Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 60

Archive 55

←

Archive 58

Archive 59

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

Archive 65

Khan academy

Meet the lungs

Blood flow through the heart

What's inside of blood

After more than a year of negotiations the Khan academy has agreed to release three videos under a CC BY SA license as a trial. I have added them to three articles. I think videos are a good idea for Wikipedia and there is the potential of more videos to come. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Wonderful, what do you make of these by the way? Entire channel is CC-BY https://www.youtube.com/user/awolfnp It takes me a few hours to download, convert, upload so I haven't gotten to it yet. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes we should add them to commons. We need a bot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Doc James, blood flow through the heart is very good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think these videos add anything of value to our articles. The blood flow through the heart video is simply a repeat of what is stated or implied in the article. There's nothing of educational value that is not already described in detail in the main article. I would be more impressed if you could find a video of a cardiomyocyte beating in a petri dish or in vivo, or something similar that expands upon, rather than repeat, the information in the main text. -A1candidate 14:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Different people learn in different ways. There videos on math would be excellent especially as much of our math content is difficult to understand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:51, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

And what is so difficult to understand about blood flow through the heart? This isn't rocket science. -A1candidate 14:59, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I think quite a few people would disagree with you there, the Frank-Starling mechanism isn't very straightforward. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Cardiac physiology is a suitable topic for videos, but a 2-minute discussion about the differences between veins and arteries would be more appropriate in the Simple English Wikipedia. -A1candidate 15:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A1candidate, not everyone is an A1candidate. Wikipedia is not written (just) for medical students. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It is written for the general reader, who I presume has a decent amount of general knowledge and knows what lungs, arteries, and veins are. -15:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A1Candidate, while that is true the reader gets more if he/she reads and sees what the article is about, I wonder if a Western blot would be so easy on paper as opposed to seeing where restriction enzymes must cut, how transformation works or transfection is done on a video?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

It's generally a good idea to demonstrate specific laboratory techniques with the aid of diagrams and videos. Perhaps we could approach the Journal of Visualized Experiments to see if they're willing to donate something. The main issue I have with the Khan Academy is that they are neither a medical organization nor an academic publisher. As far as I know, none of their videos are peer-reviewed. -A1candidate 16:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

well then, im in partial agreement with you, (I would think peer review is best)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Very few of our pictures are "peer reviewed". Why would it be different with videos. Of course if the above journal is interested in donating than would welcome them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:53, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

good point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Simple English is not for simplified information. It is for people who do not speak English as their native language. This project, on the other hand, is supposed to be able to educate native English speakers, including teenagers and people who didn't finish high school (or never even attended it). It's true that 90% of American kids finish high school or get equivalent education now, but more than a quarter of American senior citizens didn't finish high school.[1] This project is supposed to be for those readers, too. It's not just for geniuses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

We also write for Ugandans, Bangladeshis, and even Australians - this is not us.wikipedia.org -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Nitrogen trichloride

I don't really know anything about this, but I noticed that our articles nitrogen trichloride and agene process make medical statements that are poorly sourced -- the latter article is referenced entirely to a paper in Medical Hypotheses, a notoriously unreliable journal. It's not clear to me whether those articles (and a related section in List of food contamination incidents) are promoting a fringe theory. Looie496 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

the latter might benefit from a hazard report[2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It looks like Nitrogen trichloride simply refers to an article about a hypothesis, which is acceptably written/sourced and does not make any medical claims. Agene process is written in a potentially biased manner and lacks sufficient sourcing, but the process itself may be notable enough for its own article. I think that the list of incidents falls more under a journalism than medical category, so does not need medically qualified sourcing. Mamyles (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Dry Needling

The Dry Needling page could use more eyes if anyone is interested. It has a few IP's that have introduced unsourced promotional material. Herbxue (talk) 21:32, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a mess of an article ... Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a mess of a modality. PT's are needling deep into the thoracic after 24 hours of training. Most of the recent incidents of pneumothorax in the US and Canada are caused by PT's or Chiro's needling people with minimal training. For reference, licensed acupuncturists have at least 2000 hours of training.Herbxue (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Articles for Previous ICD-1 though ICD-8 codes?

We currently have articles with the codes for ICD-9 and ICD-10 codes (as well as ICD-10-CM and ICD-10-PCS). I've seen the lists of the others on the web, including for example, ICD-6 at paho.org (Pan American Health Organization). http://www.wolfbane.com/icd/index.html appears to have the all, but hoping for clearcut public domain examples. Is this something that would be better at Wikisource?Naraht (talk) 15:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure this type of data can be copyrighted? If anything it would be on Wikidata. Unfortunately Wikidata isn't as well known as it should be and not so navigable. Shouldn't be hard to base a Wikisource article off Wikidata? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:39, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF: Not sure how to add things to Wikidata... :( Naraht (talk) 01:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

[3] its here, introduction page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Cholesterol

It appears that the guidelines are finally going to be changed to match the evidence. There is no and never was any good evidence that dietary cholesterol is "bad" for you. This 2015 US gov ref states "Cholesterol is not considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption." [4]

Any interesting example of the importance of us both summarizing position statements and the best available evidence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

this is a very important change in the guidelines--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Gets Redefinition

interesting article..systemic exertion intolerance disease ?[5][6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a grave mistake by the panel. The name of a disease should be changed according to its pathophysiologic characteristics rather than clinical manifestations, IMO. -A1candidate 23:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

probably,i wonder if they were under some sort of pressure to do so(Leonard Jason, a psychologist at DePaul University in Chicago...“As a community psychiatrist who values citizen participation in critical decisions, I think this was a strategic mistake,” [7].) and the current NIH version[8] and finally HHS [9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:38, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm thinking that if they actually knew what the pathophysiologic characteristics were, then they would have used that to name it. The diagnostic criteria seem to be:

1. being tired,
2. being even more tired if you try to do anything,
3. unrefreshing sleep (new to the list), and
4. orthostatic intolerance (I elide their "or cognitive problems", because OI can cause cognitive problems).

I had thought that [a long time ago] they were saying that people with OI do not having ME/CFS by definition, because OI's main symptom seems to be "being tired, and being more tired if you try to do anything", and ME/CFS was supposed to be something different and unrelated. OI is also associated with neurocognitive and sleep problems. Even with this new definition, it's still not clear to me how one would decide that a patient has chronic OI but not CFS. Is it even possible to differentiate these two now? Do they intended for these two to be differentiated, or are they trying to define "systemic exertion intolerance disease" as "severe OI", along the lines of PMS vs PMDD?

On the other hand, it sounds like chronic OI plus sleep apnea would also seem to fit this definition quite easily. For that matter, so would untreated severe sleep apnea (which causes fatigue and unrefreshing sleep), having poor physical conditioning (feeling even more tired if you do anything), and early-stage dementia (cognitive problems). For that matter, I think that chronic depression would probably also fit this bill: all of those symptoms (except OI, but OI isn't required) can be caused by depression.

I doubt that this definition will be satisfying to patient advocates. It doesn't sufficiently differentiate the condition from other conditions.

(My interest in the subject stems largely from having incorrectly merged another article with the OI article years ago. Fortunately, someone who knows more than I do reverted it. So take all of these comments with a whole spoonful of salt.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you WhatamIdoing , I don't believe it will satisfy patient advocates either--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Kent W. Small MD

Hello, everyone. Here's another of those old AfC submissions. The text of this article indicates a tenured professor with many published articles. Is this a notable subject? There's a profile at Researchgate, but I haven't found reviews of his books. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:54, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing there to save that's reliably sourced. It was clearly a mix of original research with the subject's own website. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Enzyme

Is anyone (who remembers the valued contributions of TimVickers) interested in fixing up as needed per Wikipedia:Featured article review/Enzyme/archive1? Tim has several medical FAs (see WP:WBFAN), in case anyone wants to look at them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Rosebud pornography article

Seeing this edit by Ulcerspar12, I was brought to the attention of the Rosebud pornography article. Considering the extreme nature of the activity, meaning the involvement of rectal prolapse, it is more of a medical article than a sexual article. The sources therefore generally need to adhere to WP:MEDRS. Ulcerspar12 also made this edit to the Rectal prolapse article concerning rosebud pornography. Googling the topic of rosebud pornography, as seen here and here, it does not seem significantly WP:Notable; it has a few WP:Reliable sources discussing how dangerous the rosebud practice is.

Thoughts? Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I take your point that it could do with better referencing. I wonder whether the article would survive an AfD. It is a bit like the Gay Nigger Association of America. The argument there was the offensive nature of the group meant that no one would write about it preventing the requisite sources for it to be covered. Other pornographic niches like bukkake seem far better covered in literature both academic and non-academic. While "rosebudding" is undoubtedly a thing it seems a recently coined term and from what I can gather (being no expert in this area *blushes*) rectal prolapse porn seems to be a fairly recent invention. Wikipedia does throw up some wonderful topics doesn't it?! Ulcerspar12 (talk) 23:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If it were simply a term matter, I'd cite WP:Neologism. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The article is currently short enough to be simply moved to Rectal_prolapse#In_pornography, which would avoid the neologism problem. — Sebastian 05:53, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably the best solution, if this particular topic warrants coverage—as noted, the sourcing is rather thin. (Honestly, Rule 34 means that just about any [[article]] would otherwise eventually attract a corresponding [[article (pornography)]].) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Lunaception

Apparently "a practice that purports to enable a woman to know ahead of time when she will be fertile each month, based on practices stated by its advocate to be found in many non-urban cultures" which were it to work would mean the women involved "would no longer need to use any form of contraception such as pills and devices". I was tempted to AfD this, but wondered if anyone from WikiProject Medicine had suggestions as to whether any of it should be merged with another article - if only to say that it doesn't work, which seems to my admittedly-untrained opinion to quite possibly be the case. Especially since the only supposed evidence for it is based on "testimonials", with the obvious difficulties that entails... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

reference must be a review article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't heard of that particular name before, but it sounds like someone's brand name for Fertility awareness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Philosophy of medicine

This page regarding an encyclopedically relevant topic was created recently (by Lilipatina). I believe it would benefit from editing by Wikipedians familiar with different aspects of the wide-ranging subject matter. 109.157.87.122 (talk) 11:48, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

it seems a worthwhile article,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Testosterone

User initial copied and pasted from primary sources into Wikipedia and has now tried to add the same with some paraphrasing. Appears not to see issues with either. Further comments here appreciated? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:39, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist

This course is off to a marginal start; please watchlist and help out on articles listed. Education Program:Shenandoah University/History and Systems of Psychology (Spring 2015). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Hyalophagia

I've searched PubMed and Google books, and can only find definitions of hyalophagia-- that it is a manifestation of pica (disorder). I've come up with no MEDRS-compliant discussion beyond one speculative case report in an Indian journal (PDF). If anyone has access to DSM-5, could they let me know if there is anything written there on hyalophagia that cannot be included at pica (disorder)? Otherwise, I will propose a merger to pica; there's no reason for a student to start chunking in content here that may belong at pica. I can't find anything that can be said on this topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Related -- article naming

Related to the dearth of info on hyalophagia, see geophagy. There are a whole ton of types of pica (disorder), but some of the articles are phagia, while others are phagy. What should that be standardized to (see here)? And an uncited mess at Coprophagia; which of these article should be merged and redirected to pica (disorder)? How much distinguishing info can be found in DSM-5? I do not have the DSM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

At Category:Pica (disorder), only geophagy is differently named. The rest are agias. Should it be moved? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I took a quick look and it seems that geophagy is used more than geophagia as the name in the general lexicon, and dictionaries list geophagia as an alternate to geophagy (ex: Merriam-Webster. However, Pubmed gives me 83 hits for geophagy and 2661 for geophagia...so perhaps we should move it, dictionaries be damned. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:21, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been digging around in the suite, and it does seem that the agais are the way to go. But I will wait to see what anyone who has access to DSM-5 says. Thanks, Keilana! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I, uh, just realized I have access to the DSM-5 (d'oh!). The entry on pica didn't mention geophagy or geophagia, and a search turned up nothing. So that's not particularly useful. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:53, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

THanks, Keilana. Does the DSM mention any of these subtypes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Anytime! :) Unfortunately the DSM only talks about the subtypes in terms of what unusual things people eat. Would you like a copy of the DSM article on pica? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 20:52, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless it goes into detail on the sub-types, thanks but no thanks :) I just want to know if we should redirect. I propose, then, that any of the sub-type articles for which I cannot locate other-than-case reports should be merged and redirected to pica (disorder) ... anyone else ? And we should standardize them to "phagia" instead of "phagy". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't particularly go into detail, unfortunately. So I agree, where there's no MEDRS available the subtypes should redirect. Nice work on these. Let me know if you ever need anything else from the DSM, though - happy to provide! :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 21:00, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Keilana, but the problem is that by the time I need the DSM again, I will likely have forgotten who offered :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Story of my life!! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Geomelophagia

Similarly, I cannot find enough sources to convince me that Geomelophagia should not be a redirect to pica (disorder). It looks like there is one case report in PubMed. Is it listed in DSM5 ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:34, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

(couldn't find DSMS) maybe this?[10]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Amylophagia

Same at Amylophagia; several case reports in PubMed, but I can't find a review. Should all of these redirect to pica (disorder)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that one (which involves eating actual food) should be re-directed to a subject defined as "an appetite for substances that are largely non-nutritive, such as paper, clay, metal, chalk, soil, glass, or sand." Eating flour right out of the canister doesn't appeal to me (I'll take my flour with butter and eggs and dark chocolate, please), but it's definitely not "non-nutritive". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

That troubled me as well, but the source I found (that appears highly reliable ??) lists it as a Pica disorder. [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Even i it's true, and there's some sort of "if it seems weird enough to me" clause in the pica definition, I think that a merge would be confusing to readers. Imagine that you want to look this up. You search for the name, and you get re-directed to an article that says "This page is about eating non-food". You'll assume that you're in the wrong place. It would be less confusing to leave it separate and write "Although this involves food, Dr Big says that this is a form of pica" in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Making MEDMOS and PHARMMOS more consistent

The manuals of style for drugs in the Medicine and Pharmacology WikiProjects are inconsistent, specifying similar but different sections and ordering. The drugs entry in MEDMOS directly links to PHARMAMOS which adds to the confusion. Shouldn't these manuals of style be made as consistent as possible? Sizeofint (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

they do have differences--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:07, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

What differences do you see in particular as having issues? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

right, id say the order of subjects (contraindications seems to "stand alone" in MEDMOS as does adverse effects, while under the Pharmacology guide its listed under adverse effects),just IMO, apparently Sizeofint was alluding to the links (see above)..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I just did it myself since the last time a concordance fix was proposed, nothing happened. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

thanks Seppi333--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Evolutionary medicine

Don't know how many folks here are aware of this. seems like a boatload of crystalball/pseudoscience to me, especially the section on evolutionary psychiatry. oy. Jytdog (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Probably. Practicing medicine, is the opposite of evolutionary theory as medical care is helping the sick and weak to survive and potentially thrive and reproduce etc.--WholeNewJourney (talk) 21:37, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You may be thinking of something else. Evolutionary medicine is a modern area of scientific research. They're the people who make pronouncements like 'eczema is common because humans evolved to live in a dirty environment full of pathogens and parasites, and now we wash our hands and don't let little kids roll around in fecal matter'.

(Speaking of which, I saw a charity claiming that wearing diapers prevents intestinal worms in babies. They wanted money to send cloth diapers to kids in developing countries whose families normally left them naked. If anyone knows anything about this claimed health effect, then it would probably make a good addition to Diaper.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:17, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah yes, you are right WAID. The article in question still needs a good clean up though like many of our articles.--WholeNewJourney (talk) 20:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The table that accounts for most of the evolutionary psychiatry section duplicates content from the evolutionary psychology article. Tagged it as such some hours ago. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 21:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Involuntary in infants

Further comments appreciated here [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Please evaluate a draft submitted to AfC

Please take a look at Draft:Fracture sonography and evaluate its acceptability. It's a bit light on referencing in some sections but the refs that are there appear to be from good sources. I've looked at some of the abstracts as the full articles are behind the usual journal paywalls. Note that some sources are in German so I could not check them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• It seems that the term "fracture sonography" isn't used very often in the medical literature, so if it is accepted it should be moved to a different title. Everymorning talk 00:37, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support This one is good. Am starting to do this myself. A notable topic. Here is a reveiw [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
• support maybe this (review 2014)[14] ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Shameless Plug for Acne Review Part II

Hey folks, Bluerasberry did a great job reviewing the acne vulgaris article but he suggested the article would benefit from having multiple participants in the review process. Would anyone else here be interested in reviewing it for GA? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Help with cleavage (breasts)

WP:GGTF has been inventorying and fixing up articles related to the female body and we ran across cleavage (breasts). There's been a lot of coatracking relating to bras and breasts in general, which has been removed.[15] The article also includes information under "Definition" and "Pathology" that is medical or anatomical in nature. It's sourced, but the relevance looks doubtful.

Some input from medical expertise would be appreciated.

Peter ^Isotalo 13:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikimania

Wikimania 2015 will be in Mexico City this year. If you are interested in attending, please sign up. There are some free scholarships available to cover the cost of round-trip travel, shared accommodation, and conference registration. Scholarships are "merit-based" rather than "need-based"; the selection criteria appear to be all about what you do for the movement. I believe that any active contributor except people who are paid to edit (most Wikipedians-in-Residence) are eligible. To apply for a scholarship, please fill out the application form at https://scholarships.wikimedia.org/apply The scholarship application deadline is this Monday, 16 February. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:02, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• There is a call for submissions. Previously health submissions have been popular, and submissions which are made earlier tend to get more community support than those made later. Consider posting a submission for a presentation at the conference. For those who plan to attend and who can speak briefly to a general audience with a group of medical presenters, then please consider signing on to present for ~5 minutes during wm2015:Submissions/Introduction to medical content in Wikimedia projects. As a default option, I signed on to organize and moderate that, but my intention was to present 4-5 other people briefly and showcase what they are doing in medicine. My intended audience for this is people who would not otherwise attend a medical talk but who want an overview of the Wikimedia projects done in this field. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry do we have a list of medical related talks? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Doc James Right now there are two medical talks proposed - this catch-all one that I proposed and one from Netha.

• wm2015:Submissions/Introduction to medical content in Wikimedia projects
• wm2015:Submissions/"L" for Laboratories and "M" for Microscopes : Redefining GLAM by partnering with a medical school

There is demand for more and medical talks remain popular.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

We also have the talk by User:CFCF [16] ontranslation. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I am planning to propose a talk about our partnership at NIOSH, hopefully including someone from the agency. :) Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• More!

• wm2015:Submissions/The medical translation project as seen from the translators side
• wm2015:Submissions/Sharing nice: Teaching large enterprises how to change knowledge management with open collaboration

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:13, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Pirie's Bone

Hi evereybody,

I wrote the Article de:Os talonaviculare dorsale. I found that it was described by A. Howard Pirie (Montreal) in 1921 and lots of references on that article. Medical Eponyms states, that the name is from an Scottish Radiologist. (See German article). Anybody interested to work on this? --Anka Friedrich (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

sounds interesting...for some reason Bing Traslator (German) doesn't work--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Google Trans works, as much as usual: [17]. This might help some. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

My English is not good enough to write the English article. But I can answer questions concerning the article here. Use the sources, many of them are in English. Anka Friedrich (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not use this one, having a look at the pictures. That bone is on talare (i. e. supratalare), but not talonaviculare dorsale – see the pictures from Pirie, I put into „my“ article. Supranaviculare and talonaviculare dorsale are used as synonyms. Anka Friedrich (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, there is a difference in Anglo-Saxon Literature, where Pirie's bone often refers to Os supratalare, I found. I added that to the article.

May be, the Pirie's bone for the supratalare is related to the Scottish Radiologist? For supranaviculare/talonaviculare dorsale it is not. Anka Friedrich (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

first it wasn't, we're now saying it is Pirie's bone often refers to Os supratalare?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

You find both. Pirie's work in 1921 is on the bone today named Os talonaviculare dorsale or Os supranaviculare. I took an x-ray out of it, you find it in the article. You find that work referenced as work on Pirie's bone. Here is the original article: [18]. Here is a reference: Mann's Surgery of the Foot and Ankle. page 544. There you find all of them to be synonyms (Pirie bone, os supranaviculare, talonavicular ossicle, os supratalare) but find them to be located in the area of talonavicular joint. Anka Friedrich (talk) 18:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC on appropriateness of medical sources

An RfC on Safety of electronic cigarettes has been started regarding the appropriateness of statements released by medical organizations as sourcing for medical content. Arguments have been made that only published review articles can be used, and that tertiary sources are not allowed to be used for medical content. Comments would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC notification has been given; debate it there not here. If anybody here wants to participate they will go there
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is a strawman that anyone is arguing the above. --Kim D. Petersen 21:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC) You are arguing in the RFC to use Press releases. Not formal policy statements, not normal sources for making medical claims. Next we will have an RFC on use of editorials. AlbinoFerret 21:54, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Your position is that we should only be using published review articles for medical information. This flies in the face of WP:MEDRS and is definitely a cause for comment by this Wikiproject. Yobol (talk) 21:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC) You cited a Press Release in the RFC as an example of sources you want included. This source is clearly labelled a Press release in the yellow bar at the top. Sources should be at lease of review quality to make medical claims. Formal positions statements in peer reviewed journals have been included in the article. You are trying to put low quality sources in where they should not be , making medical claims.AlbinoFerret 22:04, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Let's not argue this in multiple places. The RfC is the place to have a discussion on the merits. Yobol (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC) review articles are the norm (I was under the impression this RfC was at electronic cigarette try to be "wiki-civil") thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:10, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Hiding comments because they show what you are doing? AlbinoFerret 22:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Blood–brain barrier & Blood–CSF barrier

The blood-brain barrier article has a redlink to blood–cerebrospinal-fluid barrier, while blood-cerebrospinal fluid barrier redirects to blood-brain barrier. Are the blood-brain barrier and blood-cerebrospinal fluid barrier functionally/structurally distinct? We either need a new redirect to BBB or a new article on the B-CSF barrier to fix this inconsistency. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, as described here, the blood–cerebrospinal barrier (BCB) is both anatomically and physiologically quite distinct from the blood–brain barrier (BBB). A separate article on the BCB would be appropriate. Boghog (talk) 07:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what about changing the redirect to choroid plexus? Looie496 (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Boghog's ref points out that there's 2 parts to the BCSF-barrier since the CSF separates both peripheral and cerebral circulation - the choroid plexus at the peripheral side and the arachnoid membrane at the cerebral side. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:26, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity

We have a user and an IP that wish to mis quote the inside of a review rather than summarize its conclusions.

Further comments appreciated [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Appears to have resolved for a bit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a tangent, but it reminds me of a discussion I had with a physical therapist a few years ago. She used TENS a lot in her job, and she said that some powerline workers who had received really bad electric shocks were very sensitive to the TENS units. I guess that if a normal person would be treated at 50% power, than these men (it's a male-dominated occupation) would be in pain at just 10%. Is there a name for this? Although it's "electrical" and "sensitivity", I don't think that falls under the scope of that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Input requested

Dear colleagues, could I request some input here: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phocomelia.jpg.

PS: The doctor's mess seems to have been cleaned up? Well, guess that's what happens when you stay away for too long...

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not notice that either. What happened to the doctor's mess? --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it was just renamed to be more including to the nurses, dentists, physical therapists, non-clinicians and members of the lay public who are interested in helping improve Wikipedia's medical content. So in essence you're here, and very welcome to partake in the discussions. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the image in question I support deleting it, and there should any number of similar images. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "there should any number of similar images" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I could provide a number from older books if it needs to be replaced. Although they are noticeably old there are a number of decent ones. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It must be reunion week, Steven! User:Nephron posted above, too. The image was removed here, but the total overhaul of color scheme came after that.

My Core Competency, how is Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions#Cutaneous conditions coming along? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Great to see you active as well! Not much attention has been paid to the submission yet, but hopefully it reaches the main page someday! --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The phocomelia image is in use on a whole host of WMF sites. As I suggested, it might be worth trying a switch. Delete the image and then almost immediately load a picture of someone else with phocomelia -- as the prominence of the image in searches is dependent in part of non-WMF sites that re-use the image from Wikipedia. Nephron  T|C 05:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Braverman

The Eric R. Braverman article needs attention. The hagiography was written by a research assistant at his "PATH Foundation".

Braverman is a fringe doctor with many issues: unscientific and unethical practices, questionable claims and testing methods, seriously misleading billing methods, exorbitant fees, disciplinary issues involving medical boards and state Attorney General, lawsuits by patients, Better Business Bureau rating of "F", recent arrest, etc..

The current hagiography needs to be worked over and balanced with other aspects about his career and practices, per NPOV, which requires that documented controversies and criticism are included. Barrett has recently done a thorough in-depth investigation, using many RS which we can also use: Some Notes on Dr. Eric Braverman and his PATH Medical Clinic. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Hushe A-CES

Earlier today I rejected the submission of Draft:Hushe A-CES, a cranial electrotherapy stimulator, as it is solely referenced by two primary sources

• "Hushe A-CES Owner's Manual" (PDF). http://www.cranialelectrotherapy.co.uk. Hushe Limited. Retrieved 20 February 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help) - the product manual, and
• James, C. D. (27 November 2014). "Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation as an Aid for Relaxation, Stress Relief, Mood Improvement and Improving Sleep Quality" (PDF). Retrieved 20 February 2015. - a "research paper" hosted on the manufacturers web page; a 10 sec glance reveals that it just tries to look like a study, it has not been published, and the author, Christopher D. James, appears to be the designer of the product.

The submitter, Friendlymilk, has left the following message on my talk page:

Double standards re notability

Hello Wikipedia Editor,

I should like to highlight a glaring disparity in the way, for example, a film due for release in the coming year, with no independent reviews as yet, is able to make it onto the pages of Wikipedia and yet another product that is not a film but has beneficial applications to mental health is not.

I refer of course to your disapproval of the page for the Hushe A-CES, a device which I used last year as part of a research study and found to be exceptionally good at alleviating my insomnia. As with anything that is relatively new, is it not a surprise there exists little third party subject matter on it? And yet a future release of a film is allowable by mere mention by the producer?

One feels a tiny bit like a character in George Orwell's 1984, with knowledge being controlled by the whim of those in control. The article I submitted about the Hushe A-CES cranial electrotherapy stimulator manufactured by Hushe Limited in the United Kingdom should not be suppressed just because it is little known of. As with a future film, or a past event, these are all real things. The mere fact that I have not identified a third party as a source of information should not be ground for exclusion and smacks of pedantry. If you look at the research study cited in my article you will find references to comments I and other third parties gave to the study administrator. Am I to infer from your stance that you do not regard this as third party material? If so, do you therefore agree that this implies falsification on the part of the author of that study? I am sure you appreciate the gravity of such an implied statement.

I would therefore encourage you to suggest a review of Wikipedia's notability policy and look forward to my article's equal treatment to the countless others which are permitted merely for adhering to cultural precepts of acceptability.

Kind regards

Paul
— User:Friendlymilk

— Preceding text originally posted on User talk:Sam Sailor (diff) by Friendlymilk (talk⋅contribs) 15:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I am of course as always ready to hear the opinions of my fellow editors in an important matter like this. Your comments here or in Draft:Hushe A-CES using {{Afc comment}} are welcomed. -- Sam ^Sing! 16:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this with your fellow editors. I'm uncertain of your intended meaning in the words "tries to look like a study". One might reasonably infer an insinuation of fraud, in which case it may be pertinent for me to contact the author of that study to see what he thinks about that. Kind regards, Paul Friendlymilk (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Friendlymilk

The draft clearly does not meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards as expressed in WP:RS, much less the higher standards for health-related articles expressed in WP:MEDRS. The fact that poorly sourced articles make it into other parts of Wikipedia doesn't imply that this one should go in; see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Looie496 (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

no sources that comply with WP:MEDRS and nothing to show WP:NOTABILITY. Good call, Sam. Thanks for keeping your eye out. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The following comment was deleted but has been reinstated to allow freedom of expression. The censors remark has itself been censored so he may feel treated equally:

Original comment:

I would disagree. This absolutely smacks of the censorship this foundation was originally set up to overcome, so I congratulate you on stifling freedom of information. The chap who produces this device is not deserving of such disparaging remarks as have been implied. He has overcome a great deal of upset in his life from what I gather and now to have his work referred to as "tries to look like a study" would be quite unkind for him to know.

By all means, continue your locked-down attitude to your principles and ignore the blatant hypocrisy of having an "other stuff exists" get-out clause. In our reality there is such a thing as precedent, and without it you have a dictatorship.

−

Friendlymilk (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Friendlymilk

Friendly has just left an unfriendly note on User talk:Jytdog. [20] Friendly, please review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Whatever may or may not occur on film pages isn't relevant to this particular AFC. Also, please review WP:BATTLEGROUND; I think you will find that approaching other editors with a better attitude will yield better results. Particularly, if there are secondary sources supporting the text you want to add, others will be more likely to collaborate if you are more ... well ... friendly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I am happy to be friendly when my comments are not get ng removed. The above comment was a complaint at what I see as an implied allegation of fraud levelled at a third party who happens to be an upstanding person, so you may appreciate my concern. Defamation and censorship are more unnacepatable than the grumblings (with perfectly decent language) of someone like me, I'm sure you would agree. Friendlymilk (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Friendly it is a common misconception that Wikipedia is a forum for freedom of information or free speech, we are not. We strive for a neutral point of view and that means that scientific articles need sources that meet scientific standards. All of our articles need independent reliable coverage, primary sources are not enough.

The difference between us and the Ministry of Truth is that we don't try to control all information, just the information we choose to publish.

Censorship is when somebody says that you cannot publish something, not when they refuse to publish something for you. When someone refuses to publish something for you it is not censorship, it is editorial discretion. There are plenty of web hosts out there where you can express your freedom of speech but Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia and you cannot expect you have freedom to post whatever you want.

Your topic may deserve coverage but that must be demonstrated through the standards of the project, claiming you are being censored or that you are suffering a dictatorship will not help your case. If you remain civil and present proper sources for your article then you will make much better progress. Chillum 18:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe you should take SandyGeorgia advice (see above), and follow WP rules, finally this[21] is in poor taste please refrain from that type of behavior. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! -- Brangifer (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, well, now we're getting somewhere! It appears that "Participants' Commentaries" are considered "third party sources" (see edit summary). I don't think the editor or the creator of that study understand what a real, published, peer reviewed scientific study entails. Need I say more?! -- Brangifer (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why exactly are some of you so condescending? What exactly are your qualifications if you don't mind my asking?Friendlymilk (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Their relevant qualification is that they understand the policies governing editing Wikipedia. In this case WP:SELFPUB which says:

“ Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

”

The article you wanted published was based solely on self-published sources and that disqualifies it immediately. You need to find reliable sources published by people other than the manufacturer. Check WP:RS for tips on identifying reliable sources. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Not that it makes any difference, but I'm a health care professional, but the ONLY qualification that is relevant here is that I know the rules here better than you. We all do. You're new here and we're all trying to educate you. Instead of taking our advice, you're getting offended. That's too bad. Was my comment above a bit impatient? Yes, it was. You come here making demands without knowing the policies and rules. We have provided you with information and links to them, but you show no evidence that you have read those rules or intend to follow them. When that happens, we tend you lose patience. "Participants' commentaries" are not third party sources. They barely even fit the lowest grade of evidence. They are merely anecdotes and we can't use them for anything, and any website which uses them is skirting the limits of what's ethically allowable. It's VERY poor practice. We are asking for secondary and tertiary sources which show the notability of the subject. Without that, there will be no article. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

RexxS and BullRangifer (Brangifer) have explained the matter well. Friendlymilk, no one here is trying to be unwelcoming to you; they are trying to guide you toward the correct way to edit Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Friendlymilk, this kind if thing is complicated. There are two things that need to be considered. The first is whether it gets its own, separate article. To do that, it needs to meet the "notability" standards for being a manufactured product. For that purpose, it needs to meet the same requirements as, say, a new type of mobile phone. (There aren't special rules for medical devices.) You can read about those at WP:CORP. The most important and usually most difficult requirement is a couple of independent source – nothing written by anyone involved in the organization. A few regular magazine articles talking about its invention, manufacturing, marketing style, last year's sales, or things like that will do.

Once you know whether a separate article is possible, or whether this might be better briefly mentioned in a list of similar products or in a larger article, then you can contemplate what to say about it. Claims about sales need good sources; claims about WP:Biomedical information need good medical sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I was noticing your contributionsFriendlymilk, might there be any COI youd like to disclose?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Friendlymilk already said that s/he was a patient in a clinical trial for the product. That creates exactly as much "conflict of interest" as someone who has high cholesterol editing articles about drugs they happen to take (=none). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Cough

• Cranial electrotherapy stimulation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That was a wreck. I did some cleanup, but I suspect plagiarism, and I don't have journal access. A lot of the English was unintelligible, and the sources were very old. Could someone else have a crack at what's still there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Candidal vulvovaginitis

I'll be working on the above article, seeking other editors for collaboration, ty. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Research protocols are not review articles and thus not suitable sources per WP:MEDRS IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the literature review is the same in the protocol as in the finished cochrane review. If there is a consensus against the use of these protocol then I will revert them. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is what we are discussing [22]. They do start with a mini overview. Not sure if a standard peer review has occured. Might be okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And to be responsible about this, I have used a Cochrane research protocol as a source on at least one other article, patellofemoral pain syndrome. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Moral Reconation Therapy

Draft:Moral Reconation Therapy: plenty of web hits and c. 500 Google Scholar hits. As usual you people are in a better position to give guidance on the work needed for the current stub. (Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in draft.) -- Sam ^Sing! 11:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Have merged the bit of good content here [23]. Does not need its own page. Would simply redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

CarpalRx - another product in Drafts

Your comments on Draft:CarpalRx are welcommed. Use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam ^Sing! 00:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I find zero pubmed sources. The review mentioned does not mention the topic in question. Delete. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree that no RS's can be found, much less MEDRS level sources. Looie496 (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, declined accordingly. -- Sam ^Sing! 03:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Free access Women's health textbook from International Federation of Gyn/Obs

here I am going to ask if they would consider going to a CC BY or CC BY SA license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This is wonderful news! :D (if only I had time to write about ob/gyn...hopefully in 6 weeks.) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

PTSD moved with no discussion

With no discussion or notice, and by request at WP:RM of one editor, posttraumatic stress disorder (the DSM name) was moved to post-traumatic stress disorder. See talk page. It is listed as a "non-controversial" requested move, when it clearly is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've dropped a note to Anthony Appleyard, who carried out the RM, and asked him to restore the original name, pending discussion on the talk page. I'll start a discussion there. --RexxS (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, RexxS -- I already started a discussion, but what is most frustrating is that there was absolutely no notice anywhere. How does one editor decide something is "non-controversial"? It's no skin off my back where the article ends up, but sheesh already with the wasted time ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Anthony lives in the UK so probably won't see my request until the morning. On the plus side, if we have a discussion that reaches a stable conclusion, we'll save future editors from the same frustration. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Not if one editor can go around willy-nilly claiming moves are non-controversial, without noticing talk, and then removing the text at the top of the article that shows it was controversial! If people don't read, they don't read ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The alternative to "one editor going around willy-nilly claiming moves are non-controversial" is setting up a bureaucracy. Perhaps a committee should vote every time? It's just not workable. Punctuation normally does represent a non-controversial page move, and it can be reverted when someone really cares. In this case, liberal use of hyphenation is recommended in professional guidelines about writing for international audiences, and the ICD-10 use the hyphenated version. The DSM's style guide avoids hyphenatation. It is not entirely unreasonable for editors to assume that the general rule is "follow the international spelling, not the American one", since that is the general rule (just not one that we apply very often to psychiatric conditions).

If you (like me) really didn't care where it ends up, then why are choosing to spend so much time and energy contesting the move? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It's very easy to do an "uncontroversial" move. Fortunately it's also very easy to get it put back. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:BVA-100

Your comments on Draft:BVA-100, an FDA approved semi-automated Blood Volume Analyzer, are welcommed. Use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam ^Sing! 03:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Zero reviews from the past five years. A few primary sources. Maybe the topic could exist at Blood volume analysis or Blood volume determination for which there are reviews. This one needs to have the commercial issues trimmed along with the primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Another Wikimania Talk

For all who are going to be Mexico here is another exciting talk submitted by our Argentinean collaborator at TWB [24] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

World Health Organization textbook "borrows" from Wikipedia

I was happily updating our cardiovascular disease articles today when I came across a picture of mine in a WHO textbook.[25] There are about 11 images in the book taken from Wikipedia and thus they make up an integral part of the total. Attribution is not of great quality.

I am currently requesting that the WHO consider release the entire book under a CC BY SA license. User:Moonriddengirl are the maps in this document copyrightable by WHO? Or do they not contain enough originality to be copyrightable? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Everybody "borrows" from Wikipedia, even the ones who claim they don't. Flyer22 (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless I've missed it the only Wikipedia attribution they make is for figure 1, and they managed to get that wrong. WP:REUSE isn't that difficult to grasp, is it? LeadSongDog come howl! 07:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's being used in a similar way to references, so each entry in the "figure reference" list can be used multiple times. Ctrl+F or Cmd+F for "(i)" finds what looks like other uses (though it catches a few false positives as well). Of course, even if all the uses are marked, it's still insufficient citation. Sunrise (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, very insufficient citation--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Sleep_apnea#Alternative_treatments

Can someone please look at this section? I noticed more studies being added [26] but Somazx rightly pointed out there seems to be primary sources already present. User_talk:NeilN#Sleep_Apnea_.26_Acupuncture --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

it needs reviews[27] this could help (no primary ref)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to project members for the clean up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Is Scientific American crappy as a medical source... ?

I remember seeing Sci Am slamming WP by referring to a crappy study that was discussed previously. Well, here is an example where they use a Wikipedia image I created and say it is something different: NFLD - America's Greatest Health Risk (scientificamerican.com)

The picture of cirrhosis Sci Am used is due to alcohol!

How could anyone know? It is stated right in the image notes - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cirrhosis_high_mag.jpg Above said, the image isn't suggestive of NAFLD. It isn't fatty.

The really unfortunate thing is... I created an image of NAFLD that they could have used. It is right here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Non-alcoholic_fatty_liver_disease1.jpg and it is on the fatty liver page and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease page. Sheesh! Nephron  T|C 06:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've always regarded SciAm as a fairly entertaining pop-sci source, a sort of light bed-time reading. It's decent, but I'm not surprised they make this type of error. That said, it clearly fails WP:MEDRS. Just out of curiousity, is it possible to differentiate NAFLD from alcohol induced cirrhosis through morphology alone? I was under the impression they look the same?

Also the article they're referring to has been discussed a lot here, and it's down to very poor methodology of the original article. SciAm just report it, and let's face it they're also interested in selling magazines – slamming Wikipedia is popular among some academics, even if the study cited is objectionable. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The distinction between ASH and NASH is essentially clinical. Abundant neutrophils slightly favour ASH -- but this is a soft finding. The cirrhosis picture is really end-stage -- the etiology cannot be ascertained from it. NAFLD usually has fat in it... so, I think the end-stage cirrhosis picture is a bad one for an article about NAFLD. Speaking more generally, the same applies for lung and kidney pathology... if it is really end-stage, it is (with few exceptions) hard or impossible to ascertain the underlying cause from a pathologic perspective. Nephron  T|C 16:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup Sci Am is not a very good source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

We currently allow Scientific American for some medical aspects; see this section of WP:MEDRS, which certainly permits its use. But, as noted above, it is not a good medical source; unless restricted to non-medical cultural material or historical medical material, it's rather a decent or poor medical source, depending on the topic at hand. Flyer22 (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Nephron, I'm happy to hear from you. I wish I saw your name more often.

Have you written to SciAm to request a correction? What makes a source reliable isn't a belief that they're 100% right, but a reputation for prudent editorial control, including correcting their mistakes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I wrote them. I guess we'll see if things change. I would like to be around more... but another project and personal circumstances are currently limiting the time I have. I am still uploading things to the WikiCommons every once in a while. Nephron  T|C 23:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note that this was a "guest blog" post. Those would not be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes, because Scientific American disavows responsibility for their contents. In other words they have basically the same status as a post on somebody's personal blog. Their articles and news pieces are much more thoroughly checked, as I know from experience, having written for them. Even so, I have sent an email to Curtis Brainard, Scientific American's blog editor, explaining the issue and giving a pointer to this page. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

a very logical idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A related question. Where would the mag Nature fit in here? Gandydancer (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nature is a top-quality source. Most of their "letters" and "articles" constitute primary sources in the sense of WP:MEDRS, but when they publish reviews or perspectives, we can't ask for anything better. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Generally we expect Nature to hold to a higher standard, being a publisher of peer-reviewed scientific research, rather than a newsstand popular science magazine. That said, it depends where in Nature (articles? editorials? in-the-news blurbs?), the type of article (primary research articles versus review articles, etc.), and of course the nature of the claim. I've said it a million times—'reliability' (on Wikipedia or anywhere else) isn't a magic, binary property that a particular publication has or doesn't have; it is assessed on a case-by-case basis based on the source, the particular claims in question, and the overall context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

maybe this[28] and this which uses NYT as a source for its graph[29] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Scientific American is about as reliable as a newspaper. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Scientific American (informally abbreviated SciAm) is an American popular science magazine. It has a long history of presenting scientific information on a monthly basis to the general educated public, with careful attention to the clarity of its text and the quality of its specially commissioned color graphics... Many famous scientists, including Albert Einstein, have contributed articles in the past 168 years[30]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS is clear on this, in the Popular Press section. SciAm is not an RS for health-related content per se but is OK for "social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article." If folks want to change MEDRS, the place to do that is on its Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie, you forgot to mention the "citation needed" tag. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

nice...perhaps Jytdog is correct if one (pro/con) wants or doesn't want it, the discussion should be taken to the talk page for MEDRS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks to Looie496 for bringing this to my attention. The mistake with the image was mine. As Nephron points out, I should've caught the distinction in the image notes. My apologies. I've now swapped out the image for the one showing NAFLD. Accuracy is incredibly important to us at Scientific American, and when errors are made we try to correct them as quickly as possible. To that end, I would encourage all of you reach to out to me or my colleagues whenever you spot something that's amiss. I think you'll find that we're quite responsive. As far this conversation about MEDRS is concerned, while we strive to produce content that is reliable and trustworthy, we are a news outlet, not a scholarly journal or medical publication, and when it comes to medical advice, people should rely on the primary literature or qualified medical professionals, just as we and other journalists do in the course of reporting. Curtis Brainard (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing

Interesting case of this company Premia Spine Limited paying this Wikipedian User:Ctg4Rahat to write content about them and their products.

Have already deleted the worst of it that was here [31] as it was it copyright violation.

Device manufacturers appear to be much more aggressive than pharmaceutical companies. We had two top advertising executives at Medtronic not to long ago trying to alter our content. Does anyone know what help the European Commission or FDA will provide? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

With respect to EU law it states "Member States must prohibit the advertising to the general public of medicinal products which are not intended for use without the intervention of a medical practitioner."

"All advertising to the general public of a medicinal product must be clearly identifiable as such"

"The Directive bans the inclusion in advertising of medicinal products to the general public of any information which compares the medicinal product with other treatments or products" so it appears this company may be breaking EU law [32] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Ctg4Rahat seems to have some genuine contributions in the past (though that's not an excuse)...unfortunately s/he seems to have been "turned" for profit--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes they are likely an experienced editor now selling their services. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm betting that wasn't actually a copyvio. It still would have been a violation of the Wikipedia policy, because we require proof via an OTRS ticket that the company intends to release the material under CC-BY-SA, but there's a difference between what we choose to accept and what's actually legal. Generally the company, and therefore its agents, has the right to use its own copyrighted material however it wants (including posting it to Wikipedia), and that would make it a WP:COPYVIO problem but not actually (legally) a copyright violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks for the clarification WAID. As this was likely an agenda of the company writing the article in question it was more likely undisclosed paid advocacy editing / spam.

If the person is not paid by the company than it is a copyright violation. Definitely two possibilities. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Medical input needed on GA review

Is anyone able to give a second opinion on the medical aspects of Black mamba which is currently going through GA review. The discussion can be found at Talk:Black mamba/GA5. Thanks. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 15:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Primary/Secondary sources

I would like some more guidance on the use of primary/secondary sources. In Geophagia I have been trying to improve the Geophagia#Health risks section. I thought it would be a good idea to give some examples of reports of roundworm ova in the soil samples, and so referenced some papers (two found the ova present, one found none). Another editor removed the refs citing WP:MEDRS. So the question I would like help with is this: is it really better to find a review article which cites these findings than the papers reporting the findings themselves? Does WP:MEDRS apply in this case - ie that of giving examples of particular descriptive situations? JMWt (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Does WP:MEDRS apply in this case - yes, it does. You might be able to cite findings about the prevalence of eggs in soil to primary studies, as these are not strictly medical claims. But these are old papers (that's also a problem) and there should be secondary coverage of the matter. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks for your help. JMWt (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Erotic electrostimulation

I stumbled onto the Erotic electrostimulation article minutes ago, and the Template:Medref tag on that article is spot-on. I know that I edit sexual and medical articles on Wikipedia, or ones that are a combination of both, but this article is very medical and I'm not sure how I should organize it. It's a mess of an article about a sexual practice that is far from standard. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox medical condition

Template:Infobox medical condition has been nominated for merging with Template:Authority control. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The proposal appears to be to delete the "infobox disease template" and instead have a different template at the bottom of the article. This would affect about 5000 of our most read articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Quinnipiac University working on evolutionary medicine

Am trying to figure out the instructor. Students need more guidance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the WP:Overlinking guideline

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No strong feelings one way of the other. People sometimes try to use overlinking to give one topic undue weight. But other times it deserves being linked more than once Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Dead" link ref spam

We are having an issue with spamming. It is partly from this business [33] and people at Elance. Basically an SEO tactic is to replace dead links with a spam link such as here [34] Please all keep an eye out for it and report to me for blocking of the account. Am going to try to get a SPI here [35] to see if we can round up a larger number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, shocking. And stupidly overpriced. I wonder if the author of arthritis home remedy will get their money back once the link is reverted? Unsurprisingly "Wikilinkpro" doesn't list any physical address on its website. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

ive been looking for such articles for some time, they're easy to spot(the dead/spam links will take a little more patience)...another possibility is to go after wikilinkpro perhaps some sort of complaint, " your business activities are detrimental to the quality, rules and regulations of Wikipedia, please notify us of those editors/companies you have business relations with prior to completion of any service "? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As they use domainsbyproxy.com to mask this illegal activity, another approach is to take it up with their domain registrar at abuse@godaddy.com (who should, one hopes, see the wisdom in intervening).

Legal at the WMF is aware. Not sure what they have tried so far. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

your idea might be better--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Violence against men deletion discussion

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination). Concerns of WP:Canvassing from men's rights editors have been expressed in the deletion debate. Those unfamiliar with the big deal about that, see Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions. Flyer22 (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Alzheimer’s molecular trigger

[36] (this came out a few days ago), I believe it to be a good read--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Vaccine controversies

Article currently being 'revised' by SPA - attention from project members familiar with the topic would be most useful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Watchlisted, edits are pretty much nonsense. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation

Would any of you gals/guys want to comment on Draft:Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation? -- Sam ^Sing! 14:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ay that was one big coatrack. I've edited it. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed it. Please post here anytime. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

YES thank you for bringing this to our attention! Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

right, so theres one clinical study, I believe it needs review articles,here is a review you might use[37] I did not see any (the history section goes into detail about founding board members?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ozzie thanks for fixing the link. :) Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

anytime--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note - the editor who created this, went ahead and created the new article, after the draft was declined. Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. i have no idea if that is kosher or not. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a hopeless poorly-sourced coatrack. What's the best way to deal with it? AfD? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

probably...AfD--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This article clearly meets notability requirements per WP:ORG and WP:NONPROFIT. It is both international in scope and has been cited in multiple reliable sources, one of which is Bloomberg News. Doors22 (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It was declined here but the person tried to create it anyway. So deleted it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

An article on the putative syndrome was deleted at AFD here in 2012. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

An article on the syndrome is not the same thing as an article about a foundation designed to research the syndrome. I think this decision should be appealed, especially since a single user's opinion does not make a consensus to reject a draft. Will somebody help me figure out how to appeal this? Regardless, the page is an article about a non-profit and really any discussion of the science behind it is not relevant. It meets both standards of notability - it has been involved in scientific research in both Europe and North America and garnered sufficient interest in sources like Bloomberg and other newspapers. @Bluerasberry:, you did not actually provide any explanation for why you did not think it is notable other than state your conclusion. Would you care to elaborate? Doors22 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Might be good to review WP:NONPROFIT. The organization itself appears to lack notability in addition to the fact that the article served mainly as a WP:COATRACK for the subject matter of a previously deleted article. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your commentary is very much off point. If you look at the WP:NONPROFIT page it meets both criteria. It is not a coatrack as the article only contains factual information about the foundation leaving no room for biased material. The post finasteride syndrome page is not very relevant to this discussion so I suggest you take your agenda elsewhere.Doors22 (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

NONPROFIT says nothing about "being cited in multiple reliable sources". If you've gotten that impression, then I obviously need to re-write the guideline. What you need is a source that is talking about the organization. Something like "Foo Foundation, which was founded in 2006, has 10 paid staff and a thousand volunteers working to raise money for research" is good. "According to Joe at the Foo Foundation, more research is needed" is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

, FYI, this article has been relisted via the standard AfC process. fwiw, i think in its current form, after our edits, it is OK, NPOV and MEDRS wise and it ~may~ be OK notability wise, but I am not generally involved in reviewing AfCs. (there is really 1 solid independent source; there is the somewhat bizarre mention in the Bloomberg article which stricltly counts as independent but hm.. and the other 4 are press releases by the organization or are scantily dressed news pieces based on press releases). I remain concerned that if it is created it will become a coatrack, but i don't think that is grounds for failing. if it is created, we'll just have to watch it. Jytdog (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Primary School invitation

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that the article Domestic violence (of interest to this wikiproject) was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before March 15, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review (please see the article's talk page for details). Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on the article's talk page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating. Thanks a lot for your support! Elitre (WPS) (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine

Hello again med people. Here's yet another old AfC submission about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable journal? Should the page be kept and improved?—Anne Delong (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you ask at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals? Wikipedia:Notability (academic journals) is the policy. The website doesn't seem to boast about the impact factor, which is a key consideration. I wouldn't worry about the initial rejection much. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Vydox

Need some voting on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vydox. Thanks everyone. Hajme 17:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks for posting here. !voted. Jytdog (talk) 18:33, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Usage of Wikipedia by Med Students in Nigeria

92% [38] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone have a full copy they could send me? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:02, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources

We have a user trying to use a lot of primary sources at Maggot therapy. Further guidance may be needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Appears it was all plagiarism just like the "copy and paste" detection bot told me. I have blocked the user for a few days. Not sure if they understand yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Two new medical resources available through The Wikipedia Library

Hello!

TWL OWL says sign up today!

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DynaMed — clinical reference tool for medical topics
• Royal Pharmaceutical Society — pharmaceutical information and practice resources

Best, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 21:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexandre Kalache

Dear medical experts: This draft seems medical-related, and the subject seems to have a lot of accomplishments. Is this notable, and should it be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

He is a busy fellow, isn't he? I wonder when he last wrote a prescription, if ever. I think he has to be notable, and the reasons for holding up the draft are rather flimsy, though it is very puffy in tone. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod, I have removed some of the promotional language, and also some excessive detail and opinion. I'm not sure how much of the content in the extensive lists is appropriate. Anyway, since I've edited it, it won't be deleted any time soon.—Anne Delong (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

it looks somewhat better now--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Dyslexia

Dyslexia is currently a good article nominee. To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. -- Moxy (talk) 19:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Moxy, good work on the article; you are in good company there with the help to further improve it. Flyer22 (talk) 20:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you....got to say the medical side of this project has less drama then other places....slowly working my way back to these kinds of articles...no more politics or ethnicity articles for me LOL : -- Moxy (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have some things that need to be finished by this week-end, but I think I'll have time to do a proper review by next week. If anyone else wants to start the review, I'll just jump on board when I can. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

CFCF thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've proof-read a little bit, and will continue going through the entire article. To start off with a general comment before the review – I suggest avoiding passive voice. It makes reading more difficult, and I think this article requires being easy to read. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

ok that's a good start we'll look at that... thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Some simplification of language needed. The lead could do a better job summarizing the content of the article. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Breast cancer screening

Would appreciate peoples opinion here [39] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

At Featured article schizophrenia, in the section Schizophrenia#Environment, I tagged a statement with MEDRS, which isn't really the right tag. For this statement

Childhood trauma, separation from a parent, and being bullied or abused increase the risk of psychosis.

References

the source is a position paper by a Commission in London. Since Schizophrenia is an FA, we should have the strongest possible sources, and I suspect this statement is not just the position of one commission in one country, rather is info that can be found in recent secondary reviews. Anyone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:56, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That bit seems to be referenced to Di Forti M, Lappin JM, Murray RM (2007). "Risk factors for schizophrenia – All roads lead to dopamine". European Neuropsychopharmacology, 17, S101-S107.. Not wholly clear though. The commission is not an official one. Johnbod (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnbod. I'm trying to resolve this query from DrKiernan. So, if you are suggesting we might use PMID 17336764 to source it, I'm hoping someone has a newer source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:33, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this source could be used? Everymorning talk 22:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Fixed by Doc James with suggestion from Everymorning ... thanks all ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Cool! Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Athlete's foot

It looks like there are dozens of questions at Talk:Athlete's foot#Questions. Some of these are pretty basic, and others seem a bit odd. Anyone who knows anything at all about this might be able to help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Will take a look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to the Wikiversity Journal editorial board

The editorial board of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine is seeking more members, to participate in deciding what articles to include in the journal, which in turn largely depends on whether they can be used to improve Wikipedia articles. Those interested may sign up directly in the list there.
The article on the table now is titled A case of Aerococcus urinae, and it's discussion entry is located at Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

We have a medical journal now? We publish papers? They get assigned DOIs? Other journals exist too? Things happen quickly. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Any decision as to whether the journal can be 'used to improve Wikipedia articles' will have to be taken on Wikipedia - and policy hasn't changed, we don't cite Wikis as sources. If you wish to propose a change of policy in this regard, I suggest you do so in the appropriate place, rather than repeatedly spamming this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You've profoundly misunderstood everything. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Images in the latest submitted work.

I'm a bit confused by one comment suggesting that I post too seldom and another one that I post too often. In any case, the work currently on the table is not aimed at being used as a source, but to be used as one or two images in the Wikipedia article Aerococcus urinae, which currently lacks any images. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Images of course can be used. We allow "primary research" pictures else we would have very few. I do not mind if this source is cited when pictures from it are used. Not a good source to support text, but hopefully the references it uses are suitable per WP:MEDRS and blocks of text with refs may be usable Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

On a separate note, it's been problematic to find a proper talk page to discuss article submissions to Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. I've been posting at Wikipedia:Wikiversity because it is easier to watch for those that frequent their Wikipedia watchlists more often so than their Wikiversity ones. On the other hand, I've gotten frequent complaints that the said page should be used for discussing technical matters such as how to link to Wikiversity pages. I therefore request to have a subpage of WikiProject Medicine for such article submissions, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Wikiversity_Journal (thanks CFCF for the idea). It would allow for an clear overview of article submissions rather than having them dispersed in the archive of this page. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Aerococcus urinae seems to be an interesting topic (to discuss)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Analysis of WPMED published by JMIR

[40] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Heilman, James M; West, Andrew G (2015). "Wikipedia and Medicine: Quantifying Readership, Editors, and the Significance of Natural Language". Journal of Medical Internet Research. 17 (3): e62. doi:10.2196/jmir.4069. ISSN 1438-8871. PMC 4376174. PMID 25739399.

This is so much of what I have wanted to see in print for a long time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

hooray! so rarely in life do we get just what we wanted. happy. Jytdog (talk) 19:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

awesome--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Great stuff! Well done. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for input

Am requesting input at ANI regarding my status as a "COI" and "POV" editor. Thanks you. Formerly 98 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

You are neither of those as far as I am aware. Maybe a little less skeptical than me. But hey we are allowed to disagree from time to time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Spam

Concerns about this edit [41] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there an article about needle-less delivery of immunizations? I couldn't find one, and there probably should be. (Given the business/financial aspects, it would be a notable field of product development even if there were no relationship to medicine.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:02, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

[42] ?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Cyanocobalamin - The Origin of Diseases

Your comments on Draft:Cyanocobalamin - The Origin of Diseases are welcomed. Use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

so as opposed to making a (journal/project), it should be written a bit more objectively, with appropriate sources[43][44].B12 ability to help the human body (though not produced in it) could be a point to cover, however origin of diseases seems to be giving a non-neutral point of view IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia not a term paper. All refs are bar urls. Needs wikification Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. In view of a more neutral point of view, I have proposed a more appropriate title for my Draft.

I have asked to change the title in: "Cyanocobalamin - Vitamin B12 deficiency".

The text has also been improved and I have done wikification of the References. All bar urls have been removed now and only references valid for Wikipedia are given. Wimbartx (talk) 06:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The title of my Draft has been changed now into: "Cyanocobalamin - Vitamin B12 deficiency"

This title expresses a more neutral point of view and the text of the Draft is improved and changed accordingly.Wimbartx (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Infobox for an exercise health effects article

I'm guessing the answer to this question is no, but I figured I'd ask anyway: does anyone know of a medical infobox that would be appropriate/apt for the Neurobiological effects of physical exercise article? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Pretty sure the answer is no, but that doesn't stop us from creating one. That is if you have a suggestion of what type of article it could be used on. Perhaps Template:Infobox exercise could cover anything related to exercise? Or a Template:Infobox health, for anything that relates to health, but not disease? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I was looking at a few psychotherapy articles earlier and noticed that {{infobox intervention}} would probably work so long as I geared the infobox toward "Exercise therapy"; I tweaked that template a little to make it work as you suggested. :) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 20:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Seppi333 I have looked at a lot of general articles about non-medical health interventions, including physical therapy, exercise, and caregiving. I am not happy with any of these or others. As I have looked I found no infobox I liked and also problems finding the kinds of sources I wanted to give general background on the topics. I can only reply to say that I share your concern but have no solutions. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Issues at Craniosacral therapy

We have an editor removing sourced content stating that Craniosacral therapy is psuedoscience, because it is "offensive to practitioneers". Just a heads up. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:49, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Watching. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Enzyme

There has been a commendable effort to restore Tim Vickers' Enzyme to Featured status-- see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Enzyme/archive1. Is there anyone here willing and able to give it a glanceover and remark at FAR if it is good enough to keep featured? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Signpost "cabal"

From this week's issue, "Confessions of a Paid Editor", right at the end: "...I also have serious concerns about advocacy by people who may not be paid directly but have a conflict of interest, such as a lot of what happens around the WP:MED cabal and its efforts to spread its influence into non-medical articles." Rexxx has commented, but others might like to. Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup this user had a friend create an attack page about me which they forwarded to my University. This among other things got this account of his blocked. Now he is forced to use socks. Pleasant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Applied Learning Sciences (SP2)

Per a discussion this afternoon with Doc James, Ocaasi, and LiAnna (Wiki Ed), I'll be posting here when a new course page is created for a class that might be editing medical articles as indicated by its instructor. The first such announcement: Education Program:Webster University/Applied Learning Sciences (SP2). Please let me know if you'd prefer me to format these announcements differently. Thanks! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:22, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ryan (Wiki Ed) I like these alerts here. If there could be one list of all current health articles (or any class of articles) and the alert here could be a notice that another has been added to the list of all classes which need watching, then that might be ideal. Do you have any suggestions from the Wiki Ed side of how this could work in a way that is best for you guys? If not, a list could be started anywhere on the WikiProject Med front page, but then that would be asking you to edit in this space and I thought you might have your own sorting system. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Well they'll always appear in either Category:Wiki Ed-supported courses that might work on medical topics or Category:Wiki Ed-supported courses that will work on medical topics, but we don't have a list outside of the category space. I think it makes perfect sense to have the watchable list live in the WikiProject Medicine space (a subpage or right up front). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Ryan (Wiki Ed) Hello, I had not seen those categories. Thanks - interesting. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Pelvic inflammatory disease nominated for GA

I don't know if the standard procedure is just to change the assessment on the article's talk page but that is what I just did. This is an excellent article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  22:28, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

There are still a fair number of unreffed sections for example: prognosis, complications and signs and symptoms. Still a fair bit of work to do to get to GA Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

this may satisfy one of the refs in the complications section [45]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Request Input on Evidence Aid Draft page

Hi I am new and am working on a web page for Evidence Aid. It is in my sandbox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AmyEBHC/sandbox Please could someone look and see it it looks OK and also is there a template for the headings for pages like these or a checkpoint list where I can check I am in compliance before I send it for review Thanks AmyEBHC (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the goal to WP:MOVE it into the mainspace (=make it a regular article)? If so, then you might find some useful information at WP:BFAQ. However, there is no single checklist, because no checklist can cover everything, and editors often have different ideas about what's important.

For the "template for the headings", I'm not sure what you mean. Do you want an infobox? You aren't required to have one, but they're very common for articles about organizations. Use {{infobox organization}} if you want to have one. Or did you want a tag at the top (like these)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks really helpful I will work on this and yes I will move it out of sandbox into main space once it is usable AmyEBHC (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The information in the article will need to be supported by references, meaning reputable published sources that are independent of the organization. Also, parts of it are not written neutrally enough -- please remember that the purpose of a Wikipedia is to inform readers, not to change their attitudes. In particular most of the puff-quotes should go. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

OK will lose them and clean this up thanks for the input AmyEBHC (talk) 01:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

List of national public health agencies

At present many articles such as U.S. Centers for Disease Control, European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, Public Health Agency of Canada etc. have lists of similar entities in a See also section. It would seem useful to consolidate them in a List-class article. Any objections? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Started. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit-a-thons

Quick note: There are a lot of edit-a-thons going on this weekend. The themes are mostly related to women. If you see new editors, please remember to show some love for the project and for their efforts to build articles through collaboration. Being a new editor is intimidating and frustrating, and they may need a helping hand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:05, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Antimicrobial resistance

Wondering if people could comment here [46] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:47, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Template cleanup -- help needed!

I've had a look at almost all medicine-related templates now as part of a general biology-related template cleanup effort. I've identified a list of 38 or-so medicine-related templates that I feel are especially in need of cleanup (about 5%). Most of these need cleanup in terms of making them easier or more logical to read, or easier for lay readers to understand and use. I'd be very grateful if other editors could help out by selecting one or two and helping out. The relevant templates are:

1. {{Symptoms concerning nutrition, metabolism and development}} title is almost longer than contents. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
2. Consider splitting {{Pediatric conditions originating in the perinatal period}} into placental and perinatal templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
3. Consider splitting {{Eye pathology}} as it is very large (and also renaming to avoid duplicating 'disease' and 'pathology'). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:40, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
4. {{Reproductive system symptoms and signs}} very small. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:22, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
5. {{Diseases of RBCs and megakaryocytes}} general cleanup and consider splitting anaemia and clotting disorders. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:36, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
   • right so, 1.it should be split into two, due to "too much" information/clutter in such a small area, 2.i noticed the Thrombosis link does not work, further thrombosis drugs (treatment section) should have better placement (be more prominent) closer to the main title due to its importance (warfarin, prasugrel [Effient],rivaroxaban [Xarelto]), having said that I of course, understand that there is a set placement for each subject (description, disease, treatment) however in this case due to the readers likely interest[47]an exception might be in order...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
6. {{Nervous system tumors}} rename, cleanup and removal of extraneous information; simplify section titles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
7. {{Osteochondropathy}} titles and structure
   • both is not a medical term and should be replaced with the proper "pathy" ("pathies")...BTW you repeated this in number 17--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

   I've had a go at simplifying this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

8. {{Urine tests}} merge with {{Abnormal clinical and laboratory findings for urine}}? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
9. {{Drugs for erectile dysfunction and PE}} should imho be renamed to "Template:Drugs for erectile dysfunction and premature ejaculation".

   Should probably also be merged with {{Sexual dysfunction pharmacotherapies}} and expanded to include aphrodisiac pharmaceuticals... Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

10. {{Acari-borne diseases}} should be renamed to "Template:tick- and mite-born diseases", because who knows what Acari are.
11. {{B03, B05, B06}} should be renamed to Template:Other hematological drugs.

    ... "Other" is not clarifying, and the old name is just as unclear. I have no alternative at hand. -DePiep (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

    Trouble is "Other haematological agents" is the description for B06. Maybe this should be split into three. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 04:07, 6 March 2015 (UTC).
    

12. {{Inborn errors of carbohydrate metabolism}} odd section titles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
13. {{Soft tissue disorders}} needs simplification for lay readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
14. {{Pigmentation disorders}} needs simplification for lay readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:40, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
15. {{Lipid storage disorders}} title and contents need simplification for lay readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
16. {{Congenital malformations and deformations of musculoskeletal system}} excessively convoluted and difficult-to-read structure. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
17. {{Osteochondropathy}} can be simplified using lay terms to increase readability. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
    • (see number 7...this is a repeat)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

    You're right... struck this one out. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

18. {{Monocyte and granulocyte disease}} am concerened section titles are misleading and not necessarily correct. (eg increase in granulocytes = leukocytosis??) --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
19. {{Diseases of the ear and mastoid process}} concerened about accuracy here, too. eg "Conductive hearing loss" is classified as part of "Inner ear hearing loss"...? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
20. {{Mental and behavioral disorders}} a very broad jack-of-all trades template that covers content duplicated in several other templates. Could it be simplified or contents transferred? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
21. {{Seizures and epilepsy}} has a difficult to use structure that needs a look over. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
22. {{Lymphoid malignancy}} completely unusable for a lay reader, yet an important topic.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
23. {{Myeloid malignancy}} as above. Must be simplified for lay readers. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
24. {{Carcinogen}} oddly small for such a big topic. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

    I expanded this a little... the IARC lists (template group 3) include a lot of entries if expanding the template further is desired. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

25. {{Skin tumors, dermis}} structure needs a look over. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
26. {{Soft tissue tumors and sarcomas}} can be simplified. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
27. {{Urologic neoplasia}} title, with three disambiguators, does not make the scope clear. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
28. {{Respiratory pathology}} very broad and may need to be split up. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
29. {{Urologic disease}} very difficult to use by virtue of structure. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
30. Endocrine templates: variably split off content, almost all are sorted in a haphazard way according to the HPA, and {{Endocrine pathology}} is in need of a general cleanup. Templates are {{Endocrine gland neoplasia}} and {{Congenital endocrine disorders}}. One possibility is using template 'sections' to group the HPA axis rather than a separate group. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
31. {{Oral hypoglycemics and insulin analogs}} title could be improved IMO --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
32. {{DNA antivirals}} structure needs simplification. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
33. {{Chromalveolate antiparasitics}} structure simplification. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
34. {{Anti-inflammatory products}} categorised as relating to muscle? --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
35. {{Antacids}} titles should be improved. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:38, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

If any users could have a look (or disagree with my assessment) I'd be very grateful... I've reached a loggerheads in terms of my editing of templates. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Seems a good idea, but if they are correct, I don't personally have a problem with medics-only templates at the bottom of an article for complicated and technical things like the classification of tumours. It's keeping wads of such stuff from dominating the main text that is important. If a lay reader comes across such a term this may help them find our article. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Pending merger

See Talk:Ayurveda_in_America#Merger_proposal. Just redirect to Ayurveda and post about it on Talk:Ayurveda. The page is under 0rr rule. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Just saw a new vote there, a good oppose by User:Bluerasberry. Page move is what that page needs. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

TBI

I don't think my pingie thingies are working. Could someone with journal access and knowledge of the topic please look at the edit request at Talk:Traumatic brain injury? Since that articles is (listed as ... ) a GA, and is an area I'm unfamiliar with, I don't want to add content. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

the third reference is older than 5 years (per MEDRS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2015 (UTC)