Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 28

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

→

Notablity of medical devices

I've tagged some claims in Venowave, and I wonder if the subject is notable. Any guidance on the notability of medical devices? I don't know the particulars of this article, but does one randomized controlled trial on a device establish notability, for example? Biosthmors (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Not medically notable for its own page until a review article appears or discussion in a major textbook IMO.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 02:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Technically, it's the same as any other commercial product, so WP:CORP applies. That generally means that you need two completely unrelated sources (two different authors and two different publications, and none of them controlled by or employed by the manufacturer) to qualify for an article. A review article by someone connected to the manufacturer is a secondary source, but it's not an independent/third-party source, which is a critical point for notability. (WP:Secondary does not mean independent.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Article: Eschar

|Hello NCurse,

as stated in the headline I have a Question regarding the medical Article Eschar. I am slightly confused by the image included in the Article. The caption states the wound in question to be covered by an Eschar (scab). Searching for scab though leads nowhere near the Article in question. This leads me to the following I would like to inquire: Is the object in the picture a wound covered in an Eschar or in a scab? (Especially since the term "black wound" redicrect to Eschar and the picture shows no such thing.) If it is the latter, the picture would have to be removed. The former leads to the second question. Are scab and eschar synonyms (Addendum: per the greek origin)? If yes it would follow that appropriate consequences be taken in the article scab. If not, the word would have to be removed from the question.

I sinccerely appreciate your input and would like to thank you for your time.

With regards --Abracus (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it would be better to hear the opinion of the whole medical community on this. Please post it on the talk page of WikiProject Medicine as well. NCurse _work 06:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Clinically all eschars are scabs, but all scabs are not eschars. An eschar is dry, black, hard necrotic tissue (see: [1]). In dermatology, some remember a basic differential for an eschar with the mnemonic CAGES T: Clostridium/Calciphylaxis, Aspergillus/Anthrax, Group B strep, Ecthyma gangrenosum, Spider bite, and Tache noir from ricketssial spotted fevers. Hope that helps. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 15:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Expert suggestion by "My core". I agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (please reply on my talk page) 18:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello Jmh, Hello My core,

thank you for your quick answers. (This is cross posted in the medicine portal and on Jmhs' talk page as per his request.) My core and you, Jmh, answered the questions I raised halfway. Namely you state An eschar is dry, black, hard necrotic tissue. The picture in the WP-article does indeed show no such thing. While the scab shown it might be dry and hard, it is certainly not black. (Wherefore I assume it is not an Eschar.) Also, since you made the distinctions clear, might it not be necessary to alter the article about wound healing (to which scab redirects) in such a way that the logical distinction becomes clear? The caption under the image in question also remains in its illogical state. I raised the question because I did and do not feel qualified to edit medical articles and the logic of both of them seemed contradictory.

Your

--Abracus (talk) 23:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Based on the definition given above, the image is question is a scab but not an eschar. For examples of what an eschar looks like see [2]. The image name and caption should probably be changed. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 12:45, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a picture of one which I will upload shortly.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 13:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

In the meantime, the old image has now been moved to File:Scab.jpg. -- The Anome (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Artificial nutrition and hydration in end-of-life care.

The Liverpool Care Pathway, the UK NHS protocol for care of the dying in the last hours of life, is in the news again.

Following a Daily Mail piece last month that it's all a plot to starve and dehydrate the elderly to an untimely death, the story has been taken up by more papers yesterday and today, generally in a sensationalist and utterly uninformed way, following a letter to the Daily Telegraph by six usual suspects grinding some rather worn axes.

After the DM piece, the wiki article has unfortunately acquired a "Controversy" section, which currently leaves rather a lot to be desired.

I'd be grateful if anyone with a good grasp of palliative / end-of-life care could step in and sort out the wheat from the chaff. Jheald (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is resolved now. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Is a separate Controversy section really warranted at all, given the overlap with critical material in the Reception? —MistyMorn (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking along those lines too, so have simply removed the "Controversy" subheading, leaving the text under "Reception." --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Now there's the small question of what weight to give to povs such as those included in a "recent" newspaper letter written by some activist doctors. —MistyMorn (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. The remaining content doesn't characterise the controversy very well, doesn't clarify whether it is a popular or scientific controversy, and doesn't really establish the existence of a significant controversy. Perhaps we should continue this on the article talk page. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:13, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Orthostasis: request for advice

I've redirected orthostasis to standing, as that is the literal meaning of the term. However, "orthostasis" previously linked to orthostatic hypotension, and orthostasis is linked extensively elsewhere, presumably in some cases with the intent of linking this other meaning.

This is where expert help is needed. Are there any other things "orthostasis" and/or "orthostatic" could mean? Could some of the page linkers have intended other meanings, such as orthostatic intolerance. orthostatic hypertension, orthostatic tremor?

For some links, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Orthostasis (currently from 11 mainspace articles)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Orthostatic (currently from 6 mainspace articles)

What's the best way to proceed with this? A disambiguation page? A hatnote? -- The Anome (talk) 14:20, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone here help with this, please? -- The Anome (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ayurveda safety concerns

The lead of the article on Ayurveda contains a paragraph on safety concerns, which are a major issue in the discussion in independent reliable sources. This paragraph, naturally, is loathed by proponents of Ayurveda who either delete it or try to bury it elsewhere in the article. More eyes would be apprectiated. A discussion is in progress on the article talk page. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Have watched the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Refractory chronic gout

We have a person associated with Savient Pharmaceuticals the manufacturer of Pegloticase which is a new treatment for gout continually recreating the article on refractory chronic gout. My position is that this is little more than a co tract of our current article on gout and thus I merged the two. Discussion has taken place here Talk:Refractory_chronic_gout. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that you mean WP:POVFORK rather than WP:COATRACK. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Certainly not a WP:COMMONNAME: just five PubMed results for "refractory chronic gout" (two with Pegloticase in the title [3] [4]). —MistyMorn (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree with merge to gout, certainly does seem to be a POV fork. Yobol (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy

Help would be appreciated on the Homeopathy talk page (currently here, where several editors have been trying to reason for several days with a new SPA, called Alice1818. Thanks, —MistyMorn (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I've hid the two most recent sections per an obvious WP:CONSENSUS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Alice1818 seems to have declared edit war on the hides [5]. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions invoked, this is probably resolved. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 19:37, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again. —MistyMorn (talk) 19:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Secondary or primary sources?

And continues to insist that primary sources can be used to refute secondary sources. They are using this primary source [6] to refute this secondary one [7]. See discussion here [8] and [9] among other places. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I read wiki rules treat NCI "Cancer Trends Progress Report" as secondary. It's used elsewhere as secondary. NCI should be senior to BJC review. ie a review of reviews (NCI) is better than one underlying (BJC) review.

I plan to use http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/WCRF%20Policy%20US%20Summary_final.pdf to supplement the NCI.32cllou (talk) 16:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This ref should not be used at all [10] as it is a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it's just a progress report of an original study - a primary source, apparently without peer review. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Here is the full policy report (NCI refers us) http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/Policy_Report.pdf 32cllou (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Great and I am happy with the reference. However please do not remove other recent secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 17:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

"The report is based on the most recent data from the National Cancer Institute, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, other federal agencies, professional groups, and cancer researchers."

That does not sound like a primary source or an original study to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

However this bit is [11] and is looking at the consumption rates of fruits in vegatables in the USA rather than specifically the cancer risk associated with said consumption.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 17:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree that [12] is a primary source. The connection between diet and cancer is complex, with apparently reliable secondary sources contradicting each other. Here is a discussion about diet & lung cancer. (No doubt WhatamIdoing would criticize my analysis of the sources.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

There's lots of work to do in those three articles(diet, healthy diet, prostate cancer) based on this review and policy statement(s), and please help (be constructive, not obstructive). We only have space for the best secondary, not one BJC review which (lone) says different stuff and confuses stronger findings. Do not remove NCI statements re antioxidants, high heated meat, and fruit and vegetable (spec types of plant foods) consumption and reduced risk of specific cancers. We should be taking this opportunity to read the whole report http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/Policy_Report.pdf 32cllou (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

So if I understand you correctly you plan to continue to try to remove this review article from 2011 [13]? Is it that you disagree with its conclusions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 17:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

We have plenty of space. Adding one extra sentence to say that things aren't 100% proven doesn't cost us a dime. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OK BJC leave in, but generally isn't http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/Policy_Report.pdf ie peer committee findings policy review of reviews superior to that single BJC review? Isn't it bad to place BCJ inferior review where it will harm stronger secondary?32cllou (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Again, I don't think this is a binary either/or situation. We can cite both sources (and I agree with WhatamIdoing that both are secondary). The sources don't really differ much, except by putting a slightly different "spin" on existing data. The NCI source says there is "some suggested evidence for a lower risk of cancers" with a healthy diet, whereas the 2011 Br J. Cancer review says there is "little to no evidence".

To me, the sources are basically agreeing that there isn't very much or very strong evidence. But there's also nothing to lose by encouraging Americans to eat a healthier diet - no one is going to be harmed, and there are proven benefits in the non-cancer outcomes - so the NCI puts a slightly more positive spin on the limited evidence for cancer risk. This falls squarely under "experts reviewing the same data reach slightly different conclusions" category, and we should just explain and cite both positions. MastCell ^Talk 18:52, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree and will add back in a summary using [14] " It is recommended that people maintain a normal weight (limiting consumption of energy dense foods and sugary drinks), eat plant based food, limit red and processed meat, and limit alcohol.^[1]" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 20:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Selenium

PS looks like we need that selenium sentence back Doc from secondary see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22648711 32cllou (talk) 17:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is a relationship between selenium serum levels and cancer per the ref. This report on page 150 states [15] that a trial of supplementation did not find benefit. I will add this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 17:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Higher selenium blood levels have been associated with a lower risk of prostate cancer,^[2] a trial of supplementation however did not find benefit.^[3]

Good. I came back here just now to please add the concern that users would (they should NOT) think supplements are beneficial.32cllou (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm slightly troubled by this - the association between selenium levels and prostate cancer is supposed to be a preliminary result which generates the hypothesis that selenium supplementation might prevent prostate cancer. That hypothesis has been tested, and it didn't pan out. To go back to the statistical association reported in cohort studies seems silly, when this idea has already been tested in a prospective, randomized fashion. But that's me. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I was the one who took it out, but then finding the review Doc used thought he might want it back.

Yes so we now state there was tentative evidence that their was an association with selenium but that it did not pan out. I am not attached to the wording I added and am happy if you wish to clarify it further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 20:40, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Insulin-like growth factor

What do you think about http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16900085 insulin-like growth factor? Isn't that a known pro prostate cancer risk agent?32cllou (talk) 18:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)32cllou (talk) Sorry forgot to give you all this ref http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9637140 32cllou (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes would belong in the section on pathophysiology. This ref is better Rowlands, MA (2009 May 15). "Circulating insulin-like growth factor peptides and prostate cancer risk: a systematic review and meta-analysis". International journal of cancer. Journal international du cancer. 124 (10): 2416–29. PMID 19142965. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help). Feel free to add it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 21:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

How about this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15110491 to paraphrase a short sentence from this quote: "High concentrations of IGF-I were associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer (odds ratio comparing 75th with 25th percentile 1.49, 95% CI 1.14-1.95) and premenopausal breast cancer (1.65, 1.26-2.08) and high concentrations of IGFBP-3 were associated with increased risk of premenopausal breast cancer (1.51, 1.01-2.27). Associations were larger in assessments of plasma samples than in serum samples, and in standard case-control studies compared with nested studies. INTERPRETATION:

Circulating concentrations of IGF-I and IGFBP-3 are associated with an increased risk of common cancers, but associations are modest and vary between sites. Although laboratory methods need to be standardised, these epidemiological observations could have major implications for assessment of risk and prevention of cancer."32cllou (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

The other one is a little newer (2009 verses 2004) thus I would use the newer one. But they both say the same thing. "High levels of IGF-I are linked to prostate cancer" maybe Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:24, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Antioxidants and cancer

Can I use this research? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15523104 abstract below For a short sentence like Consumption of antioxidant rich foods may reduce cancer risk.

"Epidemiological studies show that a high intake of anti-oxidant-rich foods is inversely related to cancer risk. While animal and cell cultures confirm the anticancer effects of antioxidants, intervention trials to determine their ability to reduce cancer risk have been inconclusive, although selenium and vitamin E reduced the risk of some forms of cancer, including prostate and colon cancer, and carotenoids have been shown to help reduce breast cancer risk. Cancer treatment by radiation and anticancer drugs reduces inherent antioxidants and induces oxidative stress, which increases with disease progression. Vitamins E and C have been shown to ameliorate adverse side effects associated with free radical damage to normal cells in cancer therapy, such as mucositis and fibrosis, and to reduce the recurrence of breast cancer. While clinical studies on the effect of anti-oxidants in modulating cancer treatment are limited in number and size, experimental studies show that antioxidant vitamins and some phytochemicals selectively induce apoptosis in cancer cells but not in normal cells and prevent angiogenesis and metastatic spread, suggesting a potential role for antioxidants as adjuvants in cancer therapy."32cllou (talk) 15:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

PS Are you all sure I can't use that NCI Factsheet to make the same statement? How about if I don't list any specific foods like the NCI factsheet did?32cllou (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The thing is we have a number of excellent recent studies which has found that supplementation of antioxidants actually increases cancer risk. Will provide them shortly. The human body uses oxidation to destroy cancerous cells thus anti oxidants may not be a good idea. And well some foods may decrease the risk of cancer there is little evidence that this occurs via antioxidant mechanisms.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A number of refs

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22218797

http://www.aarp.org/health/drugs-supplements/info-10-2011/vitamin-e-supplements-raise-prostate-cancer-risk-health-discovery.html

Will find better references soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:08, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a lot of good systematic reviews on this question - but in this instance, the Cochrane over-arching one is really solid ^[4] . The reviews are very controversial in this area, partly because it's hard to understand how on earth relatively slow-growing cancers could appear so quickly. So it's not causing, but accelerating, perhaps. And here's something you could consider as an external link: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0005077/ Hildabast (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll mostly use this review for diet http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/4841/1/4841.pdf , which doesn't say much about antioxidants. Here's one quote pg 75 "Vegetables and fruits are generally low in energy density (with a few exceptions) and, when consumed in variety, are sources of many vitamins, minerals, and other bioactive compounds (phytochemicals)" and I can use one of many secondary to say bioactive phytochemicals are often antioxidants. And "Many herbs and spices have potent pharmacological as well as culinary properties."32cllou (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Can we use this one? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15523104 mostly for the first sentence

"Abstract Epidemiological studies show that a high intake of anti-oxidant-rich foods is inversely related to cancer risk. While animal and cell cultures confirm the anticancer effects of antioxidants, intervention trials to determine their ability to reduce cancer risk have been inconclusive, although selenium and vitamin E reduced the risk of some forms of cancer, including prostate and colon cancer, and carotenoids have been shown to help reduce breast cancer risk. Cancer treatment by radiation and anticancer drugs reduces inherent antioxidants and induces oxidative stress, which increases with disease progression. Vitamins E and C have been shown to ameliorate adverse side effects associated with free radical damage to normal cells in cancer therapy, such as mucositis and fibrosis, and to reduce the recurrence of breast cancer. While clinical studies on the effect of anti-oxidants in modulating cancer treatment are limited in number and size, experimental studies show that antioxidant vitamins and some phytochemicals selectively induce apoptosis in cancer cells but not in normal cells and prevent angiogenesis and metastatic spread, suggesting a potential role for antioxidants as adjuvants in cancer therapy."32cllou (talk) 16:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

PS consistently supplements are bad, fruits and low calorie density vegetables good.32cllou (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Those claims in that article aren't supported by the evidence: the evidence suggests something else completely. The article is the personal point of view of a single person, writing in 2004 without any formal review of the evidence. It has a very high risk of bias, and it is very out of date. In some areas, 2004 information could still be current, but not in something as heavily researched as this. You don't see studies specifically about fruit and vegetables: it's a part of a dietary pattern, and so assumptions are made. You might find the discussion about that in the American Cancer Society Guidelines useful^[5] : for a big picture explanation on nutrition, it looks quite good. (For the issue of supplements, then the Cochrane review I cited before.) But these contradict, in important points, several statements in that 2004 opinion piece. Hildabast (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the ACS guidelines, which I'll use to reinforce recommends same as http://eprints.ucl.ac.uk/4841/1/4841.pdf though I found more for food class info for prostate cancer.32cllou (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

"Cite on Wikipedia" tool at National Center for Biotechnology Information website

I am in contact with the National Center for Biotechnology Information (who run web services like PubMed Central) over them providing references in a way that allows for easy copy-pasting into Wikipedia articles (similar to what Europeana does or the Biomedical citation maker). Where would be the best place to discuss what Wikipedia template formats (e.g. {{Cite web}}, {{Cite journal}}, {{Citation}}, {{Cite book}}) would be best to implement at what NCBI projects? Thanks for any pointers. Please reply at WikiProject NIH. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes User:HB-NCBI is from NCBI and has began collaborating with us. They are open to feedback on changes to pubmed which we feel would make their site better.

I am wondering if we should be looking at vcite or fcite as they are significantly faster. Some of our large pages are very slow to edit.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 05:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm beginning to think that might actually be a good thing. In a way, it penalizes us when we've based an article on a ridiculously large number of sources, which generally means that we've lost sight of either MEDRS or UNDUE. However, the truth is changing citation types needs article consensus, so in effect tools need to support all types. Of course, citation bot can convert to the article's dominant form anyhow, but how much better to do it right the first time? LeadSongDog come howl! 05:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a big deal. I would encourage WikiProject Medicine members to consider commenting on this. This could be an entry point for collaboration with major organizations on developing health articles on Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a number of discussions ongoing regarding the use of fcite. For example a discussion regarding deleting it is here [16]

Having been a primary editors of a number of huge topics (see HIV/AIDS and Obesity) there is no way around having 200 references. These are exceedingly controversial topics and if every line was not referenced, references would soon be requested. I strongly support the principle of faster templates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

On a huge topic like that, you ought to be able to cite a couple of books a dozen times each, rather than a different source for each sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

There are a couple of reasons why I prefer reviews to textbooks. 1) they are typically more uptodate 2) they are typically easier to access 3) my colleagues view them as better / more useful sources Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:56, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

You will never produce a comprehensive, balanced or unbiased article on Obesity, for example, by only citing medical journal reviews. And I agree with WhatAmIDoing that big-topic articles should be built on books, not reviews, and never primary studies (though we all agree on that one). But this is off-topic and I agree that our standard citation templates are a dreadful implementation and more complex than just writing the citation. Colin°^Talk 07:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, wheels rolling at NCBI on this: bring it! Hildabast (talk) 16:18, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If they generated citations without templates, it would work fine here and also be useful on any of the thousands of non-Wikipedia websites using Mediawiki software in the world. The citation templates work at the English Wikipedia, but italics and bold face and so forth work everywhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
If they can offer two options that would be best. Many editors use the citation templates so unfortunately cite journal is an inevitable requirement. But it should also offer a standard wikitext Vancouver-style citation. I don't know if the PMID XXX magic link works on other wikis, and I tend to use a template to link DOIs (examples at ketogenic diet). Colin°^Talk 07:36, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

On a sidenote, I sense it's really interesting to see key organizations like NCBI and the WHO giving this sort of collaborative attention to Wikipedia. Imo, it's an indication that they recognize the relevance of Wikipedia as a real-world source of biomedical information. That relevance is something that I personally find rather scary, but I'm also beginning to see as a challenge. My feeling is that input like this is a really encouraging sign. The somewhat restricted number of regulars here may have some reason to feel a bit less alone. Just 2 silly sents, —MistyMorn (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

If it helps any, I spent a couple of decades in the health consumer movement before I crossed over to working in this kind of major institution. So I'm kinda hoping I can blend in ok & that our institutional support will genuinely be supportive. But yes, you should take it as an encouraging sign. Wouldn't be making a commitment if I didn't believe what you're doing is both important and terrific. Hildabast (talk) 19:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

We need to keep distance so that the views of Wikipedia medical cleecks do not distort article content dolfrog (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

What are "Wikipedia medical cleecks"? Everyone will just be summarizing the best available literature.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 00:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

If that was always the case there would be no cleecks, why this happens I do not know, it is just an observation over time dolfrog (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Clique. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Please help improve Birth control

Birth control is easy and very important to improve. Please see Talk:Birth control#Reviews on the topic in the Lancet this month through Talk:Birth control#Comparison. 75.166.200.250 (talk) 23:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy‎

Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy‎ needs eyes again. It's the same POV pusher who wants to make sure everyone's aware that ETS is a deadly surgery with no benefits, despite what the published literature says. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Ethics of medical publication in educational works from Wikimedia

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 111#Ethics of medical publication in educational works from Wikimedia (version of 02:54, 22 July 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

This is about informed consent for images of people with medical conditions, and appears to be written by a person who assumes that such images (in this case, a penis) are uploaded to Commons by medical professionals rather than by the patients themselves (which is what happened in this case), and who seems to be unaware of the many previous discussions on this subject. If someone's got the links to the previous discussions handy, then that would IMO be a positive contribution to the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I keep a file of signed consents from patients when they agree to release their images under a CC BY SA. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 02:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Fingernails

The new article feedback system has a request about nails for a medical term for very long fingernails. I'm not sure any such term exists. Does anyone know? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. The closest that I can think of is "onychogryphosis". Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:46, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I also am not aware of a "medical term for very long fingernails." ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 12:39, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I am thrilled that this article review tool has gotten so much attention in such a short time - already six comments on fingernail. This is fantastic! Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Onychogryphosis sounds like a plausible fit for what the person wants and it didn't appear to be in the page, so I added it to ==See also== as an interim measure. Perhaps someone else can figure out how to incorporate it into the text and then mark this feedback as resolved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

And we need a picture. I have seen a few good cases but did not photograph them.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Input needed

Hi all. I would appreciate input at the discussion here. The debate is summarised there, but basically an IP editor keeps trying to introduce physical therapist onto the doctor disambiguation page. Discussions have gone against this in the past but the debate needs to be concluded once and for all. Regards Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:03, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

PT's are not know as doctors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 02:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Some of them might be, if they have Doctor of Physical Therapy degrees. After all, even people with degrees in history and fine arts are sometimes addressed as "doctor" on the basis of their academic achievements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The point of a DAB page is to lead from what the person searched for to what they person hoped to find. So, at least in the UK, one would not be looking for a physical therapist, dentist or vet if one typed "doctor" in the search box. Colin°^Talk 07:30, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Will someone review yesterday's edits

Would someone review this IP's edits yesterday? [17] Should they be reverted? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks like ref spamming to me. The website suggests it is from a dermatology book, however, which would nominally make it MEDRS compliant. Yobol (talk) 13:28, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Clear refspam, inserting sources after fairly trivial sourced sentences where the reference is a sentence away or even in the same sentence. Disruptive editing since the citations were in French Wikipedia format.Novangelis (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I am going to rollback those edits then. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

The article Fondation René Touraine has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

insufficient third-party coverage.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Novangelis (talk) 15:31, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Editors adding multiple links to his own papers across many articles

User:Miroslavpohanka is adding many links to his own papers to stuff they do not really support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 22:57, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

This user received several comments on their talk page within a day. After editing two days, this user left Wikipedia without comment. This issue is resolved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:46, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative Identity Disorder

Moved to talk:dissociative identity disorder; input there would be appreciated.

... has serious problems with reliable sources, original research, undue weight, and possible meatpuppetry. I do not feel I can edit the article neutrally, but I would appreciate if some MEDRS-conversant editors could take a look at it. There is a very stark disconnect between the old, stable article and the radically rewritten version created by a single purpose agenda account. Skinwalker (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I need some unbiased help on this page. Editor WLU (t) is Canvassing - diff. Please read what he wrote this morning. I don't want a battle. I just want an unbiased page on DID. I am totally open to help from unbiased editors! See his last note under Howdy on his talk page. This man has so many friends on WP and so much power it's been impossible to work without being completely micromanaged by him in the past - so much so that I don't think I have actually ever even had one edit stay on the page until now. In this paragraph titled "Howdy" he plays victim, which is so far from the truth it's insane. Those that oppose him usually get banned from the DID page or give up and go away. This might be the wrong place to take this, but the admin board is where many of his friends hangout. Please give me advice! By the way - how am I a meatpuppet when I am pretty much in there by my self? The last revert however is a suspicious act by another reverting back to WLU's old version.~ty (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The article needs attention from accounts with access to the sources and a willingness to put in the time, but mostly from accounts who are familiar with the policies and guidelines (or even manual of style - even the table of contents illustrates some of the problems on the page). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:35, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and it is not a finished project. I am willing to work on it until it is an A article! This is my goal. My goal is not to push a POV. It is to have a great article. I would love help doing so.~ty (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Without any intended offense to Tylas, who clearly has put a lot of effort into the article, but the article seems to have taken a very large step backwards compared to what it originally looked like, in terms of prose and neutrality (there's 4 lines about the DSM-IV, but multiple paragraphs about the theoretical publication DSM-V? Really?). I think a mass revert would probably be in the best interest of the encyclopedia; everything is stored in history so that that well sourced material to MEDRS compliant sources can be added slowly.Yobol (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The idea of WP is to give information. The information there now is far superior to what it was. Let me work on it. Give me suggestions. I will happily fix them. Please read the article and give me things to work on rather than taking it back to the version that honestly - was embarrassing to those who do know about DID. Better yet! Help me fix the the problems you see. Even WLU admits that the old version of the article needed a complete rewrite. I believe his argument is that he wants the controversy to bear the same weight as the mainstream consensus in the field of DID research. By the way - I have hardly touched the section you just refereed to. That is pretty much how it was. I had no problem with that at all. There is a huge amount of work being put into the changes in the DSM 5 right now that are of interest to the field of DID. I can remove all DSM 5 info if people think that is necessary, but I think it would be a mistake.~ty (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There is a note on my user page from whatamidoing saying what WLU did is not canvassing according to WP rules, so I apologize WLU.~ty (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

A revert to the old version and slow editing to retain limited improvements would be a good idea in my opinion. The page portrays the traumagenic position as unapologetically correct and any who disagree to be simply wrong. The lead doesn't even mention the iatrogenic position. There is far too much name dropping. There are semi-headings like "New Era of Better Therapy" and "Life Does Not Begin With A Unified Identity". The page reads about as smoothly as a roller coaster. The page doesn't follow anything close to the MOS or MEDMOS. Citations are included as plain text numbers like [1] and [2] instead of hyperlinked citations. Citations are incomplete. Images are spammed throughout and bear tenuous connections to the text. The section on etiology doesn't mention the primary controversy over DID - whether it is caused by trauma or inappropriate therapeutic techniques. The controversies are ghettoized to a "controversy" section, which is inappropriate per WP:STRUCTURE. Tenuous theories are presented as unabashed facts. The voice is wrong, with statements like "Virtually all we have to direct us..." and "Integration is a confusing term, since we know we do not begin life integrated." Review articles are deprecated in favour of books which are quite one-sided. There is an obvious copyright violation. All of these issues are ones I can glean just from scanning the page, I haven't even given it a thorough read through and I haven't delved into the actual sources (let alone conducted the careful parsing of sources required to determine neutrality). I very much agree with Yobol, the page does need a revert and attention from experienced editors beyond just myself. My attempts to engage and discuss, despite my constant reference to policy, are dismissed with accusations of bias (for instance, that I'm a member of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation), gross misrepresentation of my actions (for instance, another editor leaving me a message is canvassing) and the bizarre nonsequiters. Input from other editors would be greatly appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I really haven't got beyond that whirling brain thing, which presumably is there to illustrate some concepts in the lede? Rather than just hypnotize the reader... —MistyMorn (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Editor Daniel Santos (talk) 22:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC) came and explained to us both how the lede should be. You did not argue a bit with him when he made those suggestions. This was my first contact with him ever, but he appears to be an advanced WP editor who had tried in vain to edit the DID page in the past and was never allowed, I assume by the award he put on my talk page as defender for those who were abused as children. WLU, I have read a vast amount of research the last couple of weeks and not one paper has said that the views are equal. They state the trauma view is considered mainstream, but there is controversy. That is how the lede is arranged per Daniel Santos. I did have quite a bit more in there before that time, but I must agree that he was correct. Simply point out what you view as a violation and I can fix it or you can, but does not mean reverting all the last 1,000 edits or so. In this version there is a huge controversy section, adding things you did not even have on the page about the iatrogenic position. There is even a large section totally on the iatrogenic position. I was interrupted by all this today, but I was adding such to the history as well. The problem with this argument, which you probably know well, is that the average editor does not have a clue what it is we are talking about when it comes to the weight of each argument, but they can go and read the research and see for themselves - which I would love. WLU, you are again playing victim when that is so far from the truth it's ridiculous. You have only allowed those you can micromanage to ever edit that page - or that write what you personally agree with - your POV. There is a very nice editor there on the DID page now who is helping me with WP rules. I am fixing the points WLU said here. All he had to do was mention them on the talk page or fix them instead of reverting all this work back to an old version. I never called him a member of any organization and do not care. My point is that he pushed the iatrogenic POV even though it is not mainstream. I have very much included it in the article, but it is not equal to the trauma view per all the articles I have read - including review articles. I have included both books (which I read many) and reivew articles. No review article is excluded on the page. [User:Tylas|~ty]] (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd support a revert to an earlier, stable version, as it seems quite a mess now - bunches of citations in the lede etc. - on an on. - have any brain studies definitively shown parts of the brain to be associated with DDD, rather than just "trauma" in general? The iatrogenic view is not a quack position. Just my view. I haven't been involved in the writing of the article, but I was startled by the massive, sudden changes without consent of the participating editors apparently. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:01, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that is that anyone that edits the article WLU runs off. It's not that people have not tried over a great period of time - they are just not able. WLU stepped back and let me, so I did. I have spent the day fixing anything that editors are pointing out. A revert back to the version that no one is allowed to edit would be simply wrong and I hope that is not WP is and it is a version that even WLU says is in need of a rewrite. It is not the better version. I built on the existing version step by step - over 1,000 edits. I did not run off in the dark and make a new page and spring it on everyone. If WLU will work with me instead of reverting every edit, I am quite happy to work with him. ~ty (talk) 02:05, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, the present version is not better. Many changes seem to have been made without reference to Wikipedia general policies and content/style guidelines. Reverting to the earlier version should pave the way for appropriate incremental improvements with more eyes on the article. —MistyMorn (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tylas has done 2189 edits this year (and 260 before that). It looks like all the edits this year are in connection with Dissociative identity disorder. That might be a sign of a dedicated expert working to improve the encyclopedia, but given the lack of real communication on the article talk page (which looks like a series of "I WONT BE CONTROLLED by you or anyone else"), it is much more likely that the descriptions of problems given above are accurate. The current article has an image with caption "Early experiences with caregivers gradually give rise to a system of thoughts, memories, beliefs, expectations, emotions and behaviors about the self and others." that appears to be WP:OR, and text like "It is imperative to get the right diagnosis so a patient receives correct treatment" is a good indication of advocacy. I support reverting the article to the old version. Improvements should be incremental and based on policies, with collaboration being paramount—any issues must be responded to without digressions about other editors. Johnuniq (talk) 10:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Tylas is not a dedicated expert, as she discloses on her talk page she is currently in therapy for DID. If you look in the archives, I have spent a lot of time indicating why I object to specific changes on policy and guideline grounds, and have basically had my concerns dismissed because "I just don't understand DID" [18]. I copied the last stable version to a subpage and have added some text based on a recent review article. I plan on, when I have the time, continuing to update that subpage version based on recent review articles and what improvements Tylas made that are genuine improvements. But it is exhausting to do on my own when my detailed rationales are ignored. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 13:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The article should be reverted to its last stable version in my view. Among other (massive) problems, there are 22 citations in the lede alone. For example, the sentence in the lede, "Dissociative disorders, including DID are often mistaken for various disorders by those that are not trained or educated in trauma psychology." is sourced to a Polish journal article, and two Japanese articles, all of which are primary sources. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I have referred to this discussion on the DID talk page, suggesting the DID main page be reverted to the last stable version (plus the changes mentioned above, per my sub-page draft). See here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

It's true that people with a medical condition can be experts, and that experts in an area sometimes develop the conditions they are experts in. After all, some people go into a particular field because they have a personal interest in it, and being a cardiologist doesn't make you magically immune from hypertension or cholesterol problems.

But it's also true that patients tend to believe that their personal experience is the sole truth for everyone. People who subjectively feel better if they swallow a dozen pills each day tend to believe that herbal or homeopathic treatments really work, even if it's been proven that the contents of the pills don't matter. People like Tylas, a self-disclosed person with DID, tend to have strong views that what they believe is the cause of their own DID is the cause of everyone's DID. People with multiple chemical sensitivity tend to be angry when anyone points out that most people who say they have MCS actually have treatable anxiety or depression rather than an actual problem with "chemicals".

This is just how the human brain works. With the best will in the world, someone in Tylas' situation is likely to accidentally misread sources in ways that show the source to more strongly support their own personal beliefs than the source actually does.

As for the advice to slow down: Tylas has made 635 edits to the article this month, and claims on the talk page to be editing "slowly - oh so slowly in fact". While it is appropriate advice, I don't think it is going to be heeded. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

For anyone still interested, the DID page has been reverted to a modified-stable version (actually, several times now). Comments, suggestions and improvements to the current version are welcome, as are comments on the talk page. Numerous improvements and updates still need to be made so experienced contributors would be greatly appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 16:21, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

My reasoning why this is wrong is written on the DID page under "3 Reverts by WLU" also listed here for your convince.

The problems with this are the usual things you have done on this page WLU.

You have now taken total control again. Before this last round of edits which you entirely reverted, I was not allowed even one edit to remain. You did the same with TomCloyd. He was a content expert and knew WP well, yet you still would not allow him to make one edit! (if one or two were allowed, I am sorry, but I think you did full reverts of anything either of us tried to do.) Notice, even a small edit like removing the symptom paranoia resulted in a revert war. You would not allow me even one edit of something that was flat out wrong.
You then let FF edit, as long as you could control (micromanaged) her edits. I announced I will not be controlled (micromanaged) by you, and that statement was taken out of context and used on the med page.
You cried victim when I started to edit. You cried victim when TomCloyd tried to edit, claiming - again out of context that he called you a psychopath. He said you exhibited psychopathic behavior, which you do. Yet you twisted that to say he was calling you names on the playground and he got banned by the same folks that seem to show up in your favor when you have conflict.
Most of those who said anything on the med page are the same that came to your aid to ban TomCloyd. I would think this sort of thing needs to be brought in front of an unbiased crowd instead of you calling forth your buddies to vote your way.
Even now you say YOU will put back in my edits that YOU deem good. Also as soon as I started to edit today you reverted the whole thing to a version you were working on in your sandbox. What makes you sole judge? Why can't I and other editors also work on the article? I know many how have tried to edit this page have that same complaint.
This article remains a B article and you allow little to no change to it. My goal was/is an A article. Yet, again you stop this process from going forth.~ty (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also the new editor MathewTownsend stated: "As a former believer of the Colin Ross school, then a quick convert to an iatrogenesis model when it came to testifying in court, probably we won't disagree on that point.". We need unbiased editors please to solve this problem. ~ty (talk) 21:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the fact that "believing in the iatrogenic model" means MathewTownsend is too biased to edit the page or for you to work with is pretty much the problem on the DID page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:09, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true. I too believe the iatrogenic position, but I also believe the mainstream model and that is the traumatic model. As I have pointed out, even the most current 2012 review in favor of the iatrogenic position says that the trauma model is the model of Conventional Wisdom. Quote from it: "challenge to Conventional Wisdom" I of course believe both models should be presented, but they are far from equal and you would like them to be - this is NOT my opinion - this is simply how it is. I have never, ever read anywhere that they are even close to being equal. ~ty (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Also, I did not say MathewTownsend is too biased. I quoted exactly what he said - in the talk where you and he discuss how you will both go about working on the DID page - including using your draft from your sandbox. I am not going to interpret this, others can go there and read for themselves. 22:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that further discussion take place on Talk:Dissociative identity disorder. Skinwalker (talk) 23:30, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Agree~ty (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I object to WLU's deletion of my comments[19]. This is in violation of Wikipedia's talk page guidelines. Either address my points or accept them. WLU's and WAID's comments about Tylas and myself are ad hominem attacks and a violation of Wikipedia policy. BitterGrey (talk) 05:01, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

More like address your points or ignore them. Your edit made personal attacks on WLU, inserted text to change the meaning of it within text others had written, and just generally did not belong. You should be lucky it was taken away, as it prevented people from seeing your personal attacks and bad behavior more readily. Keep in mind that a number of edits and reverts he made to DID that Tylas is complaining about would have been made by me other editors there if WLU hadn't gotten there first. He has strong support in general for his actions, and if Tylas isn't getting her way, it's because she doesn't have the same support. Looks above at the number of editors saying Tylas' edits were not appropriate -- seeing that, how can you or her say that what WLU is doing is wrong? Frankly, everything you and Tylas have accused him of (like personal attacks, edit warring, bias, etc.) appears to be behavior that you and Tylas are actually doing quite severely yourselves but are too emotionally attached to judge your own actions clearly. DreamGuy (talk) 22:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

DG, the chunk of text I removed from WAID's post was actually hers since I removed the post that she was referring to, note this.

Please let this die. I know from long experience that this will go nowhere, clog up the board and piss everyone else off if anyone continues to engage here. This page is not meant to deal with behavioural issues and nothing is gained by trying. All you will get by posting any replies will be acrimony and it won't help anyone. Please let this archive, it's far, far less work over the long term. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:00, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

DreamGuy, support or retract your accusations that I'm 1)distorting the comments of others and 2) making personal attacks. I'm not the one who deleted the comments of others, WLU is[20]. I'm also not the one who hid the comments of others, with a note deceptively implying that the discussion was moved intact, WLU is[21]. I'm also not the one making ad hominem attacks based on a Wikipedian's sexuality, WLU([22][23][24]...) and WAID([25][26]...) are the ones doing that. WLU has been hounding me for over a year, aided by a gang of potentially well-intentioned but grievously mistaken individuals like yourself. Please become aware of the facts before you assist him in driving away more good wikipedians.BitterGrey (talk) 04:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey, if you have a problem with certain editors, I'm sure you are aware of the relevant forums for your complaints. If you have a content-based query regarding a medical topic, this is the place to come. While this project talk page accepts posts from folk requesting "more eyes" to a dispute involving editors on medical articles, this is not the place to go into detail or to pursue any resolution. Colin°^Talk 07:43, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

For the record, I have deleted two of Bittergrey's further posts, which contain personal attacks. here and here. Any subsequent posts on this page regarding this dispute that contain personal attacks will also be deleted, regardless of who makes them. Anyone having a problem with this should use my talk page or a relevant editor-behaviour-forum. Colin°^Talk 07:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Passive smoking

An editor has tagged this article with a NPOV tag and has stated they feel the lead is non-neutral and "shrill". Some input from others on the talk page may be helpful to resolve this dispute. Yobol (talk) 13:09, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We need people to support claims of POV with references. Not just stating that they do not like the conclusions of the evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 21:57, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I have a certain level of sympathy with the editor. Here in California we are subjected to a barrage of TV ads about second-hand smoking that reach heights of absurdity, certainly not supported by scientific data. You could easily get the impression that a whiff of second-hand smoke is worse than first-hand smoking a pack of cigarettes. It would be nice if our article didn't play into that hysteria -- however I don't really know enough detail about this issue to make any concrete proposals. Looie496 (talk) 23:02, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

We also have shows like that of Penn and Teller claiming that their is no evidence of harm from second hand smoke. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 04:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Please provide input on proposed draft of new lead for Circumcision

I am proposing a draft of a new rewrite of the lead for circumcision here: Talk:Circumcision#Proposed_rewrite_of_lead_to_move_in_the_direction_of_Featured_Article. The current lead inadequately summarizes the article. I've looked to WP:MEDICINE WP:FA articles of similar size and subject for direction on the size and level of detail. What I'm proposing is draft #2, we already had draft #1 and I've incorporated the feedback I got from that one. The editors at the article would really appreciate the feedback! Thank you... Zad68 03:05, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Medicine

We had a short discussion at Wikimania this week about starting a thematic organization as per here [27]. People interested in being involved? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 13:36, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

I would love to try to help get the chapter started. As the intern at Wikimedia NYC I can help set up the starting documents and get probono lawyers to help out. Peter.C • talk • contribs 13:51, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I am interested to help as well. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds neat. I'd be interested to see where it goes. Canada Hky (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I would be involved. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
This is very encouraging. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Interested in principle, although limited time and travel opportunities at this point. Increased online collaboration would be marvellous. JFW | T@lk 20:10, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes activities would take place primarily online Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 22:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'd get involved too. Hildabast (talk) 16:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm interested. Biosthmors (talk) 17:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I would be involved in a limited way.Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 23:33, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Supportive, —MistyMorn (talk) 10:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Have begun the proposal at meta

here. Peter Coti has kindly offered his parents to help us incorporate. As the number of groups wishing to partner with us at WP:MED increases it is important that we have an organization that can work with them in person as well as online. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 14:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedian in residence at WHO

Meet with a gentleman from the World Health Organization this week. They are interested in the idea of having a Wikipedian in residence. Would anyone here be interested in a such a position? Discussions are still in their very early stages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 22:33, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Description of Wikipedian in residence. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:36, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I think engaging in that discussion is worth our time even if nobody specific signals an interest right now. Once the conditions (scope, location, duration, remuneration, expected outcomes etc.) become clearer, we can contact suitable people in a more targeted manner. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:20, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am interested to hear more details about this position when the framework for it is more developed. Biosthmors (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm in. --Arcadian (talk) 11:41, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I also talked with this gentleman and I think the appropriate candidate for the position would be the person who also designs the position and proposes a framework for what the position will do and why that work matters. The general goal of the position would be to accomplish the work of the WHO and to engage some of the 900+ interns which come to the WHO every year. In addition to this position, I predict that in the future other health organizations would also like to have a Wikipedian in residence. I am employed in such a position and am happy to talk with anyone about what I do - in summary, I present Wikipedia to non-Wikipedians and introduce them to editing Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:20, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Google group for discussion

Have created a google group for further discussion here https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/wikimedia-medicine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 20:25, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Input appreciated at a WP:RSN discussion

The editors at circumcision (you love us, don't you?) would really appreciate your input at this Reliable Sources discussion: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Can_the_KNMG_official_viewpoint_document_be_used_in_this_way.3F Cheers! Zad68 23:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

New article -- Dietary Management of Parkinson's Disease

Dietary Management of Parkinson's Disease now exists. Biosthmors (talk) 22:38, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes this person has also written for the Parkinson's disease foundation. A copy of the text is also here http://www.pdf.org/en/winter06_07_Nutrition_and_Parkinson I do not have a problem with this being a sub page of the Management of Parkinson's disease page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I actually redirected Parkinson's disease and Diet, another page they created today back to Parkinson's disease Diet section. Most of the material on that page appears to be redundant to the information we already have in both Parkinson's disease and Management of Parkinson's disease, and probably doesn't justify its own page yet (not to mention the use of non-MEDRS, etc). Yobol (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

The nature and purpose of Wikimedia Medicine

A discussion about the nature and aims of #Wikimedia Medicine, leading up to incorporation and recognition by the Wikimedia Foundation, is under way at m:Talk:Wikimedia Medicine. This new body will hold a bank account, accept donations, employ staff and engage with governments and civil society to promote its aims. Please consider adding your ideas to the discussion. If you know anyone from other projects that might be interested (Commons and Wiktionary?) please point them to the discussion. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It sounds amazing, thank you for letting us know! NCurse _work 16:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please! Help! with Dissociative identity disorder

Expertise is badly needed. Input would be greatly appreciated. It's currently at peer review. Help! MathewTownsend (talk) 01:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not clear what the issue is... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 04:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Beware. My attempt at input at the previous DID thread here resulted in considerable incivility, starting with the deletion of my comments and escalating to an RFC/U and not one but two ANI's. BitterGrey (talk) 04:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Sigh... Because you didn't actually talk about any real issues on the DID article and instead used the occasion to make personal attacks on editors you don't like. DreamGuy (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Expertise is, of course, always welcome, but thanks in part to the input already received last time around the article is in much better shape than it was. If Mathew has serious concerns he should address them in concrete terms on the article's talk page so they can be discussed. DreamGuy (talk) 07:49, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I have asked Casliber to take a look and he said he would (though I know he's very busy). He is responsible for Major depressive disorder, and a major contributor to Schizophrenia two of the few featured articles on a psychiatric diagnosis. (Another, Reactive attachment disorder, he also was a contributor.) Let's hope! This is a contentious diagnosis and wikipedia should have the best article on the subject that it can produce. MathewTownsend (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Doc James has also agreed to take a look. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Both editors, and more are welcome - no matter the disputes, the page needs attention and expertise from experienced wikipedians and people used to dealing with medical topics. Thanks to Doc James and Casliber for stepping up. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

groan.....still, reading about the mentions below gives me heart....Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:31, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Other recent literature

This study (doi:10.1017/S003329171100287X) mentions some strengths in our schizophrenia and depression articles, while this letter (doi:10.1136/bmj.e4275) in BMJ asks "Should clinicians edit Wikipedia to engage a wider world web?". Maybe we should reply to the letter in BMJ and/or the article about the 24 pediatric oncology articles after we make some fixes. Biosthmors (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes would be supportive of that.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 23:52, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't access the BMJ from home, could someone possibly email the letter to me? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:57, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Done —MistyMorn (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Some "Recent Rapid Responses" have already been posted here. —MistyMorn (talk) 09:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I emailed the article and the 2 rapid responses. Biosthmors (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think we should compose a concise WP:MED response to the BMJ letter, and take the opportunity to briefly explain WP:MEDRS, how WP:MED works, and point them to m:Talk:Wikimedia Medicine if those aren't covered in the BMJ letter. (I haven't read it yet.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You've now missed 4 subsequent issues. With luck someone else has replied by now. Johnbod (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There seem to have been 2 responses so far. [28] What is your point, exactly? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Health information on the internet is a relevant concern for general medical journals such as the BMJ (and a few weeks won't change that). Wikipedia is a special case in some ways, both because of its crowdsourced (participatory information sharing) characteristics and its high profile on the internet. Communicating thoughtfully with the scientific medical community through journals such as the BMJ can only be a good thing, imo. As regards responses to this particular BMJ letter, these have to go through the online "Rapid response" [29]. This is open to anyone, and it might be a good, relatively informal way of clarifying some of the issues raised in the Letter, such as the apparent eccentricity of citing a New York Times article about a major study rather than the study itself (per Anthony's suggestion). But it might also provide a way for the Project to communicate its broader plans -- I guess there's a fair likelihood the BMJ editorial committee could consider a more "official" submission of this sort for publication in its print edition. 2c, —MistyMorn (talk) 19:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed response to BMJ letter

Response to Kint and Hart, "Should clinicians edit Wikipedia to engage a wider world web?" BMJ 2012;345:e4275 doi: 10.1136/bmj.e4275 (Published 3 July 2012)

Up to 80% of internet users in developed countries search the internet for health information - problems, symptoms, diseases and treatments - and a Wikipedia page is often at or near the top of search engine results for an English medical term.^[1] Wikipedia medical editors take this prominent position very seriously and have put in place systems and policies to monitor and improve the accuracy of Wikipedia's medical content.

Using a frequently updated page listing recent changes to Wikipedia medical articles,^[2] a team of volunteers, in many time zones, constantly checks the quality of sources supporting new content, and confirms the content is evidence-based, current and relevant to the article in question.

Wikipedia content is governed by policies and guidelines. Content must reflect "reliable sources." For health-related content, "reliable" usually means recent expert reviews published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals; recent graduate-level textbooks; current professional, national or international guidelines (e.g., ICD 10, DSM); etc.^[3] Content that is not supported by such sources may be deleted from the encyclopedia. Well-sourced, relevant content is rarely removed.

WikiProject Medicine^[4] is an informal group of physicians, researchers and other volunteers who share a commitment to ensuring that Wikipedia medical articles are comprehensive, reliable and understandable. We are presently establishing a non-profit corporation aimed at making all current medical knowledge freely available online to all people in their chosen language. Discussions regarding the nature and aims of that body are underway, and input from physicians is welcome.^[5]

We understand the suspicion with which many physicians view Wikipedia, but given its prominence, the fact that their patients and carers and many of their colleagues and students use Wikipedia medical articles, and given the systems and policies in place to monitor quality, we hope that physicians might consider writing, reviewing or correcting a Wikipedia medical article. The policies and guidelines are a little elaborate at times, but the volunteers at WikiProject Medicine^[4] are always willing to help and guide. Articles or paragraphs that reflect the current scholarly consensus, are based on reliable sources and are relevant will be watched over and defended by medical volunteers, and are often consulted by hundreds or thousands of readers per day.

References

Laurent MR, Vickers TJ (2009). "Seeking health information online: does Wikipedia matter?". J Am Med Inform Assoc. 16 (4): 471–9. doi:10.1197/jamia.M3059. PMC 2705249. PMID 19390105.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:RecentChangesLinked/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Recent_changes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MEDRS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:MED
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikimedia_Medicine

This is a first draft. Suggestions? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Just my 2c, no more... I would suggest sending that sort of response in an unofficial capacity, as a personal consideration from an individual member of the Project (eg by rewording "We are presently..." to "Wikipedia is presently...", and "We understand..." to something like "I think we all understand..."; then maybe leaving "we hope that physicians..." as it stands).

Personally, I feel that a more official response from the Project would do well to acknowledge openly some of the real underlying issues regarding Wikipedia's prominent role as a source of health information online, showing that we recognise their complexity and are working to address our current limitations in ways that are both ambitious and realistic. More generally, I sense that the Project is on the cusp of a sea change, and that part of that change should involve the Project engaging with the EBM community (eg via journals such as BMJ) on its terms rather than just (or mainly) ours. As I say, just 2 small cents, —MistyMorn (talk) 10:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously, it's important to specify in the "statement of competing interests" membership of the Wikipedia Medicine Project. This in itself should help contextualise any response from an individual member(s) of the Project. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Kint and Hart's letter demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding of how anonymous editing works and the constraints it imposes on sourcing. Although they may be prepared to uncritically endorse a particular primary study based on their own expertise, we don't have the luxury of deferring to any editor's claims of authority (as the Essjay case clearly demonstrated). Nor are we constrained to be "up-to-the-minute" in tracking novel reports; we are first and foremost an encyclopedia, a digest of accepted knowledge, and have no remit to stand in place of medical journals, where it is appropriate for primary research to be documented.

Rant over: I'm not suggesting that we need to make those points so forcefully, but I do believe that it is important to try to make the nature of Wikipedia clearer, in the interest of reducing the chances of outside groups "talking past" us because of their inaccurate assumptions. --RexxS (talk) 10:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I think that's an important point. Also, it doesn't take a sub-speciality expert to compile quality tertiary source information on a particular topic. I'd also thought of addressing some of those more specific points in a separate individual response to their letter. But I'm going to be out of action for a couple of days. —MistyMorn (talk) 10:57, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no hurry. I think your and RexxS's points are well-made. I was very aware as I wrote the above it was far from perfect and invite you both, and everyone else, to propose a draft. I think that a letter endorsed by many regulars here would be more authoritative (and probably just better) than any individual response I could contrive, though I'd encourage individual responses too, if something you consider important doesn't get into the group letter. Whatever. BMJ has essentially opened the discussion, and we should join it somehow. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:02, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

What I was trying to convey is that there's room for multiple responses from individual members of the Project clarifying specific points (as, for example, in your draft). Yes, a collective letter would certainly be more authoritative, but equally certainly more taxing: it would constitute a peer-review publication in its own right which could be cited in the future as direct or indirect evidence of the Project's position (and perhaps also attitude) at this juncture towards many wider issues. Some caution required here, imo. In haste, —MistyMorn (talk) 12:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe. I see this as an opportunity to address a lot of physicians, and want to make the most of it. I fear that a clutch of disparate individual responses may result in the journal's editor picking one less relevant response over three or four crucial points for publication. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

As with any source, a reader gets more value from a Wikipedia article if they understand something of the mechanism that produced it. The simple act of clicking on "View history" will reveal recent revisions to an article, but readers often simply do not know this. It is perhaps the single best tool that diligent readers have for assuring themselves they are not being mislead by a vandal. I'd suggest adding a reminder to that effect. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Other possible comments:

Whether you like it or not Wikipedia is what your patients, students and colleagues are reading. The quality of its content is hit and miss. But you are able to do something about it. We at Wikiproject Medicine welcome you to join us and help improve the quality of the health care content people are reading. Currently we have about 24,000 article in English, which are viewed more than 200 million times a month. Wikipedia is currently in 284 languages and we are actively working not only to improve the content in English but also in all the other languages of the world.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

With some corrections, I have revised the suggested wording to produce the following. (Changes are underscored.)

Whether you like it or not Wikipedia is what your patients, students and colleagues are reading. The quality of its content is sporadic. But you are able to do something about it. We at WikiProject Medicine welcome you to join us and help improve the quality of the health care content people are reading. Currently we have about 24,000 articles in English, which are viewed more than 200 million times a month. Wikipedia is currently in 284 languages and we are actively working to improve the content, not only in English but also in all the other languages of the world.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you to Biosthmors for drawing this to our attention. Anthonyhcole, I have a couple of comments to make about your proposed letter, but I'm not sure that "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine" is the best venue to hash out a letter to the journal. Google Docs may be a better approach. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to wait a day or so for more input from others here before adding anything. My proposal was just a talking point and I'm quite prepared for a group letter to be very different from that. We should address the authors' specific concerns, but, if we can do so concisely, I'd like us to convey some other essential info' - but I'm not sure what that should be. The more suggestions the better, and this venue, for now, will attract more suggestions. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

It is tempting to send them the text of Template:Sofixit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, it seems like there's a desire to reply as a Project, which I fully recognise is the right thing. My concern, largely stemming from my experiences as a medical writer, has been to give some thought about how best to reply. For instance, would it be good to start by welcoming the interest in the Project? Imo, that Letter, however critical, does provide a useful starting point for a dialogue. We want the EBM and broader medical community to engage with us; I feel it's good for us to consider potential ways of engaging in the other direction. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I see a positive 2011 BMJ editorial on the Project [30] (Signpost) drew a creative personal response [31] from User:Sharkli in addition to her more recent one here [32]. —MistyMorn (talk) 16:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright violations

An IP editor has been adding multiple copyright violations to medical articles: 199.46.198.231. I've reverted some, but don't have time to do go through their entire past work, was wondering if someone with more time now can have a look. Yobol (talk) 13:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

...and it looks like Novangelis has already taken care of it. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Because it has continued, I have filed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright violations and plagiarized public domain content.Novangelis (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The Global Health Library

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in the following resource.

WHO | The Global Health Library

—Wavelength (talk) 00:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Template:Disorders of skin appendages

Template:Disorders of skin appendages seems too big. See Template talk:Disorders of skin appendages. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it is excellent and comprehensive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:56, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

We are victims of our own success. Brendan made a huge effort a while ago to cover every skin disorder in existence as part of his aim to improve the dermatology area of WPMED. The List of cutaneous conditions and this navigation template are natural results of all that work. It merely looks big because many other areas of WPMED are not as comprehensively covered yet. Give us enough time & volunteers and we'll have lots of huge templates to complain about! --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Accuracy of 24 pediatric otolaryngology diagnoses articles and mention in the Signpost

There is a section in the Signpost that summarizes this study: doi:10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.05.026. The study says we could improve our accuracy in regards to the 24 most common pediatric otolaryngology diagnoses the authors selected. Biosthmors (talk) 20:20, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have access to the study, but I would like to see it if anyone could email it to me. Also maybe we should list the 24 articles (and errors/omissions if listed) here. Biosthmors (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

These are the topics covered in the study. Some were red links and I have just redirected them to a synonym or an article with a section covering the topic. I'd appreciate a second opinion on those redirects, particularly the last one, Lymphatic malformation → Cystic lymphatic malformation.

List of topics addressed by the paper

	Topic	Comment
1	Acute otitis media	redirects to Otitis media
2	Otitis media with effusion	redirects to Otitis media
3	Chronic serous otitis media	I've created a redirect to Otitis media#Chronic suppurative
4	Cholesteatoma
5	Tympanic membrane perforation	redirects to Perforated eardrum
6	Facial nerve paralysis
7	Obstructive sleep apnea	the section on children is unsourced except for one sentence on neuropsychological functioning
8	Subglottic stenosis	an unsourced stub
9	Adenoiditis	an unsourced stub
10	Tonsillitis
11	Recurrent respiratory papillomatosis	redirects to Laryngeal papillomatosis
12	Vocal fold immobility/paralysis	I created redirects to Vocal cord paresis.
13	Laryngomalacia
14	Chronic rhinosinusitis	I created a redirect to Sinusitis which treats "rhinosinusitis" and "sinusitis" as synonyms
15	Allergic rhinitis
16	Cervical lymphadenopathy	a stub citing only eMedicine
17	Branchial cleft cyst	a stub citing eMedicine and one 2006 secondary source
18	Thyroglossal duct cyst	redirects to Thyroglossal cyst
19	Sensorineural hearing loss
20	Hemangioma
21	Lymphatic malformation	I created a redirect to Cystic lymphatic malformation
22	Epistaxis
23	Nasal fracture
24	Ankyloglossia

and the two textbooks against which the articles are measured are

K.J. Lee, Essential Otolaryngology: Head and Neck Surgery, 9th ed., McGraw-Hill Professional, 2008 June.
P.W. Flint, B.H. Haughey, V.J. Lund, J.K. Niparko, M.A. Richardson, K.T. Robbins, et al., Cummings Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery, 5th ed., Mosby, 2010 March.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 08:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Cystic lymphatic malformation: I'd certainly suggest either
a. retitling Cystic lymphatic malformation as Cystic lymphangioma,
or
b. merging Cystic lymphatic malformation with the Lymphangioma page, which is the current redirect for Cystic lymphangioma.
Note: "Cystic lymphangioma" is both the corresponding MeSH term and a much more common name (11 vs 1476 PubMed results). However, the current Cystic lymphatic malformation page doesn't mention the term "cystic lymphangioma".
That leaves the small question about what to do about the topic of "lymphatic malformations" as a whole .
- Do we need a separate Lymphatic abnormalities [33] page?
- Or, specifically for the malformations, Congenital lymphatic abnormalities?
—MistyMorn (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to be bold. I'm going out now and will check back tomorrow. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I think more informed feedback is needed on both these points. Thoughts? —MistyMorn (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Otitis media: Otitis media, A couple of years ago while I was carrying out a major edit to the dyslexia article, I was almost involved in related editing war regarding Otitis Media with Effusion (OME), such is the politics of dyslexia. There is a great deal of scope to improve the content regarding both OME and Acute Otitis Media. My Pubmed Otitis Media Collection of research papers may help. dolfrog (talk) 11:41, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sensorineural hearing loss: Sensorineural hearing loss you may find my PubMed Sensorineural Hearing Loss collection useful to provide much needed citations dolfrog (talk) 12:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposed email to corresponding author

Hello Peter

I'm writing on behalf of Wikiproject Medicine regarding your paper in International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, "Quality of Internet information in pediatric otolaryngology: A comparison of three most referenced websites." We were wondering if you would be willing to let us see your reviewers' evaluations of Wikipedia articles, so that we can correct any errors (in particular) and omissions.

Regards --Anthonyhcole (talk) 10:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Perhaps also a short letter/reply to the journal notifying readers that it is being worked upon and inviting otolaryngologists to participate? --WS (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Ah didn't see the conversation below. --WS (talk) 13:40, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response, WS. Since there wasn't any other support for my proposed email, I've sent it in my voice. I'll report back if I get a response :

Hello Peter
I'm a Wikiproject Medicine volunteer and I'm writing regarding your paper in International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology, "Quality of Internet information in pediatric otolaryngology: A comparison of three most referenced websites." We appreciate and highly value the suggestions of experts. I was wondering if you would be willing to let me see your reviewers' evaluations of Wikipedia articles, so that I can address any errors (in particular) and omissions.

--Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks for sending the email. Biosthmors (talk) 05:31, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Common external links

Members of this WikiProject may be interested in User:Phil Boswell/common els.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:32, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This link goes to a list of external links purported to be used in multiple articles. This project is not described and it is hard for me to guess at what application or use it might have, or how it relates to WikiProject Medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:25, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I found the link at Wikipedia talk:Database reports#Popular/duplicated external links (version of 06:05, 3 August 2012). The original poster expressed a desire "to be able to track down groups of external links which are duplicated across many articles". More details are in that discussion.

—Wavelength (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

A lot of the URLs are links to Pubmed abstracts. This basically indicates that some references are used in more articles than one. Provided the references are high-quality secondary sources, this is of no direct concern to this project. JFW | T@lk 17:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Several pages have inappropriate generic links to PubMed. I have deleted those. More importantly, this list, if regularly updated, has the potential to flag up linkspam from single-purpose accounts. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:30, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

TRIP Database

This is really a great website for finding high quality sources. All one needs to do is type in the subject and it will bring up high quality references. For example a search for migraine pulls up [34]. This site is interested in working more closely with us. Suggestions on how to make it even better...

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:01, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

A review/evaluation in Evidence Based Medicine [35] concludes "We recommend this resource for those seeking pre-appraised evidence, reviews, and guidelines." Yup!

On its limitations: "Unfortunately, the search engine does not enhance the search terms entered by users who type in synonyms or medical subject headings. We found that searching by title and text yielded too many irrelevant hits, but this finding may represent our lack of experience with the search engine. Performance of quick searches on specific topics using TRIP can be hit or miss because success is dependent on the content of the database."

—Misty (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I tried it out briefly today. My impression is that I could find it moderately useful mainly to locate publication types (web, news items etc) not on PubMed. —Misty_(MORN) 22:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Neoplastic drug resistance

This article from the BBC [36] indirectly got me wondering whether we have an issue with neoplastic drug resistance. The Drug resistance page currently seems heavily skewed towards antibiotics, especially as regards the Mechanisms. One quick fix might involve importing material from the Neoplastic resistance section of the Multiple drug resistance page. I also feel that the Chemotherapy page should somehow have a bit more on resistance (in summary style?). Thoughts? —Misty (talk) 09:38, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

The article on chemotherapy introduces the topic by saying that it is treatment with a antineoplastic drug, but antineoplastic drug redirects to chemotherapy. It is not appropriate to have definitions redirect to each other. I might speculate that the reason why neoplastic drug resistance is not featured in other articles is that it is not possible to do so when the term is not defined in an article on Wikipedia. I am not sure where to begin on this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make my concern clear. As regards Chemotherapy, I just felt there should be a bit more on resistance (if only a "See also template" or a wikilink something). On the other hand, I would have expected to find more more mention of chemotherapy (and perhaps also insulin therapy) on the main Drug resistance page, where the opening sentence of the lede doesn't seem to be reflected in the main article. Does that make more sense? —Misty_(MORN) 19:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

If memory serves, I think you will find part of what you're looking for in Primary drug resistance, which MastCell deleted earlier this year because the HIV-related parts were a copyright violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Dreadful science reporting - too little background. The study in question is doi:10.1038/nm.2890, and Fran Balkwill's commentary seems to have been directly to the press rather than in the journal.

doi:10.2741/3070 and doi:10.1097/PPO.0b013e318212dd3d seem good secondary sources that could serve as a scaffold for novel content on chemotherapy resistance. JFW | T@lk 17:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned the BBC article at all... My query was principally about the Drug resistance page. Surely we need more about chemotherapy issues etc here? —Misty_(MORN) 19:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Help Me Make An Article on the University of Louisville School of Medicine!!!!

Hi everybody!

I'm VERY new to Wikipedia editing (been surfing for a while though) and am creating an article for the University of Louisville School of Medicine. It's the only M.D. granting institution in the United States that doesn't have an article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_medical_schools_in_the_United_States!

The University of Louisville School of Medicine is tremendously historic. Here are some notable innovations: World's first self-contained artificial heart transplant 2001 World's first successful hand transplant 1999 Development of Pap Smear 1970 Development of Autotransfusion 1935 First Emergency Room 1911

I've started it. Can someone help me! 50.30.172.228 (talk) 17:32, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! The article is at University of Louisville School of Medicine. You are getting excellent feedback in the edit summaries and there are problem templates on the main page describing what needs to happen to get the article to Wikipedia norms. Consider going to the Wikipedia WP:TEAHOUSE if you have specific editing questions. I recommend that you create a useraccount and set up a userpage so that people can have conversations with you when you have questions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the time! Can anyone work on this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviekatz (talk • contribs) 20:25, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Who does have time? Consider asking one of your personal friends to volunteer their time. It is really difficult to convince strangers on the Internet to volunteer time for you if you will not volunteer your own time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello to everyone! I am a new member of the Wiki Medicine portal. I'm going to contribute to articles related to oncology, molecular genetics as well as endocrine surgery with focus on post-Chornobyl thyroid tumors. Regards, --Andrux7 (talk) 08:32, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome, Andrux7! We are certainly glad to have you, and hope you stay around for a long time. I'm also interested in oncology-related articles, and although I don't have the kind of "Wiki-expertise" that most of the folks around here do, or a lot of time these days, I would be pleased to help you in any way I can, or refer you to one of the many geniuses around here.

As an aside, I have a copy of the most recent World Health Organization Histological Classification of Thyroid Tumors. Let me know if you want me to look something up for you in there.

One of the other things I greatly enjoy is copyediting, so please let me know if you would like a fresh pair of eyes on any articles or text that you create (or run across) by leaving me a request here or at my Talk page. Thanks for your help with this important project!

NOTE: I'm also posting this to Andrux7's talk page

With very best regards:

Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 12:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome indeed Andrux7. Please drop by here if you need any assistance. There's usually a couple of us on call. JFW | T@lk 17:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Occipital nerve stimulation

This showed up on NPP, was hoping someone who understood the jargon could scan it and make sure it's okay as an article. Cheers, Hiding T 15:56, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

While it has a few issues to be addressed, I think it's a pretty good start. Thanks for the heads up - good eye!

Best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 00:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Input appreciated at venowave

As mentioned at Talk:Venowave, I've proposed redirecting the article. Biosthmors (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Merged as per the suggestions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 17:39, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Source question

Greetings all, this might be better kicked to a RSN posting so feel free to let me know. I was going to use this article to add some info to the clozapine article. However despite being pubmed indexed, it's published by Bentham which has a reputation for being a bit vanity-ish. Does anyone here have any comments? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 22:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The paper meets the WP:MEDRS guideline. It is suitable for use as a reference. However, from reading the abstract, it appears to be promoting the use of clozapine. I believe that clozapine has fallen out of favour due to the risk of neutropenia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Just means that people need to have frequent blood tests so that the med can be stopped if this side effect occurs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure. But if another medication gives the same benefit without the need for frequent blood tests.... Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:57, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

We have this 2009 Cochrane review Essali, A (2009 Jan 21). "Clozapine versus typical neuroleptic medication for schizophrenia". Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) (1): CD000059. PMID 19160174. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:38, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Clozapine is most definitely in active use, and has benefits beyond the atypical antipsychotics. The Raja article, however, seems a bit one-sided. Anything wrong with Cochrane? JFW | T@lk 07:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Obviously not all MEDRS are equal... Surely a Cochrane review addressing the clinical question of interest (as here, it would seem) should generally come out at, or very near to, the top of the pile for best evidence? I feel this could be clarified a bit in WP:MEDASSESS. —Misty_(MORN) 10:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Normally I'd rely on Cochrane whenever available (natch!), I'm actually using Raja to fill out some adverse effects and contraindications information. I don't plan on touching on efficacy. As far as efficacy goes, I think there are several Cochrane reviews addressing it - but again I don't plan on editing that part of the article. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 10:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Lol, I've just learnt a new word (natch!). —Misty_(MORN) 11:04, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That Cochrane review compares clozapine with typical antipsychotics. I'm not sure how relevant that is; it depends on what you are trying to show I suppose. This article compares clozapine with other atypicals. This looks like a more balanced paper. This is another useful paper.

According to the current text in WP:MEDASSESS, we're not supposed to consider any possible bias in Raja's paper. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:44, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Meh, I was motivated by trying to source a very specific bit of text on clozapine (what's being done about urinary incontinence) and Raja's was the first to come up in google scholar and pubmed. I'm mostly looking for a current summary of adverse affects and contraindications, not use or choice versus other neuroleptics; judging by the above discussion it looks like Raja is probably fine for the former point, but not for the latter. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 17:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

More opportunities for you to access free research databases!

The quest for get Wikipedia editors the sources they need is gaining momentum. Here's what's happening and what you can sign up for right now:

Credo Reference provides full-text online versions of nearly 1200 published reference works from more than 70 publishers in every major subject, including general and subject dictionaries and encyclopedias. There are 125 full Credo 350 accounts available, with access even to 100 more references works than in Credo's original donation. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
HighBeam Research has access to over 80 million articles from 6,500 publications including newspapers, magazines, academic journals, newswires, trade magazines and encyclopedias. Thousands of new articles are added daily, and archives date back over 25 years covering a wide range of subjects and industries. There are 250 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.
Questia is an online research library for books and journal articles focusing on the humanities and social sciences. Questia has curated titles from over 300 trusted publishers including 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, and newspaper articles, as well as encyclopedia entries. There will soon be 1000 full access 1-year accounts available. All you need is a 1-year old account with 1000 edits. Sign up here.

In addition to these great partnerships, you might be interested in the next-generation idea to create a central Wikipedia Library where approved editors would have access to all participating resource donors. It's still in the preliminary stages, but if you like the idea, add your feedback to the Community Fellowship proposal to start developing the project. Drop by my talk page if you have any questions. Go sign up! Ocaasi^{t | c} 02:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This is amazing. Well done to those who have organized this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Natural Medicine

Hello, I have been away from Wikipedia for quite a while, however I may return. I am wondering if natural medicine related info is under the scope of this WikiProject, as well as what the guidelines are for things like this. The goals section makes it sound like this would be within scope. Thanks Arlen22 (talk) 20:28, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine.

—Wavelength (talk) 20:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Welcome back. It rather depends what you mean by "Natural Medicine". Evidence-based medicine is of course based on an applied knowledge of natural processes, but all too frequently people get the idea that all forms of complimentary and alternative medicine are "natural" and somehow "better" or "safer". Those ideas find little support in evidence when examined closely. wp:WikiProject Alternative medicine operates a bit differently than wp:WikiProject Medicine, but there is some overlap. Naturopathy for instance has a foot in both camps: it comes under WikiProject Alternative medicine, but also under wp:WikiProject Rational Skepticism. We have to look closely at the quality of sources for medicine- and for CAM-related articles. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:04, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree with LeadSongDog. A large proportion of the most succesful medicines have their origins in biological substances. Statins as fungal metabolites, ACE inhibitors from the venom of Bothrops jararaca, vinca alkaloids from the Madagaskar periwinkle, many antibiotics from fungi etc. The thing is, once such a substance has a good evidence base it becomes mainstream medicine. In that sense, "natural medicine" is a bit of a tautology. JFW | T@lk 17:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I mean herbal medicine, if that clarifies anything. If not, then I mean using plants, basically the way you pick them, maybe soaked or whatever, for treatment of disease. So yeah, applied science, but it doesn't have to have any papers published about it. Basically used as-is, not extracting it like the drug industry. Arlen22 (talk) 01:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There are whole journals devoted to herbal medicine. You might also be interested in traditional medicine. Also, a good deal of self-care might be relevant, such as ginger or peppermint teas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"Alternative medicine is any practice claiming to heal "that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine." It may be based on historical or cultural traditions, rather than on scientific evidence." Based on that definition, which I don't feel includes either psychology or ?physiology?, I would prefer to stay with a more scientific type of project. This isn't a proposal or request by any means, I'm just trying to get a feel of things. Would herbal medicine be under the scope of this WikiProject or not? Arlen22 (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The evidence-based parts of natural or herbal medicine would fall under WP:MED, though generally I would call it simply "medicine" (others would call it an uncertain dose of an ingredient with unknown efficacy, often accompanied by pharmaceutical adulterations). Also, your definition of "alternative medicine" is off - alternative medicine is basically any approach promoted as medicine that lacks acutal proof of safety and effectiveness. By definition it is "unproven claims". Proven claims, to repeat myself, are simply medicine as they are incorporated into the treatment recommendations of doctors.

To answer your original question - I would say "natural medicine" doesn't fall under WP:MED since it is more marketing than science. The proven parts of "natural medicine" are simply medicine. The unproven parts are alternative "medicine" (and really more like bare assertions). However, the debunking of alt med claims would probably fall within WP:MED - in particular because making medical claims requires WP:MEDRS and alt med (again) by definition lacks such sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 14:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

We generally show an interest in the general subjects (you'll find our group listed as supporting the main Alternative medicine article) but not the "minor" subjects, like whichever company's herbal blend is being discussed in this week's news.

But if you have questions or ideas about a particular article, you can ask here. The worst that will happen is that no one will be interested enough to reply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia

We need editors to decide what to do with this article. The article creator and the article's deletion nominator have a very volatile history, and it seems that they shouldn't even be interacting. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 22:37, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Not a medical issue.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I think that some people would say that all sexual orientations/preferences fall within the medical specialty of psychiatry, and it looks like the discussion could desperately use contributions from people who just don't really care one way or the other about this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

True, the DSM did get ride of homosexuality in DSM 3 but I think ~~other~~ paraphilias are still there.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

[I'm the same person who started this section; different IP.] The DSM got rid of homosexuality because the experts (the majority anyway) concluded that homosexuality is not a mental disorder or paraphilia. But sexual orientation and sexuality topics deal with mental health regardless, which makes them a medical issue. I obviously agree with WhatamIdoing. How is the gynandromorphophilia topic not a medical issue when some people consider this attraction to be a mental disorder, when it is assocated with gender identity disorder, and when sources on it are expected to pass WP:MEDRS? I don't understand why this project is generally restrictive in what it considers to be a medical topic, cutting off topics that are most assuredly considerded "medical" by many experts. The fact that it is a "medical issue" is why the deletion discussion is partially speaking of it in medical terms. 109.123.100.144 (talk) 02:42, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I took a glance at the article and I didn't see any medical claims/information. If experts think it is a medical disorder, then consider finding some reliable medical sources that say as much and include them in the article? Biosthmors (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

On the general question, a WikiProject is a group of editors, and we get to pick what we want to work on, just like any other group of volunteers. If we were to decide that we wanted to work on Hello Kitty, then we could declare that it was within our scope. If we decide that we don't want to work on Cancer, then we could declare that it's not within our scope. We generally prefer to have a sensible scope, but we're permitted to make whimsical decisions, and defining some types of sex-related articles (and most anatomy-related articles) as being outside of our scope is one of our occasional variations from a strictly predictable scope.

None of which says that we wouldn't accept this, or that you don't need help. I hope that some people with more knowledge than I have will look into the question about whether it should be merged into a larger/related topic or not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing is correct that academic sexology traditionally comes out of psychiatry; however, the greatest relevance in medicine is actually for primary care and behavioural medicine: That is, knowing patients' sexual orientations and behaviours helps in the assessment potential health needs and risk factors. Gynandromorphophilia, as these RS's keep saying, is one the ways in which patient's say that they are heterosexual, but whose behaviour indicates that there are other relevant factors at play. Such cases are an important part of diversity issues in the practice of medicine. It is one of the issues for which I am called upon to lecture to residents. — James Cantor (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Biosthmors, it seems that you are defining "medical" in the same restrictive sense that this project generally does. But besides what others in this section have stated about what "medical" extends to, see the Psychiatry article and the Sexology article linked above.

WhatamIdoing, I get your point. Although I don't believe that including Hello Kitty within the project's scope and declaring that cancer is outside of its scope would go over well. I just feel that a project devoted to medical topics should be open to covering all medical topics, instead of a "We only cover certain ones, with the possibility of addressing others" type of thing. And since this project is limited in that way, at least make that very clear on the project page so that the "wrong type" of issues aren't brought here. I know that WP:MEDRS is a guideline and not a WikiProject, but it would be silly if it was limited to only certain medical topics. And Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles shows other topics that fall under the medical scope. I'm not saying that you should work on medical topics that you don't want to work on. I'm saying that the project shouldn't act as though the term "medical" is only or generally limited to physical disorders and diseases. And looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy, I see that it is not very active and that merging it with WP:MED is suggested because WP:MED is active and anatomy is a medical topic (such as Human heart). Not including these other medical topics within WikiProject Medicine's scope can cause editors who join this project and are interested in working on all types of medical issues to generally ignore anything that doesn't have to do with a physical disorder or disease because they see that the project marks it as "not our problem." I believe that that's why other medical issues continue to be overlooked or turned away by this project. 109.123.100.110 (talk) 00:36, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons why I have removed many of the sex and anatomy related article from this project is a while ago a journal published a list of our 20 most viewed medical articles and at that point in time they included: sex, anal sex, vagina, clitoris, and penis among others. The author used this as a way to discredit our work. We want to attract academics and concentrating on diseases will help in having people take us seriously. I am involved in a number of WikiProjects as are most of the people who edit here. Nothing says one just has to edit articles within Wikiproject Medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

I saw that not long after I changed my text about the Human heart article, you removed Human heart from this project. I can understand removing most of the sex articles. But to remove articles like Human heart? I very much doubt that most academics would argue that the topic of the heart isn't a medical issue; it's largely a medical issue. I also doubt that most academics would argue that mental disorders aren't a medical issue, especially since they are sometimes labeled diseases as well. Anorexia nervosa is both a mental and physical disorder, but the only reason you've probably left it as part of the project is because it is a physical disorder. All I'm saying is that physical disorders and diseases ("disease" as separate from mental disorders unless we're talking about a physical disease that affects the brain...such as Autism) are not the only things that are covered by the word "medical." Just because a journal is narrow in its definition of what medical means, it doesn't mean we have to be as well. And although topics like the penis and vagina are more medical to me than they are sexual, meaning there are more medical issues or a combination of sexual and medical issues regarding them than just sexual issues alone, I don't much mind those topics being excluded. You know, since you've explained about medical journals maybe not taking Wikipedia seriously, even though this site is generally discredited anyway. But topics like the human heart and mental disorders should be branded by this project. You say "Nothing says one just has to edit articles within Wikiproject Medicine." But my point is that this project generally turns away any issue that isn't completely or mostly medical or isn't medical in the restrictive sense of relating to a physical disease, just like you did when I brought the topic of this section here...despite its ties to the medical community. But it is what it is. I know that my comments on all of this aren't going to change how this project generally works. 109.123.127.204 (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Anatomy is removed because there's already a perfectly good little group, WikiProject Anatomy, that supports those articles. There is no need for us to work on everything that has some connection to medicine, and we don't tag anything that we aren't willing to work on (per official guideline, BTW).

If you want to see our current guidance on what to tag and what not to tag, then have a look at WP:MEDA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

"A perfectly good little group." From what I've seen, "little" is the keyword, which is why there have been suggestions to merge that project with this one. They need a lot more help from this project, even if it's just commenting on a matter, as they've stated before. But you're right that you get to choose what you want to work on. Different reasons have been given here for why you guys don't help out more with other type of medical aspects, but at least you took the time to give me reasons. So thanks for that. 109.123.87.153 (talk) 03:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't turn away from reviewing (above) the health aspects of Bare foot running, even though some might see no immediately obvious connection with Medicine. But where would one start here? I really wouldn't know. An unusually difficult request, imo. —MistyMORN 15:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia's ranking compared to other sources

Most popular Internet healthcare sites by number of pageviews (a cleaner comparison).

How fair is it to say that Wikipedia is one of the single most consulted sources of health information in the world? Surely if we are talking about single media sources, Wikipedia must be one of the most consulted sources, right? Is Wikipedia the single most consulted source of health information in the world?

Is anyone aware of any scholarly source which tries to quantify just how much Wikipedia is used in comparison to any other single point from which health information can originate? What sources exist which approach this sort of assessment? I am aware of this list of sources compiled by Doc James but not aware of someone making an outright comparison of Wikipedia versus the world. Is there one? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:20, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a good question. It is one of the most used medical sources but is it the most, that I do not know. We have survey data from physicians and medical students that show usage of 50-70% / 100%. We have page views for some sites. We discuss some of this in this paper http://www.jmir.org/2011/1/e14/

Now our medical pages get 200 million page views a month. Wikipedia as a whole gets ~18,000 million page views. That means the medical content is 1.1% of all Wikipedia usage. Wikipedia is user by about 14% of the global internet users daily * 1.1% = 0.15% of the global population.

Per Alexa the NIH is used by 0.3%, medscape is used by 0.04%, NHS 0.04% uptodate by 0.007%. And per table 1 in the above paper none of the other wikis come close. Of course these numbers are very rough estimates and have made a great number of assumption. Can we make them better? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Wait we should only be using page views for English :-) The number should be 11,630 million. This than gives us 0.26% of global Internet users visit Wikipedia's medical pages daily. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:14, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

So to conclude Wikipedia's medical content is consulted more than the NHS, WHO, UpToDate, and WebMD (Medscape/Emedicine) and slightly less than the NIH. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Realized I made anther error.

Pageviews for English content June 2012 7,554M[37]
Pageviews for medical English content June 2012 193M[38]

Therefore proportion of pageviews for medical content is 2.55% multiply this by the three month daily reach per Alexa for Wikipedia as a whole (13.6%)[39] and one gets a medical daily reach of 0.35% Thus one could say that Wikipedia is the most used health care resource on the Internet!Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

sources

If anyone is looking for recent book sources on specific diseases/disorders or other medical topics including anatomy and physiological systems, for the purpose of Wikipedia work, you are welcome to email me with the details. (Random examples: aphasia; sarcoidosis; epilepsy.) I may be able to help you. Consider this offer a proactive extension of WP:RX. That being said, I may not be responding to email for a while, after today, so the sooner the better. Riggr Mortis (talk) 22:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Amazing. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 00:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

That is a kind offer. Can you give a list of the books you have access to, perhaps on your user page? Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not feasible, as I'm seeing what's available based on a given request. Riggr Mortis (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you give us an idea of how many books or subjects might be available? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Barefoot running

Aloha. I'm currently reviewing Barefoot running, a GAN. If someone could take a look at Barefoot_running#Health_and_medical_implications and scan the article for any unusual claims when they have free time, I would appreciate it. No hurry on this. Viriditas (talk) 10:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I've taken a quick glance through the section and have made a couple of minor copyedits.

The style seems generally good, imo. A few points might gain from better contextualization. For example, the reader is currently just told that "oxygen consumption was found to be approximately 4% higher in shod versus barefoot runners", while the cited secondary source [40] helpfully adds "An increase in oxygen consumption of ~4% is of little importance to the recreational runner, but the competitive athlete would notice a major effect on running speed". (Also, try wikilinking oxygen consumption rather than just oxygen.)

As regards sourcing, I notice the focus often seems to be mainly on primary studies, as commented in sources not always listed on PubMed. Here are a few suggestions for some reliable secondary sources, per WP:MEDRS, which aren't currently cited:

One focused review that I think certainly deserves consideration is Barefoot running claims and controversies: a review of the literature, Jenkins and Cauthon (2011).
Another recent review article, by Vormittag et al (2009), although not specifically about barefoot running, may also be worth a look.
Overall, I feel sure it's right to exercise caution in the tone, both here and also in the footwear section, given the relative poverty overall of the best available evidence regarding the effectiveness of preventive interventions, as evaluated in this 2011 Cochrane review.
A recent RS by Lieberman which may be of more theoretical interest is a hypothesis-type review paper, What we can learn about running from barefoot running: an evolutionary medical perspective, Lieberman (2012).

A final thought: I wonder whether the heading Health and medical implications is unnecessarily strong given the relative lack of reliable evidence. How about Health and medical considerations?

@Viriditas: please feel free to copy & paste this elsewhere, as appropriate.

—Misty_(MORN) 14:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It is my opinion that it is a bit biased towards barefoot running. Possible detriments of running with shoes spans two paragraphs while detriments of running barefoot gets a sentence. My two cents. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 02:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Issues of undue weight may be addressed by appropriate use of reliable secondary sources, per WP:MEDRS. The last paragraph in particular, beginning The running shoe..., seems to focus too directly on the outcomes of certain primary studies. As suggested above, Jenkins and Cauthon (2011) "Barefoot running claims and controversies: a review of the literature" definitely deserves consideration. The 2011 Cochrane review on preventive interventions should also help contextualize, at least, the relative strength of the evidence in the sector. I also feel that Lieberman's research could be presented in a more encyclopedic way: his recent hypothesis article could help here.

A related concern may be use of so-called peacock words. I've tagged a "many" in the opening paragraph, and "much scientific and medical interest" and "often been blamed" are other suspects.

On a more down to earth level perhaps, I suppose it's common sense that going out to do some pavement jogging barefoot isn't going to be a terribly good idea in many parts of the world, though the images seem to show people doing just that.

Hope that helps, —Misty_(MORN) 09:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Purely personal input: I've been (mostly) a barefooter for over a decade. I generally only wear shoes in circumstances where my feet would be prone to crush injuries (dealing with horses and cattle, etc.!), in social situations where it would be considered grossly inappropriate to be barefoot (but I try to avoid those, anyway), and on surfaces likely to have broken glass, sharp metal, etc. On the whole, barefooters tend to develop a very acute awareness of what they're about to step on / in! And my feet (like the rest of me) are over 50, but look like (healthy) teenagers' feet :o) Pesky (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

"Purely personal input" is exactly what is not needed in an encyclopedia, never mind in a medical article, per WP:MEDRS. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:14, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps Pesky was referring to my own somewhat "personal input" about it being common sense that going out to do some pavement jogging barefoot isn't going to be a terribly good idea in many parts of the world, though the images seem to show people doing just that. I really don't know about that. —MistyMorn (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Mathew, there's no way I'd put "purely personal input" into an article, lol! I'm a bit more WikiSavvy than that ;P But please don't pinch at me for putting it on a talk page! Hugz to Misty - yes, that's what I was responding to. Pesky (talk) 03:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Counter-Vandalism Unit Research Project

Hope this finds everyone doing well. I happened to run across this page today ...

[41]

... and signed up to help (RESEARCH - YUMMY!). Thought I'd just leave a note here in case anyone else might be interested in participating.

Very best regards: Cliff (a/k/a "Uploadvirus") (talk) 09:26, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! If anyone wants to help with fighting vandalism, please see Wikipedia:Huggle. NCurse _work 06:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Jennifer Margulis

I'm somewhat concerned about this single-authored article (by a one-article editor), which is very light on third-party sources, and touches rather lightly on the subject's apparent role in the vaccine "controversy". Additional input welcome. 84.203.34.116 (talk) 05:23, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I nominated this article for deletion. See here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:49, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Picture for platelet

The caption for the main picture of platelet was changed recently [42] and I don't know what's what. Biosthmors (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The new caption seems better. Those purple blobs don't look like neutrophils at all. For one thing there is no discernable nucleus and cytoplasm. JFW | T@lk 19:01, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The "giant platelets" don't look like neutrophils; the dark blue inclusions aren't well-defined enough to be multilobed nuclei. Normal platelets do have some variability in size; younger platelets tend to be a bit larger. Those two cells do indeed look like platelets, although I haven't heard the phrase "giant platelets" before. [Disclosure: I am not a haematologist.] Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I have invited the image uploader (Bobjgalindo) to comment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment:. The edited caption is the correct one. I don't know how neutrophils ended up in the caption, hopefully it wasn't me :) There are no white blood cells in the photo. Only platelets. Indeed the top-left blob is a normal platelet and the two larger corpuscles (platelets are sloughed off sections of much larger cells in the bone marrow) are correctly identified as giant platelets. These may just be "squished" platelets, since it's not infrequent to see giant platelets in normal blood smears. Rarely, in some syndromes, giant platelets become important features for diagnosis. Good eye, whomever picked up the error. Bobjgalindo (talk) 05:34, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe the "latin" word for platelet in the article's template is also incorrect. I think Thrombocytus is the correct singular and Thrombocyti the plural. Someone with better latin ought to take a look at that ... Thank you once again. Bobjgalindo (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I've lost interest

For a while there, I was keen to respond to journal comments about Wikipedia medical articles, and support the establishment of WM:MED. But recently I witnessed the departure from this project of an excellent and collegial scholar after a troop of buffoons insulted him and disrupted his work with impunity. I can't invite scholars to edit here while this ethos prevails. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

To whom do you refer? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure Anthony is referring to the excellent scholarly contributions of the recently departed User:Tim riley. I don't think Tim had anything in particular to do with WP:MED, and I'm pretty sure nobody from here "sniped" at his work. I certainly agree with you about the need to guarantee a suitable environment on Wikipedia for scholars to contribute [43]. —MistyMorn (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Tim. This project is, except on its fringes, relatively free of that kind of behaviour. But we're all exposed to it. That link looks interesting. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

We have had too many excellent long term editors who have dedicated a large portion of their life to this project either driven out or harassed into quitting. Yes we have a problem. New green editors do not easily replace old ones. But it is a difficult problem to deal with.

We have so many pages which no one edits but which hundreds of thousands read. So many pages where people can make huge improvements with little conflict. We also need neutral editors who are willing to weight in on difficult questions. But yes one needs a thick skin to edit here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I would add only that the problem is particularly bad for sexuality articles. They receive very high numbers of hits, but they have very few editors (if any) working on them, leaving them open to anyone with whatever POVs about whatever apsects about sex.— James Cantor (talk) 16:46, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

also for psychiatry/psychology articles. Open to advocacy groups, pov, tabloid fare, etc. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I understand your concern. I wish you felt comfortable to invite scholars (I have only invited one on a personal basis, but I should invite more) but there's nothing wrong with warning them that incredibly frustrating situations can occur. There are a variety of strategies to deal with potential problems. On an individual basis, I like this quote: "The best way to continue as a writing Wikipedian for many years is to be 'indifferent to both praise and blame.' Indifference ... is a hard task for mere humans, but millions of potential anonymous readers demand it of you... " as found here. Biosthmors (talk) 17:58, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

This editor left after having an article to which he contributed attained featured status, and then someone else used the traffic to that article to draw attention to a controversial issue about infoboxes. See ANI, Jimbo's page, and the article itself for details. For those of you who are interested User:Steven Zhang is an organizer of dispute resolution reform and I think that his project and others like it contribute to preventing these sorts of things. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:07, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you have to be careful what parts of WP to invite a scholar to. And the scholar would also have to be willing at learn and adapt to WP's unusual requirements. Steer clear of the battleground articles and admin/RFC drama boards. There are many important subjects in my watchlist that would love the attention of an expert, who would be uninterrupted by trolls and childish editors. Going for FA and having the article on the main page are both very stressful times. I myself had some **** turn up demanding some tediously petty changes about calories, IIRC. Colin°^Talk 18:22, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Editor retention is an absolutely vital issue. Collaborative editing means we are often forced to "collaborate" with people who have vastly different perceptions of evidence, guidelines, and often even plain fact. It can be immensely disempowering to have to go through endless discussions without anyone coming to the rescue. A minor squabble over something as trivial as an infobox can be utterly destructive to one's resolve to carry on editing.

One fervent wish of mine is to make it easier for new editors to get stuff right. I'd be rightly annoyed if I made what I thought was a useful addition to an article, only for it to be copyedited beyond recognition or removed immediately for policy reasons. I have no immediate solution, only that currently the referencing is a complete pain in the behind. JFW | T@lk 21:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I want to take the opportunity to put in a good word for User:Jacobisq. Over the last couple of years he has done a huge amount of work on psychology and sociology subjects. He has concentrated on beefing up stubs, challenging subjects and badly written articles. I have cooperated with him in some cases. I am not aware of him ever being subject to any significant harassment. I dont know what his academic background is but everything he does is well sourced. People like him are like gold dust - he has beefed up maybe a hundred or so badly neglected psychology articles, some of which have been neglected for years. If anybody deserves an award or grant for Wikipedia work he does. For my own work, i generally dont get harassed but was subject to some major trolling years ago. Rarely another editor muscles in and objects to an edit of mine when clearly he doesnt understand the subject, I often just give way in those instances, I cant be bothered to fight major battles.--Penbat (talk) 10:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Anthonyhcole -- that's too bad. In any case, I tend to think that hardcore scholars are not necessary what Wikipedia needs. The objectives are different. Scholars often are in it for themselves-- they want to get their name out there. They want something to add to their CV -- remember publish or perish? The draw in WP, IMHO, is that you have an audience-- half of doctors admit to reading WP... and many, many patients do. Above said, criticism in the scholarly world abounds... and unfounded, misguided, criticism exists there too. Looking at the larger picture, I think the profession (and to some extent scholars) have to take on the anti-intellectual buffoonery out there, as a failure to do so results is a public discourse driven by people that deny science-based medicine, and rational thought. Nephron T|C 02:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Academia / journals also need to address the issues of ghost authorship and the hiding of raw data with claims that it is proprietary. Any piece of research that does not agree to open analysis of the raw data no matter what the result should not get ethics approval IMO. If these are not addressed soon many will be justified in taking an anti-intellectual position as science based medicine will further decent into little more than public relations by pharmaceutical companies. Agree academics have a lot to address and we should speak out in support as garbage in garbage out. Cochrane has struggled with the issue of hidden data when trying to determine if the medications we use for influenza actually do anything other than make us poor. [44] [45] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:40, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

A systematic review of studies of publication bias (2010): [46] —MistyMorn (talk) 23:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, as a scholar it's easiest to adapt to WP editing if one thinks of it in light of the anonymous peer-review process used at the best scholarly journals: because you're anonymous, you cannot convincingly Argue from authority; rather, the most convincing reviews (and WP edits) are based on what you write and how well you source it, rather than who you are. This is what puzzles me about the pressure to use real names - it goes against that ethos, and I argue that it will be the undoing of WP. Certainly, I would never encourage a scholar to edit initially under their real name. Once they have a year or two under their belt, they can make an informed decision. For me, it's nice to edit when time allows, and as a peer of other editors. -- Scray (talk) 21:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree, optional anonymity is important. Nephron, once we have a friendly interface, better protection from ignorant and malicious revisions, and a more professional, respectful ethos, if Wikipedia still dominated Google results, we will become the natural home for scholarly debate. Colin, it goes without saying that scholars have to conform to our policies and guidelines. From this project's perspective, WP:MEDRS needs to be recognised as a policy as important as WP:BLP. Thank you so much, and thank you Eubulides, WhatamIdoing, SandyGeorgia and others for that unique tool. James, Blue Rasberry sees WM:MED as an opportunity for activism. I think he's right. We may be perfectly placed to exercise maximum influence in the public debate on the topics you mention, and others. But I believe we need to get our house in order before we can do that. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

I've long since concluded that it's best not to advertise any sort of real-world scholarly expertise on Wikipedia (see #4 on this list, and associated footnote). In some ways, it's as Scray says - the fact that most people are pseudonymous here removes the "argument from authority", since we all start on equal footing. On the other hand, it's far too easy for sane and knowledgeable people to be shouted down by those who don't know what they're talking about or who have an axe to grind. That's where Wikipedia differs from scholarly discourse (even anonymized scholarly discourse, like peer review), and I think that's why experts often get so frustrated here, as outlined in WP:RANDY. MastCell ^Talk 04:08, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Tony Nicklinson

I am wondering if we might have a few more eyes on Tony Nicklinson to determine if a stand-alone article is warranted, or a redirect to Locked-in syndrome#Tony Nicklinson per the article's history. These seems to be a breaking-news type of article. Location (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Despite the news coverage, I think the balance is about right. He failed to overturn the law, and died of natural causes. JFW | T@lk 17:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

If someone—not necessarily from this project—wanted to start a biography article dedicated to this courageous man, I guess he would certainly satisfy general notability criteria. Personally, I don't see any reason to prevent interested readers finding out more about the life of a man who became notable by fighting a legal battle that has brought a major medicolegal issue to the public attention in Britain [47] [48] [49]. —MistyMorn (talk) 18:07, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Multiplicity (psychology)

There is a delete discussion going on regarding this article at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Multiplicity_(psychology)#Multiplicity_.28psychology.29 The article seems to be based partly on Jung so has relevance for psychiatry.

There is also a suggestion to merge the article with Dissociative identity disorder. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks! MathewTownsend (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for assistance

I improved the page Irritable bowel syndrome, my changes: [50] , unfortunately, this page seems to be haunted by several unfriendly and opinionated people. They used excessive weight as an excuse to roll back these edits. I know how to write without excessive weight, as I have had 4 papers published. These unfriendly people are just being closed minded, and I believe any reasonable person will see this in my edit, that there is no excessive weight whatsoever.

Any interested parties maybe could read this Rome foundation review on the topic of the intestinal microbiota in functional bowel disorders:

[51]

Any help would be greatly appreciated.Tepi (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

It is best if you use exclusively recent review articles or major textbooks per WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Tepi seems to be citing recent reviews at least some of the time, e.g., PMID 22730468. The edit summaries are about WP:DUE weight issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Images and copyright query

My littlest grandchild (20 months) is currently awaiting biopsy results for a lung tumour. CT scan suggests PPB or rhabdomyosarcoma as likely candidates. The hospital have given my daughter the CT images on disc ... it seems that for normal use in medical journals, it is the permission of the patient / parent which is generally sought for the use of images. What's the situation here in Wikipedia? The CT images, particularly, could be interesting if compiled as an animated gif which would give a good 3D-type visualisation for readers / viewers. What do we think about what the copyright issues would be? Pesky (talk) 07:01, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, damn that's unlucky. My best wishes to you and your family.

To address your question, technically, I suspect that the radiology department that performed the scan owns the copyright to the images. Even though your daughter was given the CD, she doesn't own the copyright. On the other hand, I have never heard of a radiology department contesting a copyright issue. They are far more concerned with patient confidentiality (and, in the UK, the Data Protection Act).

Wikimedia Commons has many CT images, ostensibly with the uploader as the "author". I find this hard to believe.

Regarding journal images, you are right that most journals require permission from the patient/legal guardian to include the pictures. In most cases, the journal itself maintains copyright of the image. The same is true of CT images in journals.

In summary, the copyright status of CT images is somewhat vague because medical institutions are not interested in pursuing transgressors. If your daughter gives permission to release the pictures to public domain and be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, we are on safe ground. I recommend that you ensure that the images are anonymized before doing so.

Regarding suitability of the images to Wikipedia, the images show evidence of disease. I don't think that a 3-D gif of this would be helpful to most readers. It would better to select just the image that best shows the anomaly. Once your family has a definitive diagnosis, you could add the picture to the appropriate article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:02, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Per here radiological imaging studies are not copyright-able. [52] If you daughter is not identifiable in the image even permission of the subject in question is not technically required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

That website states "Like other representational images, X-rays are designed to convey the underlying image with as much accuracy as possible. Since all choices are made with the intention of faithful representation, the choices aren't creative, and do not merit much protection." Yet the majority of regular photographs are also "designed to convey the underlying image with as much accuracy as possible."

The website also states "However, it is important to note that radiographs can be used artistically, and when used in such a matter, merit copyright protection." Is the use of an x-ray by a medical journal "artistic"? Can a journal legally claim copyright on an x-ray that has been completely unchanged? I don't believe that these issues have ever been contested legally. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:41, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear that you have such an anxious situation in your family.

If you decide to upload the images, please be very careful to make sure that they are anonymized. Some of the file formats used, like DICOM, were designed to include the patient's name and other information as meta data, even when it's not visible in the picture itself. I assume that converting to some plain file format would eliminate that information, but you'll want to make sure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the very helpful info (and also for the good wishes). Little chap has a lot going for him; he's strong in himself, and still running around, laughing, chatting, despite having barely more than one functional lung (the other is mostly obliterated by solid mass and fluid). How he manages it, we just don't know.

My daughter is happy for the pics to be used (but will also check with littl'un's dad). Of course I will anonymise images, I'm thinking of cropping to the bare images, running them together in a series to produce an animated gif mainly because the shape and extent of the umour is so different from one part of the lung to the next, and it's interesting to see how it fits in, as it were. Hard to pick any one image as being any better than any other, really. I will be able to upload stills as well (all being well)... all of which process will also remove any other file info on them. I suppose, in the end, with me doing the "artistic" work on animating them, I would hold the copy right on the ani-gif; happy to release under CC-BY-SA, of course. There are so few decent images available of these conditions at all, let alone free use. As soon as I have definite permissions, and we know exactly what he has, either of those articles could certainly do with some more in the way of illustration. Pesky (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I use the print screen button and than paste and crop the images using "paint". This also allows me to easily add arrows. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:33, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There's an essay at Commons:Patient images. You might try asking the radiology department for permission / copyright release even if some website thinks it unnecessary. I can't think why they would refuse, considering there is nothing of financial gain possible for them to use the images without the parents' consent. You might even find the radiologist is willing to annotate the image (I'm just guessing here, as a lay person) which would be much better for WP than someone's grandad doing his best with MS Paint :-) Personally, I hate animated gifs because can't be paused and distract when reading the article. Plus they don't print reliably. Colin°^Talk 21:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

We have lots of people who upload their own X rays. I do not think asking a radiologist for their consent will be very fruitful. They are not the ones who have taken the xrays just the ones who interpret them. And are usually very busy. Asking would probably freak them out as they would than be fearful about liability / not understand what you are suggesting and thus say no. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:51, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

It might be possible to send a letter to the radiology center saying that you want to put some images on the internet and wanted them to confirm that they have no objections from the standpoint of copyright. I believe that as a "work done for hire", the employer rather than the rad tech would hold any possible copyright. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes so I guess the question is what is the business structure of the place that this was done (often the rads are employees or contractors themselves). And if the patient was paying would this would not make them the one doing the hiring? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

In my experience, patients can request images and they are provided with no restrictive language. If that is the case here, why would the patient be restricted in any way? -- Scray (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Because even if your professional photographer doesn't hand you a copyright notice, he owns the copyright anyway, even though you hired him to do the work. It's possible that the law treats a radiology tech like it treats a portrait photographer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Excellent point. We do need this clarified. -- Scray (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

It's an NHS hospital who took the images. I thought to begin with that we'd just been given a few picked images on disc, but we actually have the whole series. We have the DICOM software with them, so can basically do any part from any cross-section, and can screen dump showing images in three planes all in the window with or without annotations (which I could do myself within the program, but thanks for the offer - I may take you up on it, or not, depending!) This also means that I could screen dump a series of images showing the three planes, progressing down along the sagittal plane to demonstrate the general shape and mass of the tumour at different sections (this is the one which would be easy / interesting to do as an ani-gif). I could contact the NHS Trust, if necessary, for permission to use the images; if it's just the machine doing the actual work, the program storing the images, and me choosing what / how to annotate and which to use ... heh! It's an interesting one! Pesky (talk) 02:15, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

@Colin: I take your point about anigifs within the article, so probably stills there, and that notice which says Commons has media relating to [whichever it turns out to be] on the page, with the anigif just in Commons (provided that's going to be OK). Although not medically qualified, I'm relatively savvy with regard to interpreting various kinds of images, so could annotate as appropriate. (P.S. I'm a granny, not a granddad!) Pesky (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't trust the website that says there is no copyright on these images. If that were true, there would be folk on Commons writing software to scrape scans, x-rays and the like from all online medical journals and uploading them. Also remember that what applies with US law does not apply to a UK editor in the UK. It might be fine for Commons to host them, but not for you to upload, for example. My point about the copyright permission and professional annotation addresses the re-use potential of the images. Commons does not officially take the "we can get away with it, nobody will bother" approach so at some point somone on Commons make take a hardline view and delete all your careful work. But even if it remains on Commons/WP, the images would be more likely to get re-used if there was a clear statement that permission had been sought and received. Regarding animation: you could investigate creating a movie file as WP can play them with play/pause control. I'm not an expert on the options but might be worth looking into. Colin°^Talk 09:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Searching the web I am unable to find a definitive answer to who owns the copyright on an X ray or even if these images are copyrightable. "The types of work eligible for protection are literary, dramatic, artistic or musical works, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording, a film or a broadcast." per here Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Works_eligible_for_protection. X rays do not seem to fall under any of these. I have brought this up at commons and no one knew or was willing to start adding from books. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Discussion is taking place here as well [53]. It appears that we have already had some images deleted against consensus at commons such as this one [54]. I guess the question is will someone come along and delete all images related to imaging as no one knows who owns the copyright if anyone. My position is that this would be a huge lose for our project. We seriously need some REAL legal advise. I have emailed the foundation to see if they will weight in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

While just the mention of the word copyright sends me to the bathroom, everything James says here and on Commons about using images in journals fits with my own experience. As regards useful publishing analogies to the Wikipedia situation, online open-access journals like PLoS One [55] and BMJ Open [56] use Creative Commons licensing and leave copyright with authors. The BMJ group says [57], If an image has no copyright, please tell us the precise details of where you obtained it and who gave you permission to use it in the BMJ. Please note that many medical illustration departments expect to be acknowledged. If images come from your colleagues you will need to seek their written permission and check whether the photographs have been published previously in other books and journals. Presumably, editorial staff then assess the legal situation on a case-by-case basis. (In practice, apart from standard patient permission forms, the queries from journals we had to address tended to regard image quality/software, and complete anonymization.) —MistyMorn (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

From an excellent paper on the topic

Wherever practicable, it is good practice, though not essential, to obtain the patient's consent before either taking or using an image of them.
?
Before using an image for educational purposes, all accompanying personal data should be removed. Ideally, it should be deleted completely, so that the identity of the patient can never be re-established. Where there is a compelling reason for maintaining some method of identifying the patient, it should be done by way of a non-obvious code, key to which is stored securely in a different location from the image. Access to that key should be restricted as far as possible.
?
If it is impossible or impracticable to obtain consent before taking an anonymous image of a patient, in circumstances where taking the image is not a necessary or incidental part of the procedure being performed, the image can only be taken if it will not harm the patient or otherwise breach the duty to exercise reasonable care and skill.
?
If the patient's consent to use the image has not been obtained (and therefore you are relying upon its anonymity to make its disclosure lawful), you must ensure that the image is really anonymous. Can a person without prior knowledge of the image or its collection deduce the identity of the patient, through looking at the image and exploiting any other available information (such as postal-code charts, or a casually held key to a code)? If the image as you want to present it does not pass this test of anonymity, it cannot be disclosed without consent.

Tranberg, HA (2003 Feb). "Legal and ethical issues in the use of anonymous images in pathology teaching and research". Histopathology. 42 (2): 104–9. PMID 12558741. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The most recent academic peer-review publication on the topic I've been able to trace on GoogleScholar/PubMed dates back to 1995 [58]. Back then, the authors remarked that "few legal actions have been taken against radiologists for copyright infringement arising from professional activities". Given the apparent dearth of more recent articles in medical journals (other than Information of Authors etc), my *guess* is that the situation may not have changed that radically since then. Otherwise, I really would have expected to find more editorial attention on the part of journals and other similar articles providing practical advice to authors. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:43, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

I've posted a piece on things to consider when determining if a particular x-ray image is protected by copyright: Copyright of X-Ray Images. I hope that this provides some useful guidance. Pholm (WMF) (talk) 19:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Let's see how many advice pages we can find that would benefit from a link to your page. I'll start with MEDMOS and Commons:Patient images. Where else might someone look for information? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:53, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Any colorectal surgeons?

I have been working on a few colorectal disorder pages, but it is not my specialty. I usually mark the page as requiring expert attention after I finished, but I notice that no-one else takes this up. Are there any wikipedian colorectal surgeons? Tepi (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The expert needed tags are generally not helpful IMO. It is hard to get experts to come and contribute. Especially as many do not know how Wikipedia works or how we are different than say writing up a case study. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think they ought to rename those tags. I find myself gravitating away from articles that have them. In the medical context, I'm not clueless -- but in the context of a lot of medical articles I'm not really an expert either. The tag should say something like "needs interested person to research and revise" -- which might be abbreviated NIP2RAR. Nephron T|C 14:37, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Short of emailing contacts personally and encouraging them? If any colorectal types read this: I would appreciate casting their eye over anismus, mucosal prolapse, solitary rectal ulcer syndrome, fecal leakage, rectal prolapse, and rectal discharge(unfinished). Alternatively go to Category:Proctology. ty. tepi (talk) 21:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it will be challenging to find someone like that. The colorectal surgeons I've met, work extremely long hours... and don't tend to be that bookish -- which I think lends itself more to contributing to WP. Nephron T|C 14:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

A help page for new editors of medical content

We discussed a while ago putting together a one page overview of how to edit Wikipedia's medical pages. I have started one here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/How_to_edit. If others wish to pitch in would appreciate it. I am going to be handing this out to people attending the talks at the Coventry and at the World Health Organization Aug 31st and mid Sept respectively. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

:OK, too many cooks atm lol. I added some print screen images to illustrate the instructions in the text, take out if you didn't have this in mind. Tepi (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I inadvertently caused you edit conflicts Tepi - I'm backing off for now. Best! —MistyMorn (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No its ok, my fault. I stopped when i realized someone else working on the page.Tepi (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit conflicts can be infuriating I know. Especially when one's pressed for time. Anyway, I've finished editing for today. —MistyMorn (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

So nice to work on a page where no-one is fighting :D I come back to it to lower my blood pressure. tepi (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Same here! Thanks, —MistyMorn (talk) 23:34, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Just want to reaffirm what a pleasure it's been to work on that page. This is a great group of editors, and the page is coming along nicely! I do think we might need to rethink the structure of this article, to improve flow. For example, I wonder whether the conceptual portions (e.g. "Why sourcing is so important") would more appropriately precede the practical (the details on how to cite); however, that would mean moving all of the citation instructions down into a separate section (i.e. I can see why it was done this way initially). While the "why" could go even earlier - preceding the higher-level "Steps for editing..." - I think having the latter at the top of the page is appealing for newcomers. Scray (talk) 16:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

This is going to be a handout at lectures, so maybe it would be best to keep the length down and keep the intro as simple and friendly as possible? tepi (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe take the whole section of cite PMID template out? (I think I was the one who put it in) I'm sure ppl will find their preferred way of citing soon enough. Imo, the simplest way of citing for newcomers is using the pop up window with either PMID or DOI...maybe the code is a bit too techy and off putting? tepi (talk) 16:27, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yup, I threw in the Importance of Being Saucy bit along with the li'l link box stuff thinking of the handout. Then it clicked that it was also a WP How-To. Oops... Though, if I understand correctly, the immediate priority could be to have a friendly handout ready for next Friday. What other ingredients? I was pondering a little Civility link stashed away among the See alsos... —MistyMorn (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I strongly prefer text links to See Also links - so I added a little civil-link to the text. -- Scray (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

An excellent addition, imo. Cheers! —MistyMorn (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

West nile virus

More eyes here would be appreciated. An editor seems insistent on adding a primary study to the article against WP:WEIGHT and WP:MEDRS. More eyes and voices on talk page would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 03:02, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! I'll keep an eye on it! NCurse _work 05:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Contragestion

We had consensus to merge this article a while ago. The user who created it has returned the article in question. I have looked at pubmed and google books and do not find sufficient evidence to justify the existence of its own article. Comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A few low-level observations from an uninvolved editor:

On PubMed, the wild-card term contragest* (which picks up contragestion, contragestive etc) retrieves just 6 results in the last five years, none of which has been indexed as a review.
On GoogleScholar, the search term contragestion (which also recognizes "contragestive") retrieves 123 results since 2007.
This paper may be pertinent: Keenan (2011). Ulipristal Acetate: Contraceptive or Contragestive?. From the abstract, it appears that it is the structural similarity between ulipristal acetate and mifepristone that provides the basis for discussion.
An alternative redirect might be Emergency contraception. At present, usage on Wikipedia of "contragestion" [59] or "contragestive" [60] does not extend to this page, which does however use the words "contragestation" and "contragestative" when discussing "United States legal and ethical controversies" at the end of the article. (I really don't want to get involved here!).
A small query about the brief discussion in Mifepristone#Pharmacology: Contragestion is a term coined by Étienne-Émile Baulieu to promote the acceptance of mifepristone by blurring the differences between the mechanisms of action of contraceptives and those of mifepristone to induce abortion.[40] Is this statement fully supported by the primary source [61]?
—MistyMorn (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

New AIDS like disease

Should a new article be created about the disease which is the subject of the following articles?

"Researchers Find Mysterious New AIDS-Like Disease". WAOK. 25 August 2012. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
Roxanne Palmer (24 August 2012). "AIDS-Like Disease In SE Asia Is Not Spread By Virus: Study". International Business Daily. Retrieved 27 August 2012.
Marilynn Marchone (25 August 2012). "New AIDS-like disease in Asians, not contagious". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 27 August 2012.

--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

On Wikinews maybe. Here we should wait until proper sources appear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The NEJM article is clearly primary research, but will no doubt get considerable press attention that will include some expert analysis. We can afford to wait for such before deciding on whether the subject is notable. Wikipedia is wp:NOTNEWS. Certainly labling every autoimmune disease as "AIDS-like" would not be a constructive step. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It already exists: AIDS 2.0, with a redirect from Adult-onset immunodeficiency syndrome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm actually of the opinion that we should have an article on this now. There are enough sources to write something decent, and we can make clear in the article that this is a newly described condition and thus there are a number of unanswered questions and speculative ideas about it. I really don't like the "AIDS 2.0" title, though - one of the things that needs to be emphasized is that this condition is quite different from AIDS. As the NEJM article makes clear, affected patients have normal CD4+ lymphocyte counts - the immunodeficiency is thought to stem from impaired interferon-gamma signaling, not from a lymphocyte-subset deficiency as in HIV/AIDS. MastCell ^Talk 18:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

While I guess we should call it what our sources use.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Adult-onset immunodeficiency disease. Anything is better than AIDS 2.0. Linkminer 21:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ack sorry, I just realized that it should be "syndrome", but I can't move it to there because of the redirect... Linkminer 21:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, the article has the correct name now. I apologize for my carelessness. Linkminer (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Another wee difference is that it doesn't appear to be contagious! —MistyMorn (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

An editor at AIDS 2.0 apparently is interested in advancing the notion it is possibly a U.S. military creation. Biosthmors (talk) 20:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Eyes appreciated. I don't feel like reverting to my cleaned up version of the article. Biosthmors (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am the user previously known as 67.189.145.86. Wakari07 has been stonewalling me for the past few days - I also attempted to clean up the article. I have my eyes on this. Linkminer 21:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

More plagarism

A user left me a message regarding a textbook using one of my images and giving credit to someone else. It is on page 43 of this book. Fischer, Conrad. Master the boards. New York: Kaplan Publishing. p. 43. ISBN 978-1607146537. I guess the question is what should I do? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I would contact the publishers. Explain that this is your photo and the credit line should be your name. Ask them to investigate how the wrong credit has been given and whether this is through human error or someone deliberately passing off your work as theirs. It is possible that it is a genuine mistake (and Nisith Patel is agrieved this his photograph of an ingrowing toenail has been attributed to some bloke called Heilman). I think the most you can expect is an apology and a promise the next edition will be corrected. If the publishers got their photo from a respectable stock photo library, then that library should take the issue very seriously. BTW, on Googling i found this blog which might have useful information. Colin°^Talk 07:46, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not wave the "share alike" requirement. Thus this book is now under a CC BY SA license. :-) Will contact the publisher and let them know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:06, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't work like that. The book is not a derivative work of your image. It is a collective work that contains your image, among others. Your image doesn't infect the book with the CC-BY-SA licence. Commons actually only accepts images that allow commercial reuse, which includes being contained within a copyright work such as a book. Actually, the book needs to do more than just credit you. They need to explicilty restate that this image is licenced under CC-BY-SA 3.0. See How to attribute Creative Commons licensed materials.

Btw, I think it a good idea to help re-users out when knowing how to attribute your work. If you have a look at my Commons images, you'll see that I've got an explicit "Attribution" section in the description box. Some folk make this even more explicit. See Diliff's File:Wood Duck 2, St James's Park, London - April 2012.jpg.

What the "share alike" affects, is a copy of image itself and derivative works. So someone is free to scan the photo from the book and republish that copy with the same terms. If your image was used in cover art, or they cropped or annotated the image, then those derivative works would themselves be subject to the same attribution/licence terms. Colin°^Talk 15:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful. Thank you Colin. That makes much more sense and I have misunderstood this for years. What about for text? If one chapter in a book is from Wikipedia does that mean the whole book is CC BY SA or just that chapter? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:17, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I believe that it would just be the parts of the book that used the (original or modified) text. So here are some examples (and anyone should feel free to correct me if I've got this wrong):

I copy Cancer exactly as-is, and call it "Chapter 12" in my book, Diseases You Don't Want: the whole chapter, but nothing else, is CC-BY-SA.
I copy Cancer and make some small changes to it, and call the resulting text "Chapter 12" in my book, Diseases You Don't Want: the whole chapter, but nothing else, is CC-BY-SA.
I copy one paragraph out of Cancer, and put it with ten pages of original text in "Chapter 12": just the one paragraph is CC-BY-SA.
I copy Cancer and make extensive changes to it and substantially expand it. 80% of the text is mine, but the Wikipedia text is completely mixed up with my own original work, with no hope of ever separating them. I call that text "Chapter 12" in my book: the whole chapter, but nothing else, is CC-BY-SA.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We're eagerly awaiting the sequel, Diseases You Do Want. The "Chicken Pox" chapter should be a real gripper! LeadSongDog come howl! 16:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

They have agreed to fix this for the next addition. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm thinking you could ask 'em to make a small contribution to Wikipedia and the matter is closed. :-) IANAL... but I think if it is a printed book... you could in theory ask 'em to junk every copy they printed that is in violation. Nephron T|C 12:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The CC-BY-SA license isn't really viral like that. Using a CC-BY-SA work without following the license just means they're violating copyright; it doesn't mean derivatives are automatically licensed CC-BY-SA. If someone doesn't follow the terms of the license (by releasing their derivatives under the same license), then the license is simply revoked for that person.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Even more copyvios

I have a law office -- violating my copyright.

Here is the site: http://www.borrilaw.com/firm-news/.
Here is the original: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Endometrioid_endometrial_adenocarcinoma_low_mag.jpg.

The problem I have is... I don't really want to write 'em with my own name.

The other thing is I don't have the text of cease and desist letter. It would be nice to have one drafted for this purpose... that the Wikipedia lawyers put one together to help increase inforcement. If the publishers illegally using our images could be prodded to link here... it would help get traffic to the site.

Does any one know the lawyers in the Wikipedia -- could someone draft a letter for use of prodding people to comply?

I know that WP does not do enforcement... and I know that I have the copyright-- but I think it would be nice if they had a letter that (1) explains the objectives of WP, (2) says compliance is really quite easy, and (3) it is the law to comply -- we ask them to comply. Nephron T|C 12:36, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

What sticks in my craw is Elsevier is violating my copyright here: http://www.thelancetstudent.com/legacy/2010/02/26/lymphadenectomy-in-endometrial-cancer/. Here is my image: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Endometrioid_endometrial_adenocarcinoma_very_high_mag.jpg. Elsevier is my least favourite publisher -- for this reason... and 'cause their books and journals are usually very expensive. It would be nice if a lawyer or a law student (on my behalf) had fun with this-- writing Elsevier a letter. Nephron T|C 12:47, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Nephron, I understand your distress at seeing this. However I would urge you to try to assume good faith. It may be that the people who designed these pages didn't fully understand the significance of the CC-BY-SA licence, perhaps believing that all images on Wikimedia Commons are public domain. While it is surprising that a law firm's page would make this mistake, it may be that the page designer is a novice, without a good understanding of modern copyright law.

Similarly, with the Elsevier publication, the designer was probably a novice. Given that the publication is "Lancet Student" and the page credits "Creative Commons", this seems highly likely. It is probably a misunderstanding. It doesn't help that the Wikimedia Commons says that the author is "Nephron", which seems to be a vague pseudonym.

Technically, this issue is not relevant to Wikipedia, but rather to Wikimedia Commons. A "cease and desist" letter is over the top. A brief letter informing them to credit you should be enough. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A "cease and desist" letter is just any old letter asking someone to quit screwing up. Our standard spam warnings probably qualify. In this instance, the behavior that we want stopped is the improperly uncredited use of Nephron's copyrighted material. Any letter asking them to either stop using the copyrighted material or to start properly crediting him would be considered a "cease and desist" letter. Unlike a cease and desist order (from a court of law), these letters have no particular legal standing and can be written by anyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

We have a difference of opinion regarding the definition of a "cease and desist" letter. In my understanding, it includes the threat of legal action if the recipient does not comply.

In Nephron's case, no-one is making extra money or losing out on money because of the lack of accreditation. I see no reason for the infringers to refuse. A "cease and desist" letter as a first response is unnecessarily confrontational. If they do refuse, the next step would be a "cease and desist" letter. If that doesn't work, Nephron will need to hire a lawyer. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think they do make money on misrepresenting the truth here. If Elsevier keeps people ignorant of the fact that they can see and reuse the many CC images in many different ways at no cost... Elsevier can continue charging $$$$ for their books, journals and images. That is why Elsevier has fought the whole "open" publishing thing -- it cuts into their large margins. Perhaps, I'm growing cynical with age -- I've just observed that when "mistakes" put money into a company's pocket... they often make that "mistake" again and again. Nephron T|C 01:13, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The author of the "Lancet Student" paper has clearly stated "Image credit: Creative Commons". The author has attempted to tag the picture with the appropriate licence. Your implication that they are deliberately "misrepresenting the truth" in order to "make money" is ridiculous. Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:57, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I just write or call people Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:22, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Doing good

I thought the comment at Special:ArticleFeedbackv5/Goodpasture's syndrome/288091 would be an encouragement to you. It appears to be from a physician who found our article on a rare autoimmune disease helpful to staff and family alike. Thanks to all who made this article, and hundreds like it, available and helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Lynn's disease

I have nominated this new article for deletion, as I don't believe that any such disease is recognized. Please express your views at the Afd. Looie496 (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

STD Wizard

There is currently a discussion about the redirect STD Wizard, which currently points at Sexually transmitted disease, taking place at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 29. There is a related discussion also about whether any content about this website should be included in the target article at Talk:Sexually transmitted disease#STD Wizard. Your input into both discussions would be particularly welcome. Thryduulf (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Circumcision notice

It appears that the AAP has revised their guidelines about circumcision, to say that the medical benefits outweigh the risks, plus someone else says that it is cost-effective. The usual hands at that article should be prepared for the usual POV warring that happens whenever that subject is in the news. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Already dealing with it at Circumcision and American Academy of Pediatrics, and more eyes are always welcome. Yobol (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The AAP has not revised anything. The AAP has always held that "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision". However, they have also held and do still hold that "these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision". What they recently added is that said potential medical benefits justify access to circumcision "for families who choose it", in a purely financial sense. Indeed, the article needs to be watched for the usual POV warring, especially for such POV additions that incorrectly claim or suggest that the AAP recently changed its position in any significant way. --rtc (talk) 23:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Specifically states "update the academy's 1999 statements in this area" http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2012/08/22/peds.2012-1989.full.pdf+html Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this does not contradict what I said. The update is adding "that the procedure’s benefits justify access to this procedure for families who choose it" and about referring to more recent data. Note: It's "update", not "replace" or "change". And they specifically stress, in the same way as the old statement, that "health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns" --rtc (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

That's my layman's impression too, looking at the 1999 policy statement. —MistyMorn (talk) 00:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure so if that is the case we should be able to ref it to the 2012 statement. At least we should add the more recent stuff first Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The more recent stuff is that "the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns." What you are quoting out of context has not changed significantly from the 1999 statement. Your version incorrectly suggests that the part you quote is new in or even the point of this update. My version refs the 2012 statement, too! But not in such a badly biased way. --rtc (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Why should we mention the 1999 statement at all? We should be summarizing the new statement; either the information is the same as the 1999 statement (in which case the 1999 statement is redundant) or it is changed (in which case the 1999 statement is out of date). In either case, there is no need to mention it. Yobol (talk) 02:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Not mentioning the 1999 statement would suggest that the 2012 statement is different or new. --rtc (talk) 02:47, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It is normal to use the most recent statement exclusively. We would do this even if the only change to the guideline was a small note that says, "This guideline is word-for-word what we said more than 13 years ago, but we reviewed it and agree that it's still correct."

If you really believe your assertion that there was no material change to the source, then it should just be a matter of changing the dates in the article. No rational person could possibly object to such minor a change in the article, so that readers know that this is the organization's current position, not an outdated one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that the new statement is presented as if it were any different from the older one in some significant way. There are only subtle differences, but the AAP has not, as the omission of the old statement would suggest, issued a significantly new statement on some issue on which it has never made a statement or a similar statement before. For such a controversial topic, NPOV has priority over MOS rules. NPOV demands that the new position be put into the context of the older one. --rtc (talk) 06:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that NPOV demands this. It may be worthy of historical mention for the group if reliable sources analyze it, but that's a separate issue from NPOV. Clinical practice guidelines are sometimes (I don't know the frequency) published with expiration dates, such as after 5 years. It appears to me to be common knowledge that older statements have no clinical value. I also disagree that by omitting it we suggest drastic changes have occurred. I don't understand why you think this is a NPOV issue, but if this is your line of thinking, please start a policy-based discussion at WP:NPOVN if you can't work it out at the talk page first, and please and notify us. Biosthmors (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

More eyes on American Academy of Pediatrics would be helpful as well. There seems to be a push to include self published material from circumcision advocacy groups in the artcle. Yobol (talk) 13:06, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree with WAID. No need to use a 13 year old statement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

POV-pushing damage to WP:MEDICINE and other circumcision- and foreskin-related articles by User:Sugarcube73

Related to this: It is the opinion of myself and several other editors that User:Sugarcube73 has been causing damage to WP:MEDICINE and related articles by editing with a anti-circumcision/pro-foreskin POV.

Round 1:

In this edit to German Medical Association, he selectively added an WP:UNDUE mention of only part (the anti-circumcision part) of the organization's statement regarding circumcision to what is basically a stub article page for the organization
In this edit to Prevalence of circumcision he replaced a statement sourced with a link to the reputable AMA to a link to "cirp.org", a decidedly anti-circumcision website and replaced a statement based on a 2006 study with one based on a 1987 study
In this edit to Circumcision scar he added a source link to cirp.org, and also added an unsourced medical claim
In this edit to Phimosis he replaced a study done by doctors in a hospital with a study done via questionnaire, with only about 1/3 of those surveyed responding, and again linked to cirp.org
In this edit to Circumcision he similarly misrepresented the German Medical Association in an anti-circumcision POV manner

I brought my concerns about his editing to his User Talk page here. I reverted the edits without pushback, which indicated to me at least some recognition on Sugarcube73's part that his edits were improper.

Round 2:

In this edit to Circumcision and law he made an edit that appeared to counter the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia's statement with a letter by unknown lawyer Susan Bouclin.
In the same edit he added a note about an obscure tangential court case in Canada that received next to zero coverage in the news.

I brought my new concerns to his User Talk page here, section "Please stop your continued POV edits regarding circumcision". I pointed to relevant Wikipedia policy and guideline such as WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID. He didn't agree with my assessment that his edits were WP:UNDUE (which is part of WP:NPOV policy) so I took it to the WP:NPOVN here. At WP:NPOVN, editors User:Activism1234 (4,700 edits) and User:Binksternet (82,000 edits) agreed Sugarcube73's edits failed WP:NPOV. Sugarcube73 didn't attempt to undo my reverts.

Round 3:

At foreskin, Sugarcube73 removed article content indicating circumcision has a minimal sexual effect, supported by two circumcision-related sources; his edit summaries were that circumcision-related studies were "irrelevant" to the foreskin. Yet, he then added article content indicating circumcision was related to sexual problems, supported by a different circumcision study. For his edit, Sugarcube73 changed the source wording of "circumcision" to "excision of the foreskin," a term not found in the source.
Also at foreskin, he added a large quote directly from a study by O'Hara from perhaps one of the worst studies I've ever seen used on Wikipedia. The study was conducted on women only, it was a non-randomized survey, and the author herself says of her own study, "this study has some obvious methodological flaws."

Again I brought my concerns to his User Talk page here. I indicated to Sugarcube73 that he needed to read and use WP:MEDRS. In my discussion with him, he largely avoided directly addressing my points, but did admit to never having seen WP:MEDASSESS and WP:MEDRS, and regarding them he promised "I will read those pages that I had not seen before. They are quite long and I will study them." I then went on vacation and have just been getting back to looking at articles. Sadly, despite being made aware of his POV-pushing, and his promise to read WP:MEDRS, he is continuing to edit in the same manner:

At American Academy of Pediatrics, Sugarcube73 made the same kind of POV edits he made at German Medical Association: He created new WP:UNDUE circumcision-related sections even though the article does not contain any similar sections for any of the other dozens of policy statements the organization may have released for any other therapy or procedure. User:Yobol identified Sugarcube73's edit as POV in this revert's edit summary.
At Circumcision Sugarcube73 added a paragraph exhibiting the same problems--cherry-picking old sources, POV wording, original research and unsourced claims. Yobol reverted it with the edit summary "non MEDRS ((too old, letter to the editor), POV wording, etc". In this case again Sugarcube73 did not challenge the POV assessment or the revert.
The exact same POV edit that Yobol reverted at Circumcision Sugarcube73 has made at Medical analysis of circumcision, and probably other articles (I have to go through his editing history).

I am of the opinion that Sugarcube73 is unwilling or incapable of editing foreskin and circumcision-related articles in accordance with Wikipedia policy and guideline, and the net effect of his involvement at these WP:MEDICINE and related articles will be to degrade their quality. Before taking this further, I wanted to see if other editors agree with what I am seeing, and would be willing to work with me to act to prevent further damage. Zad68 19:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I repeatedly find it slightly confusing to see "Circumcision notice" appear on my watchlist. It appears to be a notice informing me of an impending circumcision. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:16, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
lol tepi (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
Would a surprise be preferable?LeadSongDog come howl! 21:10, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI thread: Wikipedia article leveraged as plastic surgery advertisement (NSFW)

Knowledgeable eyes are urgently requested at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Plastic_surgeon_using_Wikipedia_as_an_advertisement_for_his_services. It concerns the article Mommy makeover and this press release of today, which begins:

Mommy Makeover Presented by San Francisco Plastic Surgeon Miguel Delgado, is a New and Exciting Addition to Wikipedia,

Mommy Makeover, is a new term added to Wikipedia. Known as the “free encyclopedia” Wikipedia quickly became a favorite source of information on the internet, consistently rating high in Google searches. Content contributions come from experts all over the world. Dr. Delgado saw the need for an extensive description for the Mommy Makeover procedure after receiving many inquiries from his patients.

and ends with the doctor's telephone number. J N 466 16:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Mommy makeover is quite unsafe for work. Skinwalker (talk) 16:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed; apologies. It's for now redirected to plastic surgery. --J N 466 16:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, I'm glad professionals see the value in adding information to Wikipedia. On the other hand, we want information, not a sales job. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

There have been several plastic surgeons editing here. All of these articles need watching to ensure they don't tend to overstate in subtle and obvious ways the case for having such surgery. J N 466 21:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Water birth

I just substantially gutted the water birth page. Looking on pubmed turned up surprisingly little and very few secondary sources - a Cochrane Review, but I wonder if it's the only really good source, and whether it's actually talking about birth. If anyone's interested, the page could still probably use more work. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

congratulationstepi (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've been concerned for a while about some of our baby articles. Elimination communication is one of the messier ones. Skinwalker (talk) 19:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Most of our baby/child articles are in disastrous condition. It's the inevitable result of the demographics of our editor base: fantastic articles on professional football teams, and horrible articles about children and parenting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Down Syndrome

Hi all,

A peer review for Down syndrome commented that "- the article's medical content is presented in rather a technical way, with a lot of specialized terms. Particularly the part right after "Signs and Symptoms" could be explained a lot less technically.", which I think is probably true - on the other hand I'm hesitant to give it too much of a reword without falling afoul of the medical MOS - does anyone fancy popping over and giving paragraph (or even the whole article) a bit of a once over? Fayedizard (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Coventry Wiki Workshop

Hello from the workshop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh649 (talk • contribs)

Welcome and happy editing. Let me know if I can be of any help. JFW | T@lk 14:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who took part in the workshop, especially Jmh649 and JFW for their presentations. Sharkli (talk - contribs) 09:04, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Follow up

I spent some time talking to Jon Brassey of Trip database (http://www.tripdatabase.com/) following his presentation. I explained how we are always faced with the problem that we have no appeal to authority amongst editors, which sometimes leads to disputes about whether one particular source should be preferred to another. Having talked about the system used at Trip to evaluate the quality of sources, I asked if it might be possible to incorporate a sort of "Wikipedia-approved" sticker for the very best sources that would then be guaranteed to meet our MEDRS. He's thought about that and replied to me by email with what I think are some great ideas. I'm taking the liberty of quoting a part of that below for the members of WPMED:

I've given it a bit more thought and can think of a number of things we can do to help boost the evidence-based/validity of the medical articles on wikipedia:
As you suggested, we place a wikipedia button on all articles deemed high quality (all the secondary evidence and the key primary research seems a good starting point). When a user clicks on the button it opens up a new window with at least part of the reference (if not all) pre-populated.
New research. Every month we add about 500 new pieces of secondary evidence and probably a similar amount in the key primary research. We could - somehow - send this to wikipedia, so the editors of the page know there is new robust research. It might be that you have a 'new research' area on the talk page (or via a separate tab) and we have some mechanism to deposit new research there. In the case of breast cancer it'd be 15 new secondary reviews and 15 bits of core primary research (http://www.tripdatabase.com/search?criteria=breast+cancer&sort=r&timespan=n) and in the case of autism it's 6 secondary evidence and 0 for key primary research (http://www.tripdatabase.com/search?criteria=autism&sort=r&timespan=n). I feel this has great potential. One of the editors could easily skim the research to decide if it adds anything. Also, as Trip is independent it's a great way of getting a balanced view of the new literature.
The final idea is based on our citation analysis (and is therefore a bit experimental). We would scan easy of the medical wikipedia articles and grab your references. We could then alert you/wikipedia/editors when one of these references has been cited in a systematic review or guideline. The editor could then, possibly, upgrade the reference to a more robust one.
Let me know what you think and I'd happily have a face-to-face meeting to discuss these further.

I'd quite like to build a relationship between Trip and Wikimedia UK, as we clearly share the same aims of providing free information, but I want to include the WikiProject (and WMMED) in shaping any developments, as you all have much more knowledge than I. I'm going to encourage Jon to use this page as a "clearing house" for suggestions, so If anyone has any thoughts on the above, they would be much appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes definitely ideas to explore. I was thinking we could put a button on the talk page of all our articles that our editors could click on to find high quality sources for that topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:36, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely. Is there a bot that could place automated talk page messages whenever something appears on TRIP? JFW | T@lk 00:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. Do we have any bot people amongst our midst? We could create a template to add to the talk pages which could contain trip and also a pubmed search with results limited to review articles from the last 10 years. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:23, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Anaesthesia

Not many articles on the subject!--81.136.203.19 (talk) 14:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you looked at all the links from our article on anesthesia, or the many, many topics in the navigation template Template:Anesthesia, or the categories Category:Anesthesia and Category:Anesthetics? While I am sure that there are gaps in Wikipedia's coverage (and if you're familiar with the topic, I encourage you to contribute!) I'd hardly say it's accurate to claim there aren't many articles. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:33, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Given the title of this section and the fact that IP 81.136.. is associated with British Telecomm, this seems to be a variant spelling issue. Perhaps the British spelling variants should redirect to our anesthesia-related content? -- Scray (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the comment was made by someone I know in the UK and I agree there should be redirects from British spelling variants -- Sharkli (talk - contribs) 09:08, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that redirects from categories are possible. The category system is one of the software's weak points. The other redirects I checked seem to be in place. (But they're pretty weak, and, oh, what I'd give to have someone knowledgeable in that area... and a surgeon or two... and a pediatrician...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

^ EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Policy and Action for Cancer Prevention Food, Nutrition, and Physical Activity. 2010. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-9722522-5-6.
^ Hurst, R (2012 Jul). "Selenium and prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis". The American journal of clinical nutrition. 96 (1): 111–22. PMID 22648711. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
^ Research, World Cancer Research Fund ; American Institute for Cancer (2007). Policy and action for cancer prevention : food, nutrition, and physical activity : a global perspective. Washington, D.C: American Institute for Cancer Research. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-9722522-4-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
^ . PMID 22419320. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ . PMID 22237782. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1] EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Policy and Action for Cancer Prevention Food, Nutrition, and Physical Activity. 2010. p. 1. ISBN 978-0-9722522-5-6.

[2] Hurst, R (2012 Jul). "Selenium and prostate cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis". The American journal of clinical nutrition. 96 (1): 111–22. PMID 22648711. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

[3] Research, World Cancer Research Fund ; American Institute for Cancer (2007). Policy and action for cancer prevention : food, nutrition, and physical activity : a global perspective. Washington, D.C: American Institute for Cancer Research. p. 150. ISBN 978-0-9722522-4-9.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

[4] . PMID 22419320. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

[5] . PMID 22237782. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]