Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 63

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

Archive 60

Archive 61

Archive 62

→

New course: Writing in the Health Professions at NDSU

Hi WikiMed,

A new course signed up which will be working on medical topics this summer (not starting until July): Education Program:North Dakota State University/English 325: Writing in the Health Professions (Summer 2015). --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

another great learning opportunity--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a great match. At the end of the class, I'd love to hear what the students think about writing (and reading) here.

Could you please also make sure that they know about Simple:? There's nothing like trying to write in Simple English to make you aware of how complicated and jargon-filled our everyday writing is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

We've thrown around some ideas to incorporate simplewiki, but I don't think any of them have led anywhere at this point. Technical and science communication classes do seem like good candidates for such an assignment. I have to admit I have almost no experience with the site, but I assume the same standards for sourcing and style apply? So on one hand we have more rules, with the added vocabulary, etc. requirements, but on the other the articles are likely less well developed and thus there are more opportunities to contribute? --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Ryan (and anyone else who will sit still for this soapbox):

The articles at the Simple English Wikipedia are appallingly incomplete. See simple:Pregnancy for one that I've been trying to expand. At the end of last year, it was six, mostly short paragraphs, and almost half of it was about abortion. It is now one of the better health-related articles there—and it's still seriously incomplete. simple:Hepatitis B and simple:Meningitis have four paragraphs. simple:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease is just three. simple:Parkinson's disease and simple:Malnutrition have two paragraphs. simple:Stroke and simple:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder have five short ones. simple:Health care is just three sentences. Compare our Pneumonia, with 5,300 words and 98 references, to simple:Pneumonia, with just 400 words and zero inline citations. These are all top-priority subjects, and there's almost no information about these subjects over there.

Also, in terms of a class assignment, if the goal is a writing (rather than researching) task, then taking any Good or Featured Article from en.wp (or any other language) and 'translating' a few paragraphs into Simple English would be good for the student and good for the readers of Simple English. Our translation task force sometimes uses Simple English as an intermediary, because we can create a high-quality article here, and then convert to Simple English to smooth the path for translators who have less experience with translating jargon-filled, university-level English.

The Simple English Wikipedia has many fewer rules, and no rules specifically about health content. Following MEDRS would still be wise, because it's good advice, but MEDRS is an enforceable 'rule' only at the English Wikipedia itself. Also, the community there officially welcomes students, which might make a pleasant contrast for you. This page might be a good starting point for you. Or just try it out. It's not hard, and there is easy, practical advice at simple:Wikipedia:How to write Simple English pages. I found that installing the Firefox dictionary for Simple English (which underlines any word that isn't accepted in Simple English as being "misspelled") to be very helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

That does sound like it may be a good way to go. I'm very interested to learn more. I'm away for a few days, but will look through these pages and follow up with a message on your usertalk when I get back early next week. Thanks. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

very informative WhatamIdoing --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

I just started simple:User:Bluerasberry/WikiProject Medicine. Simple English Wikipedia does not currently allow WikiProjects and I just proposed that WikiProject Medicine be the first one in mainspace. If anyone finds simple English health communication guidelines then perhaps share them there. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

great idea and also informative (Every May in California, USA, the Institute for Healthcare Advancement presents a health literacy conference, which among other things, reports developments in standardizing simple English in health communication)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Male rape article

Any WP:Med editors mind helping out with the Male rape article? I mean, assessing the sources and content and collaborating on what should stay or be pulled out? I've noted this article here before, and I got a little input from WP:Med at Talk:Male rape, but the article is still a mess and is getting worse. For example, see this edit, which I partially reverted (followup note here). WP:Copyright violations have also been noted at that article's talk page, and there is likely still WP:Close paraphrasing in the article (I haven't yet had the stomach to check). I would start pulling out content from the article myself, but I'm sure that I would get opposition from men's rights editors, and I'd be the lone WP:Med editor there going up against that. For those who are not familiar with what I mean, see Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation. Flyer22 (talk) 14:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

any help, would be appreciated with this article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia vs Quackery - Standards vs Chaos

I found, at WT:MOS, a link to this article.

Wikipedia vs Quackery - Standards vs Chaos—Science-Based Medicine (April 8, 2015)

—Wavelength (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia, in fact, has become no less than a battleground over certain controversial topics. In essence people generally want Wikipedia to reflect their opinions on controversial topics, and if it doesn’t then there must be something wrong with Wikipedia (rather than there being something wrong with their opinions). I don’t mean to imply that Wikipedia always gets it right – it is a crowdsourced reference and the content is only as good as the editors. But at least they make honest efforts to be neutral and to have standards.Those standards are the real conflict here, and it is part of a broader conflict over standards. In medicine there is a standard of care, which in turn is based on an underlying system of professional and scientific standards. Medical education is standardized, students have to pass standardized exams, post-graduate clinical training is standardized, there are standardized exams for specialty certification, there are ethical standards enforced by institutions, hospitals, professional organizations, and the state boards of health, and peer-reviewed journals have standards...there is a movement, however, specifically designed to erode the standard of care and to replace it with a “wild west” system in which there are no standards[1]...interesting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Nice Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Is this draft worth saving?

Is there any good reason to save Draft:European registry and network for Intoxication type Metabolic Diseases or even any part of it, before it meets it's fate as a long abandoned AFC submission? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

references 1,2,6 are not MEDRS compliant,,,3 and 4 are good reviews...Basically, although the subject is probably notable, the sources given are either not independent of the subject or make only passing mentions of it (WIKIPEDIA:CORP). If you could find independent, in-depth sources, that would be great... Then, the submission would conform to the general structure of Wikipedia and would allow easy reader navigation. Thank you for your patience, politeness, and willingness to help make Wikipedia better! B14709 (talk) 22:00, 4 June 2014 (UTC)...I agree with this editors views.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid I do not have the time (nor much inclination) to save this draft, so it's up to you guys and gals if you think it's worth the effort. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm really only able to offer basic copy-editing assistance, which this article also still needs. If there's another volunteer willing to look into sources and prose expansion where needed, I could see this being viable. If so, make sure to remind me via my talk page as I may not continue to follow this discussion. Btw, was this translated? "Category:medecine" looks foreign. If it was translated, looking at the source article might be helpful, given that two years have passed. Samsara 14:04, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, on second thought, the best thing probably is to cut it back to whatever is the viable minimum supported by sources as indicated above, and send it live with a stub tag. Samsara 14:31, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

with appropriate referencing this section would be worth saving...In organic acidurias, excessive amounts of non-amino organic acids are excreted in the urine. Organic acidurias also called organic acidemias may affect various metabolic pathways including oxidation of branched-chain amino acids (valine, leucine, isoleucine) and catabolism of lysine and tryptophan. These disorders may be detected by gas-chromatography analysis of urine samples and may benefit from dietary measures aimed at reducing the supply in amino acids whose oxidation is deficient and which therefore aliment accumulating organic acids. They are also a matter for a newborn screening resting here on metabolite detection by tandem mass spectrometry. Clinical appeal signs usually include acute metabolic decompensation episodes evoking toxic encephalopathy along with routine laboratory investigations which may reveal hypoglycemia, acidosis, ketosis and/or even hyperammonemia. Patients often present with neurological signs including intellectual disability, ataxia and/or hypotonia....reviews or books would not be hard to come by, however, we must do so by consensus...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

(add)...there are references for organic acidurias [2] , gas chromatography [3] and so on...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Organic acidemia Samsara 12:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

merged into Organic acidemia--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm officially old

If the mark of being old is that your friends all seem to be sick, then I'm officially old. In the last few weeks, I've heard of four new cases of cancer and learned that three people are in the hospital (two for potentially fatal conditions). This situation has reminded me of the comments we consistently received when WP:AFT5 was active: When your friends are sick, people want to know the prognosis. I know I've said before that I can't really "read" articles any longer. I almost always end up hitting the edit button and changing something. But in the last few weeks, I've actually been reading enough to find out what the prognosis is—if that information is present in the article. Unfortunately, our articles are mostly weak on this point.

Here's my request: If you've got a set of disease or treatment articles that you watch over, please have a look and see whether you have provided this information. This is important to readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Many of our cancer articles has prognosis in the leads. Any specific conditions you looking for? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:27, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Professional writers of patient information mostly think we give too specific and alarming info on prognosis and survival. Knowing just that there is a diagnosis of "Foo bodypart cancer" isn't really enough to get useful info on prognosis. Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

On the other hand, "Foo bodypart cancer" is enough to get basic information like "Lung cancer: Bad. Pancreatic cancer: Very Bad. Endometrial cancer: Could be worse".

Also, family members and close friends often learn the stage, and a simple explanation of the difficulty of applying general statistics to any single patient would be helpful. For example, cancer is generally a condition found in older adults, so a statement like "Overall survival depends on how old the person is and whether they have any other serious health conditions" would be true and helpful to people who don't know much about the subject. Most prostate cancers might be no big deal, but if you're 90 years old and also have congestive heart failure, then the five-year survival stats for prostate cancer don't apply to you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

that would be a way of looking at it,yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Very good idea - when I was diagnosed, median survival was 12 years (Is that good? it doesn't feel that way, and it was ten years ago !!) but the facts and figures have changed since then, and progress by researchers and specialists and drug companies has been, shall we say, interesting. How about average age at diagnosis as something that ought to be included? (75 for me; I'll be 59 this year). Both a prognosis figure, and an ave age at diagnosis need constant monitoring for accuracy though, but that's what happens here anyway. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 11:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Cancer is primarily a disease of older people, with mortality rates increasing with age for most cancers (Figure 3.1).1-3 More than three-quarters (78% in the UK in 2010-2012) of cancer deaths occur in people aged 65 years and over, and more than half (52%) occur in those aged 75 years and over.[4]...this is for the UK--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

(add)... the American Cancer Society reads interestingly....According to estimates from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), in 2012 there were 14.1 million new cancer cases and 8.2 million cancer deaths worldwide. By 2030, the global burden is expected to grow to 21.7 million new cancer cases and 13 million cancer deaths simply due to the growth and aging of the population. The future burden will probably be even larger because of the adoption of western lifestyles, such as smoking, poor diet, physical inactivity, and fewer childbirths, in economically developing countries.[5]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:09, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Refs

Thoughts here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:53, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

important topic--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

supplement claims

could someone take a quick look at the claims/sources at Signum Biosciences? The EHT supplement and it's big claims came up in conversation. I'm on my phone now and am not in a position to research/edit but the sourcing/claims look dubious. Will follow this up later if there are no takers. :) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

could you be specific as to what reference number, is questionable to you? (if by chance, it is reference 10 and 11 they are MEDRS compliant)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, sources 10 and 11 seem to meet MEDRS. However, these are animal studies, so we shouldn't be saying it's been definitely shown to be effective. Everymorning talk 03:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

that is an awkward article indeed. it currently doesn't make definitive claims. Jytdog (talk) 04:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Radium

Should Radium-223-Chloride be an article about Radium-223 or Radium-223-Chloride ? Should this be an isotope article, or a pharmacological chemical article? See talk:Radium-223-Chloride for the discussion -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

interesting topic (give opinion, I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

COI guideline - typical behaviors

See here - I boldly added a section describing behaviors typical of paid editors. We will see how that goes. I reckon it will get reverted for further discussion, but wanted to kick that off with a concrete proposal. Jytdog (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

well done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Well, that was good while it lasted. Jytdog, if you can get any of it reinserted, there is a big missing chunk ... students pushing their prof's agenda or textbook. This type of COI is taking more and more of my time ... the signs are bunches of students consistently adding sources, typically marginal or with a research agenda, that turn out to be related to their prof. Let me know if you get anywhere on that page, and we can work out wording. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:54, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

i hear that! and agree, and laid out my thoughts on that, as far as policy/guideline/essay guidance goes, in the thread you raised about that at WPedu incident board. thanks for bringing that up! I am going to put a note about that, at the COI talk page, just to make others aware of it. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

just opened a thread on this at WT:COI here : Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#Student_editing_and_COI -- Jytdog (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

give your opinion, (I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Tetramethylhexadecenyl succinyl cysteine

Tetramethylhexadecenyl succinyl cysteine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I make it a point to stay away from anything related to MEDRS, but you guys might want to take a look at this article. Apparently developed by an account called "Mesports" which has a matching website that seems to sell or otherwise market this stuff. It looks like there's some refspam promotion and/or use of non-reliable sources also (also posted to the Pharmacology project talk page). §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

thanks! oz pointed it out on my talk page too. some? oy. just oy. Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I went into the edit history to see what the article looked like before Jytdog's edits to it. Otherwise, looking at how it currently is, I wouldn't have seen a problem. Flyer22 (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It is actually a pretty crappy article about a company now that probably would not survive AfD. see Talk:Signum Biosciences for what i did. But i couldn't figure out what else to do with it. very open to hearing other ideas. Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant that if you hadn't edited the article, I would have seen a WP:MEDRS problem. Flyer22 (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I gotcha. what i meant is that even now it is pretty bad... :) i really didn't know what to do with it. Jytdog (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, very good editing--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed good editing and clearly a strong attempt to find sources. That said I don't see how this is a notable company. I recommend AfD. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe...but don't you believe the EHT supplement information in the article is note-worthy, it does to me,(even though the studies are based on animal study results)?.. In 2015 Signum partnered with Nerium International to launch a dietary supplement called eicosanoyl-5-hydroxytryptamide (EHT).[8] EHT is derived from coffee and inhibits demethylaton of the enzyme protein phosphatase 2 (PPP2CA; PP2A).[9] EHT has shown neuroprotective effects in a mouse model of Parkinson's disease.[7] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Reverse epidemiology

There is a requested move discussion at this page that WP Medicine members may be interested in. Thanks. Everymorning talk 00:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

important topic(opinions needed)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Peer review backlog: Heart and Peripheral artery disease

Inviting all interested editors to comment at these two important peer reviews which have been unanswered and in the backlog. Those interested in doing future peer reviews according to this subject can list their names at the volunteer's list or watch the backlog. Thank you, Joel. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 09:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

your help needed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Phobia article

There has been recent editing at Phobia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), by Purplenurple47 (talk · contribs) and Althompson992 (talk · contribs), but especially by Althompson992. It is likely WP:Student editing. I'm alerting this WikiProject in case any of you are interested in helping out with this article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

will watch (have tagged the article),,,have also advised the second editor's talk page as to MEDRS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Student editing, yes, likely ... this Nolen-Hoeksema textbook is being broadly pushed into huge numbers of similar articles, even when there are much higher quality and more relevant or accurate sources ... and I've encountered errors cited to the Nolen-Hoeksema book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

And just to be clear, Susan Nolen-Hoeksema died several years ago, which speaks to how up to date her textbook is (especially considering lead times in book publication). And yet we have now SCORES of students adding info sourced to her book, and in some cases, replacing good and freely available sources with her book. This is across my watchlist, everywhere, and MOST of the courses and students are not registered. The only indication it is student editing is checking their contribs, and seeing they have one or two "student training" (which is not) edits. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Ozzie10aaaa.

Thanks, SandyGeorgia, including for the information. You know that I'm not a fan of WP:Student editing; I've rarely seen it done appropriately. It's easy to spot WP:Student editing because not only is it that time of year, it's rare a WP:Newbie starts out editing with a bunch sourced text in the way that we see these students do it. There's also the fact that they often start out with a WP:Sandbox. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Sandy, you did the math wrong. She died 26 months ago.

This is apparently one of the standard, reputable textbooks for that subject. It may not be perfect (what is?), but it is the sort of "widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field" that the nutshell of MEDRS specifically endorses. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

For the curious: According to Amazon.com, this is the fourth most-popular textbook on abnormal psych (presumably in the U.S.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

WAID, I am curious to see you a) advocating that we treat student edits any differently than we would treat any other edits, and b) advocating that we allow students to use primary sources for the sake of expediency.[8] Who benefits on that plan? I find it hard to understand that you would expect to train entire classes of students to add subpar sourcing, knowing that other editors (that would be me) will years later have to do the painstaking work of checking every source to discover and replace the primary sources with secondary reviews (I actually do hours of that kind of work: do you?). As you are an editor who has frequently contributed to med guideline discussions, I am disappointed that you don't seem to be aware of what it takes to identify, evaluate and clean up primary sources after the fact. And in terms of lost opportunity, since students have access to journals and databases, one of the most helpful things they can do for Wikipedia is USE them! That is the message we should be getting across to the profs; not one of just letting their edits slide for expediency.

Second, you curiously mention working with students "that SandyGeorgia just gave up on".[9] Working with students has more to do with hours of teaching them to sign their posts, cite their additions, use correct grammar, avoid copyvio, much more than it deals at the level of correct sourcing. If you fancy that I unwatched any article because I "gave up on" the students, that is unlikely (really, what the profs do to the poor students is not their fault); it is hard to work with a med editor who advocates letting poor sourcing slide for expediency, and that would cause me to unwatch articles rather than expose students to unpleasantries.

Finally, on the Nolen-Hoeksema book, now that I have a copy of the fifth edition (not yet the sixth), the problems are easier to understand. (Pedant alert on the 26 months comment -- point: by the time the book has gone to print, it is considerably outdated vs journal articles, no matter how many introductory dumbed-down college classes for students who have scarcely yet learned to research or write are using it.) The biggest problems I'm seeing so far (typical for all class editing in my experience) is copyvio, plagiarism, and inability to summarize or rephrase text accurately in their own words, without either losing the meaning or adding original research. For that reason, whenever I can source to something that is freely available online, I will, and that is one of the reasons we generally prefer (all else being equal) freely available articles to those that are not. The next problem, as I said above, is how dated the text is. In the 2011 fifth edition, for example, the book cites 1994 data, for example, frequently. We can do better; by the time a book goes to print, it is citing outdated info, and THIS book is citing unnecessarily dated info on top of that. (I'd love to critique all of Nolen-Hoeksema's text on Tourette syndrome, but this excellent, broad, college textbook ... skips TS. So much for its depth.) I don't think it needs to do better, considering the level of student it is aimed at. It is fine enough for what it needs to be. Of course, the students will prefer to use this text over any scholarly books or articles because it is so dumbed-down, easy reading (much easier to digest than journal articles). In the cases where we can access better info, we should. We always evaluate sources, and just because students are editing doesn't mean we should do any less than we normally would. And, we should be on the lookout for students using the fifth (not sixth) version, since it predates DSM5, and I've found errors. But again, the bigger problem so far seems to be plagiarism and misrepresenting sources.

And finally, turn down the heat: it's getting too hot in here. For a very long time, Wiki Ed staff have been willing and helpful in speaking with profs, and their efforts frequently pay off.[10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

You should not be surprised to see me advocating that we not make the perfect be the enemy of the good, as I've consistently done so for years. An unsourced statement is not preferable to the same statement sourced to a peer-reviewed primary source, and reverting small improvements (e.g., adding medium-quality sources to an article) is not actually helpful. Use the tag {{better source}} if you want a better one.

Your list of time-sucking problems are independent of source quality. As you say, the problems of new editors—any new editors, not just students—mostly involve "teaching them to sign their posts, cite their additions, use correct grammar, avoid copyvio". You would choose to put in just as much work double-checking and re-writing their additions even if the source added were stellar—and even if the new editor weren't a student.

(I wonder if we need to re-visit the sentence in MEDRS about preferring free sources. I recall it being accepted largely with the understanding that "all else" is almost never equal anyway, and WP:V gives no such discouragement about using offline books or paywalled sources. Perhaps it only gives people the false hope that double-checking someone else's work should be free or easy.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

wiki-civility?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:23, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio checks needed on Nolen-Hoeksema

Does anyone have access to either the fifth (2011) or sixth (2013) edition of Abnormal Psychology by Susan Nolen-Hoeksema? This book is being widely used by scores of students in multiple articles, and I'm encountering a need for copyvio/plagiarism checking; it is being used so widely that it would help if someone had access to the book and could review text being added. As one example: "People with anorexia vary greatly in the amount of time they go without food. When they do finally eat, it's mostly in order to appease their families or loved ones. They have little or no desire to consume food." Page 362, fifth edition. Thanks in advance to anyone who might be able to access the book (Jytdog, Keilana, Doc James). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

What the 5th edition of the textbook says on p362: "People with the restricting type of anorexia nervosa simply refuse to eat as a way of preventing weight gain. Some people attempt to go for days without eating anything; most eat very small amounts of food each day, in part simply to stay alive and in part because of pressure from others to eat." It is bracketed by discussions of case studies. Jytdog (talk) 14:08, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Jytdog ... so we don't have copyvio, rather we have different problems with the proposed text (OR), without getting into the issue of the word "refused" having been removed from the DSM after that book was published. Ack. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello from User:OR drohowa

Hello WikiProject Medicine! Starting today, I will be working more closely with User:bluerasberry on editing articles on topics in medicine for the Wikipedia:Choosing Wisely project. The level of activity and peer-review that goes on in medical articles is exciting to me after doing work with GLAM content that often has much more modest page views. I'm sure there will be a learning curve as my background is in history and archives rather than medicine, but I am excited to learn more about the medical community on Wikipedia and about best practices for citing medical research articles. I’m looking forward to collaboration! OR drohowa (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

welcome!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I consider these "Choosing Wisely" statements to be position statements from the respective organizations thus have no concerns with you adding them. Welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:54, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I transitioned from GLAM/art history to medical editing. It's a steep learning curve but worth the effort. WP:MEDRS in particular is very different. Good luck! Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Redirect problem

I created the redirect adenocyst to Adenoid cystic carcinoma but I am not sure if this is a correct redirect, as the wording in the lead is difficult here; the wording may have meant 'Adenocyst carcinoma', which I have based some of the other redirects to this page on. Adenocystoma also redirects to a different page, Cystadenoma and I am now confused. Thank you and ping me with the answer. Rubbish computer (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

We need links, dude (now added). Best not to mess with these things if you are not sure. Johnbod (talk) 17:50, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Adenocyst to Adenoid cystic carcinoma seems to work fine, in regards to "Adenocystic" carcinoma redirects to the same aforementioned page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:01, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Fragile X

Dear medical experts: I was considering merging this draft: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Fragile X-associated Primary Ovarian Insufficiency (FXPOI) with Fragile X syndrome, but some of the information appears to be contradictory. Is there anything useful in this draft, or should it be let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:44, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

since the FMR1 gene is present in both articles, merging would not be out of the question, however, the reference given is not a review article.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Agree better ref and than merge. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Anne Delong a new reference was added then merged into the Fragile X article. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That's great. I fixed the attribution to match, so that should finish it.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Anne Delong perfect...in regards to the Draft:Autoimmune ganglionic neuropathy (above) it has been answered, your feedback would be appreciated (I provided a link to the other article)... again. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, I saw your post about that, but I was hoping that someone else would give an opinion. I know how to merge articles in general, but my particular areas of expertise (C++ programming, mandolin playing, genealogy) leave me unprepared to decide about or edit the content of articles about complex medical topics (which is why I post here for opinions so often). If someone merges the information somewhere, I will gladly do the attribution templates if needed.—Anne Delong (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

it does not need to be merged [11] as I archived this Autoimmune_autonomic_ganglionopathy is the same, no need to merge, just delete, thank you as always--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay. It's gone.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Article needed

Would someone care to tackle Waiting times a.k.a. Wait times? The termw arise frequently, but we don't seem to address it anywhere. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:28, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you thinking of the wait time to get an appointment ("The doctor can't see you for another 12 weeks"), rather than the wait time in the lobby ("They're running just a little behind. Please sit down for the next three hours")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog WhatamIdoing We have waiting room, waiting period, and watchful waiting already as related concepts. I think that both wait time for an appointment and lobby wait time are important concepts to cover with these other concepts, and think that it would be useful to have some other article. I started one at waiting in healthcare. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:19, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is synonymous with waiting period....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:21, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all. I was, indeed, thinking of "The doctor can't see you for another 12 weeks", but a more general coverage would seem warranted. Commented at talk:waiting in healthcare, which is probably the right place to continue discussion. LeadSongDog come howl! 22:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

"Waiting for test results" could also be included. I believe I've seen something about long delays (e.g., for mammogram test results) causes higher patient anxiety. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:16, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Another related topic that isn't covered is Patient's delay and Doctor's delay. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

There's an extremely large overlap between waiting times in a medical context and queueing theory in mathematical statistics, which is what is used to study it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Seppi333 is right, the queueing theory should be mentioned at waiting in healthcare...Queueing theory is the mathematical study of waiting lines, or queues.[1] In queueing theory a model is constructed so that queue lengths and waiting time can be predicted.[1] Queueing theory is generally considered a branch of operations research because the results are often used when making business decisions about the resources needed to provide a service...could be added--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:52, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Disagree, the proposal above goes way off topic ... we don't redefine concepts in every article, and queueing theory applies to ... a whole ton of things. Adding a definition of something that is used to study something else isn't needed. (Sorry, but that's my field ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't really follow your rationale. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing

The article needs more eyes, especially this section, which may need to be nuked altogether:

Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing#Controversy_over_mechanisms_and_effectiveness

BullRangifer (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

references #42,43,44,46,47,48,50,52,54 and 56 are non-MEDRS compliant (either not reviews or much older than 5 years or so) in the section specified above...the section EMDR has generated a great deal of controversy since its inception in 1989. Shapiro was criticised for repeatedly increasing the length and expense of training and certification, allegedly in response to the results of controlled trials that cast doubt on EMDR's efficacy.[12][13] A 2002 review disputed the two articles and similar statements, stating that “scientific debate has begun to degenerate into slurs, innuendo, and ad hominem attacks is based on earlier references #12 and #13 which are also non-MEDRS compliant and therefore raises questions of other parts of the article where they may have been used to support a statement as well.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Concern is that while high quality sources are used, these sources are not accurately reflected. Fixed oneDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, just be careful not to misapply MEDRS. It doesn't apply to things like coverage of controversies, criticism, and debate. The normal RS rules apply for them. MEDRS only applies to direct medical/scientific claims. -- BullRangifer (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

As long as low quality sources are not being used to refute high quality sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

as stated above references #42,43,44,46,47,48,50,52,54 and 56 are non-MEDRS compliant based on...A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations, or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)...further reference #48 is not PubMed indexed. Furthermore, 1 the indication It doesn't apply to things like coverage of controversies, criticism, and debate....

" Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles or to systematic reviews)

The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine "...was posted on the talk page of the article in question. and 2 Eye_movement_desensitization_and_reprocessing#Controversy_over_mechanisms_and_effectiveness (was posted above)..."especially this section, which may need to be nuked altogether ". thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

pulitzer prize/ebola photography (images)

for those of you that might be interested [12] (this was added to Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa ) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Merge Congenital hypopituitarism ?

Might this be already covered elsewhere in greater detail? Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

both references are dated ,(per MEDRS) BTW....Hypopituitarism has a congenital section--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Merged / redirect as not enough content for its own article yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia research update

There is a new study comparing Wikipedia medical articles to WebMD and the Mayo Clinic websites. The study is here. I don't have access to the full text, but the abstract does indicate that more answers for the health statements they tested were available on Wikipedia than on the other two websites, which is good. I am hoping that someone who has access to the full text of this paper can tell us more about it. Everymorning talk 20:06, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

this is all I found...

Objective

To examine the scope, completeness, credibility, and readability of health, medical and nutritional information found on Wikipedia, WebMD, and Mayo Clinic websites.

Methods

A total of 92 statements, across 9 health categories, were formulated and used to assess the selected websites. Trained raters used a standardized search protocol, electronic logs and the 9-item tool to assess for scope, completeness, credibility, and readability of online material across the 3 websites.

Results

In terms of the scope, answers for 91.3% of the 92 general health statements were available on Wikipedia. WebMD (89.1%) and the Mayo Clinic (81.5%) followed respectively. The Flesch Reading Ease Score (FRES) was significantly higher for Wikipedia compared to WebMD and the Mayo Clinic websites (p<0.001). The Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL) scores were also significantly higher for Wikipedia compared to those for WebMD and the Mayo Clinic websites (p<0.001). Sources supporting the general health statements were present for 96.0% of webpages on the Mayo Clinic site, 95.1% of webpages for Wikipedia, and 94.9% of webpages for WebMD.

Discussion

The study findings demonstrate the importance of aligning information and services for health with the skills and abilities of its recipients. As a result, these findings may be used to improve patient health literacy and consequently reduce health disparities.

Conclusion

As a growing number of people use online sources to obtain health, medical, and nutritional information, it is important that this information be complete, comprehensive in scope, and available at a literacy level that is accessible to the general population.^[1] (just the abstract) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

References

^ http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499267115003019

This is an abstract for a poster presentation at a meeting - which is probably why the conclusion is so vague. Not clear what "answers for...general health statements" is intended to mean (health questions?) but it looks like the conclusion they're building toward is that we use too many ~~elongated appellations~~ big words. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Overall it is overwhelming but it also makes me wonder, how does Simple compare to WebMD and the MayoClinic? Peter.C • talk • contribs 21:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Simple: is seriously incomplete, and we get (and deserve) some complaints that some editors do not respect their rules about using Simple English when writing about health topics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the complete abstract is repeated above (we can find it in the links). Also, I see talk pages being taken over by excess markup (italics and bolding) which make it harder to read. I'm wondering if being compared to WebMd and Mayo is A Good Thing, but agree with the conclusions (we have about the same amount of cites ... they don't usually cite ... and coverage, but our language is off). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Either NHS Direct or Cancer Research UK patient information pages (or perhaps both, I forget) are written to a 12 year-old's reading level by people who have had training in doing that (they never allow doctors to do the actual writing), and are carefully checked on that basis. WP in theory aims at an 18 yo's level, though we know how little notice most editors take of that, & almost none of us have the training to achieve any target level consistently, which is a difficult skill. Many editors, here & elsewhere, are very seriously disconnected from reality over what level of language audiences below specialist post-grad level can understand, or will bother to keep ploughing through. Of course medical material has special problems with vocabulary. But it is clear to me that we cannot and should not attempt to compete at the bottom, introductory level of patient info, not least because we are not capable of doing so. There is a role for us on a couple of steps up the ladder, between patient info and textbooks and articles aimed at the medically trained. My research at CRUK adressed these issues, among others. It's still being written up - more later. Johnbod (talk) 14:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I can't disagree with any of that, but on the other hand, we do still have many articles that are unnecessarily dense, verbose, jargon-filled, and very hard to read even for someone with a post-graduate education level. Not only in medical articles, but perhaps more often than in other areas ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

probably--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Conclusions seem reasonable. We could do more to simplify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:37, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely - most of the medical articles, & very many others, in scientific areas especially. Imo the priority is to at least get lead sections that non-specialists can make some sense of, which the medical project is attempting to do - kudos to Doc James and others. In advanced maths articles the problem is almost insuperable, and detailed topics in genetics & many other fields are very difficult. At least the macro human body is reasonably familiar to all .... Johnbod (talk) 14:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that you've brought up my pet peeve about our math content ... it is The Worst IMO. Other editors read our articles and think it's the math that is hard, but the problem is that they are not written in english. Not even the leads, not even on basic concepts, not even on FAs. Medicine is looking really good relative to math. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I am working really hard to convince the Khan academy to release their math videos under an open license (we currently have a pilot of three medical videos). Have a meeting in a couple off weeks again. My hope is that these maths videos if place in the lead will address some of these issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It is the worst, but imo it is the maths that is hard, and also turning that into English. Medicine is better, but it ought to be. Non-scientists probably have more scientific vocabulary & some grasp of concepts in the area of medicine than any other area of science, because it is the hardest to avoid in an ordinary human life. One can easily live a lifetime without any actual need to understand any chemistry, physics, biology, or maths beyond school-level. Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

on the accessible jargon-minimized content front, i have the impression that TylerDurden8823 has made that a focus of his/her editing - kudos for that! Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I would like to second that. User:TylerDurden8823 is doing great work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Passive smoking

Could use more eyes and likely a bit of updating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

will keep an eye on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Lots of high-quality review articles and other MEDRS compliant sources in this article, but some primary studies here and there that should be trimmed. I have started making a dent. Everymorning talk 18:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Infectious causes of cancer

Bfpage recently created Category:Infectious causes of cancer and added it to a couple of pages where I find that categorization rather dubious. It has already been removed from some of them (including a biography), but it's still on pap test and parasitism, on bacteria and virus. That seems overbroad to me. I also wonder whether the cancers caused by infectios should themselves be so categorized. Editors with more medical expertise than me may want to take a look. Huon (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Worldwide, infections are linked to about 15% to 20% of cancers. This percentage is even higher in developing countries, but it is lower in the United States and other developed countries. This is partly because certain infections are more common in developing countries, and partly because some other risk factors for cancer, such as obesity, are more common in developed countries.Infections can raise a person’s risk of cancer in different ways. For example:

• Some viruses directly affect the genes inside cells that control their growth. These viruses can insert their own genes into the cell, causing the cell to grow out of control.

• Some infections can cause long-term inflammation in a part of the body. This can lead to changes in the affected cells and in nearby immune cells, which can eventually lead to cancer.

• Some types of infections can suppress a person’s immune system, which normally helps protect the body from some cancers.[13] ...the American Cancer Society does seem to identify infections as a factor in oncological diagnosis, therefore it should be as is...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think that it is a legitimate category. However there are currently several articles included that I am not convinced should be in there, such as "Colorectal cancer", "Ependymoma" and "Parasitism". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:02, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Colorectal cancer is not unreasonable, given the possible association with HPV (per PMID 24560489 and others).

I suspect that the oversimplified ACS line about suppressed immune systems is probably mostly about HIV, and it probably mostly means "if you don't have a functional immune system, then other cancer-causing infections can get out of control". I've read that in other cases (e.g., some breast cancers), the immune system plays a role in establishing and protecting the cancer. (Don't bother asking me how; my interest in the subject doesn't extend past the handwaving-stage of explanation, so I know fewer details about this idea than you'd learn from asking your favorite web search engine.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Based on the high volume of bacteria and viruses that the intestine is exposed to and the importance of infectious agents in some gastrointestinal and anogenital cancers, it is not surprising the many studies have evaluated the association between colorectal cancer and infectious agents. This review highlights investigations of four agents in relation to colorectal cancer. Helicobacter pylori, Streptococcus bovis, JC virus, and human papillomavirus have all been evaluated as possible etiologic agents for colorectal cancer. For each of these agents, a review of possible mechanisms for carcinogenesis and epidemiologic evidence is discussed, and future directions for research are proposed [14] based on this review article, apparently further studies are needed but it does seem for the time being that it might be appropriate to leave it on the list...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

[15] related article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Bfpage has again added this and other categories to pages without any apparent discussion. Things associated with a disease are not their causes. Anal sex does not cause of disease, viruses like HPV are. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:12, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I am so sorry, sincerely. Where is the proper place to discuss this?

Bfpage |leave a message 21:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think this project page would be a good place since it's related to medicine and health and editors here are familiar with the topic. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Greetings EvergreenFir. What exactly is meant by "Arbitrary break"? Are you suggesting that something be done about me adding categories to articles? I spend a lot of time adding categories to articles and it has never even occurred to me that adding categories is something to be discussed, although discussing my adding categories is something I am perfectly willing to do with you. Are you just referring to discussing the category:infectious causes of cancer being added to the anal sex article?

What prompted me to add the category:infectious causes of cancer to the anal sex article were all the references to the organisms/pathogens that can be acquired during anal sex that cause cancer. The anal cancer article also lists these organisms as causing anal cancer and that anal sex increases the risk of acquiring cancer from these pathogens via the act of anal sex. Would it be helpful for me to post all the references documenting the strong link between anal sex and cancer somewhere for others to see for themselves. I'm not understanding the controversy. If you really don't like the category, you may certainly remove it, by all means. Here are some excerpts from the anal sex article about links to cancer:

(from the anal sex article:)Health risks>General risks

Increased experimentation with anal sex by people without sound knowledge about risks and what safety measures do and do not work may be linked to an increase in sexually transmitted infections (STIs/STDs) [my note:STI/STD are strongly linked to cancer]...penile-anal penetration, colloquially known as barebacking,[93] carries a higher risk of passing on STIs [my note:STIs are strongly linked to cancer]because the anal sphincter is a delicate, easily torn tissue that can provide an entry for pathogens.[19][21] ...those who engage in anal sex at high risk of STIs.[21][my note:STIs are strongly linked to cancer]</nowiki>...condoms [my note: reduces the risk of acquiring cancer-causing STIs], ample lubrication to reduce the risk of tearing,[3][50] and safer sex practices in general, reduce the risk of STI transmission.[21][94] However, a condom can (and is more likely to (sic? break?) [my note: a broken condom increases the risk of acquiring cancer-causing pathogens]... anal sex are human papillomavirus (HPV)[my note: HPV is a pathogen that causes cancer] (which can increase risk of anal cancer...

The anal sex article contains information about infectious causes of cancer so I thought readers of the encyclopedia would benefit from the addition of the category:infectious causes of cancer that links the article with articles with similar information. I don't claim that anal sex causes cancer-the article simply reports that the act can result in passing on the pathogens that cause cancer. Respectfully and with Best Regards,

Bfpage |leave a message 22:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bfpage, and thanks for taking on the task of trying to add sensible categories. I think you've actually gotten tripped up in a fairly technical matter. Although anal sex is part of the etiology (medicine) of the disease, it isn't actually the "cause" of a sexually transmitted infection; it's a route of transmission.

An "arbitrary break" just means that someone stuck a section heading in the middle of a long section (in an "arbitrary" place), so he could edit just half the conversation instead of all of it. It doesn't mean anything about the people in the section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Hello, WhatamIdoing and it's great to have you comment in this discussion. I guess my paranoia was showing when I assumed that the arbitrary break title had something to do with editing errors that I may have made. In my response to EvergreenFir, I tried to show that I realized that anal sex does not causes cancer, but the article indeed contains information about pathogens that do cause cancer. I don't think that there is any type of sex act that would cause cancer, but if an article, any article, contains information about a pathogen that can be passed on to another person and that has been referenced by a medical journal review article as an oncogenic bateria, I thought it would be a good idea to include the article in the category. Thanks again for your comments, I really do take them to heart and remain eager to learn new things from more experience editors. The Very Best of Regards:

Bfpage |leave a message 17:56, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm also somewhat confused by this categorisation. Cancers themselves are included? (Yet these are not infectious causes... they are cancers themselves). Pap test is included, Oncogene is included. Both not infectious too...? I support in general the idea of this category, but it may quickly become List of causes of sudden death (ie, almost anything can be added if it's an infection or cancer as most infectious confer a slightly increased risk, or may cause a complication that may predispose to cancer in some way)... so it may be useful to develop some criteria as to what goes in the category, or else it may rapidly become very large. The downside to largeness is it wastes a lot of whoever is doing the tagging's time, and the larger the category, the harder it will be for users to find the infectious with strong links when using the category. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

To clarify, yes I understand these are cancers that may be "caused" by infection, or tests for infection, but the point of a category is to hold a defined set of articles, not every article that relates. In a category title "Infectious causes of cancer" I'd expect... infectious causes of cancer, not the other stuff. That's why eg Category:Arm doesn't contain diseases of the arm (a separate category) or information about Category:Leg. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"personal victory over polio"

The current Franklin D. Roosevelt page looks odd to me by using the phrase "personal victory over polio", as I mention on the talk page. I know very little of the disease, but I feel the phrase is way more politics than medical fact. Thoughts? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 02:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

What does "personal victory over polio" mean? I don't understand the etiology of the disease, nor what Roosevelt did as a result of his infection, but this phrase reads as overly symbolic instead of being factual. Any ideas? I think it could be improved upon. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]]) while signing a reply, thx 13:20, 4 April 2015 (UTC) was your talk page question....

remember that Roosevelt passed away in 1945, and it was not until 1957 that trials began for Sabin's oral polio vaccine. (produces immunity to all three poliovirus serotypes in about 50% of recipients. Three doses of live-attenuated OPV produce protective antibody to all three poliovirus types in more than 95% of recipients[16].) So, at that time Polio was devastating physically(and took a toll psychologically [17] ).--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Psychological resilience article and the Bigender article

I expanded the title of this section to include "and the Bigender article" because there is also poor medical editing going on at that article. After I reverted Hunterashlyn (talk · contribs), stating. "See User talk:Lnortz2317. Your class is being irresponsible. If I have to revert each edit, I will.", he or she reverted me (and I reverted again). And then he or she stated on the Hunterashlyn talk page, "Please stop deleting our page this is for a project and we really don't need someone deciding what is 'irresponsible' thank you."

Once again, all these editors care about is getting a grade, not the quality of the articles. They have not even informed me of what class they are. And I asked about the class at User talk:Lnortz2317. I don't know if I should report this matter at the WP:Education noticeboard as well, or just here at WP:Med.

And as I just finished typing this section, I see that Hunterashlyn reverted me again, and then EvergreenFir reverted Hunterashlyn. Flyer22 (talk) 04:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I would just like to explain my group and once again please ask you to stop messing with our page. We are in a Gender Differences class, and we decided to take on the topic of Bigenderism because before there was only a three sentence definition on the page. We found the best (and only honestly) sources and most of them--if not all are from great sources. We truly care about this subject, and honestly no one else, including you, is adding anything else productive to the page. So please stop tormenting our group Hunterashlyn (talk) 05:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hunterashlyn: Please take time out to think about what people here and the policies of wikipedia are saying - namely that medical claims should be based on good secondary sources. Imagine coming to wikipedia to look at a page and trusting a statement that turns out to be from a single study and which proves to be wrong, or an outlier, or whatever. In class that isn't going to make any difference, but out there in the world someone might read and trust it. Nobody is tormenting your group, and if you stopped to think and avoided getting angry, I'm sure you'd see the logic of this position. JMWt (talk) 11:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: TripleShotEspresso commented on these matters on my talk page, explaining the class's intentions. And I explained that the class has not had proper WP:Student training. Flyer22 (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

"Stop messing with our page? Oh, dear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I know who the professor is. Just emailed with links to MEDRS and the editing psychology articles WikiEdu brochure. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@Hunterashlyn: Although you probably didn't realize there was a problem, you struck a nerve with your "don't mess with our page" comment. Claiming "ownership" of articles is a surefire way to put people off here. But it's ok! Everybody was new once! The best thing you can do now is to take a look at the linked policies/guidelines and, if you don't understand or aren't sure how to do something, just ask. If you keep lines of communication open, ask questions, and take advice when you can, I think you'll find that your "tormenters" can be quite helpful. :) --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:15, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Wholesale reverts a good remedy?

I noticed that some of the information added comes from respectable peer reviewed journals such as J Neurosci. Are wholesale reverts the best way to manage this material? Samsara 07:32, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: WP:MEDRS is clear that peer review by itself is not the same thing as literature review or systematic review; WP:MEDRS prefers the latter two. Flyer22 (talk) 09:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22 is correct they are not the same as per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Could any of the contested edits be interpreted as giving medical advice? Note that neither article has been officially claimed as being in the remit of WP Medicine. Samsara 10:34, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not a matter of WP:Medical advice; it's a matter of biomedical content. Flyer22 (talk) 10:45, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Samsara, you are correct, neither article is tagged with Wikiproject Med, however ...in regards to the more general question (as well as reliable sources)...Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies. Primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. Many such sources represent unreliable information that has not been vetted in review articles, or present preliminary information that may not bear out when tested in clinical trials.This guideline supports the general sourcing policy at Wikipedia:Verifiability with specific attention given to sources appropriate for the medical and health-related content in any type of article, including alternative medicine[18])]...what this means is irrespective of whether an article is so tagged, if it has medical content, it is therefore subject to MEDRS for that content.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm concerned that this is a case of sprawl and hitting newcomers with the biggest hammer we can find. The term "biomedical" should be used with caution imo as everything - this has been pointed out very long ago - human is ultimately biological, including music and the stock market. Not all of those topics are necessarily covered by PubMed or similar explicitly biomedical reference collections in sufficient depth, and limiting our articles to such sources will eventually cause issues of WP:NPOV with interdisciplinary topics. This particular discussion started with reverting additions sourced to J Neurosci in an article that originally uses the Daily Mirror as a source. I think you can forgive a newcomer for being rather confused. Samsara 11:43, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that simply reverting is poor custom, and that engaging in discussion is far more preferable. That said it is hard to stick to this when you've already reverted 50 nonsense edits the same day. As for when a statement is biomedical in content we have an established consensus on a very liberal interpretation, and if you wish to dispute this you should do so over at WP:MEDRS. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I tried to discuss the matter with the students. And they behaved like students usually do when editing Wikipedia -- going about their business and seemingly discarding valid concerns. With these students, the only discussion I got was the aforementioned one with TripleShotEspresso. Flyer22 (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

And, yes, I usually will revert poor edits. They don't need to stay in the article to be WP:Preserved. Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the rest of the community, adding information about what a major health organization says about a relatively obscure subject, with a source to back that up, is not a "poor edit". Also, according to the rest of the community, there's no need for you to perpetuate an edit war. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

CFCF hit the nail on the head. These articles are under high-speed revision by classes, often in ways that demand corrective action. We will have to be firmer in the way we deal with student editors who do not engage in dialog. For those who do, though, the best solution may be to move the problematic work to draft space. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

could be--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Hey y'all! I'm one of the members of the group that is editing the Bigender article. As Flyer22 mentioned, we had a rather productive conversation about the edits and I'm currently reviewing the suggestions that Flyer22 offered for my portion of the edits. I think some of the frustration that arose from the revisions came from the immediate deletions and unusual format of conversations. We are not well-versed in Wikipedia's preferences (although we did read through a preliminary description of Wikipedia edits) and it took a little while to adjust to where and how conversations are had between editors on this medium. I think we all expected a more user-friendly private message system. That being said, I'd like to clarify here what I clarified for Flyer22: We do not solely care about our grade and if that were the case, it would be reflected in our work and we wouldn't get a good grade anyway. We all care about gender and sexuality and some of us are very close to people who identify as bigender. I, myself, am queer, and often feel that Wikipedia can be lacking in understanding of queer theory in terms of how it goes beyond genes or hormones. Therefore, part of our interest was in reforming the page to spread knowledge about the difference between gender and sex assigned at birth and to reveal the areas in which research is lacking. Like Samsara said, many things in life relate to biology, but rarely is anything solely biomedical in nature and it is a huge failure to not consider environment and sociological factors in research. One problem we're trying to address is society's persistence in conflating gender and biological factors, such as sex. Additionally, bigenderism isn't something that is particularly well-researched and while we would never submit faulty or weak data, the best information available on the topic appears to be peer-reviewed articles and a pseudo meta-analysis (which primarily highlights the failure of the scientific community to research bigenderism). Therefore, while Wikipedia's preferences are for "literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books," I think the content we have provided can be argued for due to a lack of "ideal sources." Feel free to chat with us if you have any concerns, but please try to tag us, as it makes it easier for us new folks to find the content! Best wishes, TripleShotEspresso — Preceding undated comment added 02:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm personally fine with primary sources for such an obscure and medically inconsequential subject, but you need to be careful to only summarize what the source says, without adding any original inferences of your own. The Journal of Neuroscience source does not mention bigenderism. The reverted edit also claims that "A Public Health study found that 3% of biologically males and 8% of biological females identify themselves as bigender", which is a misinterpretation of the source. The sample consisted entirely of transgender people, and bigender was only one of the "Other" identities making up those percentages. KateWishing (talk) 04:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

TripleShotEspresso, for what KateWishing means about being "personally fine with primary sources for such an obscure and medically inconsequential subject," see the WP:MEDDATE section of WP:MEDRS, which states, "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." I considered noting WP:MEDDATE to you all for why it might be okay to use some of the less-than-ideal sources you and your class have been using for the Bigender article, but it makes me uncomfortable seeing you cite primary sources and/or poor sources for the topic of brain plasticity, bipolar disorder, and so on. Those are the types of topics that should be supported by good medical sources. The fact that social aspects are involved does not mean that such content should not adhere to WP:MEDRS. WP:MEDRS does not apply to everything concerning biology; it rather applies to things that pertain to health/certain anatomical aspects, and it has exceptions. You speak of differentiating sex and gender, and I understand the need to do so. Wikipedia has a Sex and gender distinction article that makes clear the distinction. But, as seen in that article, Wikipedia is also clear that society commonly does not distinguish between biological sex and social gender. Since gender has various meanings, it's difficult to just state that it applies to social contexts only.

As for "tag us," I take it that you mean WP:Ping you? If so, know that WP:Pinging only works with a new signature. And on that note, you need to start signing your username. To sign your username, all you have to do is type four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~. There is no need to WP:Ping me to the Bigender talk page or to this WP:Med discussion, since both pages are on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 04:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think we need a bit of perspective here. The starting version was a one-paragraph, one-source, multiply-tagged article. The one source, by the way, was a survey of transgendered people living San Francisco during 1997. I'm not sure that it was ever published anywhere else.

We finally have someone who is willing to add properly published sources, from publications that have things like "editors" and even sometimes "peer review", and you all are reverting them? Why on Earth would anyone revert editors who are trying to move the article's sourcing all the way up from "horrible" to "only sort of weak in spots"?

And if you're going to revert it, why do so in such a ham-fisted, rapid-fire manner? I see that User:JMWt is only the latest to revert a perfectly appropriate use of primary sources. (For a statement like "____ has been recognized by ____", a primary source to the person or org recognizing ____ is the most authoritative source possible.) This sourced, policy-compliant information has been WP:DEMOLISHed four times in the space of half a day. Some of you ought to know better than to do that. If you revert twice, then you are no longer following the BRD cycle, and yes, tag-teaming so that each person only technically reverts it once does count. You guys are edit warring, you know better than to do that, and you need to knock it off. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

That is one little "bit of perspective" that isn't wholly supported in guideline or policy, or shared by everyone. Unsourced is what it is (obvious and dubious), while adding poor sources only lends credence to poorly sourced text. And sending the message to new editors that poor sources should stand for expediency is not good for them or the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I believe you will find this perspective supported quite clearly in the WP:Editing policy, which says things like "As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia" rather than "Revert facts and ideas that belong in an encyclopedia unless they're currently supported by sources that are only medium-quality rather than gold-plated". If you don't find that policy clear on the point, then perhaps we should start a discussion there about how to improve its clarity, so that the two of us won't read it and come to opposite conclusions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note that while biomedical assertions call for MEDRS sources, all assertions which might be challenged call for secondary sources. Triple's statements above positively scream wp:POV editing. Wikipedia cannot lead but must follow the published literature. If that means waiting for the world to publish secondary work, so be it. There is wp:NODEADLINE. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

LeadSongDog, this is not true. WP:V says "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an WP:inline citation that directly supports the material." It does not say that any material whose verifiability is likely to be challenged must be supported by a secondary source, and never has. (Also, for the new folks, note that WP:Secondary does not mean independent. It can be a complicated subject.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WAID, that is literally correct, but practically inconsequential. A primary source doesn't truly support any statement except those such as "In source, author said X". Without a secondary source, there's no reason to use that primary source in the first place.LeadSongDog come howl! 23:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: TripleShotEspresso, before anyone else states something, know that Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is a WP:Essay; it is not a WP:Policies and guidelines matter. Also know that Wikipedia:Revert only when necessary is a WP:Essay; it is not a WP:Policies and guidelines matter. Those matters are not policies or guidelines because it is common and usually acceptable for Wikipedia editors to revert more than once. This is also why the WP:3RR limit has the limit that it does, with known exceptions to the limit to boot. Also know that WhatamIdoing is not the exception when it comes to the many Wikipedia editors who revert more than once. When I revert more than once, I always consider the matter necessary. I'd left your class's material in the article. By the time that Hunterashlyn came around, and in the absence of a response from Lnortz2317, I felt that it was time for me to revert. I reverted Hunterashlyn's text (leaving the other text in the article), and tried to explain to Hunterashlyn why I reverted. Hunterashlyn reverted me. And, yes, I reverted again. I do not feel that I was wrong to revert again. I will not apologize for reverting twice. And I am not interested in being scolded like I am a child for reverting twice. Just know that WhatamIdoing and I often do not hold the same views as far as reverting goes, as is clear from this archived discussion. As for improving the article, I consider neither version (the one before your class or after your class) a good version or necessarily a better version. Flyer22 (talk) 06:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

As Flyer22 is indicating, it is better for everyone to follow...Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply. Guideline pages can be found in Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines ...Although Wikipedia does not employ hard-and-fast rules, Wikipedia policy and guideline pages describe its principles and best-agreed practices. Policies explain and describe standards that all users should normally follow, while guidelines are meant to outline best practices for following those standards in specific contexts. Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common senseWikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

With respect to difficulty contributing to Wikipedia, all academic sources have guidelines. If one submits poor written or poorly formatted material to PLoS medicine or the NEJM they simply hand it back to you to rewrite / try again. Wikipedia is far simplier to contribute to than a peer reviewed journal. Writing an FA is about as hard as a mid tier journal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie, it's true that it's best to follow formal policies. Specifically, I believe that several of our core community members need to follow one of the oldest policies on the books, which prohibits WP:Edit warring and which explicitly states that it's possible for someone to be edit-warring even when she only reverted twice. Reverting exactly the same material twice in a few hours counts as "a series of back-and-forth reverts" and it is edit warring, even if it doesn't rise to the "automatic-block level" of four reverts within 24 hours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

WAID, I realize your argument is right but in the interest of going forward...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

so WAID you appear to be really "thowing down" here. Let me first say that i have listened to you carefully, and you say a lot of wise things about sourcing (and unfortunately you have to repeat them many times) - that you look for the best sources, which are first and foremost independent, and then you have some careful criteria after that (like a primary source of an interview is probably a better source for a quote than a secondary source). I've heard you. You also tend to be less focused on evidence than on what is mainstream, when it comes to medicine. I have heard that too. (i hope i got all that right) As for me, i carry a pretty strict personal epistemology into my work in WP. There are things I know that I know are true (because i investigated them); there are things i know that i know are false (because i investigated them) and a whole lot of stuff that i know, i don't know for certain. A lot of stuff. Wikipedia is a reference work - a place people turn to for reliable information. If someone inserts a statement into an article that is unsourced or badly sourced... that is, to me, an unsourced or badly sourced statement. Going back to the editing policy and its statement that "As long as any facts or ideas would belong in an encyclopedia, they should be retained in Wikipedia" For me, is an unsourced or badly sourced statement a "fact"? If I have to say yes or no, i will say no... because leaving it (even with a cn tag) is a "yes". People will read it and take it as a fact. The ideas thing... not really sure why the Editing Policy includes that. Anyway, that is where i come from. WP is way too full of unsourced/badly sourced statements that purport to be facts, and to me, this really undermines our mission to provide the public with reliable information. So i revert unsourced or badly sourced statements most of the time (i try to be nice when i do it, and it is wonderful how often people who inserted the unsourced/badly sourced statement circle back around and source it. the other great outcome is that they understand that the statement is not found in good sources, so they agree to let it go). sometimes the outcome is bad and they are just angry their edits didn't stick. that happens an extra lot with students, who really are NOTHERE and never will come back. i know you have said that we drive students away. but so many students i have interacted with, really had no interest in WP per se. just in getting their grade. they had no time or patience for WP itself. i am happy to talk with you more about this. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Yep, on the "throwing down" aspect. I also suspect WAID mixes instances of removing the poor source itself, and removing the text attached to a poor source. I have many times removed a primary source that someone (typically a student) came along and attached to a piece of text that most likely is accurate and can be sourced to a secondary review because a) I am not going to leave the later sorting of correct vs. incorrect sourcing to someone else (better to remove it when you see it happen), and b) it is not wise or helpful on any front to let students think that they are sourcing something correctly when they are not. That will only lead to more of same, they will not learn, and someone else will have even more cleanup to do down the line, with a missed chance of the student learning guideline or policy. I'm not sure why WAID is so convinced of being the true arbiter of what facts or ideas belong in an encyclopedia, but policy is clear on primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, thank you all so much for engaging in this discussion. We're learning a lot about Wikipedia editing policies through this discussion and we appreciate the support and feedback. Flyer22, your specific mention of the percentages we referenced was exactly the type of feedback we need to improve the information out there in the bigender article. We're not just trying to ram our heads against a wall until you let us do whatever we want and it's so so so helpful to us to get into specifics like that. I've alerted my team to your feedback and we're looking into it to see if it needs revisions. And again, y'all, you're really helping us to improve what used to be a rather lackluster and uninformative page, so thank you very much. If you have any other specific, constructive criticisms, we'd love to hear them, and we look forward to keeping up with this discussion. TripleShotEspresso (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

TripleShotEspresso, you're welcome. You're seeing the positives and negatives of Wikipedia. As for percentages, what do you mean? Do you mean what KateWishing stated above? Flyer22 (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Flyer22, yes, it is. I misremembered the signature as yours instead of KateWishing's. My apologies. TripleShotEspresso (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Update: TripleShotEspresso, regarding this latest edit that Hunterashlyn (talk · contribs) made, I will go ahead take the article off my WP:Watchlist and note the class editing at that article's talk page. This is not because I'm fine with Hunterashlyn's latest edit; it is because I've explained above what problems I have with the edits your class have made to that article. I don't see such poor biomedical content being added to that article as a good thing, even if exempt by WP:MEDDATE. I have similar issues with poor biomedical content at the Causes of transsexualism article. The only reason I'm keeping that latter article on my WP:Watchlist is because of the controversial nature of that topic and the inappropriate POV-pushing that has gone at that article. I wish your class all the best. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

glutamine as treatment for intestinal permeability

would appreciate thoughts here: Talk:Intestinal_permeability#glutamine Jytdog (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

give your opinion (I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Vitamin K₂

Vitamin K2 (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Is in questionable shape. Currently we're saying supplementation is essential for the maintenance of bone strength in postmenopausal women, has a strongly protective effect on cardiovascular health, and is beneficial to children ... so far as I can see the evidence is a lot more tentative that this. The article gets ~250 views/day. Alexbrn (talk) 12:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

from a reference standpoint 1-5,7-15,18,19,21,23-33 are non-MEDRS compliant (due to 1. not being a review or 2. being much older than 5 years or so)...references 16,17,20,22 are MEDRS compliant...aside from this, as the poster indicated, the text is not supported by the sources. Having said that perhaps journal [19] and books [20] [21].thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Reddit Science AMA + PLOS + Wikipedia

Hello.

There is a crowdsourced media platform called reddit, and they have a science forum there called /r/science which presents academic papers. Starting next week PLOS will be partnering with reddit to increase and deepen scientists' participation in reddit. For a range of reasons, I think that a Wikipedia team could partner in this to everyone's mutual benefit.

I drafted the beginning of a grant proposal describing such a collaboration at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Reddit Science AMA + PLOS + Wikipedia. Because of the regularity of the commitment to partner, and the need for professionalism when meeting scientists and representing a convergence of communities, I think that imagining this partnership to include some part-time paid staffing is reasonable. PLOS is already contributing some staffing, reddit has a super-committed volunteer base but is not really in the position to do this, and Wikipedia in my opinion has a lot to gain in terms of getting quality content, establishing relationships, and increasing its public profile.

I would appreciate anyone commenting at meta on the idea. If anyone knows anyone who might apply for a WMF grant to establish a relationship between these communities, then please have them comment on the grant page. I would love to see partnerships grow here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

give opinion (I gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Related to this, I am actually working to get the /r/emergencymedicine community on Reddit to be more active in contributing to Wikipedia by showing the benefits of doing so and working to make it easy for them to understand how they are able to contribute. A little bit ago I even posted on the /r/medicine page about this very topic. I would love to help you out in any way I can. Peter.C • talk • contribs 18:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

that's a great idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I can't say I'm thrilled about Wikipedia being associated with Reddit, a site that proudly hosts threads promoting rape, the sexualisation of dead women, and over-the-top racism. Apparently until a couple of years ago the search term that most commonly brought Googlers to Reddit, other than "reddit", was "jailbait", referring to sexualised images of underage females (source). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

If I wanted to take the five minutes to do so, I could find comparable situations in Wikipedias history. One thing I like about reddit though is that is merely is a platform for people to use as a public forum, that means that while there might be some degenerates on a certain "subreddit", it does not mean that those same users are active in others. The way I think this would work is that there would be a collaboration between this wikiproject and medical professions on medical subreddits. I invite you to look at some medical subreddits like /r/medicine and /r/emergencymedicine and see if you find any content that you find that you would not like to be associated with. Hopefully this reply will ease your concerns. Feel free to ask any other questions about reddit and I will try to answer them to the best of my ability :) Peter.C • talk • contribs 14:14, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

When we have scandals, we clean up. We don't continue to openly promote horribly antisocial or extremely violent activities. We host disturbing content to document it, whereas Reddit has fetishised free speech to the point where it welcomes original instructions for getting away with rape, delightfully illustrated with a cartoon of a woman being bleeding while being anally raped.

Surely there are countless alternative sites that use similar open-forum technology, while maintaining some modicum of basic human decency? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 00:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Adrian J. Hunter I respect your perspective that reddit is harmful and I hope that you will respect mine that it is helpful. No - reddit, is not replaceable. It is the largest community forum in the world for layman audiences to discuss new academic publications while reading the actual papers. All the problems you describe exist there just as you describe. They matter and need to be addressed, but I am not in a position to boycott this popular communication channel because I need to rally more resources and participation to come here. While I would not invite a direct threat into Wikipedia, the science forum there in my opinion is a threat only for being on reddit and not because the scientists do harmful things, and it is my opinion that inviting science enthusiasts from there to here has a low risk of harming Wikipedia's image or bringing over a more troublesome community base.

There is no defense or excuse for what is bad on reddit - it should be eliminated in whatever way does not destroy the good parts. Reddit is a place where the leaders of most major social movements in the English speaking world meet to present their perspective. Obama, Elon Musk, CNN's medical correspondent, college professors including this one, a Nobel prize winner for medicine, and other interesting people in health present on reddit daily, and I think that these people's endorsement of reddit is supporting evidence that it is not wholly bad. As to the harassment issues - I could talk with you more about these things if you like, as I talk with others about sorting the harassment problem through efforts like this meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Centralised harassment reporting and referral service. On Wikipedia the harassment problem is being addressed by keeping this place 90% male. Homogeneity does a lot to keep conformity to the rules but I feel that while suppressing diversity does reduce harassment, it is not a long-term strategy for developing the encyclopedia here. I think we need new people here, and the science forum at reddit is a reasonable risk in balancing the chance of recruiting collaborators versus increasing risk of harassment here. Certainly I want no tolerance for the dregs of reddit or any other website. I am ready to tell anyone that reddit hosts horrible content that cannot be excused. I understand that you would wish to avoid reddit and perhaps that might be best for almost all people, and people should know about reddit's problems. Still I want access to the reddit and PLOS communities and information, and I hope you can at least recognize some basis for my exploring this option even if you still oppose it. I feel unable to boycott reddit in entirety because it is too big. I do not see other options to go into another online volunteer crowdsourcing science community (reddit) to ask them to share open access content (PLOS) on Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Blueraspberry – Thanks for the considered response. You've convinced me that there's little risk that an association with Reddit will harm Wikipedia's reputation. So the relevant calculus becomes [cost to society of Wikipedia endorsing a site that condones promotion of violence and extremely antisocial activities] vs [benefit to society of Wikipedia recruiting more scientists and medics]. I doubt our association with Reddit would be all that visible to the public. On the other hand, given our immense popularity among the lay public and health professionals alike, the benefit of more accurate and comprehensive material on Wikipedia is considerable. And I know that we really, really need more competent and committed editors. So on balance I support this initiative. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

the link that PETER C. brought up looks fine...This sub is for medical professionals. We like to think of /r/medicine as a lounge where medical professionals can talk about the latest advances, controversies, ask questions of each other, have a laugh or share a difficult moment. Although primarily aimed at physicians, we distinctly encourage other health care professionals to add their voice to the discussions. [22]...it seems informative and like BlueRasberry indicated it gets a wide audience.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

"a site that proudly hosts threads promoting rape, the sexualisation of dead women, and over-the-top racism."

That article is really sensationalized. The subreddit they are primarily attacking currently only has 2 posts in it, one of which is asking if the subreddit is a joke. And far from proudly hosting them, most of the subreddits you and the article complained about were banned years ago.TypingAway (talk) 05:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

TypingAway – I don't follow – I know the Jailbait stuff is gone, but as far as I can see, everything else mentioned by the article I linked or by myself is still live and active. (See my comment above, though.) Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:22, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

The website is known for its open nature and diverse user community that generate its content. Its demographics allows for wide-ranging subject areas, or main subreddits, that receive much attention, as well as the ability for smaller subreddits to serve more niche purposes. For example, the University of Reddit, a subreddit that exists to communally teach, emerged from the ability to enter and leave the online forum, the "classroom," at will, and classes ranging from computer science to music, to fine art theory exist.[89] The unique possibilities that subreddits provide create new opportunities for raising attention and fostering discussion across many areas. In gaining popularity in terms of unique users per day, Reddit has been a platform for many to raise publicity for a number of causes. And with that increased ability to garner attention and a large audience, users can use one of the largest communities on the Internet for new, revolutionary, and influential purposes.[23]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Google books

I oppose the addition of this template to medical articles. IMO the last thing we need is more complicated templates that work in no other language of Wikipedia other than English. We really need a base set of templates that the WMF gets working in all languages. I have removed it here [24]. By the way the cite templates work in nearly all languages due to the hard work of User:CFCF Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I use this app http://reftag.appspot.com/ to auto generate references from a google books url. Is this helpful/unhelpful>? Entirely support the presence of a link to google books when using textbooks, helps readers to see how accessible some of these sources are, however not sure of the best way to format this in the citation... Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 19:38, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

This particular template does work in many other languages and the underlying script is an order of magnitude less complicated than {{cite journal}}. Boghog (talk) 20:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Which style of source presentation should be use is a WP:CITEVAR matter. Decisions are made article-by-article. WPMED doesn't own the articles and can't dictate a blanket style for all of them.

Personally, I think that link looks more like an WP:External link formatting style than a bibliographic citation, but each article's editors get to set their own preferences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

that's right--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:05, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, we also have WP:MEDMOS which already mentions how to use references in medical articles. I don't see how ownership of articles is relevant, what we are doing here is holding a discussion aimed towards forming opinion and if needed suggesting amendments to relevant policies. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"We" don't have MEDMOS; the whole community does. MEDMOS has never told editors to use or not use any particular templates.
CITEVAR is a guideline, not a policy.
There is no realistic chance of getting CITEVAR revoked or modified to give WikiProjects (or any group of people other than the editors active at each separate, individual article) the right to decide which citation templates should or shouldn't be used on groups of articles. My recommendation is that you not waste your (very valuable) time and energy on a proposal that is guaranteed to fail. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

We don't exclude this WikiProject from the community at large, thus "we" have MEDMOS. This WikiProject serves the sole function to centralize discussion about medical topics and any changes to either policy or guideline is per definition global, regardless where the topic was first raised. Can we stick to the topic of whether to use googlebooks links? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Where there is a significant amount of relevant text available on google books, a link is very useful, but it should go straight to the relevant text, not the google books "title page" for the book, which the template does. Sometimes whole books are now available, and often say 50% - bearing in mind that what is visible changes around the world. I don't use that template style myself, in my non-medical writing, I just add a trimmed link to the start page for relevance in the book at the end of a bibliographic citation, looking like: *Ainsworth, Maryan Wynn, et al., German Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1350-1600, 2013, Metropolitan Museum of Art (New York, N.Y.), ISBN 1588394875, 9781588394873, google books

- note you go straight to the right page, using "https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=MKkSBtJNBUwC&pg=PA59 " trimmed from the url in the search query result. That large book is 100% available on google books, btw. Johnbod (talk) 14:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes I add these google book urls as John mentions all the time. They are great and go write to the page in question. One can add it to the url= Maybe with tech support becoming available someone can drive forwards some universal templates that work across all Wikipedia's. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:42, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

The template {{Google books}} relies in its code only on the #if: parser function and the urlenclode "magic word". These are standard features of every Wikimedia installation as far as I know, and the unmodified template should work on being imported into any language Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, contrary to what John suggests, the template can link right to the page required, not the title page, if desired: {{Google books|MKkSBtJNBUwC|German Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1350-1600|page=59}} gives German Paintings in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1350-1600, p. 59, at Google Books. For an experienced editor, it doesn't assist much, but it may be helpful to a new editor, as they can write page= or pg=, for example, and not have to worry about consistent formatting if used more than once. HTH, --RexxS (talk) 15:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Expert attention needed

I've tagged Macronutrient preload for expert attention. The particular issue of concern is the use of primary research for sources, rather than review articles as preferred by WP:MEDRS. Could someone knowledgable from this project have a look? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

references 1-3 and 5-7 are non-MEDRS compliant, you might want to look here [25] and also books [26] [27] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:05, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Simple definition

Wondering if people understand "Aneuploidy is the presence in a cell of an abnormal number of chromosomes, with the exception of a difference of one or more complete sets of chromosomes" Discussed here [28] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

interesting discussion (give opinion, I did)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:33, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

X-ray computed tomography renamed to CT scan?

Discussion is here: Talk:X-ray_computed_tomography#reqmovetag, and would benefit from some more input. --Tom (LT) (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

give opinion--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Open Wikipedia ranking

Found this on Slashdot: The Open Wikipedia Ranking. Uses wikidata items to assess relative importance of articles. Wikidata's patchy coverage makes it more fun than you'd expect. (The most important member of occupation:chemist? Margaret Thatcher, apparently.) But it has a lot of potential for discovering under-developed important articles. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

interesting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I have previously expressed my surprise at seeing Margaret Thatcher in the category of women scientists. Of the two people who responded (one of whom was Wiki at Royal Society John/JohnBod), one editor was inclined to remove her from the category, while the other editor was not.

Ironically, Blurasberry's comment there was "Wikidata will settle this". Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Orthodeoxia

Not quite sure what to do with this, was thinking it should be redirected to platypnea but wanted to know what others thought. Everymorning talk 20:21, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree (per [29] [30] and [31] )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I have redirected it. Everymorning talk 11:18, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Orthodeoxia is not the same as platypnea. The redirect target ("Platypnea") does not define orthodeoxia. The current statement: "platypnea (sometimes referred to as Platypnea-Orthodeoxia syndrome)" is incorrect. The statement is not supported by either of the two references provided. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Platypnea-Orthodeoxia syndrome describes both dyspnea (platypnea) and arterial desaturation in the upright position with improvement of the supine position (orthodeoxia) . The mechanism of this syndrome is thought to be a distortion of the septal anatomy leading to preferential shunting of blood from right to left by stretching of a PFO in the supine position despite normal right-sided pressures. (Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine edited by Eric J. Topol, Robert M. Califf,.2007) [32]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! You have proven my point. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

for clarity Platypnea-Orthodeoxia syndrome article? (in regards to the platypnea article the text should have been modified prior to the redirect...BTW, if you check the reference I cited for the redirect (at the top), its the same one you just agreed to )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate article on the syndrome. We should just clarify that platypnea refers to a subjective sensation of shortness of breath, while orthodeoxia describes an objective, measurable decrease in arterial O2 saturation. They often co-exist but they are two different things. MastCell ^Talk 21:03, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

"if you check the reference I cited for the redirect (at the top)". Which reference? (I'm pretty sure that I checked all of the references provided.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

reference 31 (its the same as the one you indicated agreement with in the text in my second to last post)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand your point. The reference supports my position, not yours. Did you read MastCell's statement? Do you agree or disagree with him?

To clarify my position: "platypnea" is the symptom of shortness of breath when upright, which is relieved by lying down. "Orthodeoxia" is the clinical finding where oxygen saturation is reduced in the upright position, and increases when lying down. "Platypnea-orthodeoxia syndrome" is the combination of both platypnea and orthodeoxia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

right...I agree with MastCell (I was simply pointing out the same reference had been used before, irrespective of that, and in the best interest of the article, I believe MastCell's solution is best!) thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Please read my original statement again. Do you agree with it? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

yes I concur, the article comes first--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I feel that we are making progress. :-)

I am inclined to have separate articles for these three (related) conditions, but given that the amount of material is fairly low, this is not a strong opinion. In any case, I shall edit the article later today. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

thank you (yes the material is low in quantity)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

addiction research / federal privacy

[33] I believe this to be a good read.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Americord Registry

Company, it appears, is attempting to write there own page. Wondering if protection would be useful? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

it could, yes--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Done Indef semi'd. Zad68 17:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

i tagged it for COI and listed at COIN. it needs review for NPOV etc.. thanks doc and zad. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thrombocytopenia

Currently this article is called class B, but it needs attention. Sections tagged a year ago still need refs. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Looking for Help with Non-NPOV Content

Hi… My name is Vince Golla and I work with Kaiser Permanente. I’m trying to find a neutral party to take a look at the Kaiser Permanente page, particularly with regard to some serious non-NPOV content. You can find my related Talk page entry over at the article. Happy to answer any questions. Many thanks to anyone who is willing to help out. vggolla (talk) 00:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I think User:Jytdog is already looking into it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Salvia miltiorrhiza

Although the subject of Salvia miltiorrhiza is a plant, the majority of the content is about its medical use. Based on the massive cleanup tag and other issues noted in the text, I think it could use some serious attention from editors with medical knowledge and an eye for WP:MEDRS. Anyone willing to give it a look? Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

reference-wise 2,5,6,11,13-29,32,34 are not MEDRS compliant...the references 12 and 23 are not pubmed indexed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Sialectasis

How is sialectasis different from salivary duct cyst? Been reworking template:oral pathology, and I feel wp is missing some content on this topic, but not sure what to call new article, or indeed if already covered (mucocele, mucous retention cyst). Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

the former [34] and the latter [35] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

GlaxoSmithKline

If anyone has the interest it would be nice to have some input on the article above. Issues of disagreement (from my pov, @SlimVirgin: may have a different view.) are

When is it appropriate to mention potentially COI funding of studies? Is it appropriate to discuss

When underlying primary studies mentioned in secondary sources are industry or activist group funded?
When the secondary source itself has COI funding (industry or activist group funded)?

To what extent does WP:MEDDATE apply to discussion of historical controversies (In this case, rosiglitazone?). Should greater weight be attached to more recent analyses of the data on rosiglitazone's potential CV liabilites, or should equal weight be given to older ones? Should analyses (the number dead from Avandia induced heart attacks) based on the 2009 relative risk be included in the text given that FDA modified its conclusions in 2014?

Is the GSK malaria vaccine as notable as other items included in the lede?

I'm sure SV will have a different view of how these questions should have been phrased, and I welcome her comments here. Formerly 98 ^{talk|contribs|COI statement} 16:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

your asking several questions at once so lets take one at a time, in regards to MEDDATE...[36]....These rules of thumb have several exceptions:

History sections often cite older work for obvious reasons.
Cochrane Library reviews are generally of high-quality and are routinely maintained even if their initial publication dates fall outside the above window...maybe this will help with the #4 question you asked--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

a partial answer to your first question (as I see this is on a separate talk page) would be...Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Wikipedia is governed by common sense. For example, an article about a band should not be written by the band's manager, and a biography should not be written by the subject's spouse. But subject-matter experts are welcome to contribute to articles in their areas of expertise, while being careful to make sure that their external relationships in that field do not interfere with their primary role on Wikipedia[37]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:33, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Obesogen

This is a neologism coined by Bruce Blumberg to describe the hypothesis that environmental pollutants cause obesity. It presents the hypothesis as fact and is largely dependent on two papers [38] [39] and mostly references which don't directly discuss the suject. Others researchers dispute the methodology and conclusions [40] [41] [42], although admittedly others have not questioned them [43]. It was written as a university assignment and is a good scholarly work, but not a neutral encyclopedia article. Something needs to be done, but I'm undecided as to what that is! SmartSE (talk) 20:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

you should start by making certain they are Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) that is the references are reviews , books (5 years or so)...I noticed quite a few references in the article in question were not--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:02, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Even if the term is relatively new, the subject is almost certainly notable, since journal articles like this one are saying things like "The concept of obesogens has spread into the public awareness, too". If you want to make a "quick fix", then start by finding the other POV and add that per the WP:YESPOV policy. If you want to make a bigger change, then finding and reading a few good books or review articles should give you some ideas about how to improve it. It might also make it easier to upgrade some of the sources cited, since if the information is good, it will mostly be present in other good sources, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:32, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

There are at least 10 independent review articles (not authored by Felix Grün or Bruce Blumberg) that mention obesogen hence the subject by definition is notable. Even if the link between environmental estrogens and obesity has not been unequivocally established, the hypothesis has gained notice in both the scientific literature and popular press, and hence deserves a Wikipedia article. The article needs more balance (i.e., include sources that question the hypothesis). Boghog (talk) 05:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Veganism and cancer risk

Following long discussions at:

The article's talk page: e.g. Talk:Veganism#Veganism and cancer
NPOV/N: WP:NPOV/N#Veganism and cancer risk

There seems no consensus on how the subject of cancer risk and vegan diets should be treated. Input from more MEDRS-savvy editors would help. This article receives ~2,000 views per day so it'd be a good one to get right. Alexbrn (talk) 14:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

give opinion, I gave mine--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Obesophobia

Seriously? There aren't enough hours in a day ... amazing sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Maybe redirect to anorexia nervosa Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:24, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I meant it-- out of time and motivation for dealing with silliness like that. Someone else can have a go if interested. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

So, I cleaned it up. We have an article-- just not a medical article (there is exactly one dated mention of the term in PubMed, in Spanish). Reading the AFD is interesting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Found some interesting sources re "weight phobia", as discussed at talk:obesophobia, but not sure how to apply them. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

The editor who introduced all those interesting sources is this one. That editor went on to add equally questionable sources to a variety of articles, but seems to have stopped editing as of a few months ago. Zad68 19:15, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case filing regarding complementary and alternative medicine

On a Wikipedia-wonkery note, there has been a request for Arbitration filed recently, under the topic heading of "Complementary and Alternative Medicine". See Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Complementary and Alternative Medicine for the ongoing sausage-making.

For editors not familiar with Wikipedia's Arbitration process, note that this case has not yet been accepted for Arbitration, and may not be (see the voting section for the Arbitrators at the bottom). Note as well that the ArbCom (Arbitration Committee) generally avoids making specific rulings regarding content disputes. The ArbCom generally rules (with assorted loopholes and winks) on user conduct issues only. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

good information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

New article: Head and neck cancer VPH-positive

Head and neck cancer VPH-positive was recently created. I'm no expert, but not sure if it merits its own article, or could be perhaps merged with Head and neck cancer, or HPV-positive oropharyngeal cancer, or what have you. Cheers. --Animalparty-- (talk) 06:17, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

reference #4 is non MEDRS compliant, #5 and #6 are repeated from prior references cited...the bibliography is questionably presented (as are the external links ,which simply repeat the references)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Should likely be merged to Head and neck cancer Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

They've edited there too (only 2 pages). The highly variable quality of the English suggests copyvio may be an issue. Johnbod (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Board of Trustees

Hey All. I have decided to run for the Board of Trustees of the WMF. My hope is to improve relations / collaboration between the WMF and the editor community. Questions for the candidates are being accepted here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

great news (you have my vote)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

[1] ttp://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1499267115003019

[1]