Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 128

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

Archive 128

Archive 129

Archive 130

→

Archive 135

Circumcision maps

Rate of male circumcision by country

  >80%

  20–80%

  <20%

  N/A

Rates of circumcision by country among boys younger than 15 years-old

• List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

After some of the usual type of kerfuffle at Circumcision (the article is now protected), I notice the recently created article List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting. The "map" from this is being proposed for use at Circumcision. This seems problematic from a WP:V point of view: it's not exactly clear what the data sources are but they appear to straddle quite a time period, giving us a map of a state of the world that never was, and which certainly does not appear in any WP:RS. The topic looks to me to be intrinsically OR/SYNTH as presented. Thoughts? Alexbrn (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by it's not exactly clear what the data sources are, Alexbrn?? 'The sources for List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting are all listed on that page. — Guarapiranga (talk) 04:09, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

And of course they straddle quite a time period. All global collection of surveys do! The data published by the WHO (2007) and Morris et al (2016) also straddles quite a time period. — Guarapiranga (talk) 04:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The two maps are very similar. The concern with the second one is that it contains a number of primary sources. Why restrict to under 15? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The RS data is broken down in 0 to 14 and 15 and above. One could calculate the overall prevalence from demographic data, but that would be WP:OR. Both maps are provided in the main article. — Guarapiranga (talk) 05:11, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The point is the statisticians at the WHO are qualified to deal with such time differences and sift and refine their data use. We Wikipedia editors are not. This looks to me like a piece of original work built from an editor's synthesis of primary data - we are meant to be citing secondary sources, not creating them anew. As for verifiability we have a problem. For example, clicking on any link to the "The DHS Program" take me to a web site landing page[1] which does not verify the data used. Alexbrn (talk) 04:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

(Add) There also seems to be an issue even where content is apparently verifiable. So the figure for South Korea is given as 81.6% for male circumcision at "15+", yet the cited source says "Currently the age-standardized circumcision rate for South Korean males aged 14–29 is found to be 75.8%", and the 81.6% does not appear in the text. What is going on? Alexbrn (talk) 04:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Alexbrn. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The point is the statisticians at the WHO are qualified to deal with such time differences and sift and refine their data use. We Wikipedia editors are not.

No statistical analysis involved here. The table literally quotes the sourced data, as WHO (2007) and Morris et al (2016) also do (Morris et al (2016) does some analysis for countries they don't have survey data with religion demographics, but we don't attempt that, and simply quote their finding). Other than that, they don't do any adjustment for 'time straddling', and we quote the data from the various sources just like any other list article does (e.g. List of countries and dependencies by population). No WP:OR involved at all.

As for verifiability we have a problem. For example, clicking on any link to the "The DHS Program" take me to a web site landing page[2] which does not verify the data used.

Just read the page and you'll find what you're after:

STATcompiler
Compare data across countries and trends over time for hundreds of population, health and nutrition indicators. Choose indicators for over 200 surveys and create customized tables, graphs, charts and maps. See the STATcompiler tutorials for instructions on the use of the STATcompiler. See STATcompiler comparability for information on the comparability of STATcompiler results and differences from results in the final reports.

— Guarapiranga (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

That reply deepens, rather than assuages, my concerns about verifiability. I raised a problem with a cited source not supporting a given figure, and you point at ... some software? I think this article might need to be deleted. Alexbrn (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

What software, dude?? That is the website from USAID!! You clearly have no idea of what you're talking about. — Guarapiranga (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

The source for the South Korean data is PMID 23227923. How does it support your "81.6%" figure? And what has STATCompiler (software that "allows users to make custom tables") got to do with it? You have read WP:V right? Alexbrn (talk) 05:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually I had a similar question some time ago for another article, and I've seen nothing in the image policy that prevents making a diagram to illustrate. In fact, it advises to make new diagrams that are unlike anything published elsewhere for copyright reasons Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Diagrams_and_other_images. That's what I did with this image for example [3], which is mainly inspired by another image, but also partly from others and foremost by the textual sources. As long as the image is illustrating data found in the sources, I guess it's OK, isn't it? Else how could we manage with copyright issues? --Signimu (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Haven't yet looked into the SKorea figure. It could be wrong. If indeed it is, go ahead and correct it. Wikipedia is not my work, it is a collaborative encyclopaedia (a word whose meaning seems lost in meaning for you given your pattern of edit warring.

And what has STATCompiler (software that "allows users to make custom tables") got to do with it?

This is precisely why I linked the USAID DHS Program website rather than the STATcompiler one. If you feel the citation can be improved, than do it. If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. (WP:ATD) — Guarapiranga (talk) 05:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

In point of fact the article is nearly all yours (94%), and it was you who added the Korean reference, at a time when the figure was (mysteriously) 77%. What are you doing? Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source. Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I contributed the lion share of that article, that doesn't mean own it, though. We don't own anything at Wikipedia, it's T&C are pretty clear about that.

I haven't looked into the SKorean figure yet, but if you say I changed it when I introduced the reference, it stands to reason that I corrected it when I did that. If you believe it's wrong, just go ahead and correct it. Or at least discuss it in the article's talk page. No point whinging about it here. — Guarapiranga (talk) 20:59, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure about "whinging" - it's important surely that care is taken when adding medical content to Wikipedia? So, the second country I spot checked was United Kingdom. This gives the "0-14" prevalence as "3%", yet the source [4] says this is the "post-neonatal" figure? Alexbrn (talk) 03:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, 0 to 14 is "post-neonatal". Either way, the WP:CENTRAL place to discuss the article's content is it's own talk page, not here. Guarapiranga (talk) 03:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

"0 to 14 is "post-neonatal" <- Do you seriously think so? I think these issues can be discussed here because they affect multiple medical articles and because there is an emerging issue of source misrepresentation across the piece (which might yet need to go to another noticeboard). Alexbrn (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Be cautious when referencing this page, particularly when involved in a dispute with another editor, as it could be considered a personal attack. (WP:CIR)

Do you read the links you post? Guarapiranga (talk) 03:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

But, yes, 0 to 14 is post- (i.e. after) neonatal. I believe you're confusing (annual) rates with (population) prevalence. Guarapiranga (talk) 03:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, we are truly through the looking glass here. You have put an entry in a table for prevalence of circumcision in the UK for ages 0-14 (i.e. from birth to aged 14). You have put "3%" in that table. You say above you strictly engaged in no re-interpretation of the data. Yet the cited source for this says the "post-neonatal therapeutic circumcision" UK prevalence is 3% (i.e. all therapeutic circumcision not of newborns). And you are seriously claiming these two sets of people are identical? Alexbrn (talk) 04:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, so now your problem is with the therapeutic qualifier, not with the age bracket anymore… Swiftly moved the goalpost, I see.

However, you may be right about that one. OTOH, Morris et al (2016) estimate it at 0.2%, and the primary source they quote (Cathcart et al, 2006) estimate it at 3.1% for overall prevalence (as they too confuse the annual rate cited in their source with population prevalence). So you can move it back to 3.1% (no need to cite the source, it's already cited on that cell). — Guarapiranga (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The issue is the therapeutic tag and the age bracket. If you truly believe that "age 0-14" and "post-neonatal" describe identical sets, I would say you are not competent to be editing any medical data-based articles and need to be topic-banned. So where in Cathcart et. al. is this 3.1% figure for prevalence in ages "0-14" (strictly without "interpretation" remember). I'm not seeing it. Alexbrn (talk) 05:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Here:

The proportion of boys who would undergo circumcision by their 15th birthday if the circumcision rates observed in a reporting year remained unchanged fell from 3·9 per cent in 1997 to 3·1 per cent in 2003.

You're funny, Alex, first you say Wikipedia editors are not (competent), now you say they need to be. You contradict yourself every handful of words. — Guarapiranga (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

So a couple of issues here. First, "0-14" and "0-15" are different age groups, and secondly Cathcart et. al. is confining itself only to "paediatric medical circumcision" whereas other data you are using includes non-medical circumcision. Editors are not expected to be "competent" in interpreting and analyzing data (indeed that is prohibited) but they are expected to be competent in reading, comprehending and conveying material in sources into our articles. Alexbrn (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

1. If you see something that needs fixing, WP:FIXIT.

2. By the 15th birthday is 0-14 (i.e. it includes 14 years and 364 days old).

3. Yes, the source does exclude ritual circumcision from their analysis, and only looks at circumcisions done in hospital. You could include the ritual ones they exclude, and rework their numbers, but that would be WP:OR. If you have a better source for the number, go ahead and improve the article. WP:BEBOLD

4. Your WP:PERSONALATTACKS are unnecessary and constitute WP:HARASSMENT.

— Guarapiranga (talk) 12:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Guarapiranga is correct that "by the 15th birthday" means "age 0 to 14".

I'm not sure that including ritual circumcision rates will make much difference. The Jewish population is just 0.5% of the people in the UK, and the Muslim community is about 4.5%. In the UK (and in most developed countries), the Jewish mohel is normally also a licensed healthcare provider and the ritual is performed in the clinic. The only requirement for the person performing an Islamic circumcision is that he be a properly trained healthcare provider (e.g., he need not be Muslim). In the absence of reliable sources that directly contradict this claim, I think it's reasonable for us to assume that this source is correct, as most of the circumcisions in the UK will be performed in a healthcare facility and therefore captured in this survey. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The source is no doubt "correct" but it explicitly excludes ritual circumcisions that have taken place in a clinical setting, so it would be wrong to use the figure to represent all-UK circumcision. This rather illustrates the problem of stretching primary sources rather than relying on expert sources that can sift those primaries for us. Alexbrn (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Morris et al (2016) is one such "expert sources", but unfortunately they screwed this one up, citing the 0.2% annual rate as prevalence. The actual number in the primary source is 0.21%, and it's not even a flow rate, as it's number of circumcisions in a year divided by the whole 0-14 boy population, not over a single age cohort, like the annual rate of neonatal circumcision. So, yeah, the best estimates for the UK are 3.1% (Cathart et al, 2006) and 3% (National Childbirth Trust, 2019) (one more reliable, the other more recent, both excluding ritual circumcision, and both providing pretty much the same number). Guarapiranga (talk) 08:08, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The 3.1% figure is implausible. But we're not on Wikipedia to bungle around with "interpretations" of data. Come back when we can reference something which directly supports the content. Alexbrn (talk) 06:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Implausible? According to whom? You?? But we're not on Wikipedia to bungle around with "interpretations" of data. Exactly. And yet it's precisely what you're doing. The references are listed below, for your perusal. Guarapiranga (talk) 09:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes according to me. But that is beside the point: Wikipedia does not indulge editors the luxury of inserting their own research into Wikipedia. Find a source that satisfies WP:V or shut up. Alexbrn (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Alex, I don't think it's okay to tell editors to shut up if they can't WP:SATISFY your (apparently source-free?) disbelief in what the sources say. If you don't like that source, then please provide others. If you think that source should have a "Hey, omits ritual circumcisions for the tiny fraction of UK folks that practice circumcision as a religions thing" disclaimer on it, then propose that. But don't tell people to shut up if they don't produce sources that happen to line up with your personal beliefs about what the facts ought to be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Typically personal, arrogant and wrong. A source which satisfies what is claimed to be sourced would be good. Your original research is not. Alexbrn (talk) 20:09, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Let's try everyone to stick to the content & sources --Signimu (talk) 21:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Article name

I attempted to make the articles title more precise: List of countries by prevalence of circumcision and female genital mutilation but Guarapiranga has moved it back to List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting. This is something we see from anti-circumcision activists all the time, an attempt to elide circumcision alongside FGM as "genital cutting" in a way RS generally doesn't. More widely, the munging together of these two statistical sets into one table is inherently POV. Alexbrn (talk) 07:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

As I told you in the edit summary, Alexbrn, genital cutting is not an activist term; it's the official term used by the US government, by the CDC and also by the Encyclopaedia Brittanica. — Guarapiranga (talk) 08:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Those sources speak to FGM also being known as genital cutting, not male circumcision. ICD-10 uses FGM – though it does list "cutting" as a synonym. Given ICD-10 is one of the specified preferred sources for WP:AT by WP:NCMED, I prefer List of countries by prevalence of circumcision and female genital mutilation as the page deals with both. Little pob (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Exactly: this whole ploy looks like a POV push to suggest equivalence between FGM and circumcision and get the "genital cutting" wording into Wikipedia, and this dishonesty over terms is just an aspect of it. That we've also got a ridiculous composite table where most of the "equivalent" cels in the FGM columns are marked "N/A" is another symptom of the POV warriors' handiwork. Alexbrn

Alternatively we could keep the name (or rename it to just List of countries by prevalence of female genital mutilation) and rip out all of the circumcision stuff. Since that mostly (all?) fails WP:V that might be cleaner. Alexbrn (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Also male circumcision seems not even covered in ICD-11[5] nor ICD-10, suggesting the WHO does not consider it a disease, the only reference being «Contact with health services for routine or ritual circumcision», so a reference to the services practicing it, but not the practice itself --Signimu (talk) 14:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, genital cutting seems to be indeed used for male circumcision[6], although not as often arguably as the latter. --Signimu (talk) 17:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Not generally. Search results are not RS and can be very unintelligently touted. So taking the first of your search results (as Google displays them for me any rate), PMID 26449728, how does this support your contention that "genital cutting seems to be indeed used for male circumcision"? It seems instead to contradict that view. Alexbrn (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Ah you're right, I hoped the quite precise search criteria I used would overcome Google's filtering bubble, but well apparently not if you can't see the pertinent results (from the 2nd entry for me). Here they are, with excerpts: «male genital cutting»[7], «genital cutting other than female genital cutting»[8], «non-therapeutic genital cutting»[9]. Other refs mentioning "genital cutting" mostly pertain to female genital cutting (and BTW this ref[10] differenciates genital cutting and genital modification as subtypes of circumcision, implying that the latter is a more general term). (Side-note: No doubt female genital cutting is more prevalent in the literature, but it might just be because it's more studied than male circumcision.) --Signimu (talk) 21:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

@Alexbrn: Could you please stop your snide personal remarks in passive-aggressive tones in diff comments?[11] That's not helpful for anyone (you even made one to me[12], and I'm external with no pov nor knowledge on the matter, just trying to provide external feedback!). --Signimu (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

SUpport "List of countries by prevalence of circumcision and female genital mutilation" as the more neutral term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Genital cutting is most obviously the gender-neutral term (see WP:GENDER). Guarapiranga (talk) 01:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

But arguably more surprising... Following this source[13] I mentioned above, it suggests the most neutral, general and least surprising naming would be "male and female circumcision" - and these are also the accepted terms in ICD11[14][15], with the difference that ICD11 considers "female circumcision" an alias of "female mutilation" (I don't know how to link that, search in ICD11 search bar to see it), whereas the source considers circumcision as broader (cutting + mutilation) --Signimu (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

How can you say "female circumcision" is the ICD term when the link you give[16] has "female genital mutilation"? Alexbrn (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I repeat: "ICD11 considers "female circumcision" an alias of "female mutilation" (I don't know how to link that, search in ICD11 search bar to see it)". I can post a screenshot if you have difficulties seeing the alias (that's not ironic, I simply do not exclude browsers differences that might prevent you from seeing aliases on their arguably raw interface). --Signimu (talk) 05:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

You put female circumcision was one of the "accepted terms" (whatever that means). But - regardless of synonmys - you agree, though, that the actual term (GC51) in ICD11 is "female genital mutilation"[17] right?

I agree it's both since "female circumcision" is shown as an alias. It's not a synonym I make up, they accepted it. But I agree this is not the main presentation they accepted, "female genitalia mutilation" has a slightly higher precedence. But if you go that way, "male circumcision" is even less accepted than "female circumcision" per ICD11, since "male circumcision" has no exact match (the only other entry being "QB82 Contact with health services for routine or ritual circumcision", which suggests this pertains to both female and male circumcision!). So per ICD11, "female circumcision" is more supported than "male circumcision" that is not even recognized (and I know this sounds ridiculous, but apparently that's how it is). --Signimu (talk) 06:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The term is the term and stands alone. "Female circumcision" is what the WHO used to call this (as explained in our FGM article) which is, I suppose, why it's kept as a synonym. But that old usage is deprecated and considered unacceptable in most forms of discourse today. Alexbrn (talk) 06:21, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

That's edging on WP:OR, there are many reasons why ICD may contain aliases, and not necessarily because the term is deprecated (BTW I'm sure we can find several examples of changing priorities between aliases as changes in terminology by specialists happen over time). Anyway, a better argument would be that the article title should cover both circumcision and female genital mutilation as to cover the two accepted and most frequent terms, even if that includes some semantic redundancy, and to that I can agree, hence my support (albeit light because I'm external). --Signimu (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Side-note: IMO the biggest cause of the whole issue here is trying to mix up circumcision (female or male) and female genital mutilation, the latter being politically loaded (that's at the root of its inception according to Female genital mutilation) and more importantly a disease according to ICD11. These should be separated, as is strongly suggested by the fact that ICD11 does not even consider "circumcision" as an entry (the closest one being only about the contact to professionals practicing it). --Signimu (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, the article is trying to make an equivalence between circumcision and FGM, which is POV. At least some of the wording doing this has now been toned down. It's an activist move and our circumcision ar5ticle is under fairly steady attack from activists wanting to rename it (e.g.) "male genital mutilation". Alexbrn (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

@Signimu: Let's be clear about this: the common names used currently in reliable sources are "circumcision" for males and "female genital mutilation" for females. The procedures are not equivalent in the way that they are viewed by mainstream medical practitioners, nor in their consequences. An attempt to use a single term for both is an attempt to indirectly draw an equivalence between the two, and a step towards legitimising the abhorrent practice of FGM. Wikipedia should not be supporting attempts to do that, and we should be strongly defending the distinction that exists. --RexxS (talk) 16:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and the very existence of an article that juxtaposes circumcision and FGM is a kind of OR/POV problem as other editors have noticed[18]. Not quite sure what to do about this yet. Maybe AfD? Or maybe split the table and merge the results to the prevalence of circumcision and prevalence of female genital mutilation by country articles we already have? Alexbrn (talk) 16:55, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

As I said, I have limited knowledge on this topic, so I have based my reasoning solely on the academic articles above and ICD, but when reading the Encyclopaedia Britannica linked above by Guarapiranga, it appears clearly that all 4 types of female genital cutting are mutilations, contrary to male circumcision. Given this and ICD, it appears clear that both of these practices should be separated (including in the maps/tables as Alexbrn suggests), and if there still remain doubts for some editors, I can bet that it's possible to find several serious academic sources clearly distinguishing these two practices.RexxS: After reading EB, I also find FGM abhorrent, but my opinion is irrelevant for WP, anyway the sources clearly make that distinction --Signimu (talk) 18:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• Move requested: Talk:List of countries by prevalence of genital cutting#Requested move 18 October 2019. Alexbrn (talk) 02:35, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

ETCO2 is currently a redlink.

Several of our articles mention ETCO2

E.g. in Bronchospasm

there may be complete inability to ventilate and loss of ETCO2

However this term is currently a redlink. Can we please make an article explaining this term, or redirect ETCO2 to text explaining it?

Thanks.

- 2804:14D:5C59:87A4:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Created a redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:40, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks - 2804:14D:5C59:87A4:0:0:0:1000 (talk) 00:46, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Lassa fever re-check

See /Archive_124#Lassa_fever_lead_check for earlier discussion on same article

There is a WikiJMed article on Lassa fever (link). On its initial publication, multiple issues were detected (discussion); Primarily copyvio problems, but also medmos issues, since the article was also intended for wikipedia-integration.
The article has been subsequently overhauled and published under doi:10.15347/wjm/2019.002.2 (had the author not been able to address these issues it would have been simply retracted). The copyvio issues have been fully corrected, and I believe that it is now also MEDMOS-compliant.

• If anyone is able to check the article for MEDMOS-compliance, that would be extremely valuable.

To avoid similar problems in future for WikiJMed articles intended for wikipedia integration, I also propose a couple of items.

1. We've added a short MEDMOS primer in the author guidelines. Feel free to give feedback or directly edit.
2. We could also add a processing step to post articles in review to this talkpage during the peer review process.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:44, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It would be better IMO if authors would work initially directly on the articles on Wikipedia and than publish from Wikipedia into Wiki Journals.

Copy and pasting stuff into Wikipedia after the fact does not work very well. This results in a lot of formatting issues and does not allow feedback from the community as things are worked on.

The article in question still does not follow WP:MEDMOS or WP:MOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

• The Lassa fever article remains a hot mess. I took a quick look and the info on ribavirin is both wrong and unsupported by the cited sources, including a citation of WP's ribavirin article that seems to confuse hepatitis B with hepatitis C. I don't have time at present to dig further, but if this is more than an isolated issue - especially given prior copyvio and other issues - I wonder if retraction is the best course for the sake of the journal. — soupvector (talk) 17:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  In case it's helpful, here's a link to a systematic review of lassa treatment with ribavirin PMID 31357056 (far from supportive), and the 33-year-old study suggesting benefit based on methodology now seen as flawed PMID 3940312. — soupvector (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

  Also, the grammar and syntax are a mess. For example, in the Pathophysiology section, the second sentence of the first paragraph and the entire fourth paragraph lack proper structure. I'll stop there. — soupvector (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

User:soupvector thanks and I have updated the Wikipedia page in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for he delayed response. Thanks for all the discussion and references here, and I just wanted to note that it's being taken seriously. I've notified the editors who coordinated the peer reviews to make sure they've seen the comments above and they'll post on the journal article's talkpage on what the next steps being taken are to address it. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Need 3rd opinion on addition for Intermittent fasting

Intermittent fasting is a strategy for meals timing scheduling.

Hello I'd like to add a mention in the Mechanism section of the 2 major hypotheses for the health/biomarkers changes observed with fasting: is it only because of caloric restriction, or is there something special with fasting? These hypotheses are covered in nearly all the literature about intermittent fasting or (long-term) fasting. Here is what I proposed to add:

It remains unclear whether the health and biomarkers effects of intermittent fasting are due solely to weight loss or to a "metabolic switch" mechanism specifically activated when fasting, but a review of a wide variety of diets, including alternate day fasting, show they all provide similar weight loss and cardiovascular benefits, with more adherence and weight loss predicting more benefits. A systematic review did not find evidence of a reduction of adaptive responses, except maybe appetite, when using intermittent fasting, although most studies were underpowered to assess this.

References

Zefr disagrees with adding these as unencyclopedic (maybe he can clarify here why?). What do you guys think? Thank you in advance --Signimu (talk) 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

It looks a bit suspicious that there are 4 references needed for the initial statement (WP:OVERCITE). I checked the first and couldn't see how it supported the text It remains unclear whether the health and biomarkers effects of intermittent fasting are due solely to weight loss or to a "flip switch" mechanism specifically activated when fasting. Earlier in the article it is saying the effects of IF are uncertain, but here we are asserting "the health and biomarkers effects" as though they are a certainty? I think maybe a WP:REDFLAG is flying here - is there a strong source which directly supports the given text? Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, it seems you have a bad habit of assuming failed verification when you simply did not take the time to properly check the source. I can gladly present excerpts to save you time, it would simply be nice if you could ask that in a nicer way

• 1stref: "How Does Calorie Restriction or Fasting Work? After decades of research, scientists still don't know why calorie restriction extends lifespan and delays age-related diseases in laboratory animals. Do these results come from consuming fewer calories or eating within a certain timeframe? Are the results affected by the diet's mix of nutrients?"
• 2nd: "This latter choice derived from the idea of studying conditions simulating as much as possible a condition of fasting, whose benefits, proven by animal studies, seem to depend on the shift in metabolism from glucose utilization and fat synthesis/storage towards reduced insulin secretion and fat mobilization/oxidation [30, 31]. [...] The hypothesized benefits of IER, extensively studied in animal models, included the use of fats during severe energy restriction with preferential reduction of adipose mass, the stimulation of browning in white adipose tissue, increased insulin sensitivity, lowering of leptin and increased human growth hormone, ghrelin and adiponectin circulating levels, reduced inflammation and oxidative stress [30]. The trigger of adaptive cell response leading to enhanced ability to cope with stress [...] At present, many of these adaptive mechanisms have been demonstrated in animal experimental models but not in humans, thus more research is still needed." [NB: 30 and 31 are refs about the flip switch hypothesis)
• 3rd: it's in the title, the article is a review which concludes with the flip switch hypothesis.
• 4rd: "It would seem plausible that the unfavorable physiological changes synonymous with energy restriction and weight loss could be offset by intermittently raising energy intake to meet weight maintenance energy requirements, rather than a continuous and ongoing energy restriction."

About WP:OVERCITE and WP:REDFLAG: I note that WP:OVERCITE is an essay, and WP:REDFLAG is irrelevant and conflicting with WP:OVERCITE (or could you quote the exact sentence you think applies here?). According to WP:REDFLAG: «surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources [is a red flag]», that's exactly the opposite case here: multiple reliable sources are provided to show that both of these hypotheses are widely considered in this scientific community. Initially there were less, but I added more following Zefr comments. Four does not seem overciting to me, but feel free to propose which source to trim, but then claiming that this is not supported by enough reliable sources would be a moot point If you have any additional question, I'll be glad to clarify and save you time --Signimu (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Well I did read the source, and despite your helpful provision of an extract I still cannot see how the first source supports the "weight loss vs 'flip switch'" dilemma the article text sets up - and I don't see that caveat mentioned that the source refers to "laboratory animals". If you're saying the text is a WP:SYNTHESIS of the four sources, then that could be problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Flip switch is the name given to the hypothesis that there is something specific going on with fasting. The first source does not mention nor references it directly, but it mentions exactly the same hypothesis, just not named. Other sources do the same (eg, the 2nd one, but there is a reference to the flip switch paper/review). Unfortunately the first source provides no list of references, so that's why I am always wary of using it (it's not a scientific statement like the AHA). However, all the other sources do either mention explicitly the flip switch, or add a citation to the 2 flip switch articles. And yes, when mentioning the mechanism, most sources mix up animal and human studies, as the flip switch hypothesis is investigated in both. Since this is not a result, but a question of scientific interest, I see no problem that reviews of this hypothesis are not only focused on human studies. What matters for MEDRS is whether this applies to humans, and for this the sources are clear and unanimous: we don't know. And this information is what I think is pertinent to add. So to summarize: if you really think this is problematic, I see no problem in either removing the first ref for this sentence, or removing the name "flip switch" (the sentence still carries the same info without). --Signimu (talk) 19:32, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

NB: Please note the sources are not in order of pertinence but simply the same order as in the mainspace entry, that's why the NIA source is first although it's not explicitly naming the flip switch theory (but it still discusses the hypothesis without naming) If you want an order of pertinence, I'dd say: sources 3, 2, 4, 1. --Signimu (talk) 01:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Correction: my proposition was initially naming this the "flip switch" mechanism, instead of the "metabolic switch" mechanism as in the sources, my apologies, this is corrected now. --Signimu (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Please note also the commentary I've added as a lay-summary of source 3: [19]. This is dealing with recent studies on humans about the metabolic switch hypothesis, so this hints at not only how to interpret the hypothesis, but also that there are active research on it, another confirmation this hypothesis is taken seriously by scientists in the field. --Signimu (talk) 01:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to Alexbrn's suggestions , and following WP:MEDANIMAL, here is a new proposition that should address the previous concerns, with refs ordered in order of pertinence to make it easier:

It remains unclear whether the health and biomarkers effects of intermittent fasting on animals and humans are due solely to weight loss or to a "metabolic switch" mechanism specifically activated during fasting periods, but a review of a wide variety of diets, including alternate day fasting, show they all provide similar weight loss and cardiovascular benefits, with more adherence and weight loss predicting more benefits. A systematic review did not find evidence of a reduction of adaptive responses, except maybe appetite, when using intermittent fasting, although most studies were underpowered to assess this.

References

All feedbacks are welcome as usual --Signimu (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the WP:OVERCITE issue leads to such information loss from those sources that we are into improper WP:SYNTHESIS territory. The NIA source is used in a way that fails WP:V - and it contains the caveat that "More work is needed to determine which, if any, types of fasting diets have long-term benefits" which problematizes the proposition as worded here. Similarly PMC 6304782 has "Therefore, unlike the very promising data on animals, evidence is not sufficiently robust to suggest the superiority of intermittent vs. continuous caloric restriction regimens on the main cardiovascular factors in humans" and numerous deep caveats about the data used, which readers couldn't know from the way it is summarized. I think there may be material in these sources which is usable, but it need to unpacked and treated with more care for us to get there. Alexbrn (talk) 06:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

agree WP:OVERCITE is a problem--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedbacks! Ok for the sources, I clean up! I leave only the 2 3 directly pertinent sources for this sentence, along with quotes. About the short-term vs long-term, yes all sources agree on that, it's clearly written several times already on the entry, but I don't mind reminding it again in this section. Here's what I propose after doing my homeworks using your feedbacks:

It remains unclear whether the short-term effects of intermittent fasting observed on animals and humans are due solely to weight loss or to a "metabolic switch" mechanism activating only during fasting periods, but a review of a wide variety of diets, including alternate day fasting, show they all produce similar weight loss and cardiometabolic effects, with adherence and weight loss being better predictors than the type of diet. A systematic review did not find evidence of a reduction of adaptive responses, except maybe appetite, when using intermittent fasting, although most studies were underpowered to assess this.

References

The proposed text still seems rather adrift of the sources. PMID 28214525 has "there are no studies of IER diets in humans which have reported on major health events, focus has instead been on surrogate markers, so it is still uncertain whether the benefits of fasting seen in rodents can translate across to humans". Thos doesn't fit well with the proposed text for the article. It seem to me the upshot of these sources is that there is no good evidence of any particular effect of intermittent fasting on human health. I shan't respond to further proposals, but that does not mean endorsement. Perhaps other editors can comment? Alexbrn (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Alexbrn, I think that is a different issue, whether intermittent fasting has any effect on human health. This is already covered in Intermittent fasting#Applications, with a scientific statement from the AHA, which recognizes IF short-term (we are talking up to 6 months here) effects on weight loss[20]:

Extended content

"Body weight decreased significantly in all studies by 3% to 8% after 3 to 24 weeks of treatment. [...] There is evidence that both alternate-day fasting and periodic fasting may be effective for weight loss, although there are no data that indicate whether the weight loss can be sustained long term. In addition, both eating patterns may be useful for lowering triglyceride concentrations but have little or no effect on total, LDL, or HDL cholesterol concentrations. These protocols may also be beneficial for lowering blood pressure, but a minimum weight loss of 6% may be required to see an effect. Intermittent fasting may also be effective for decreasing fasting insulin and IR, but fasting glucose remains largely unchanged. Future work in this area should aim to examine whether these effects still persist in longer-term (>52 weeks) randomized, controlled trials. [...] Intermittent fasting approaches appear to be feasible to help patients lower calorie intake consistently. More data are needed on longer-term outcomes for weight reduction and risk factor modification."

And one of their recommendations is: "Include intermittent fasting approaches as an option to help lower calorie intake and to reduce body weight"

Furthermore, although what you write about PMID 28214525 is accurate (and note it does write that studies on surrogate markers, what I name "biomarkers", on humans exist), it would be a bit cherrypicking without reading the rest: "The same authors found that IER and CER diets are equally effective for weight loss, with about 5%–8% body weight loss achievable across 8–12 weeks with both diets.60 Thus, IER is not superior to CER on average, but offers an alternative to conventional dieting approaches."

Hence, all recent reliable sources agree on three things: 1. intermittent fasting has similar results to calorie restriction for weight loss, 2. we only have data up to 6 months, so we don't know if it's sustainable (and there's also no reason to believe it's not, we just don't know yet), 3. we don't know the clinical/general health relevance of the changes induced in biomarkers, whether in humans (as reported by AHA and this systematic review[21] and others already in the entry) or animals.

Point 1 and 2 are already covered in the entry. My addition aims to explicit the 3rd point, which is not really covered in the entry. --Signimu (talk) 18:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Can another editor give us an opinion on this new proposition please? The big question is whether it is encyclopedic to mention the two major biological hypotheses proposed to explain IF? Please let me know, so that I know if I should continue my efforts to amend or just drop this (it's been dragging since 3 weeks on other talk pages...). --Signimu (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Access to reliable medical information

Hello everyone I am a medical student and i have started a project that aims to be a social/encyclopaedic network for physician, patient, medical students, researchers health professionals and other various curious minds The project is named TheAderal referring to the well known and misuse amphetamine based drug.

The website require two mains ressources : -First of all reliable medical information, so far we have access to information from MayoClinic, Medline, WHO ,Jensen, Genbank which represent a massive amount of data for a start this is why finding and scraping the starting database is quite simple considering the ridiculous amount of data online. -The challenge is to vet it by a crowd of all kinds informed potentials members cited above. Which i hope can be some of you. The participation of all the protagonist of medicine to communicate is vital for the development of this limitless project .

The first purpose of this talk is to ask the following questions : How to access all the medical-related articles of the wikipedia without breaking any laws and if possible in a alphabetical order so it can fit the website that's being currently built? Can i have access to every pictures/schemes.. of all the Medical sciences once again in an alphabetical order?

Wikipedia inspired this project from the start we share the same ideals of giving free access of information to everyone asking for it which brings me to the second purpose of this message : to "trow a bottle at the sea" hoping some of you might be interested in helping in any way possible to carry this project to it's full potential.

Thank you for your support, without your help this project couldn't still exist.

Theaderal (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC)TheAderalTheaderal (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2019 (UTC) ~26~09~19~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theaderal (talk • contribs) 15:33, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Category:Open access journals will give you a good list of journals publishing open-assess content; cross-referencing this with lists from Category:Medical journals should help to identify suitable journals providing freely-accessible contents. Klbrain (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

DOAJ lists 758 open access journals in medicine. From https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ you can download about 6 million articles; they also have search and dumps.

The world is full of social networks of this kind though, I hope you studied the previous successes (few) and failures (plenty). Nemo 16:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Theaderal, are you looking for copies of the actual Wikipedia articles (like Cancer)? Or for copies of the sources cited in that article (the sources listed at Cancer#Notes)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Theaderal: Medical articles on English Wikipedia enjoy quite a good reputation for reliability, so you may consider using Wikipedia for your information (see WP:WikiProject Medicine #Research). The better developed articles are more likely to contain good information for you, and there is a summary of the number of medical articles by assessed quality at WP:WikiProject Medicine #Metrics. All Wikipedia content (except a few images) is free for anyone to use, for any purpose, as long as the content is attributed to Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:Text of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License for precise details of the licence), so you can easily make use of what you find here. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 21:06, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Additionally, if you want to find articles, have a look at the way that articles are categorised on Wikipedia. Start at Category:Health and work your way through related topics. Otherwise check Index of health articles for an alphabetic listing . Cheers --RexxS (talk) 21:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

ICD11

There are efforts to add it to {{Medical resources}}

I have created {{ICD11}} based on {{ICD10}}

We have an example of its use here Obesity#Further_reading

Still needs some work. ICD11 browser is here https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#

Anyone know how to get it to link? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: thanks for doing that.

WRT the browser; the URLs use hexadecimal for some reason (using the obesity example: [22]) and search doesn't work - though, as work still use IE11, I'll have to double-check that once at home. I've been checking every so often to see if/how codes are being represented in the URLs since the sign off in June, but they're not as far as I can tell. Hopefully WHO sort it out for April 2020's official launch. Little pob (talk) 15:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Doc James: It's never going to work. The ICD-11 code is not used in the url for the description. For example, the ICD-11 code for Pneumonia is CA40. The url for that is https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/142052508 – which is probably the stupidest system I've yet come across. Until somebody writes (or releases) the code that maps CA40 to 142052508, we won't have a means of getting to the page from the code. Sorry. --RexxS (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Little pob: The url you're looking at is urlencoded – the more readable url for 5B81 obesity is https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/149403041. You still can't get there from the ICD-11 code 5B81, though. --RexxS (talk) 15:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I knew it would have a name. I wonder if there is a relationship between the numerical value (149403041) and the code (5B81), or if it's arbitrary? (On the off-chance I plugged it into the NHS online SNOMED CT browser, but got no results). Little pob (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay will reach out to WHO and ask if they have a solution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh sorry! I'm the one who asked for the ICD-11, I did not know it would be so complicated! I tried to read the doc to find a way to lookup from the code. I've found the following bits of info:

• The URI system is made on purpose and unlikely to change, because it's a way for them to assign a permanent ID that will never change in future versions of ICD. The URI is the endpoint of the ICD-11. Thus, it's unlikely the URI is calculated from anything, be it the disease name or code, it's likely a random number assigned permanently: "Each ICD11 entity has an exclusive identity linked to a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) and back-end web services to provide easy access to up-to-date ICD content. Links to external terminologies can also be facilitated using the URIs. The URI remains attached to a single entity, regardless of any subsequent updates."[23]
• There is a way to lookup the URI from a code, but it necessitates creating a OAUTH account to use the API[24]. Example for obesity: http://id.who.int/icd/release/11/2019-04/mms/codeinfo/5B81
• In the Browser > Info > Spreadsheet file, there is a list of all URIs and their associated code, so this can be used for lookup without the API.
• In the Browser > Info > ICD-10 / ICD-11 mapping Tables, there are tsv files mapping the ICD-10 codes to ICD-11 codes and URIs, so it should be possible with a bot to automatically update all WP entries with a ICD-10 to also include the respective ICD-11 code and URI.

Given all of these infos, it seems the intended use of ICD-11 is through URIs, so in fact we should maybe include the URIs too and not only rely on the codes? --Signimu (talk) 17:22, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure if that makes sense. Or we could have a bot add it to wikidata and than use wikidata here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

For now can we just provide both the code and the URI? User:RexxS basically want something that takes:

{{ICD11|149403041|5B81}}

Were the second number is what is displaced and the first number is used within the url below

https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/149403041

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:38, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay fiddled around until I got it to work. You can see it here Obesity#Further_reading

User:Signimu feel free to add more as you wish. We should probably just autofill this in after a bot adds them all to Wikidata though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

WD has a property for ICD-11 codes: P7329. Is it worth (me) proposing a property to cover the URI side? This would allow {{medical resources}} to call the URI for the external link, but use the P7329 property to display the code. Does anyone more familiar with WD, see any issues with having to rely on calling two properties? Little pob (talk) 12:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I've tweaked the code a little, so that it can still be used without the link, for use in bot runs, etc, until the link is known. Storing the connection between the ICD-11 code and the linkID (i.e. the number at the end of the url) on Wikidata is an attractive idea. In the meantime, I might simply compile a lookup table that does the mapping and use it until we get a full import into Wikidata. --RexxS (talk) 13:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I realised that Signimu had found a spreadsheet that defines the mappings from ICD-11 codes to the linkID, which is exactly what we needed. After a bit of manipulation, I transformed that into a table in a Lua module, Module:ICD11. There are over 32,000 items to look up, and I'm not sure what impact it may have on performance, so treat this as provisional for now. Anyway you can now just use the ICD-11 code like this:

• {{ICD11|5B81}} → 5B81
• {{ICD11 | 5B81 }} → 5B81

I've programmed it so that spaces don't matter in this case. Entering an invalid code just links to the "Not found" page on the ICD-11 website, so you can search from there:

• {{ICD11|ABCD}} → ABCD

If we get complaints that the mapping from ICD-11 code to linkID is copyright, then we can still use the manual method of supplying both parameters as a fallback position. Any thoughts? --RexxS (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you all very much, that's working very well! About the copyright, when reading the doc it seems pretty clear reusage by third-parties for linkage purposes is intended and encouraged, but if clarification is deemed necessary, contacting them to ask them to add an open license to the mappings will probably fix the issue --Signimu (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

I have been in discussions with WHO. They do not feel their is copyright between ICD11 and linkID. Do we want a signed release from them? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:05, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@Doc James: I don't think for a minute somebody like WHO will want to pursue us for breaches of copyright, especially as you've raised the issue with them, James. So I think we're good. I merely raised the slim possibility to let you all know that we we still have a fallback mechanism in the code. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 16:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

If anyone cares deeply then an email to OTRS would be worth having. Guy (help!) 21:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis

The last few sentences at Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis § Causes, starting with "The underlying causes ...", were fairly broken. I hopefully interpreted it well enough to correct it to an accurate state and linked what I could (which helped find more spelling issues), but it would really be great if someone with subject matter knowledge (i.e. an MD) could review it for accuracy. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 10:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I split that into a separate section: Hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis#Pathophysiology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Request image of a hospitalized vaping patient

This image is about to be deleted. Central discussion is here[25]. I request those who have an Instagram or Facebook account to contact her to upload the same photo to Wikimedia Commons[26][27] under a compatible license. QuackGuru (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

commented[28]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

It has to be used in an article or it will be deleted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

There is disagreement that it meets WP:NFCC#8. The photo will be deleted. The only way to use the same photo is if someone would ask her on Instagram or Facebook to release it under a compatible license. The photographer was probably Stacy Herman. QuackGuru (talk) 17:35, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref

What is peoples thoughts of this https://www.theexpresswire.com/pressrelease/Global-Fluvoxamine-Maleate-Market-Share-Size-and-Outlook-2019-2024-By-Top-Competitors-Business-Growth-Trend-Segmentation-Revenue-and-Industry-Expansion-Strategies-Market-Reports-World_10362418

To support this. The source is $3000. Should we call this spam? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It's probably spam, but there may be truth in it. The real problem is that The Express Wire, a non-notable paid aggregator of press releases is about as far away from a reliable source as one could get. I've flagged it as such in the article. It doesn't appear anywhere else in the encyclopedia, thankfully, so if anybody agrees with me, please remove it all from the article and hope that an independent reliable source can be found for the info in the future. --RexxS (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The reliability of a press release depends upon its publisher, not upon its aggregator. If Market Reports World is reliable for statements about business, then we can use {{cite press release}} to format the link.

Also, because the press release comes from Market Reports World, which is not part of Synthon BV, it's already an Wikipedia:Independent source about whether Synthon BV is the largest manufacturer of this drug. And because we're talking about a report that analyzes the subject matter, it's secondary, too. It's a perfect example of the fact that WP:Secondary does not mean good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that we do not know if this report says Synthon BV is the largest manufacturer as the report is 3000 USD. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, that claim's not directly in the press release. WP:PAYWALL is the official policy for the report, and we are generally quite callous about complaints that the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Cost of a source is too high. But the theory behind the paywall rule is that, although "I" might not be willing or able to get that source, if necessary, at least one other editor will be able get a copy of the source.

It might be possible to work around this by changing the content to provide similar but not identical business information, e.g., "The following companies are licensed to manufacture it" (sourced to something else) instead of "The biggest one is..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: The reliability of a press release depends upon its publisher, not upon its aggregator No, it doesn't. The reliability of a source depends on factors like "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", independence, and editorial process. Of course, press releases fail every single one of them, and that goes double for the practices of fly-by-night aggregators who charge a company to publish their press release. The Express Wire is a cast-iron example of everything that goes into making an unreliable source, and we shouldn't be making excuses for them. --RexxS (talk) 18:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Press release aggregators are not publishers. They're distributors.

If we said that the reputation of the aggregator matters, then we would be saying that a press release posted by a company on their corporate website had a different reliability than exactly the same words posted by the same company on the aggregator's website. This does not seem reasonable. Surely exactly the same words, written by exactly the same people, and made available to the public at the direction of exactly the same people, will have exactly the same reliability in Wikipedia terms.

If, on the other hand, we decide that the distribution method is key, then we would also be saying that a wire service news story was reliable when it was reprinted by a newspaper, but not when exactly the same story was copied by someone to an internet forum. This does not seem reasonable to me.

Press releases are self-published, non-independent sources. They are reliable for relatively little, and they are desirable for even less. But I can't agree that the reliability of a corporate press release depends upon where editors find it. (This particular press release can be found in more than one place.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:05, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

The entity that publishes content on the internet is the publisher, by definition. To call them "distributors" is to try to make a distinction without a difference. Press release aggregators are publishers.

Of course the reputation of the publisher matters, Our theory of reliable sources is based on it. Do you really think that this would not be considered reliable if it were published by the Washington Post, rather than by a PR and marketing agency in Birmingham?

It is perfectly reasonable to put some trust in an established publisher that has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, especially if they have a process of editorial oversight that shows they take due diligence when reporting facts that they have gleaned from elsewhere. Surely "exactly the same words, written by exactly the same people, and made available to the public at the direction of exactly the same people" will have completely different reliabilities ascribed when they are published in the Lancet from when they are published by Lulu.

We have not decided that any factor is key to the extent that it can be generalised. Nevertheless, if the New York Times picks up a wire story and does its expected due diligence in checking the story before publishing it, then a Wikipedia editor could have far more confidence in the reliability of that source than they could possibly have in the story displayed on an internet forum. Quality newspapers would no longer exist if they added no value to the stories that they publish.

I completely agree with your assessment of the reliability of press releases as non-independent, self-published sources. However, if a company (or their PR agency) release the news that they have won "the biggest ever contract to supply widgets to Turkmenistan", we would naturally take that with a pinch of salt. but if the story subsequently turned up in the Financial Times, I have little doubt that it would be considered reliable enough for inclusion in a relevant Wikipedia article. --RexxS (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

I've seen disputes that claim exactly the opposite: If a fact in a newspaper article matches something in a contemporary press release, then some editors yell Churnalism and claim that neither the article nor the press release is reliable (or reliable enough").

(Your example involving Lancet doesn't match the pattern: That's exactly the same words, written by exactly the same people, but made available to the public at the direction of an independent group of people [i.e., Lancet's staff]. Also, nobody fact-checks wire service articles. The point of subscribing to them is that you're paying the wire service to do the fact-checking for you.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No matter how many times a claim is made, it doesn't become fact. Having editors yell doesn't make it a fact either. Sure, if some two-bit tabloid or pop magazine reproduces a press release, we don't trust it. But that's a massive difference from the same facts being published in a quality newspaper with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. That's because the publishing process adds a layer to the original source, and we put our trust in quality publishers.

It seems we have different understanding of "at the direction of". You could just as well say that the aggregator is "an independent group of people", i.e. the aggregator's staff. You know as well as I do that we trust what the Lancet publishes by default, but when a company is paying an aggregator to publish its press releases, (my idea of what "at the direction of" means) then we're never going to consider that a reliable source.

As for "nobody fact-checks wire service articles", I simply don't believe you. The quality publishers have too much reputation at stake for them not to be checking stories before they publish. --RexxS (talk) 14:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think you're assuming that editors are always approaching sources with a genuine desire to figure out reality, rather than a desire to have the "right" POVs in the article.

Wire service stories are fact-checked by the wire service (Reuters has some relevant job openings, and not by the newspapers that run the stories. It wouldn't make much sense for Reuters to pay someone to fact-check stories, and then for each of their thousands of paying media customers to pay even more money to separately fact-check the stories all over again. (Also, I don't think you could, as people who were quoted would stop answering the phone and start resolving to never speak to any wire service staff ever again. Can you imagine how annoying it would be, to have hundreds of newspapers contact you to re-verify the same quote?)

I still don't see the logic in saying that the reliability for these two actions is different:

• I write a press release, and I hire a PR person to post it on my corporate website.
• I write a press release, and I pay a business to post it on their website.

The utility in those two cases should be equally low. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Review of biomed info on Wikidata

A nice article on molecular biological & biomed info in Wikidata just went up on biorXiv:

• Waagmeester, Andra; et al. (2019-10-21). "Wikidata as a FAIR knowledge graph for the life sciences". bioRxiv 10.1101/799684. {{cite bioRxiv}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

thank you Thomas, great read/important info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Mycophenolic acid

Mycophenolic acid

Hi. Can anyone here read over the minor edit I made to mycophenolic acid? The topic sentence used to say the side effect was solved, but the rest of the paragraph failed to support that hope. Just to be sure. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Doc James[29] took care of it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

User:SusanLesch found some recent reviews that say the different formulations are the same with respect to side effects and effectiveness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Are descriptions of metabolic pathways forbidden on medical articles?

Hello, sorry to bother again, but I have rewritten the "Mechanism" part of the Intermittent fasting entry to include all observed metabolic pathways changes induced by intermittent fasting in humans and referenced solely with reviews, systematic reviews and meta-analyses[30]. One such review is this one, published in a journal with an impact factor > 10[31]. Zefr reverted with comment "speculation based on primary research; unencyclopedic"[32]. Which I find a bit weird since all reviews are almost all based on primary studies, else they would be tertiary sources. So I wonder if descriptions of metabolic pathways are OK in MED articles or not? Thank you for your thoughts. --Signimu (talk) 17:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

No, of course not. The edit summary "speculation based on primary research; unencyclopedic" raises eyebrows, as you point out. Others would call this evidence-based medicine. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the problem might be that the sources used are not quite appropriate for the claims made. For example, the mention of p53 refers to this publication which in turn refers to this single animal study; it's not clear why a single animal study should be used to make a generic statement that also applies to humans. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 17:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Ah thank you for this remark, I used Fig1 in this review to discriminate what was observed in humans, I will double-check in the text. --Signimu (talk) 17:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, the authors made a mistake, they colored the whole box and mixed p53 and p38, when only Sirt 1 (and its animal analogue Sir 2) were confirmed in humans. Still, I wonder why the whole paragraph was removed, instead of just the incorrect part. I'll fix that and see, thank you both for your feedbacks --Signimu (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I scrapped this source entirely and rewrote with only higher quality reviews. It was still reverted by Zefr[33] with the following comment: "WP:DE; no consensus on the talk page for this conjecture". --Signimu (talk) 18:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I notice Zefr in fact allowed a similar section (much more developed BTW) in Calorie_restriction#Research (which he recently cleaned, and I commend his work there!), with references on primates and non-human animals, so arguably of less relevance/quality than I provide here. That's weird. --Signimu (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

This seems reminiscent of the "metabolic flip switch" thread above, and again I'm not seeing the deep caveats mentioned in PMID 30583725 (the same source as there) being reflected in the proposed text. Also, how does this source support the text about "Several metabolic pathways may be affected..."? The efforts to focus this on an editor are inappropriate here. Alexbrn (talk) 18:25, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but I reworked to not be mainly about the hypotheses, but the pathways, which is arguably more pertinent and puts the hypotheses in context. The source you cite is a systematic review and meta-analysis concluding that IF has as much effect on blood pressure, lipid, glucids and insulin profiles as caloric restriction. About focusing on Zefr: he is the only one currently working on the page with me, and does not reply to any of my requests since about a month. I hope he can answer here (isn't that common courtesy to ping the user? Anyone can see who is the author from the diff anyway, and I was previously invited to bring content disputes here since we can't discuss[34][35] - I would prefer doing otherwise but I can't see any alternative here...). --Signimu (talk) 19:02, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If you want to complain about a user, take it to WP:AIN. As for "metabolic pathways" I'm not sure readers will understand what that is (I'm not sure I do), and PMID 30583725 only uses the term once, in a way which I can't see supports the text cited to it. I'm sure there is something here that can be sourced, but equally what we have, isn't it. Alexbrn (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I would prefer avoiding ANI, I don't care for his behavior, I'm here to try to check if the editing is OK or what can be enhanced (since unfortunately he doesn't want to discuss that). It's just that either I have to guess, or to ask somewhere else, so I do the former first and then the latter if I have no idea left. Thank you for your feedback, "metabolic pathways" is a leftover from the previous source I removed, I agree it could be better formulated but I'm not too much into molecular biology. I'll try to read more and think of something, thanks --Signimu (talk) 19:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems like my initial guess was on point, as the other editor confirmed[36], the issue is about describing hypothetical mechanisms in medically-related entries. Since this is often a point of contention in various med entries, I am considering making a RfC to maybe reach a consensus on this editorial consideration, so that we can be more consistent across med entries. Signimu (talk) 20:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

@Signimu: WikiProject Medicine focuses on the practice of medicine and health care services. If you want to collaborate on developing pathways consider posting at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology or checking out the exceptional projects at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Computational Biology. As an alternative - you are quite welcome to add this content to Wikidata, but as structured data rather than prose. Wikidata does not quite generate data visualizations from its own data, but it will soon, and there are experiments in the Scholia visualization of pathways. Compare the Wikipedia prose pathway description you shared to for example to for example the Aryl Hydrocarbon Receptor pathway visualization in the Scholia tool of Wikidata. This information is currently coming from WikiPathways, but even now in Wikidata anyone can click on the parts of the pathway to get Wikidata information on it. Consider the relative value of presenting this information as prose in Wikipedia versus a visualization in Wikidata. We do not currently have a manual of style to recommend when to use one or the other. Also I cannot say when Wikidata will be presenting pathway visualizations entirely from its own data. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

That's very useful and interesting, thanks a lot! I'll consider this option --Signimu (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The pathways described in the edit removed seem (as no expert) far more high-level, and perhaps not suitable for a structured data approach. One aspect of the "relative value of presenting this information as prose in Wikipedia versus a visualization in Wikidata" is that on Wikidata hardly anyone is likely to see it. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Johnbod, that's also what I thought, but it's still nice to know this exists, I may be able to use it on more developed articles such as NAFLD --Signimu (talk) 05:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

WMF funding support to publish wiki health review in PLOS

Mcbrarian, friend of wiki and a university health sciences librarian, has a systematic review of academic articles covering health information on Wikipedia which they wish to publish in PLOS. They are seeking WMF support through the grants program to cover their $1600 publishing fee. I am posting here to ask for some support from WikiProject Medicine contributors for WMF funding for this purpose. I feel that we all would benefit from having this content out there, published through the PLOS peer review system and distributed through their network.

• meta:Grants:Project/Rapid/Mcbrarian/Situating Wikipedia as a health information resource in various contexts: A systematic review of the literature

Thanks to anyone who can comment on that meta grants page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Praise hands for Bluerasberry! Thanks so much for the advocacy. I have submitted an application to get partial relief from the $1600 through the PLOS Publication Fee Assistance program. For those of you interested in getting a sneak peak at the work I've done, I'll be giving a lightning talk at WikiConference North America that will give a brief overview of my findings. I also have a project page you can look at for more info:

• WikiConference North America Lighting Talk Schedule
• Research:WikiHealth: A scoping review of Wikipedia in academic & health literature (I've renamed the title since creating this page last May)

I am affiliated with two universities in Canada. One as a doctoral candidate and another as a health sciences librarian. Neither institution offers open access publishing grants or funding to support this research.Mcbrarian (talk) 14:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Seems like the grant was accepted, congratulations! I am eager to see the result! --Signimu (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Medieval Medicine

Hello!

I have recently made a Wikipedia account and created a page for Thomas Morstede, an English surgeon who served Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI. He was particularly important throughout all of their reigns and has been described by many scholars such as Theodore Beck as 'not only the most eminent English surgeon of the fifteenth century but also the most financially minded and socially successful'. It would mean a lot if you could have a look at my page for Thomas Morstede and let me know what you think, any feedback is welcome!

I also wanted to come on the talk page to discuss medieval medicine on Wikipedia in general. I have found it personally to be rather played down. There are the larger pages (page length and number of contributions) on epidemics such as the Black Death from 1347-1351, but individual practitioners have been for the most part, not written about. I found it most concerning in pages which write about the many battles in late medieval England, surgeons are excluded as being part of the Campaign. An example for this is The Battle of Agincourt page where prior to my edit, it reported that Henry took with him an army of 12,000 and up to 20,000 horses. But the page did not mention the team of surgeons and makers of surgical instruments who also accompanied Henry.

Do you agree that medieval medicine has a gap within Wikipedia and Why is this so? I was also just curious to know what motivates you to edit Wikipedia and what does being part of the Wikiproject Medicine mean to you?

Thank you for reading and I am very excited to be a part of the project!

ChocolateOrange1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Possibly a bit out of scope for Wikiproject Medicine, but definitely an encyclopedic topic. Wikipedia articles tend to be written by people with an interest in the specific topic, so we have lots of gaps in things like medieval medicine, and plenty of articles on footballers. I find medieval medicine more interesting than footballers myself, but I focus on underwater diving and marine conservation. Welcome to the gaps, and have fun filling them. There are still plenty to go around. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 14:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, ChocolateOrange1. I think that the main reason that we don't happen to have these articles is because nobody thought about writing them. Now that you're here, I hope you'll be able to fix that. This is an interdisciplinary subject, so you can get help and meet interested people here, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history, and maybe Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. I'm looking forward to hearing what you do next. Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Welcome, and nice work on the article! Thanks for contributing to this under-represented topic area. As far as feedback goes, the only major issue I can see is that some paragraphs don't have a citation at the end. Ideally you should cite a source for every paragraph even if the same source is used in the following paragraphs (see WP:INTEGRITY). If you want to get more views and feedback on your article, consider nominating it for the Did you know section on the main page. (The rules say that articles should be no more than a week old, but they'll probably be willing to waive that requirement since this is your first article). Again, great work and I hope to see more articles about medieval physicians soon. :) SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to this underdeveloped side of Wikipedia! Medieval sciences are often underdeveloped because understudied, there is simply not as many experts (funding goes to "hard" sciences...) or people interested into it compared to other domains, and that's a shame because we miss on a lot of great developments that were born during these times, which contributes to the inaccurate widespread view of Medieval times as a "dark age". So thank you again for taking up this task and I'll be happy to provide help (although History isn't my forté ). --Signimu (talk) 03:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you all so much for your responses Peter Southwood, WhatamIdoing, SpicyMilkBoy and Signimu. I have seen your help in tidying up my Thomas Morstede article and really appreciate it. Also just thought I would let you know I think I have nominated my article for the Did you Know section on the main page now- took me a little while as I am still quite new. I find all your opinions about the gap of medieval medicine/ individual practitioners very interesting. I did have a worry that by writing the article in the first place I was inflicting a point of view that I thought it should exist! Which goes against the Wiki rules. I will let you know of any other articles I either create or improve on as I go along! ChocolateOrange1 (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

An editor has requested that {{subst:linked|Internet addiction disorder}} be moved to {{subst:#if:|{{subst:linked|{{{2}}}}}|another page}}{{subst:#switch: project |user | USER = . Since you had some involvement with 'Internet addiction disorder', you |#default = , which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You}} are invited to participate in [[{{subst:#if:|{{subst:#if:|#{{{section}}}|}}|{{subst:#if:|Talk:Internet addiction disorder#{{{section}}}|{{subst:TALKPAGENAME:Internet addiction disorder}}}}}}|the move discussion]]. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Aphrodisiac article

I was pinged to Aphrodisiac (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) about WP:MEDRS. And I see that some recent student editing has gone on there. The article could use the help of this project. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I do see medical editors Seppi333 and Zefr in the edit history. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, for fucks sake. I cut all the crap like that out of the article years ago and someone else comes along and writes more of the same back into it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

With this sort of "perennial" content, we usually find that it's effective to acknowledge the myth/errors/similar problems directly (whenever we can source it, of course). When a less experienced person doesn't see an interesting story present, then it's easy to assume that it's just an simple oversight, and that adding it would be a helpful thing to do. But when the story is mentioned and rejected ("There's a common misconception that..."), we see much less pressure on the articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Plain English needed

Circle contact lens#Risks contains a quotation that I suspect is present because nobody understands what it actually means. Would someone like to have a go at trying to translate it from "researcher" into "English"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Done and found a better ref (review) citing the previous obscure ref --Signimu (talk) 13:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Is this source usable?

Hello I'm wondering if this source is usable: [37]. Their about page[38]. Anybody heard of them (the Best Practice Advocacy Centre New Zealand (bpacnz))? They use sound sources that could be used instead, but this one provides a nice overview with the slightly added value that it synthetized some disparate infos that WP editors could hardly do per WP:SYNTH. So can it be used or should I just use its references directly? Thanks in advance --Signimu (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Not a great source in my opinion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok then I'll use directly the upstream sources, thanks! --Signimu (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

First impressions seems more like a website to further an agenda rather than a medical article. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Minimal residual disease

Hi, I was looking at the minimal residual disease page and it read a little oddly so I checked it using the Earwig copyvio check thingy (results here - https://tools.wmflabs.org/copyvios/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Minimal+residual+disease&oldid=&action=search&use_engine=1&use_links=1&turnitin=0). I can't think of a way of telling whether the slideshare talk used bits of wikipedia or vice versa. Can anyone think of a way of telling, and are there any templates that need to be put on the article. I know the wiki way is to be bold and change but it looks like it would be a lot of work and I have no time before Christmas to do anything major. Red Fiona (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Slides were published Apr 18, 2017 account to the slideshare site, while the earlier February 2017 Minimal residual disease page shows the matching text. This suggest, as usual, that the slides liberally borrow from Wikipedia. So, there doesn't seem to be a copyvio problem with the Wikipedia page. Klbrain (talk) 23:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew someone would be able to figure it out. Red Fiona (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

You can also look to see if the Wikipedia content changes over time or if it was added in one go. If it was added by many over time it is the other that is copying from us.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Added a {{backwardscopy}} header on talk page to prevent content deletion due to mistaken copyvio --Signimu (talk) 14:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC on brain damage

There is an RfC currently underway about where a section on brain damage should appear in a biography. Your contribution would be welcome. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

MEDRS sourcing required for non-biomedical information

On Sirtuin[39] and Sirtuin 1[40], some paragraphs and sources were deleted or rewritten by Zefr based on MEDRS, or adding {{medref}}. I don't think they are biomedical claims and thus should not be under MEDRS, and that here we are deleting pertinent content. He doesn't agree[41]. I don't want to pursue this discussion further to avoid any mingling with an ongoing request between us, so I'll leave it up to anybody else who might be interested in retaining molecular biology content. --Signimu (talk) 17:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I can see why there would be uncertainty here as this is getting into a grey area, but I would say this is not covered by MEDRS. There is no treatment proposed or discussed; it doesn't meet the criteria described at WP:MEDRS. This is just science. Bondegezou (talk) 18:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I can't necessarily comment more generally, but another example for comparison might be the FA review of Serpin. In that case, any section that made human medical claims was considered covered by MEDRS, but not sections on e.g. function in mice or genetic association studies. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 23:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Very interesting, thank you. It's a sensible thing to separate human and animal content in different sections, although I can't see if this is a requirement in MEDRS. For the case at hand, here's the Sirtuin entry before the other editor's intervention[42], there was no Ageing section, the content was in DNA repair section and clearly about animals, the editor renamed the section to Ageing, introduced a MEDRS ref about Resveratrol (so not even directly related to Sirtuin) and removed all animals refs. Following your example, it would have made more sense to just create another separate section about human health claims. --Signimu (talk) 02:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Very large tables of human genes

I have a technical problem that I mentioned at WT:MCB#Problematic links in the wikitables pertaining to Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology/Human protein-coding genes1 and Human protein-coding genes2, which I am considering moving to the article space. I was wondering if anyone else had a simpler solution than the one I proposed (i.e., building a custom tool and parsing the content of thousands of gene articles).

Also, I realize that the content in those tables is only marginally related to this WikiProject. I'm just posting this here because it's a fairly large/active WikiProject and I'm looking for an alternative solution to more technical problem that I described in that thread; specifically, I'm looking for one that might only take seconds to minutes to implement and act on (e.g., something analogous to the dablinks tool, which I can use to quickly fix the first problem I mentioned about DAB links in the table) as opposed to what will likely take hours of processing time if I were to build the tool I proposed (I expect that to only take like 15 minutes for me to program though). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Boghog's idea?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Video game addiction - appearing on the Main page Nov 6

Hi guys if anyone has time to help improve this interesting controversial article per WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, would be greatly appreciated (I'm working long hours this week and my last attempt wasn't as diplomatic as I needed to be).

It appears under Todays Featured Article Nov 6 - Digital media use and mental health. Many kind thanks! The article isn't in disastrous shape, just has a lot of primary sources which can be confirmed with WP:MEDRS compliant sources or removed, and needs a signs and symptoms section. Best of luck if you have the time! --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:53, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello, sorry I was a bit late, i couldn't do it before, but I just finished a major revision of the whole article to make it more MEDRS compliant, as I've found a lot of reviews on the topic. I removed the "need MEDRS citations" template, I hope it's all good now Signimu (talk) 07:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC on whether Quackwatch is a self-published source

There is a request for comment on whether Quackwatch is a self-published source. This RfC also concerns the application of WP:BLP § Avoid self-published sources (WP:BLPSPS) to content from Quackwatch. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § RfC: Quackwatch. — Newslinger talk 00:04, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Joining

Hi I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I want to join wiki project medicine.It appears easy to join this group by just clicking the “join” button,but somehow on clicking the page just redirects to an editing page.Kindly help me.(Angunnu (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC))

Thanks for the note, Angunnu. It appears that the "Join" button is broken on the mobile web site. If you click https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=Template:WikiProjectCard/Preload&editintro=Template:WikiProjectCard/Editintro&summary=Joining+WikiProject&title=Special:MyPage/WikiProjectCards/WikiProject+Medicine&create=Join+WikiProject in your web browser, it might work. (Or, it might automatically re-direct you to the mobile website, which is going to fail in the same way.)

(User:Harej, User:Isarra, User:Kirill Lokshin, anyone else in Wikipedia:WikiProject X: Is there a plan for making this work on mobile?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply WhatamIdoing, But no luck either.(Angunnu (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC))

Do you know if the WiR one is still working? A few different possibilities here, since it could be anything from the WPX thing being broken to the form... gadget thing it uses, to personal js or something interfering... or it may just be broken somehow here speciifcally. -— Isarra ༆ 15:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

New eye-related images

Eye testing

There's a photo challenge at c:Commons:Photo challenge#2019 – October/November – Eye care to encourage people to create high-quality new images related to eye care.

It's still open, so if you're interested, please join! I'm sure that User:Colin could help you if you have any questions.

Also, there are already some great images there. Please look around and see if you can find an article here or at another language Wikipedia that would benefit from having a new image. Thanks for everything you all do to improve Wikipedia, WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

WAID thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Product pricing

MEDPRICE

New section on product pricing. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Product pricing. QuackGuru (talk) 14:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

RfC on product pricing

See Talk:IPhone 11/Archive 1#RfC about including pricing information in article. QuackGuru (talk) 12:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)