text by Aleksandra Zielińska and Izabela Nowak available under the CC BY 4.0 license. must be used and when it must not be used? The article also says "The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated."[46] When does the  This article incorporates text by Aleksandra Zielińska and Izabela Nowak available under the CC0 license. must be used instead of the  This article incorporates text by Aleksandra Zielińska and Izabela Nowak available under the CC BY 4.0 license. template? QuackGuru (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The policy is WP:COPYOTHERS. It mostly uses the word "importing" to describe the act of copying a source straight into Wikipedia.
I agree that the "the data" in this paper (i.e., not anything else) is CC-0. It's possible that the numbers in the handful of tables is meant to be considered "the data". However, as a general rule, narrative reviews have very little actual "data" generated by the authors, and this may simply be a license statement that the journal requires and which happens to be irrelevant for this particular paper.
On the question of which one to use, the answers are:
  • If you incorporate sentences and paragraphs from the source into an article, then you use CC-BY.
  • If you incorporate "the data" (only), then you use CC-0.
  • If you directly incorporate nothing (e.g., you cite it as a source, but write all the sentences and paragraphs yourself), then you use none of these templates. You cite a CC-BY or CC-0 article exactly like you cite a source with full copyright protection.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The policy WP:COPYOTHERS did not explain things in detail as you have done so here. Policy can be explained better. Policy is too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
clarification of actual text WP:COPYOTHERScould be requestedWikipedia_talk:Copyrights since page is protected--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:COMPLIC is not explained very well at Copyrights. {{PD-notice}} and {{CC-notice}} also needs more explanation. Mistakes will continue to happen. Someone can make a request to update Copyrights. QuackGuru (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Systemic lupus erythematosus

Hello again. Please review the semi-protected edit request over at Talk:Systemic lupus erythematosus. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

[47]...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Van Goethem syndrome

Anemia

opinions needed at article/talk (what to do about this 'article'),thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


Draft:Williamtown chemical contamination

I have started this article on a significant emerging contamination issue in Australia. Any help from other experienced editors would be most appreciated. AusLondonder (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

[48]ref--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It is a legitimate article. I have added a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?

Hi! We have our system ready, and we can start recommending editors to your project now. We'd like to invite some of project organizers to our study. Participants will receive two batches of recommendations. If you think the recommended editors are good candidates for your project, we'd like you to invite them to the project.

Please let me know if you'd be interested in participating, add your WikiProject and username to the table on my user talk page. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure! I am pulling out the previous discussion threads here for reference: thread1, thread2. Bobo.03 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Hilotherapy

I have just put up the Hilotherapy page for deletion (AFD). I considered rapid deletion but as I only consider it self promotion I felt that this was the appropriate method. If you agree with my view, or not I would appreciate you having a lookHaraldW1954 (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Couple of decent sources. It is a thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
We have a hodgepodge of coverage under Heat therapy, Hyperthermia therapy, Diathermy, Cryotherapy, Cold compression therapy, Ice bath, Contrast bath therapy, and no doubt others. All are Start-class except Cryotherapy and Ice bath, which are C-class. The whole suite could use a thorough scrub-down. The evidence base in any case seems at best shaky for their use in many indications: PMID 25526231, PMID 28194375, PMID 24547600. There are a few good uses, such as jellyfish stings,PMID 27043628 and of course first-aid for burns,PMID 25820085 (though even for that the evidence seems somewhat less than convincing). Double blind studies are of course impossible for conscious subjects, except perhaps those with some degree of paralysis, so one doubts the evidence will ever be very good. "Hilo"therapy seems to just be a brand named dry equivalent to Contrast bath therapy. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

K-pop

Please review the change here. This change appears to be within the scope of this WikiProject and can be altered once accepted. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I might be missing out on something here, but was this, perhaps, intended to be posted in a different WikiProject? --a u t a c o i d (stalk) 11:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The link provided shows no difference between the two versions. (There are several intermediate versions.) Also, the article itself is certainly not in the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification. I thought the connection was something very obscure I must have missed. --a u t a c o i d (stalk) 13:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Muscle response testing

Muscle response testing once was on WP:FTN (thread), where a merge/redirect was proposed and attempted, but reverted. Input/care welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 10:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

it should be merged to Applied kinesiology...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
(Re)done, thanks. —PaleoNeonate – 14:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Knowledge and verification

These two links may interest some of our Wikipedians in Residence and others who are interested in the process of identifying good information: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/07/07/brown-bag-knowledge-sharing/ and m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Considering 2030: Misinformation, verification, and propaganda (July 2017). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

[49]very informative, thank you WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Racial content at Depression (mood) article

If anyone here has any thoughts on racial content regarding the Depression (mood) article, see this section of the article and the following discussion: Talk:Depression (mood)#Possible additions related to epidemiology/race. A permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Ay caramba. I moved it to the talk page. I had unwatched that article a while ago for some reason. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you accidentally unwatched it? It happens. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hydrogen therapy

Hope someone will write an article on hydrogen therapy (see also here etc. It is not the same as hydrogen peroxide therapy!) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The first source is unsuitable as a reference, but it does allude to some interesting findings. The second source is a thinly veiled advertisement. It is completely unreliable.
On PubMed, I found papers that suggest possible benefit in stroke and myocardial infarction reperfusion. However the studies are at a very early stage and the evidence is limited. I don't think that there are enough suitable reliable sources to justify writing a Wikipedia article at the moment. (This could well change in the future.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I see, thank you. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Classifying pedophilia as a mental (psychiatric) disorder, and questioning the number of pedophiles who molest children

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Pedophilia#Moving "mental disorder" out of the lead sentence, etc.. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)



more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Broken image rotation

Here [50] the image is off by 90 degrees. Anyone know how to fix this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Something looks broken in the image thumbnailer. It's also 90° off in the commons info page and image-history on that page, but the full-sized original image is correct. I tried resizing the thumbnail and that did not fix it, so it's something currently broken not something cached. DMacks (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It looks like editor Utcursch has just an hour ago marked the image to be rotated into correct position by Rotatebot -- this will probably fix the problem once it happens. (Problems of this sort can easily be caused by incorrect use of image-editing programs, by the way.) Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Seems to have been fixed. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_100&oldid=1189627749"