Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 76

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 70←Archive 74Archive 75Archive 76Archive 77Archive 78→Archive 80

Model release - medical photos and more - legal review - WMF grant proposal

I am seeking comments and hopefully endorsements on a draft request to the Wikimedia Foundation for grant funds. If you like, please comment at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Legal review and templates for model release.

For some time I have been collecting examples in Wikimedia projects in which there is some disagreement about whether an image violates personality right and would require a model release to host in Wikimedia Commons. See examples in the discussion sections at

For context on Wikimedia Commons policy, see

Currently, the major criteria for determining if an image is appropriate for inclusion in Commons is whether it has a free copyright license. Some other criteria, including personality rights, are discussed sometimes. My expectation is that Wikimedia Commons will continue to consider only copyright, but in some cases, when someone voluntarily seeks a model release and the photographer and model together agree to post their release in Wikimedia Commons, then I would like for such contributors to have access to a standard model release form which has legal review and is backed by community input.

I found a nonprofit organization with expertise in model releases. They are the Fashion Law Institute and are based in New York City. Among other things, they provide curricula to law schools and fashion schools which want to present classes on fashion law. They also help fashion, advertising, and media companies set policy regarding fashion and communication. I have assisted them in partnering with meta:Wikimedia New York City in drafting an application for a Wikimedia Foundation grant (meta:Grants:Start) to do legal review on the issue, provide expert opinions about when a model release may be used and should not be used, and to draft both a model release document and summary templates to apply to Commons uploads. In my opinion, this kind of legal research can only be done with some payment, and this is an appropriate organization to do this. One of their lawyers has had a Wikipedia account for some years as Fashionethics, and he is my point of contact.

This relates to WikiProject Medicine for several reasons, including the following:

  • Some of our contributors take photos while using their own model releases, and it would be good to give them a reviewed standard model release
  • It happens that sometimes we face trouble for using photos without model releases
  • It might be nice to continue to confirm last year's US Copyright Office Decision that medical imaging is in the public domain as non-creative data

Again, comment at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Legal review and templates for model release if you will. I am showing this to WikiProject Medicine participants before I show this more generally around Wikimedia projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You've clearly put a lot of work in to this project, and it is commendable. I would use a standardized release form were one available, because the survival of images is more guaranteed than at present, when it seems that any image can be removed by overzealous deletionists on commons at any time. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The release would be different between health care providers and non health care providers I image? Health care providers need to keep image release forms for their licensing body.
The Wikimedia Movement should not be handling these release forms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Doc James My expectation is that consent forms will never be managed in a Wikimedia project or in OTRS, which would make this process different from the copyright release. I would like Wikimedia projects to provide a CC-By text of a sample model release, then offer this to institutions or individuals who could use it. The validity of the text would come from its recognition in the Wikimedia community and also from the legal opinion of the Fashion Law Institute, who will endorse at least the initial version and perhaps later versions also. There might be an OTRS process in which an institution can say, "We confirm that we hold the model release" but I would not want them to actually share the model release.
If the release is used then I would expect local institutions to keep the document and information like the model's name. The host institution or individual uploader of the image would confirm "The subject in this photo agreed to this model release" and the template confirmation on Commons would only say that the uploader claimed to have the release. We would WP:AGF from there just as we do now.
I am not yet sure whether the form would need to be different for patients modeling for medical journals versus models posing for fashion magazines. If there is reason to differentiate then multiple versions could be produced. Fashionethics anticipated that perhaps one form and one release could be used in most cases. The nature of the release would be that the model confirms understanding of free licensing and distribution of their photo generally on the Internet, and not only in Wikimedia projects. Personality rights are a separate but related issue - I am not sure how those would be addressed in this system but Fashion Law Institute might be able to say what is and is not generally appropriate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine

Additional eyes would be appreciated on this article. Old material from QW is being edit warred back in after being removed [2] (by same editor who was correct to initially remove it since it's over ten years old and newer sources are available) in the absence of consensus and in violation of WP:BRD and has removed well-sourced content. Thanks everyone! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


Subclinical infection

Just wanted to point out this bit of unsourced text, and apparently pseudo-science, added here by CoherenceClinic (talk · contribs), that I removed from the page. Unfortunately it's been there since March 2013! 220 of Borg 02:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

thank you 220 of Borg (will go over article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Wow, that is a bad one. Good catch. CFCF 💌 📧 11:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
@CFCF: yes, a bit surprised it slipped through. It sounds 'techie' though, which may fool a lot of people. Being an electronic tech helped I think as my BS detector pinged, loudly.
@Ozzie10aaaa: Edits to Biophoton may need a close look too! 220 of Borg 14:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
will look (as it falls under wikiproject Biology, dealt only w/ MEDRS issue edits) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:41, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Many infections have a period were they are minimally symptomatic but contagious to others. Some infections exist in a carrier state which is somewhat different. We do have an article on Asymptomatic carrier. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Getting rid of MEDRS safety information when merging articles?

Various E-liquid Bottles

The articles E-liquid and Electronic cigarette aerosol were merged recently following a inconclusive discussion at [3], but with the removal of nearly all safety information from the articles. The following edit gets rid of several sections concerning the safety and health effects of the substances [4]. CFCF 💌 📧 21:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The information that replaced it was from the "Safety" page. Its all "safety" information. Chemical claims were moved to the Safety page, they were not simply removed. Though most of it didnt need to be moved because the article as it sat was not a daughter page, but simply a copy and paste coatrack. This was done in accordance of consensus at a merge discussion.[5] Unilaterally replacing things you fought against in that closed discussion but were not found in your favor isnt how things should be done. Opening a discussion on the page and finding if there is consensus to have the material in the page is the way, not running to a wikiproject first before discussion on the articles talk page. AlbinoFerret 22:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Patent nonsense from the editor who deleted the information – despite intense criticism and lack of any support for getting rid of the edits. The merge itself was premature, and was performed to the horribly named new article Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid. The problem with these articles is that they are overlooked by the majority of medical editors, and this needs more eyes.
It should not be possible to avoid scrutiny by removing content in a questionable merge that would never have removed through ordinary editing process on an article. WP:COATRACK is an essay, while the section WP:SYNC "Keeping summary sections and detailed articles synchronized" is an editing guideline! CFCF 💌 📧 07:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Generally when performing a merge the content should be copied verbatim from the source and its provenance labelled clearly in the edit summary (for license integrity reasons). Then (or beforehand) it can be fettled. If somehow during this process excisions were silently made that were non-neutral, that would be a concern. Unless agreed as part of the merge discussion, I would expect a merge operation not to result in any lost knowledge in our overall content. Given some of the problematic history of these articles, I'd expect any editor performing a merge to be alert to the need for caution. Alexbrn (talk) 07:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
This was more than a simple merge. The article "Electronic cigarette aerosol" before the work done was a coatrack. The page was not about aerosol, but toxicology, simply copied and pasted claims from Safety of electronic cigarettes, not broken out as a daughter page is normally done leaving a summery and link to the new page. Leaving two pages on toxicology, and the aerosol information still on Safety. This was discussed in an earlier section of the main articles talk page,[6] linked to in the merge discussion.[7] The toxicology information was moved back to safety per the merge discussion. The aerosol section was moved to the aerosol page per the merge discussion. A summery was left in its place and a link to the page added. Then e-liguid was merged in. What we have now is a true daughter page, that can be synced and everything was copied verbatium. Nothing was lost. The information all exists on WP, its just on different pages. The so called "removal" of information can be found here [8]. Each claim that was taken off of Aersol either already existed in the toxicology section of Safety or was moved there. All done per a merge discussion, that was closed by an uninvolved admin as having consensus. What this section is, is forum shopping and since the original post was non neutral, canvassing. AlbinoFerret 13:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Clyde cancer cluster

Hello, people of WikiProject Medicine. I've created this message to notify active members of the project, especially to those who know a lot about or are interested in cancer. If you are, I need help improving my article about the Clyde cancer cluster, a cancer cluster in Clyde, Ohio that has received a massive amount of news coverage. I'm not at all saying minor edits or improvements are bad, but I'm specifically looking for people who can help me long-term with a lot of co-research to improve the article to reach Good Article status. If you're interested in helping, the things needed to be improved are listed on Talk:Clyde cancer cluster#Improvements. In other words, more material needs to be added to improve the article, and I want more people to edit because I feel like I'm the sole editor. Regards, Philmonte101 (talk)

will look (added two MEDRS refs)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Philmonte101—Many of the sources used are poor or cite popular press for statements that should require higher sourcing standards. Also there is no clarification as to why these cancer cases are thought to be related beyond being from the same area. An incidence of two cases per year in a small town isn't remarkable on its own, you need something better before defining it as a cluster. For a cluster you need a markedly increased rate compared to the average—which can not be explained through random chance (preferably also of similar types of cancer). I hate to tell you, but it's unlikely this can reach GA at all, if it even reaches WP:NOTE. CFCF 💌 📧 13:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC) 
CFCF I see what you're saying, and don't take my words wrong, thanks for criticizing, it's constructive. But isn't Wikipedia all about what it says in the sources? Pretty much all the sources refer to this incident as "the Clyde Cancer Cluster" (notice they often capitalize cancer and cluster incorrectly) or something similar, like the Ohio Cancer Cluster, or the Sandusky County Cancer Cluster, Clyde Area Cancer Cluster, Clyde, Ohio Cancer Cluster, etc. If it weren't actually a cluster, we should at least say that "most people believe it's a cluster but it's actually not" in the article or something like that. Because even if it wasn't even what people call it, it still qualifies for an article, because it's an incident of concern. From what I've gather, and I didn't put it was necessarily true in the article, but I'm pretty confident that it was, at least mostly, Whirlpool's fault for dumping the PCBs and emitting illegal gases. I think most other people, at least in Clyde, would agree with me on that one, even the attorneys themselves. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
CFCF Some official court documents and such define the Clyde cancer cluster as real as well. Again, please see User:Philmonte101/Clyde cancer cluster/References, for a full list of references I'm going to use for the rewriting of the article. Philmonte101 (talk) 21:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
CFCF Oh, and about the challenge you gave to the article about "pure chance", I would like to note to you that, and I did know this from the start, it still could've happened by pure chance, or for another fault than Whirlpool's. I don't think you'd ever find a reliable source that said "It was definitely Whirlpool's fault." All that happened was they found PCBs in a public park that they used to own in one of the surrounding towns, and found benzaldehyde in people's homes, and assumed that it must have been emitted from the factory. There is no evidence that these two things are linked with the cancers at all, but it is extremely likely that it is. Because it is still technically unconfirmed what caused the cancers even at this point, the Clyde cancer cluster can still have an article telling about all the investigations and court cases regarding the cluster, because there are like a hundred sources out there regarding the incidents. People are indeed assuming that Whirlpool was at fault because of the their confirmed dumping of illegal toxic waste into a public park, and I don't blame them because this actually seems like a logical explanation; to ignore something like that in a court case about the cluster is inhumane. Philmonte101 (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
"Cancer cluster facts: Clusters occur when there are more cancer cases than statistically expected in a specific area during a certain time." Philmonte101 (talk) 00:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
very good information(lets concentrate on article) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Determining most edits to project-included articles by user

Hello - I was informed at the WikiProject Council that WP Medicine at some point determined who made the most edits to your included articles. Can someone please direct me to how I can do that for another WikiProject? I would like to analyze who to invite to join WP Louisville. By the way, I really admire how active and well-structured WP Medicine is. Thanks for any leads! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 22:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Louisville? It shows all recent contributors to articles tagged by the project. Sizeofint (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
It's close to what I'm looking for, thanks. Maybe I can get them to show the number of edits next to each entry. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
We have specific data here for WikiProject Med. It was developed using tools to handle large data sets. If you are a programmer would be possible to duplicate what was done. It was based off the very large data files. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
I have a programming background and could probably take this on if I had to, but at this point, for the simple information for a small WikiProject I'm looking for, I think I'll just wait for the information to be added to the WikiProject Directory. They are already listing editors who've worked on project-included pages; it should be a minor additional step to indicate how much or what they're editing. At any rate, I'm very impressed what's been done for WP Medicine here, and your project in general inspires ideas for other projects. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:10, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Stevie is the man! should you have further questions don't hesitate to ask--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:42, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Conference

Hello all! The WikiProject Med Foundation and Wikimedia Cascadia are teaming up for WikiConference USA next year and we would love to have your feedback on the grant proposal since we're planning a dedicated medicine track for the conference. Thanks in advance! meta:Grants:PEG/Cascadia Wikimedians/WikiConference USA 2016 + WikiProject Medicine Conference 2016 Best, Keilana (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Vagus nerve stimulation

I was looking at the article on vagus nerve stimulation and cleaned up some references. I noticed that some, however, appear problematic from a MEDRS perspective (I am a scientist but not medically trained, so I would not presume to edit this sort of article substantively. Current references include a VNS message board (52 to 59), a dead link (32) and a website of unclear reliability (28). Would someone with medical knowledge and editing experience have a look at this article, please? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 05:35, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

AfC submission

See Draft:Cecil Frederick Robertson. Thank you, FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 20:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

additional ref[9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

PMID 17253532

Can someone send that Cochrane review my way? My email is commented out in the source – thanks in advance. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

 DoneCFCF 💌 📧 12:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 14:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Looming deletions

Category:Deaths from cardiovascular disease already deleted Category:Cancer deaths by country & many more soon will be. Does anyone here care? Ottawahitech (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)please ping me


Help with wikibook creation

Dear all, I am not sure if this is the right forum to post (apologies in advance!). I am creating a wikibook on Intensive Care Medicine. I was wondering if any of the members here would be interested in collaborating/contributing/guiding. Thanks in advance.--Balaji.md au (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks interesting. A number of us here work on intensive care topics on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:39, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Great to know. I will be posting content when able (just posted the hard cover!).--Balaji.md au (talk) 10:49, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Moving Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura to Immune thrombocytopenic purpura

Hi folks. Let me start by saying I'm no doctor, but I know a bit about ITP. There has been a very slow moving discussion about making the move described above to the article Idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. Web sources are split from what I can tell (the Mayo Clinic still goes with Idiopathic, Merck with Immune). I think there is general concensous that this is an autoimmune disorder and so isn't really Idiopathic (if I'm using those words correctly). In any case, I'd like to hear what folks who know more about general naming conventions in medicine and medicine in general think. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 03:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

per [11] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Unless I see something else here soon, I'll do a proposed move thingy on the basis of the NIH name. Hobit (talk) 06:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
An additional, tertiary source [12] Little pob (talk) 10:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, but as I said, reliable sources like the Mayo clinic ([13]) use Idiopathic. On-line sources seem split. Just thought to do an obvious search [14] and I think that's pretty convincing. Hobit (talk) 15:55, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
ICD-10 says "idiopathic", and we almost always follow ICD-10 in these cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
I've tried to figure it out, how often does ICD-10 get updated? My guess is "not until ICD-11", but I wasn't sure. Is there a valid argument that ICD-10 is just not updating names like this? Hobit (talk) 21:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
The article on ICD-10 says that the Czech government adopted all the updates, and specifies four different years during the last decade or so. Therefore, I suspect that names like this are getting updated roughly every three years on average. ICD-11 will probably be released in two years. I don't see any urgent need to change this before then (and if ICD-11 doesn't choose "Immune", what would you do in 2018? Revert it back, since we guessed wrong about which name they would prefer?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I still think the common usage (in relevant journals) should trump the ICD-10. But I see your point. Hobit (talk) 00:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Sexuality after spinal cord injury at FAC

I have nominated Sexuality after spinal cord injury for Featured article status. If you have time I hope you'll take a look and let me know what you think at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sexuality after spinal cord injury/archive1. Thank you! delldot ∇. 20:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Suspicious claims at antimicrobial copper-alloy touch surfaces

Could someone who has knowledge in this area please take a look at talk:antimicrobial copper-alloy touch surfaces#Effective against viruses?? The claims seem suspicious to me, and I've hit a dead end trying to follow the refs. --Trovatore (talk) 07:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Commented there.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

New project starting

I'm not quite sure where on the WikiProject Medicine pages to post this. If there is a project area page where this may be more appropriate, please feel free to move it. While the history of medicine is more of a sidebar issue to medicine, itself, the article has been tagged as "High-importance" by your project. Thanks!

History of medicine. I'm proposing an overhaul of this article, both to improve the quality of its discussion of Western Medicine, and to improve its world view of other medical traditions in the rest of the world. All are welcome to join in the discussion. Hi-storian (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:08, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a very good idea and I fully support your efforts. I think we all safely can say we all are fascinated to some degree on the subject. My one real reason qualm with touching these subjects it the lack of high quality books and articles I have been able to find on it. If you ave any open content articles, I urge you to link them in the talk page so people who want to help at a later time have something to work off of. Peter.C • talk • contribs 01:48, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Data

In collaboration with User:West.andrew.g we have been producing data regarding Wikipedia and Medicine here. We have just come out with data regarding how many edits people have made to medical articles during 2015[15] and how many medical articles exist is different languages.[16] Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

great info(and effort from all editors involved)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:54, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
James, can you give me a list of the 124 medicine-related articles at the Haitian Creole Wikipedia (htwiki)? User:Bfpage, User:WhisperToMe and I have a project in hand to improve that tiny project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Can you send me an email and I'll shoot back a plaintext list? Thanks, 23:19, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Synonyms in infobox?

Not sure if this has been suggested before but could be a solution for dealing with a list of synonyms. Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I like it for when their are lots. We have one or two in the lead and than others in the infobox.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea. For some reason that I cannot recall, the use of this INFOBOX may be able to be used by the wiki data people. I can imagine some future analytical program using information from this kind of INFOBOX to assist people in diagnosis. I realize that this is not the purpose of the encyclopedia, but if the data is already entered and part of the encyclopedia, a searchable database would be valuable to clinicians. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Who could I contact to make a mock up of an infobox with a list of synonyms? Ping bluerasberry incase they have any suggestions. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 08:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Some existing templates, notably template:Infobox drug, already contain lists of synonyms -- you could look there, I suppose. Looie496 (talk) 12:07, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 Done see Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome. IMO we should only have the most common ones in the lead text. Less common can be moved to the infobox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Perfect. Next assume would be to seek consensus to see if there is support for this. Is there still an AFC open currently about infobox changes? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree that this is an excellent idea, especially when there are more than two synonyms since this often clutters the lead's first sentence. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:38, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Disadvantage is that mobile users can't see the infobox as far as I'm aware. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
You may be thinking of {{Navbox}} which are not displayed on mobile. Mobile users can see infoboxes (see for example testcases). The problem with infoboxes on mobile is that collapsed sections are displayed uncollapsed (see request). Boghog (talk) 20:41, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
exactly [17]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC started here: Template talk:Infobox medical condition#Request for comments: Should the infobox medical condition contain a list of synonyms?. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Scholarpedia as a source

Discussion here Talk:Epilepsy#Scholarpedia_as_a_source Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


Help with possible medical advertising

It's recently come to my attention that some possible promotion has been going on with the articles Strep-tag and Streptamer. I don't have access to the references cited in the articles, but the claims made there seem awfully puffy. It'd be much appreciated if someone could take a look for any issues or poorly-supported claims. Seraphimblade Talk to me 12:34, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

They do look a bit puffy, but the target audience for those articles is highly sophisticated and basically immune to puffery, so I'm not terribly concerned. The articles are definitely not scammish or fringey. Looie496 (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Good to know, wanted to be sure. Thanks for taking a look. Seraphimblade Talk to me 15:11, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Strep-tag is not really a medical product, just a biochemical research tool. It's just another affinity tag that can be expressed recombinantly, like a FLAG tag, a His tag, or an HA tag—but newer and not (apparently) nearly as often used (at least so far). Looks like it gets at least a modest number of cites, though.
Streptamer is a bit more problematic as an article. It both seems more 'puffy', and it gets into some therapeutic claims that seem to be entirely unsupported—the entire Applications and advantages section is unsupported by inline references. The word "streptamer" only pulls 16 hits on PubMed since the original 2007 publication, so one might have concerns about how widely used or accepted this concept/method is. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Further comments requested

here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:17, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a question about public domain material, plagiarism, and copyright issues. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Equine-assisted therapy

There's some discussion at Talk:Equine-assisted therapy/Archive 1#Anestis, Selby, Lentini about the use of sources reviewing this subject area. More eyes would be helpful. Alexbrn (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:22, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The actual discussion where we have a need for more eyes isn't so much the merge discussion (IMHO, that's moving along in a mostly collegial fashion), but rather Talk:Equine-assisted_therapy#Anestis.2C_Selby.2C_Lentini, where we have a discussion about sources. Montanabw(talk) 00:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit on Wikidata field?

While doing some accustomary Wikipedia exploring I came across Template:Infobox person/Wikidata which has a field:

Edit on Wikidata

I found this very useful, and think it should be added to Template:Infobox medical condition, but first I added it to the beta Template:Infobox medical condition(new) which is present on Gout. Any thoughts? Should this be rolled out fully to all our infoboxes? CFCF 💌 📧 11:33, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good Doc James (talk · contribs · email)
 Done—Live on Template:Infobox medical intervention, Template:Infobox medical condition, Template:Infobox anatomy, Template:Infobox diagnostic. CFCF 💌 📧 13:02, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
These boxes are becoming very interesting quickly. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:50, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Only problem is that google will use them and steal our traffic... CFCF 💌 📧 16:29, 12 January 2016 (UTC) 
CFCF If you become better equipped to speak authoritatively I met the guy at Mayo Clinic who manages the relationship with Google. Google, I think you know, gets all their data from Mayo Clinic. He would take our call or presentation if we reached out, and he said that in some limited way as a pilot he was open to the idea of Mayo contributing content to Wikipedia. Nothing is firm, and who knows what they would do if pressed, but he suggested that Mayo Clinic might begin negotiation by donating really weird marginal health information, like rare disease info or health effects of odd co-morbidities or effects of odd drug interactions. Whatever else Google and Mayo are, they are diplomatic and will talk to anyone with community backing and authority to speak. They know very well what they are doing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Google still uses a lot of our stuff. For example see [18] which should be the google search for Japanese encephalitis vaccine. I see us supporting the center box, side box, and are hit number 4. Data for all the vaccines on the WHO essential medicines list is here [19] Of course for more common medications they have moved to a more structured boxes with data drawn from a bunch of people. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:16, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

With respect to speaking with the medical information teams at Google or Mayo, not sure how we could collaborate. I tend not to use Mayo as a reference as a few years back I found their site contained support for a number of urban legends.
Also I do not believe that Google is using our structured data. I very much imagine that they have their own and it is much much farther along than ours. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:33, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Clinical infoboxes

Added a few further details to a new more person centered box here. Some is pulled from Wikidata but I am finding Wikidata so slow to edit that it will be much faster to hand build here on EN WP.

Also not sure how to bring over refs from Wikidata. Does anyone else? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

About that box: Overall I like it, and of course we just leave out any item that's too long or complicated to list. But is there a generic "treatment" section, or is it just "medication"? I see that "medication" is listed in the example at Gout, and I expected to see dietary changes included, since diet modifications are important for that condition.
I'm not sure how to get the refs from Wikidata, but do you actually need them? In theory (for a reasonably well-developed article, etc.), there should be almost nothing in that infobox that isn't written and sourced in the article itself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
I find the new infobox is much cleaner and far more usable (if I need to look up the ICD-code I'm happy to scroll down to the bottom of the page). I agree that it is preferable to edit these things on Wikipedia for now (they can always be imported once we have enough data).
There are some additional issues that we would solve by doing this as well:
  1. Adding sources to Wikidata is difficult: I tried to find a way to add alopurinol and got stuck when I tried to source it—and as you say, even when it is sourced, it isn't visible.
  2. Ibuprofen is just one of an entire class of NSAIDs that may be used to treat gout, and the preferred type varies between countries and patient's other risk-factors (Cochrane review PMID 25225849). I can't find a way to add a class of medication, only single medications to this list, this would be very easy on Wikipedia.
CFCF 💌 📧 17:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S. The same is also true of prednisone, which is not used very much in Sweden, in favor of prednisolone, so it would be more apt to link the class glucocorticoids. CFCF 💌 📧 17:55, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
interesting[20][21]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:20, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
We need to stick with what the sources say. The reference on Wikidata (d:Q133087) is http://www.niams.nih.gov/Health_Info/Gout/ and that makes no mention of ibuprofen. I have changed that Wikidata entry to read non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug as is indicated in the reference, and that has now been automatically reflected in the Gout infobox. We could, of course, override that with any text we choose by supplying a value for a |medication= parameter in the infobox. --RexxS (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes I used specific agents rather than the classes of medications. Happy with classes aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Have had a disagreement here Talk:Gout#Testing_new_infobox regarding if a single article can use this new infobox. Wondering what peoples thoughts are? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

A limited test seems reasonable, but not worth an edit war. — soupvector (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think we should try and implement this one more pages soon, but before doing that is there any way we can make the first entry capitalized by default from Wikidata? For example so that the gout article says Specialty: Rheumatology and not rheumatology? CFCF 💌 📧 11:11, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

I am happy with rheumatology being low case. We have way to many caps as it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016

Hey All applications to give presentations at Wikimania in Italy are open [22]. Come talk about medicine :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

This year's location in voy:Esino Lario is supposed to be fabulous, near Lake Como in the Lombardy (northern) region of Italy. If you're thinking about a vacation to Italy this year, then you might take in Wikimania as well. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
[23] great place to have it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Neonatal infection

I want to thank everyone all your constructive edits to my editing in the past. The article I created, Neonatal infection is scheduled to appear on Main page sometime in the "Did you know..." section in about a week. If you would like to help make it even better, please feel free to polish it up with me. Thanks again and Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
excellent references [24]and very well written--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Coverage of Wiki medicine in Washington Post

"Wikipedia appears to be the single most used website for health information globally, exceeding traffic observed at the National Institutes of Health, WebMD and the World Health Organization." - Doc James

Also coverage of wikidrama in case the health stuff is too boring. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Blue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:41, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Medical conditions

{{Medical conditions}} is being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 15#Template:Medical conditions. —PC-XT+ 11:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


Surgical sponges

We seem to have no images for articles. Is gauze sponge what they stick inside to soak up blood? Are there different sorts? Can anyone take some photos? Cheers.

Convenience links:

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:10, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure give me two weeks, unless someone beats me to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Doc James. Also, considering you work in emergency, if there is a standard tray used there, a photo of that would be fantastic too! I see nothing at Emergency medicine or Emergency department. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
It'd be good to have multiple people do this (maybe different places have different preferences?), and if it's easy enough, please note your brand/type/size or other information for the file description on Commons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you!

Thank you to all the editors who helped to get Neonatal infection to a stub, then a start, then a C class article. And now it is a "Did you know...." article listed on the main page today!

I apologize if I have missed anyone.

The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:13, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
this article is a great addition--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor broken more and more

The editing interface of Wikipedia has recently decreased in reliability for me. The ref tool bar often does not load. When it does load it often does not work. And my ability to copy and paste has stopped working. Every time I try to do so the browser crashes. Not sure if others are having these issues? Not sure if anyone is looking at trying to fix them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Browser and OS? Does this happen on all computers, or just one? Toolbar loading in the wikitext editor, for example, requires some Javascript to load, and problems with your computer or internet connection could prevent that. Have you tried to WP:BYPASS the cache? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks on a Chromebook and running google chrome. Let me look at that cache thing. I have tried restarting with no improvement. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
That appears to have worked. Thanks WAID. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad that it's working now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Barbara (WVS) friendly med ref reminder

{{Barbara (WVS) friendly med ref reminder}} is being discussed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 January 14#Template:Barbara (WVS) friendly med ref reminder. It appears this was created for use by one editor? —PC-XT+ 07:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a template designed to let new medical editors know why their edits were reverted. I have tried to address the concern that I have about the alarming number of editors who edit a medical article and have their edit reverted with a typically terse edit summary and a referral to a page of guidelines. New editors don't know the guidelines most of the time. There is no reason to delete this template. Its purpose is to work to retain editors and its deletion would be unfortunate. There should be no problem with a template created by one editor. This template can be used by anyone. If the problem that the template 'appears' to be for one editor is that the template has my name in it, then the solution is to rename the template. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Barbara (WVS) I just corrected some inaccuracies in the template. WP:MED is not a walled garden and we take great care not to be one. Jytdog (talk) 14:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the edits that you made - they seem to be a little formal but that is ok. Also thank you for leaving the link to which I can read to bring me up to speed on this guideline; it looks like an interesting essay. I didn't think anyone else would be interested in using the template, and so didn't leave a notice here or anywhere else. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Drug

Is in need of some love.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like a pretty important medical topic. Sizeofint (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Oil of clove

A apparently intractable dispute over sourcing and whether there is an agenda on the part of the US govt to suppress news of the efficacy of clove oil as a toothache treatment. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 12:15, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

commented on editors page[25]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


Is anyone familiar with the FDA website and how to navigate it? Looking for an original source from the FDA, who MedlinePlus seem to be quoting as saying: " but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reclassified eugenol, downgrading its effectiveness rating. The FDA now believes there is not enough evidence to rate eugenol as effective for toothache pain." [28] Many thanks if you can help. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I usually type site:fda.gov whatever in my favorite web search engine. This is about its use as an analgesic in general. There are also a few pdfs of letters that address their POV, e.g., [29] WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
unable to find[30]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Pica comorbidities

The lede paragraph of Pica (disorder) included the sentence

Pica has been linked to mental and emotional disorders and they often have psychotic comorbidity.

The writing is awkward. I think what was meant is that pica often has psychotic comorbidity, not that the mental and emotional disorders do.

I have rewritten it as

Pica has been linked to mental and emotional disorders and often has psychotic comorbidity.

But this should be checked by someone with the relevant medical knowledge.

Also listed at Talk:Pica (disorder)#Comorbidities and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology#Pica comorbidities. --Thnidu (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@Ozzie10aaaa: ??... Ah, I see it at Talk:Pica_(disorder)#Comorbidities. --Thnidu (talk) 04:15, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
as WAID indicates below there are two issues that should be addressed (that's why I indicated on the talk page a word adjustment and those particular references)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:59, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The first thing I'd do is lose the fifty-cent word of "comorbidity", because writing in simple English will probably solve the writing problem. The second thing I'd do is to check is whether that's supposed to be psychotic or psychiatric comorbidities. They're not synonyms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:44, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Question about a source

OK, so there is something called aerotoxic syndrome (defined as illness caused by bad airplane cabin air). In March 2015 a coroner released a report about a death of a british airways pilot - it is here, and it has become a key document in disputes about whether cabin air is really bad or not, and whether it harms people or not. The key part is section 5 which says:

During the course of the investigation my inquiries revealed matters giving rise to concern. In my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you.

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows . -

  1. That organo-phosphate compounds are present in aircraft cabin air.
  2. That the occupants of aircraft cabins are exposed to organo-phosphate compounds with consequential damage to their health.
  3. That impairment to the health of those controlling aircraft may lead to the death of occupants.
  4. There is no real time monitoring to detect such compounds in cabin air.
  5. That no account is taken of genetic variation in the human species, such a would render individuals tolerant or intolerant of the exposure

I think it is clear what kind of content about health could be generated from this source. So, it is a reliable secondary source per MEDRS? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

For some context:
  • here is the Pubmed search for reviews. Not much there. PMID 26707465 is a "discussion forum" piece (not classified as a review by pubmed or MEDLINE) that has some helpful content.
  • NHS has nothing per this search
  • NIH has nothing per this search (I tried different spellings too)
  • CDC has nothing per this. I did find this about flight attendant health from CDC/NIOSH but nothing about bad air.
  • I did find 2013 report from the FAA to Congress here and this from the Civil Aviation Authority of Australia which is an expert panel report. Can we make health claims based on these? Hm. Jytdog (talk) 05:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

But the big question is the Coroner's report above. Please do comment on that per MEDRS. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It is simply a coroner making a statement. It is not a review article. It does not appear to be from a recognized national or international organization. I know our coroners are not pathologists. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:51, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
That type of document is so far down the scale for reliability that you could not even use it to support a claim that the Queen liked her birthday cake.
You might contemplate whether a merge to organophosphate poisoning is possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:30, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The organophosphates arise from jet fuel from "engine bleed" per the two aviation authority sources at the bottom. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Videos

An explanation of hemochromatosis

Hey All. The group doing medical videos at Khan has split off and formed joined an organization called Osmosis. The good news is that this new organization is producing all their videos under a CC BY SA license (rather than using the CC BY SA NC license at Khan).

First videos are here and I have added them to the body of a number of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

I really like the idea of creating med ed videos, but can't help but feel that since Osmosis is a for-profit education company (https://www.osmosis.org/plans) charging $199/year, that it is disingenuous for us to help them with free advertising via wikipedia. I would feel much more comfortable if videos were posted with just the logo and not a link to the website. Khan Academy is a different story since they are a non-profit, and the poster above is not being truthful by claiming that Osmosis is a spin-off. Their CMO is from Khan Academy and only joined them a few months ago, whereas Osmosis has been around for almost 3 years. Imagine Bank of America posting info videos with a link to their website on wiki pages regarding personal finance. Comment left unsigned by User:Chrisbospher
These are a great resource, but I wonder whether there's a formal/transparent process for peer review and feedback? For example, the video on liver fibrosis/cirrhosis states that fibrosis is irreversible, but that's clearly incorrect; people with cirrhosis due to HBV, and sometime those with cirrhosis due to HCV, experience regression of fibrosis after treatment (e.g. PMID 26206574). More generally, these videos have no explicit sourcing to MEDRS, they do not come from a recognized secondary source (this is a commercial entity, in fact), and their peer review process appears to be internal (the video I'm commenting on here was "reviewed by" Rishi Desai MD/PhD who is a the CMO of the company). While it might be hard for them to source these in the way we would an article, they would be far more valuable if these issues were explicitly and rigorously addressed. I will reiterate that I'm excited about their contribution of these videos - I just want to ensure that they are up to the standards (including process for improvement) of WP/WPMED. (I should also disclaim that I helped their founders with Osmosis during its early days, but I have no stake in the business) — soupvector (talk) 03:44, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I've noted another error - in the leukemia video - on its talk page here. This one is more cosmetic, but the nature of the error makes me think that an expert couldn't have reviewed it carefully. — soupvector (talk) 03:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
While firstly experts still make errors :-) Often it takes review by a number of experts and non experts to remove all errors and even then it is hard to get ride of them all. I will ping those involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:47, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
BY the way the leukemia video you mentioned is up for deletion as a better version is here. Not sure if they fixed the issue you raised. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Error is still there - I've made the comment on the new file's Talk page. Certainly, my main concern is the process for feedback and improvement - we all make mistakes! Thanks. — soupvector (talk) 05:07, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
By the way they are happy to open up review of the scripts before the videos are created. Not sure if people are interested in doing this type of review? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:01, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
it would be good to review (I'm certain any/all issues can be ironed out)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

soupvector—I'm uncertain whether that single study will change what is otherwise considered a pretty well-founded truth. First if we can source the statement to a secondary source should we change it.
Doc James—It would be great if they could release their scripts prior to filming, we could definitely critique those without too much effort. CFCF 💌 📧 16:03, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

CFCF To what single study are you referring? Do you mean to refer to the review article I cited, which is just one example of multiple secondary sources that say the same thing, summarizing quite a few studies? (another example is PMID 25681399, a review article published in a first-rate gastroenterology journal and for which the senior author is Scott L. Friedman) Also, to what well-founded truth do you refer (and what is the basis for your claim - since I have cited a MEDRS and you have not)? — soupvector (talk) 10:50, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
soupvector—I stand corrected, but what remains is that the original citation is not marked as a review on pubmed (I should have taken more time to read it). Interesting and informative, as I was under the impression that it was irreversible. Best wishes, CFCF 💌 📧 11:27, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
They are interested in posting and having us review the scripts before they are sent. I will set up an area to do this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Hey all someone has tagged all the videos for deletion on Commons here. As the new user above corrected stated Osmosis existed prior. It is simply that those doing the medical videos at Khan have moved to Osmosis. They are in the process of setting up a not for profit and that link would than go to the not for profit I image. By the way the video we received release from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has attribution at the end [31] but is is longer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

A newbie at Commons has requested mass deletion because the videos start with a two-second identification of the source of the video, including the URL for the organization, and the website at that URL includes non-free materials. If there's a policy-related reason for this deletion proposal, I haven't found it yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
And the first edit of Chrisbospher at enwiki was to change the OP by Doc James (diff). The user is here to oppose Osmosis. Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Osmosis video review

Hello! We're the group who is making CC-BY-SA videos on medical topics freely available to Wikimedia. We received some feedback on our videos from the community which was fabulous. We'd like you to help us review our video scripts before we send them into production. If you're interested, check go here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Osmosis OsmoseIt (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

the hypoxia text seems ok[32](gene expression?[33])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Here's the list of related articles:

Ozzie10aaaa, do you have time to figure out who the top contributors to those articles are, and to leave a link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Osmosis and a request for a review on their talk pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm on it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
  • I've read through all 4 of the currently-posted scripts, and have made some suggestions and corrections. I must emphasize that reading the script is quite a limited pre-review - no sources are cited, and the visual component (which is not available to this pre-review process) is quite important (for example, my earlier concerns about the leukemia article were as much to do with the visual indications as with the text). That said, I think these videos will be a useful resource. — soupvector (talk) 04:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Would be great to have others weigh in on these videos. I do hope that the commented Google Docs scripts will be retained as a record of peer review. If not (or alternatively), perhaps these discussions should happen on-wiki? I can imagine that Osmosis might prefer to keep them in a space they control, but retention plans should be transparent. — soupvector (talk) 04:07, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I bet they would be happy to move discussion to Wikipedia. Maybe they could also link from the videos somehow to this file? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:37, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I find videos like these to be helpful; so I'd prefer their inclusion. When explaining medical matters to my family, for example, showing them a quick educational video has proven beneficial; they understood things better. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
agree videos are a good addition (and it would be better if the discussions/review happen on-wiki)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


Please review my work

I added a prevention section for Low Back Pain. I am a new user. There is limited evidence about this topic. Please comment. TouroEducation2016 (talk) 18:08, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

List of people with autism spectrum disorders

Is being considered for deletion - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people with autism spectrum disorders Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Coming out

I've been absent from here for a while... but I have still been uploading lots of images at the Commons.

Any how, today, I finally came out. A number of the older people know who I am. For the others... you can find out more if you're curious where a good number of the micrographs on WP are from. Nephron  T|C 23:16, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you meant you are coming out. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I guess I should have chosen the words more carefully... 'cause I wasn't thinking of sexual orientation at all. Un-anonymise? Reveal real identity? I don't know if a term exists for revealing one's real identity online after using a pseudonym. Nephron  T|C 03:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
well, welcome back--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good Nephron :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Tetulomab

I'm not qualified to do more than fix the citation format on this in-development cancer drug article, and some red flags (ELs to company website; one source from 1985 and another declaring major COI) made me want to let y'all look it over. Thanks, FourViolas (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way User:Anotheruserhere is adding a number of external links such as seen here. What are our policies on these? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
WP:linkfarm (guideline) and WP:overlink (MOS) might be applicable in the given instance. Little pob (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
i fixed it. i am however hopeless with infoboxes and the infobox is messed up, so anybody who has facility with them, please fix. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
External links to official prescribing information are not unreasonable; in fact, it might be appropriate to add them to {{Infobox drug}} and always provide them. Jytdog, I can't figure out what you think is wrong with the infobox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
as rendered by my browser only 2 fields appear in the infobox but there is a bunch of other data in there, if you click "edit" and look. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
It's mostly hidden HTML comments about the acceptable answers for those parameters. I fixed the only thing that was actually "wrong" (where "wrong" means "in plain English" rather than the code that the template can process), and I think that everything that can be displayed is now showing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing I am happy to link to one set of official prescribing information. There however is one for each country multiplied by each version of the product and I am not sure we need to link to all of them. That is all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this is the English Wikipedia, then I think we could justify links to such documents for the larger English-speaking countries: US, UK, CA, and AU. Links in the form of "US, UK, CA, AU" would not take up much space in the infobox. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
But each version / generic name of the product has a version aswell. Thus there can be hundreds. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
That depends upon the subject. For the antibody in question, there are no generics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
yes true(in this case)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


Please review Angela Hartley Brodie

Hello all,

Myself and User:Worm That Turned have re-written and expanded this article: Angela Hartley Brodie and really need some help from people who have medical knowledge to expand it. We have written her biography and about her awards but we are missing vital information about what she actually developed. She is an incredible lady who has been massively influential in breast cancer cures and deserves a fantastic article.

Please can we have some help! Thanks very much ツStacey (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


I toned down the header as it is causing me alarm everytime it pops up on my watchlist. pardon. Jytdog (talk) 05:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of use of zero impact journal

Here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS edit request for Calcium

Could someone kindly take a look at this? Thanks :-) 86.190.99.59 (talk) 18:06, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

commented talk/article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Updated with recent review.Jrfw51 (talk) 16:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Much appreciated - thank you. 109.158.15.138 (talk) 15:18, 26 January 2016 (UTC) (ex-86)

Great bit of research by User:Tbayer (WMF)

Basically only 40% of people go beyond the leads of our articles when on mobile. Further confirmation that we should concentrate on making our leads excellent (and maybe well referenced). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

agree(always reference the lead )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Tbayer = HaeB in disguise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Motivation to improve leads.. prizes involved! WP:Take the lead!.. Only 6 days left! ツStacey (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Excellent contest. I have joined. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Credits also go to Jon.
BTW, we are still analyzing this and other data that helps to better understand which parts of an article actually get read by readers (I also submitted a Wikimania talk about this which would focus on the takeaways for editors). If anyone has interesting research questions that can be answered from this data, feel free to get in touch. In particular, I've also looked at the popularity of sections in two individual articles on mobile (Barack Obama, World War II) and could run the same analysis for a few others. (Currently it mostly only useful for very high traffic pages though, because the sampling rate is low.)
Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Typical doom and gloom article in Time

Regular readers will find no new substance in this article.

What is new and weird about this is that it starts with an anecdote that the narrator goes to a doctor, and the doctor does not know what to do, so it seems natural to both of them that they go to Wikipedia to get information to inform the therapy to be recommended. This article takes for granted that doctors and patients recognize Wikipedia as the place to get health info, then goes on to give critical commentary about editor numbers.

Also, our own FloNight gets no credit for health contributions or Cochrane relationships, but is recognized for her support for women in red who need biographies. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it was disappointing that the author referred to my work with Cochrane so trivially as as topic experts doing brown bag lunches. He had a predetermined idea for the article and looked for comments to support his opinion. :-( Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 22:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Working with WMF communication team for a formal response to Time. Should be going out soon. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:13, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Couple of things
  1. I find it interesting that the number of warning tags is going down. Hopefully that means quality is improving.
  2. I am not convince that "the core community of Wikipedians are too hostile to newcomers" is the main reason we are no longer growing. I would instead argue that there are so many other web 2.0 sites such as facebook that we are competing with for contributors. Facebook has more women than men per hour spent."Facebook, which is used by 71% of the online population, is dominated by women (76 percent) as opposed to men (66 percent). On average, women have more than twice as many posts on their Facebook walls and they have 8% more ‘friends’ than men."[40]
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
On #2, we unfortunately have evidence to demonstrate that "hostility" is a significant factor. "Hostility" encompasses a lot, including reverting good-faith edits instead of collaborating with them. How many times a day do we remove factual information for lack of the preferred kind of source? Even material that we suspect is probably accurate? From the POV of a new editor, that's a hostile action. In surveys, former editors have said that they go back and check to see whether their edits 'stuck', and when they didn't, they conclude that they aren't good enough and aren't wanted here. One person with WP:Huggle and an itchy trigger finger can do a lot of damage in an evening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
We have a lot of Wikipedias that have plateaued for long periods or have shrunk.zh, hi, es, ms, pt, ru, ja, etc. There are few exceptions. We even see it with non Wikipedia's wv, wikiquote
Is the suggestion that all of these different versions and sites got less friendly around 2007 - 2010?
I am not saying it is not a factor, I am just not convinced that it is the "main" factor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:48, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Doc James. Although I think hostility plays a big factor (and I used to think, the main factor) I think the difficulty in doing simple tasks that we consider essential (try explaining to a new user how to use the same reference for 3 sections of an article, or even finding a high quality image to illustrate a page, or even participating in 2 medium length talk page discussions on the same page), or getting bogged down in long discussions (which certainly dissuades me from acting boldly as I once may have done!) play just a big role in keeping editors away. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this is an exceedingly interesting question and one that would benefit from further study. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
One issue specific to this project is how to deal gently with new editors who add medical material based on poor or no sources. I edit plant articles, mainly, and herbal uses are always being added without MEDRS-compliant support. What would be useful would be to have an essay written in language that new editors will find understandable explaining why such material is not accepted. Referring new editors to WP:MEDRS, as of course I do, isn't helpful, in my experience; for them, WP:MEDRS is far too long and far too full of WP jargon. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I use Template:RSPlease, but do not find it very effective. People struggle with the differences between a review article and peer reviewed. Not sure how to get around this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
"Hostility" is one problem, "lack of friendly support" is another. In NYC we refuse 90% of presentation requests for in-person training. Requests are never ending and it feels bad that the demand seems to be omnipresent but there is no plan to meet it. As it is we had 38 public "anyone invited" meetups in 2015 Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Event_archive#2015 and at least as many private meetups, plus classroom outreach and combined events with other digital communication nonprofits. There are a huge number of people who would spend their time in Wikipedia training and social events if only somehow training needs could be met. This is hard to do in person, and no one offers online classes. There is no video outreach plan. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree with much that has been said above. Hostility is a problem; is it the main one? Who knows. However, on the subject of in person training, while this sounds like a good idea, it has a very poor record when it comes to converting people attending the training into regular editors. This is something else that needs looking at. Bondegezou (talk) 14:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Bondegezou In NYC many people do not start editing Wikipedia on their own until after coming to 4-5 meetups, which is a huge commitment. After anyone comes that many times retention rates jump from the ~1% meetup norm to something approaching 100%, but then also, going lots of times to anything over a period of months is a complicated thing to predict. Practically every other outreach strategy involves single-event recruitment. Not many places in the world have pools of 10 million people within a 30-minutes of any arbitrary meetup location, so meeting in NYC is unusual, and I am not suggesting that meetups are the answer anywhere. Something that is certain is that lots of people really like the idea of attending meetups and learning how to use Wikipedia, and the available training options in all circumstances are lacking. For most volunteer projects the bottleneck is in recruitment, not training. With Wikipedia, there is huge demand for outreach but not service for training. To say that Wikipedia's editor numbers are in decline is not like saying that the website is becoming less popular or that demand is decreasing. Demand for training remains huge in practically every location and online. I am not sure what should be done in response to this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:11, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting what you say. I have wondered whether more sessions is an important part of making training better. And I agree with your earlier point about using video training. Bondegezou (talk) 22:21, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Bluerasberry, I'm not sure what you mean about a "video outreach plan". I can think of several different things that might fall into that category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:39, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
We were supposed by now to have a good set of online tutorials, including some video, to reduce the need for in-person training, and including more advanced stuff. But I don't know what happened to that. Editing WP has got harder over the years, not least because as the general quality of articles improves (which it does, slowly), edits that improve them become harder to make. This is especially true with referencing. I expect many editors who are now very experienced made first edits that would now be lucky to survive. People (especially young ones) often begin by trying to edit very popular articles that are fiercely patrolled, and so on. ISPs don't get welcome templates, and so on. I must say I'm not aware that London has the same unmet demand for training that NYC seems to, and the number of the curious never-edited at meetups is generally small. Johnbod (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing I concur with everything that Johnbod said. said more about video on my blog.
John, some people in WM UK have talked with Pharos and I about WM NYC events and they said the same thing. I am not sure what to think after hearing this from you also. It takes little effort here to accept invitations to present an editathon here, and the advertising for the event is usually done by the venue which is what creates the stream of new users. We sort of manage our own outreach to existing contributors but even for them, they are mostly on their own to sign up for mailing lists and watch for event notices themselves. There is little reflection of what happens here and I cannot explain it, but it seems like people in NYC do more recruitment more easily without trying than sometimes happens in the UK with effort. If this the case - and this might not be because I have not seen UK outreach data - I do not think it is because of anyone doing anything thoughtful or clever here. It might be geography and convenience (Manhattan is tiny compared to London) or it might be that institutions here convince each other to do events without needing persuasion from Wikipedians. UK definitely works harder and seems more organized from my perspective. I proposed that UK manage WM NYC because we are good with events but do little tracking or administration, and I think many people here would be grateful if UK oversaw us as an English Wikipedia organizational authority. If you know anyone in UK complaining about lack of outreach, please tell them that if they like they can take credit for what happens in NYC if only they process the metrics and help us talk through problems when they arise. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Just seen this - the WMF Education project seem to have taken it over (ominous?), but are still at an early stage. Johnbod (talk) 10:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Johnbod That is a friend from Cascadia Wikimedians, which is my home group. He is very conscious about including medicine in all outreach. We worry about video together, even if we have different ideas. His grant is only $9000 so the only ominous thing I see is the loss of his sanity because the money would not cover the commitment with minimum wage.
In New York (where I live, not home) the group is talking about making video. Mozilla is helping to integrate some video software in Wikipedia also, so that will be a push. I am not worried about the future, I just want it to come sooner. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Primary source looking at tissue culture

Here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


Is in vitro content "factual"?

Relevant to background medical content underlying WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS is a discussion underway on the Quercetin talk page. It has broader philosophical relevance to content in the encyclopedia about whether in vitro and other preclinical lab research described in specialist's jargon is actually "factual" to the human condition. What is appropriate as content with mostly WP:PRIMARY sources for the general literate lay user per WP:NOTJOURNAL? --Zefr (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

commented at article/talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this is an interesting discussion. Anyone who works on "meta" issues (such as style and sourcing guidelines) might want to have a look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, what WhatamIdoing said. I don't know what the answer is, but it's an interesting case study. Bondegezou (talk) 18:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
This is a common tension between WP:Pharmacology and WP:MED. For things like binding efficiency and other Pharmacodynamics in vitro studies are definitive. In vitro studies are not so useful for Pharmacokinetics of course. In my view the tension is pretty easy to resolve as long as the PD information is presented clearly and is limited to simply describing the PD information, and no conclusions are drawn with regard to efficacy or safety in humans or animals. Jytdog (talk) 19:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
↑ Re: what Jytdog said. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:58, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
And then we have someone come around and cry "MEDRS!" because in vitro studies are discouraged. We need to improve our guidance on that point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
i agree that PD information shouldn't be disallowed in the PD section b/c it is in vitro. that is silly. I have a harder time when folks use primary sources for this kind of information; secondary sources remain best generally speaking (reproducibility blah blah blah). But if the only sources are primary then i reckon they are ok but if someone challenged on the grounds of primary sourcing, i would have a hard time arguing against that. (again, the problems with reproducibility in the biomedical literature and our mission to provide "accepted knowledge" to the public) Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Refusing to use primary sources, when no secondary sources exist for this information, is another case of trying to use MEDRS as a substitute for MEDDUE. Basic pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic information for a regulated medication is always DUE, exactly like a birth and death years and places are always DUE in a biography. You must use a source that meets (and ideally exceeds) the bare minimum requirements for reliability, and you should (RFC 2119) use one of the best sources that you have access to, but if the best you (or anyone else) can get is a primary source, then you should use that, and nobody should give you any grief over it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Redirecting to the original point: 1) quercetin and other polyphenols would not be on our radar if they weren't being proposed as supplements or food additives with human health benefits, so relevance to the human condition is a foundation. The discussion is valid to question whether early-stage in vitro studies on these compounds - years/decades from proof of relevance in humans - are just topics of preliminary research to be challenged as "non-fact", warranting removal per WP:NFRINGE and WP:UNDUE or at least presented in general, comprehensible non-jargon prose that research is proceeding on these mechanisms. It is not a matter of whether the in vitro finding is "truthful", because we accept the scientific process as providing the diligence on that, but rather the challenge is whether the finding is too premature to be accepted as "factual" in vivo. Stated in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, #6 - "Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts (my emphasis), not to teach subject matter"; 2) primary in vitro studies on a human estrogen receptor, even though grouped in a review of primary studies, should be challenged as a non-secondary source, in my opinion; i.e., summarizing primary sources does not make primary source material secondary); 3) WP:MEDANIMAL and the hierarchy of evidence under WP:MEDASSESS should prevail for more general statements about in vitro work in lay language until verified for relevance in vivo. --Zefr (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"Medicine über alles" is not NPOV.
NFRINGE is irrelevant; it covers only whether those facts belong in a completely separate article. WP:UNDUE applies to both facts and non-facts.
Perhaps you should tell me what you mean by "non-fact". Is "The weight of this molecule is 302 g/mol" always a fact in your definition? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing: 1) for quercetin and like phytochemical (non-nutrient) compounds, characteristics described "in glass" are by definition "outside their normal biological context", so are pre-fact findings, preliminary non-facts under study to further test in future research if their properties exist in vivo. By analogy, a new chemical entity (NCE) is typically studied first in vitro (or in computo) to elaborate if its characteristics might apply to humans via testing of its intended properties to become a drug. A NCE is not a drug; likewise, in vitro evidence is not fact, but rather "fact in development". 2) WP:NFRINGE applies to this discussion just as you point out because in vitro description like this could not possibly stand on its own as an article - it is too premature and uncertain about biological fact, yet, in this case, has a place in an article possibly misleading a lay user to believe it is fact. Per WP:MEDANIMAL: ...in vitro and animal-model findings do not translate consistently into effects in humans... --Zefr (talk) 23:22, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Zefr one thing that people do too often is try to draw claims about efficacy based on in vitro findings and both WAID and I are opposed to that. But you can only talk about things like binding efficacy with in vitro studies and that kind of information is useful - it just cannot be used to draw broader conclusions. I don't think you are hearing us. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Listening carefully, Jytdog. Simple question for perspective on the overall conversation: is this fact or not yet fact? Sufficiently described to be treated as valid characteristics of quercetin or premature before eventually confirming in vivo? --Zefr (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
yep in my view that is good content. i really don't know what you mean about "confirming in vivo". how do you measure receptor binding in vivo? (i don't think you can) People in drug discovery/development are for sure increasingly interested in understanding what they call "target engagement" (see here but that is often done indirectly. Jytdog (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
"How do you measure receptor binding in vivo?" Same as defining specificity to confirm a receptor's (or NCE's) mechanism: by using a better known competitive agonist or blocking agent, with in vivo imaging if possible. Either way, as the "target engagement" article shows, true facts about the receptor - the fact-building part of target engagement - aren't established until in vivo work succeeds = my point. Nice article, BTW. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 06:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Zefr I am sorry but you don't seem to understand the science here. I don't want to belabor the science anymore. You have my answer on whether the content in Quercetin is OK and why. And I think you know by now that I am consistent about removing information about health that is not appropriately sourced. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Zefr, I think you want to read WP:FAILN, the main guideline on what happens to facts that (a) do not qualify for their own articles but (b) do belong in another one. NFRINGE doesn't mean that the information must be removed from the whole encyclopedia. It only means discusses whether a subject gets its own, separate page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Facts

Okay, Zefr, I gave you a chance to explain what fact means to you, and you didn't, so I'm going to supply you with a definition, and maybe we'll be able to communicate.

Fact
Anything that could be empirically known. Any given statement of fact may be true or false. "Hydrogen is an element with one proton" is a true fact. "Hydrogen is an element with twenty-seven protons" is a false fact.

Using this definition, then yes, absolutely: Those are statements of fact. I do not personally know whether they are true facts or false facts, but I am certain that they are statements of fact. (They are definitely not statements of theory or statements of values, which are the other significant options in this model.)

It seems to me that your real question is not "Is this a fact?" but "Should we include this information, given that I personally believe that the evidence base is merely typical, rather than extraordinarily strong, and because I worry that including any sourced, factual information about this substance will encourage some readers to eat this stuff?"

IMO the only possible policy-based reply to that is "WP:NOTCENSORED": We do not remove sourced facts about chemistry from the encyclopedia merely because we worry that some readers might make stupid choices about their health as a result. Wikipedia is not in the business of hiding information from readers.

By the way, I don't know if you've thought about it much, but most people won't bother reading a wall of confusing chemical jargon. If you truly don't want people to read this information, then it would be logical for you to stop demanding that the relevant section be made easy for them to read. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: A "fact" established for human health is reached from progressively narrowing in vivo evidence via significant scientific consensus, as required for establishing recommendations on nutrient intake or approving drugs as effective to treat a disease. For compounds like quercetin (implied in that article as being a candidate nutrient and drug), the categories of evidence quality are summarized here and here. This process involving human physiology is at a different complexity than defining chemistry facts.
I do not bring up this discussion because I wish to persuade consumers against using quercetin supplements or fortified food. Rather, my preference is to see WP in vitro discussions presented in non-jargon more generally as only preliminary research in progress without implication to proof as receptors or mechanisms as currently exists in the Quercetin article.
I think we are finished with this topic now. Thanks to you and others for interacting. --Zefr (talk) 17:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
There are facts whose existence is not contingent on having direct implications to human health. Discussing facts in the way you are doing is nonsensical. It would be sensical, although still not defensible, to state that unless effects on human health are proven, the subject matter is not notable. What seems to be your real concern is that someone might misinterpret what is written and assume it has implications for human health. However the article already makes clear that no benefit to human health has been demonstrated. So I seriously doubt anyone could be possibly be mislead by this "jargon". Boghog (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Zefr content about a compound binding to a receptor is not itself content about health. As I wrote above, I would object if someone wrote something like "quercetin binds to COX-2 so has anti-inflammatory activity" and sourced that to in vitro studies. Saying simply "quercetin binds to COX-2 with X affinity" is not information about health nor even really biomedical. The extra statement has to be there, drawing some claim about effect, for MEDRS to come in. That is the distinction that you seem not to be making. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Raising this issue has never been about applying MEDRS to in vitro findings. MEDASSESS and MEDANIMAL were referenced because they are the closest guides we have pertaining to the extent encyclopedia space is devoted to early-stage bioscience. There is no clear guideline for discussing in vitro findings implied by some editors as important to more advanced in vivo evidence. My challenge is that in vitro discussions are pre-fact subject matter, not yet facts; as stated in WP:NOTJOURNAL, #6: Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. --Zefr (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
These simply presented facts are compliant with WP:NOTJOURNAL. No medical claims are made and hence the material is also compliant with WP:MEDANIMAL while outside the scope of WP:MEDASSESS. This "early-stage bioscience" is within the scope of WP:MCB, not WP:MED. The only potential issue is that medical claims are implied, but it is clearly stated in the article that no benefit to human health has been demonstrated. Boghog (talk) 08:41, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
@Zefr: Not yet facts Nonsense. By definition, these statements are facts because they are supported by reliable sources (i.e., they are verifiable). They may not meet the definition of a medical fact but they do meet the definition of a scientific fact. I have repeatedly stated this, but apparently the message still has not gotten through. You need to accept that the scope of Wikipedia is wider than WP:MED. Boghog (talk) 10:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
(Technically, one may also have opinions, theories, and values supported by reliable sources, and these are not facts. But NOTJOURNAL does not admit to this idea that there is something called a "pre-fact"; for the purpose of NOTJOURNAL, receptor binding affinity is indeed a fact.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:35, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
agree, no medical claims are made--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:31, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Draft:American Academy of Addiction Psychiatry

Dear medical experts: I had to delete a draft on the above topic because it had copyright problems. It seemed like a notable organization, so I made a new draft in my own words. Is it okay? I am not up on the jargon in this field, so I may have misinterpreted the information, and also I'm not sure if the references I added are all independent. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I think it's a good start. All of your current references do appear to be independent. However, it articles about professional organizations, it's quite common to see references to an professional organization's website. That's especially true for information about an organization's history, leadership, and current membership. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 01:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ozzie10aaaa and Shelley V. Adams. I have moved the article to mainspace. I added the group's website to the "External links" section, which I should have done earlier. While I agree that it's common to see references to an organization's web site, these can't be used to determine notability, and I try to avoid adding them whenever possible. History information in particular from an organization's website is likely to be heavily vetted to make the group appear important and respectable. For example, "The XXX Association was conceived at a regular meeting of a group of young researchers at YYY University" - in reality "Four grad students were sitting in a bar and the drunkest one said...." No mention is likely to be made of financial difficulties, feuds among the board of directors, legal suits, etc. One draft article I was evaluating, sourced to a group's own website, listed the corporate headquarters, but failed to mention that it was the founder's mother's basement. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
[41] looks good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sexuality after spinal cord injury needs reviewers at FAC

Sorry if I'm out of line or being a pain with this, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sexuality after spinal cord injury/archive1 has gotten very little input and I'm starting to get anxious that it'll get archived for lack of attention. If you have time I'd love it if you could let me know what you think! Thanks folks. delldot ∇. 07:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


Talk:Abdominal pregnancy#Mistake

A discussion concerning the suitability of a WebmedCentral article as a reference is under discussion. Please participate. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, actually see Talk:Abdominal pregnancy#Mistake and participate there. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Analytical methods and MEDRS question

Hi everyone! I wanted some second opinions on the NIOSH manual of analytical methods. It doesn't meet MEDDATE but it's an "official statement from an agency" that has some really useful information for lab tests. There's a lot here I could use to expand articles, but I don't want to butt into MEDRS problems. Thanks! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 17:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

To add to what Emily said, part of the reason these documents are so old is because we don't always find a new way to measure chemical concentrations. That said, the manual does get updates (there are entries from as recent as 2015), so it is not like it is an old, abandoned publication. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
The evidence base for medical diagnosis and treatment tends to change relatively rapidly. The evidence base for the reliability of lab tests generally doesn't. I don't think this is an issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I don't think descriptions of analytical methods fall under MEDRS anyway, as such descriptions themselves don't make biomedical or health claims. However, if the content goes further and says something like: "A measurement of X in bioloigical sample Y using assay Z means the person will die" or something, that is a health claim that these sources shouldn't be used for. The only other thing I have to say is these documents are very technical (see this one, randomly chosen); it is not clear what kind of encyclopedic plain english content can be generated from them... Jytdog (talk) 05:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
Statements to the effect of "measurements of X amount of chemical Y will cause injury" would not be documented in the Manual of Analytical Methods, but published as recommended exposure limits by NIOSH and permissible exposure limits by OSHA (as well as other values from other organizations, such as ACGIH's threshold limit value). The NIOSH REL and OSHA PELs should be considered reliable medical sources as they are official statements from national health/safety government agencies. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

iridum vs iridium

Heterochromia

Hi all, if any of you hard working WikiProject Medicine users get a chance, can someone please dig up a reference that supports "iridum" as the correct spelling as asserted in the lead?

Heterochromia of the eye (heterochromia iridis or heterochromia iridum; the common incorrect form "heterochromia iridium" is not correct Latin)

This spelling has drawn some recent attention and I do see "iridium" being used by otherwise reliable sources. Many thanks! Sorry for the homework assignment... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

[42]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Agree it's "heterochromia iridis". OMIM is also an excellent source in situations like this. The last sentence of the first paragraph in that OMIM entry states that "iridis" (singular) applies to heterochromia in one iris, and "iridum" (plural) when the two irises differ in color. I do see a few MEDRS that use "iridium" when discussing the topic in passing, clearly (IMHO) consistent with a typographical/cognitive error - but I have not found a MEDRS describing "iridium" as a misspelling (so that critique in the lead sentence seems like WP:OR). Might be better to describe that spelling as uncommon. — soupvector (talk) 00:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
This was raised in 2011 at Talk:Heterochromia iridum #Iridum vs. Iridium and I've commented there. I would suggest sticking to what we can find in sources. As far as I've been able to ascertain, neither "iridum" nor "iridium" are found in classical Latin, because Iris was the name of just one goddess and wasn't used in the plural. It's only much later that we adopt the word iris for a part of the eye in English and have attempted to create a plural form in pseudo-Latin. Both the "-um" and the "-ium" endings are found for other comparable (third declension) words in Classical Latin, so either would seem to be possible. We just can't say that one or the other is "not correct Latin". Is there a problem with picking the commonest from "heterochromia iridis", "heterochromia iridum" and "heterochromia iridium" as the title, and having the other two as redirects? --RexxS (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
All that you've said makes sense - but the issue currently (at least the one I was addressing) seems to be the first sentence of the lede - where alternative spellings are listed (and where an editor has characterized "iridium" as a misspelling without a RS). — soupvector (talk) 03:06, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Maybe cite WP:Alternative name to that editor if you haven't already? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

"Dammit, Jim, I'm a linguist, not a doctor!"
It's iridum, with no third "i". As a linguist with classical training, I can assure you that:

  1. The iris of the eye is named for Iris (Greek Ἶρις, Latin Īris [‎Lewis & Short, A Latin Dictionary‎]), goddess of the rainbow.
  2. iridis means 'of the iris'
  3. iridum means 'of the irises'
  4. iridium (chemical element with symbol Ir and atomic number 77) is just plain out of the running.
  5. And if you want contemporary evidence, NASA and the Gazetteer of Planetary Nomenclature and our own page will all tell you that Sinus Iridum on the Moon is the "Bay of Rainbows".

@RexxS: (We call it Neo-Latin, not pseudo-Latin.) You get -ium with some words because those are i-stems. Iris isn't one of them.

Please {{Ping}} me to discuss. --Thnidu (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Thnidu: As a linguist with classical training, I can assure you that I'm perfectly aware of third declension nouns and i-stems. You may hold the opinion that Iris is an i-stem, but there is no evidence whatsoever that it is the case. A noun which is only found in the singular in Classical Latin cannot possibly be determined to be an i-stem or not. "Neo-Latin" is a made-up language with no ability to reference usage beyond the Vatican, and the scientific/medical usage of pseudo-Latin terms that never have existed previously cannot claim to derive its authority from Latin. There are several medical sources that use the term "heterochromia iridium" - which is how this debate started - and it is unsubstantiated original research to write the common incorrect form "heterochromia iridium" is not correct Latin. You'll need to find a source to support your assertions. --RexxS (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
@RexxS:
  1. First of all, I did not mean to sound snippy, but I see that I did, both from rereading my own text above and from your reaction. Sorry about that.
  2. I do not "hold the opinion that Iris is an i-stem". On the contrary, I previously wrote (addressing you directly, to dispute your apparently derogatory labeling of Neo-Latin[1] as "pseudo-Latin"
    You get -ium with some words because those are i-stems. Iris isn't one of them. (highlighting added)
    Evidently, though, I should have referred to Contemporary Latin instead.
  3. I never said "the common incorrect form "heterochromia iridium" is not correct Latin". That was User:Anthony Appleyard back in November 2010 (modulo "wring"/"wrong"/"incorrect" after "common").
  4. We have evidence for the use of "iridum" in Neo- or Contemporary Latin, as in "Sinus Iridum" 'The Bay of Rainbows' on the Moon.
  5. I did say "iridium is... out of the running." All the evidence I see in Contemporary Latin is against it.
  6. FWIW, the (notoriously unreliable) estimated Google hits for the three medical terms are
    • heterochromia iridis: About 57,600 results
    • heterochromia iridum: About 98,600 results
    • heterochromia iridium: About 47,400 results
  7. jjj==m,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,mmmmm ... Sorry, that's the cat.
--Thnidu (talk) 11:24, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm also sorry I reacted sharply. As you have worked out, I meant to say "the opinion that Iris is not an i-stem", and I'm sorry for the confusion. I accept completely the points you make about modern usage, but still maintain that Latin (i.e. Classical Latin if you follow the link) sheds no light on the genitive plural of "Iris". I've yet to find a Latin concordance that shows any usage for "Iris" in the plural, although it's use in the singular is abundant. As someone who was able to read the Aeneid in the original in the 1960s, I have a real respect for Latin, but I have less regard for its use in modern times to coin new words as it often has the effect of obscuring meaning for the lay audience.
Finally, the debate was precipitated by the text that Anthony added, which asserts that "iridium" is incorrect in Classical Latin (as you can see from the wiki-link). I don't believe it is possible to make that determination, and don't think our encyclopedia should be making unsubstantiatable claims. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
good edit[43]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Notes

1. "New Latin (also called neo-Latin or modern Latin) was used in original, scholarly, and scientific works between c. 1375 and c. 1900. Modern scholarly and technical usage, such as in zoological and botanical taxonomy and international scientific vocabulary, draws from New Latin vocabulary." (New Latin)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_76&oldid=1137375565"