Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 90

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 85←Archive 88Archive 89Archive 90Archive 91Archive 92→Archive 95

Merge Allopathic medicine with medicine?

Xi'an Chinese medicine (alternative medicine)

This is pretty much a term for ordinary medicine used by homeopaths. The article doesn't present anything really new, I think it were best if we merged it — and then purged the terms: "allopathic", "allopathy", etc. from WP. Thoughts? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

From the article, it seems like the topic is notable and has a long history of use within the field of homeopathy. I don't see a compelling reason for a merge. Attempting a "purge" of alternative terms does sound like POV pushing. --Mark viking (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Then you quite obviously have no clue as to what POV-pushing is. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
The article appears to explain the term/concept in a reasonably balanced way. It may be a bit repetitive and could use some copyediting, but it does not appear to be pushing a POV, and I see no reason to merge it with anything. Purging the terms from Wikipedia is censorship, which we do not do, and, as Mark viking states, suggesting censorship does indeed have the taint of POV pushing about it. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:08, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
No it is absolutely not censorship, it is called having a consistent terminology across Wikipedia. Calling medicine allopathic is akin to calling gravity "the theory of gravity" or speaking of "orthodox economics" etc. etc. It's not suitable for a neutral encyclopedia. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not required or expected to have "consistent terminology throughout", as it is expected, as a neutral encyclopaedia, to mention and explain inconsistencies in terminology, and not to pretend that they do not exist. Your analogies are also unclear. What is wrong with referring to a theory of gravity or orthodox economics? Do you suggest there is no other kind, or that all versions of economics are unorthodox? and by whose standards? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I think, Peter, that the issue is more of subtly casting aspersions. By referring to the "theory of gravity", there is a hidden implication that it's not really a fact, but just a "theory". Similarly, referring to what the mainstream understands as economics with the label "orthodox economics" can be used to imply that other forms of economics (including crackpot theories) are just as valid. In the case of the homeopaths, they use "allopathic medicine" to refer to what is ordinarily understood as evidence-based medicine, i.e. medicine. That opens the door to claiming that "homeopathic medicine" is just a different form of medicine from "allopathic medicine". It isn't, because homeopathy is not medicine at all. The use of the term "allopathic medicine" has only one purpose: to indirectly bolster the cause of homeopathy in order to get equal treatment with real medicine. See: Atwood KC (2004). "Naturopathy, pseudoscience, and medicine: myths and fallacies vs truth". Medscape General Medicine. 6 (1): 33. PMC 1140750. PMID 15208545. --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
As it happens, I agree with that, but one does not purge the encyclopedia of a term which is in use, one explains it, and ensures that it is used when and where applicable and with due weight. If that means seldom, then that is OK. People supporting evidence based medicine should be sufficiently educated to understand the difference between a theory and a hypothesis in a scientific context, so when it appears that they don't I ask for clarification in case I have missed something. I suspect a failure to communicate rather than a fundamental disagreement on the usefulness of the term, but attempts to communicate have so far been met with rather categorical responses. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that regular editors of medical articles spend far too much time struggling with civil POV-pushers who want to recast a topic into a much more favourable light than the mainstream sources indicate. They may have a financial interest in removing anything negative about their profession, and are often well-organised off-wiki. The regulars can often end up with a jaundiced view of dissenting editors, and I know I'm guilty of that myself, although most of the time, it's justified, sadly. In this case, my view is that the article Alternative medicine #Allopathic medicine now gives a good perspective on the term "allopathic medicine" in its proper context, so I don't see any value in seeing it spread beyond that, simply to bolster unduly the position of the homeopaths. --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
"they use "allopathic medicine" to refer to what is ordinarily understood as evidence-based medicine, i.e. medicine"
Side note: No, they use that term to refer to what is ordinarily understood as conventional or mainstream or Western medicine, which may or may not be evidence-based in any given case (depending, e.g., upon the decade in question, whether any evidence exists, whether the practitioner chooses to practice according to that evidence, etc.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support since "allopathic medicine" is a specific term for the topic covered in Medicine - they are the same topic. Any notable criticism/perspective relating to the "allopathic" term - i.e. the homeopathic perspective - should be considered for inclusion in a suitable subsection of the Medicine article. — soupvector (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that merging means that we'll stop appearing in Google searches for the term, or at least fall in the rankings. The article is fairly well-written, and I wouldn't want to cede the top spot (including the definition box) to a website like my current #2 result. Sunrise (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC
  • Undecided. I agree that it is the same as medicine and is simply an attempt at a derogatory term for it. But if we explain that clearly it and we are the top hit on google we may do better keeping it per Sunrise. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Undecided. Sunrise makes a valid point re Google results, but nobody has noted the fact that the word is used routinely in India, perhaps (I don't know), not carrying the derogatory connotations Alt-Medists in the west use. I'm afraid that the effects on a google search result probably shouldn't colour our judgement on this. -Roxy the dog™ bark 10:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hob Gadling—I'm actually more inclined to merge the definition into Alternative medicine now, do you have any thoughts about that? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:00, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Much better. That article already has such a paragraph. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I added that, pretty much what I thought was salvagable. I'm unsure what to do with the rest of the material, much of it seems redundant. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:06, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sunrise makes a very good point. Does anyone know if there is research into how google defines synonyms of things? For example searching for "complementary medicine" doesn't give our article on alternative medicine — which is odd because they are the exact same thing. I'm unsure how to proceed, but I do think we should remove any undue uses of allopathy in the rest of the encyclopedia. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree with removing undue uses in the rest of the pedia :-)Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, by rewriting the definition of complementary medicine along the lines of what WP:LEDE suggests, and linking Complementary medicine to the subsection Alternative medicine#Complementary medicine I moved it up ~10 spots in the Google ranking… This makes me think that we could redirect allopathic medicine to a subsection of Alternative medicine#Allopathic medicine with a clear definition and some etymology and we'd still be on the top of the Google results: [2]. Thoughts? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Diffs: [3],[4] Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:02, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Same thing happens with the search query "integrative medicine" [5]. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Happy to see you give it a try. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:10, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Carl. I think these results reflect personalization, though - the rankings usually take a couple of days to update (e.g. my search for allopathic still gives the old page at this point), and on my part searches for complementary and integrative still don't have any WP results in the top 10. Maybe we could find someone who knows more at VPT? Sunrise (talk) 18:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Google results are personal, but generally are not very dissimilar between different searchers. My search for "complementary medicine" now puts our article in 4th position. Google certainly takes note of our redirects, but it does take a short while for it to catch up. I've just redirected Allopath, Allopathic and Allopathic Medicine after checking Special:WhatLinksHere/Alternative_medicine for double redirects. That should speed up Google's indexing, rather than waiting for the bot to sort them out. --RexxS (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be rather important to redirect to the specific subsection #Allopathic_medicine, not just to the article. A tip is to turn off search personalization manually in the Google settings, which can also be done by blocking Google-cookies (it gets rid of it to some degree, some location based personalization remains). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:52, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I just searched for "complementary medicine" on a computer different from the one I use (with personalization turned off, etc). Our article was still off the first page - 19th if the term was in quotes, and 13th if not. Sunrise (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I will admit that the Wikipedia article on allopathic medicine is in bad shape and that I cannot immediately identify good sources to cite and develop the article.
At the same time, I also feel that there must be better sources somewhere to cite, and that the article is not representing the term as it is commonly used. "Allopathic" as a term may have originated in the field of homeopathy but today is a standard term in Indian English for invasive medicine (pharmaceutical and surgical medicine) as compared to alternative and complementary medicine (AYUSH). In India "allopathy" is a word that every college educated person knows. I can think of a few aspects of the concept -
  • Allopathy is the term for differentiating drugs with side effects from interventions which at their worst are the equivalent of doing nothing
  • Allopathy includes a commercial exchange, when alternative medicine might include treatments accessible to very poor people
  • Allopathy has a strong bias for Western corporations and their interests
The Wikipedia article did not reflect these perspectives. I think it is fair to say that "allopathy" is a term and concept mostly controlled by Indian culture and that the article ought to reflect Indian perspectives. I cannot immediately prove it, but I suspect that there must be numerous news sources, journal articles, and essays in India talking about allopathy because it is a ubiquitous concept there. To say that it is merely a foil to homeopathy is not capturing the popular use of the term. The problem in Wikipedia probably originated because we do not have many participants in WP:MED who use Indian English. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Having glanced at this conversation, my two cents are that the merge with alternative medicine is sensible and nuanced, and covers pretty much everything we need to say about 'allopathy'. The encyclopedicness of the topic is how the term is used, and it's pretty much only used by horseshit peddling quacks. If it's used in mainstream Indian sources for conventional medicine, then we can (and should) document that too, but a note/mention in the relevant section of the alternative medicine article is all that's needed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Another way to provide balance would be to include criticisms of allopathy in the medicine article. "Evidence based medicine" is guided by a Medical–industrial complex, and all of the cases listed at List of largest pharmaceutical settlements and List of off-label promotion pharmaceutical settlements are instances of evidence-based medicine backed with the support of hundreds of researchers and physicians doing standard practice. The nature of evidence-based medicine is to be hijacked by corporate greed. Perhaps the medicine article should emphasize how routine it is for unethical practices to happen in evidence-based medicine, because the criticism and court cases are continual. There are quacks everywhere, but the quacks who make the most money with the most outrageous illegal behavior are on the allopathic side. There is room for outside perspectives in all articles. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit concerned about a few claims in the altmed article, e.g., that mainstream practitioners "never" agreed with the term. In 1810, they objected to the insult, but I understand that they accepted it as a reasonably accurate label for their treatment methods.
I mostly agree with Blue Rasberry overall. We-the-editors have a strong Western/American POV here, and a bad case of recentism, and I think it's blinding us to the other uses. For example: What did the homeopaths originally mean by that term, and how does it compare to some of their less-remembered terms? Where's the article that describes what those actual allopaths actually did in 1810? this 19th-century American journal says that Aloe vera was an "allopathic" medicine (probably most often as a laxative, although this source doesn't say that). This book on the introduction of Western medicine to India names "Roy's Head Cure" and "Magic Ointment" as allopathic treatments from the 19th century – quite the far cry from the best of 21st-century science-based medicine, but still a verifiable part of the snake-oil history of "allopathic" medicine. I can't find anything about this on Wikipedia. Since CFCF redirected the old article into non-existence (after just 21 hours of discussion?), all I can find is one short section in the altmed article, which leaves the reader with the impression that there's nothing more to be said about it than the homeopaths made up the word 200 years ago, and the average modern healthcare provider doesn't like it. I don't think that nine sentences is the best we can do for this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
WAID I believe you are looking for the History of medicine article. Jytdog (talk) 08:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
That article doesn't mention allopathy at all (nor heroic medicine, nor several other things), but I'm actually looking for a ==History== section in a properly developed Allopathic medicine, and for the article about allopathy to actually talk more about allopathy itself than about how, a century after mainstream medicine rejected actual allopathy, they're kind of tired of homeopaths using that outdated label to their non-allopathic medical approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
WP Is far from complete, right? That is where that content should go. A nice project for you. Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is far from complete, and CFCF blanked nearly all of the content that we had on the subject. Also, I disagree that (actual/old-fashioned) allopathy should be confined to a history of (Western) medicine article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
i am struggling some with the ax-grinding going on here all around, including CFCF, WAID, and bluerasberry. Looking back at what people did in the 19th century to get help when they were sick, and the various interventions offered to them.... it is easy to see that there was very little science-based medicine anywhere to be found and all kinds of pseudoscience and hucksterism and rank greed/ego driving things. A big reason for that is that nobody understood what was really going on with the human body. We like to look back and cherry pick emerging science as it appeared (cholera prevention, etc) but the landscape of "medicine" (and its various alternatives) was mostly fetid swamp, just like traditional medicines have always been, and were gussied up in various forms of cultural authority, just like traditional medicines have always been. Because people have always gotten hurt or sick, and there have always been people wanting to help and wanting to take advantage, and cultures have always had mechanisms to authorize some kind of care over others.
There is still a lot we (humanity) don't know today, but we know a lot more than we did then. Science has made strides in the 20th century especially. Enough to look back and cringe, and to rightly call things pseudoscience that clearly had or have no basis in science.
What some call the "medical industrial complex" certainly has elements of that, but there is also a shitload of "stuff" that has to be pulled together today to actually create and develop an intervention and prove that it is safe and effective. Doing that requires tons of money, business people, lawyers, scientists, doctors, and people willing to participate in clinical trials. Part of that is due to there finally being good laws governing marketing (which are still not strong enough in many areas, like dietary supplements -- a field where we find stuff as ugly as anything S.K. Roy ever did in colonial India and maybe worse, since the supplement marketers are doing their thing today when we know better).
But to do new medicine right today and to understand how older medicines should be used, it really does take a village "complex" to pull that off. Because even today it is hard and we still don't know if something is safe and effective in humans until we experiment on humans, and lots of them. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I've seen sources that put the start of science-based medicine around 1930 (and that's for cutting-edge research, i.e., not what regular patients were getting). Before then, it was all bad.
Even now, we're not really proving that drugs are safe and effective (see all the drug recalls); we're just trying to find out if there's a decent chance of it. We're doing much less than that for non-drug interventions. The best-case scenario is that in 100 years, people will say that our hearts were generally in the right places, even though we were mostly short-sighted, incompetent, blinded by greed, and inclined to treat researchers whose POV we like the same way that villagers in previous millennia treated their priests. Because, as Jytdog said, it's hard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Your reply is only partially based in reality in some parts and obviously based in bullshit (a lack of concern as to whether what you are saying is even true or not) in others. As to when accountability to evidence started to be enforced on the practice of medicine and the sale of medicines, see the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act. This conversation is not serious, and I am done here. Jytdog (talk) 22:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

University of Warwick students

The University of Warwick is running a course on ‘Human Sexuality’ for third year BSc Psychology students, which involves editing Wikipedia articles. This is just a heads-up that most of their editing will be taking place now, so please try to be patient with the new editors. On behalf of WMUK, I've volunteered to answer questions that the students may have about Wikipedia editing.

I've created a page at User:RexxS/Warwick for students to ask questions and get guidance; obviously, anybody interested in helping out is welcome to contribute there. --RexxS (talk) 22:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, Sexuality and disability, an important article for Wikiproject Disability, has room for improvement with several gaps and flaws. Compare it to the FA-rated Sexuality after spinal cord injury. If you think this class is up to the task perhaps you might suggest they take a look at it, though of course we can't expect to get an FA out of it. A previous class had a go at it and made some improvement. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent articles November 2016

NPR - Should I Trust Wikipedia With My Health?

Thanks to WikiProject Medicine's own @Doc James and AminMDMA: for speaking with the journalists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing this! Inspirational and a great cause! JenOttawa (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Absolutely, it was a great read and very motivating! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Offline medical app in India

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

very good news[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Child PTSD Symptom Scale

train wreck. oy. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

yep--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
It's a relatively new article and an active student assignment. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 12:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Old requested edits - Stents

Hey folks! The two oldest requested edits remaining are both to articles about stents: Coronary stent and Drug-eluting stent. Both requests were made by the same user who declared COI as from a marketing agency representing a stent-maker. Any chance someone who knows something about stents (i.e. not me) could take a quick look? If they're not helpful edits, feel free to close the requests as denied. I assume the requester is no longer waiting with bated breath. Thanks! Ajpolino (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes I had replied. The references needed to be better. I have updated the templates as no reply appears to be forthcoming. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Phimosis#Structure

Could use some input here. thx Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

replied Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Student Editing 2, Imperial College London

Hello, I supported an event for Imperial College medical students on 2016/11/12, focusing on cardiology articles. The students (with supervision from their tutors, a general practitioner and support from librarians) expanded and created the below articles.

Would appreciate any feedback, they would like to start a student society for editing so guidance would be helpful. Thanks Stuart Prior (WMUK) (talk) 10:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I had a quick glance at the "Right axis deviation" article. Figure 3 looks like someone scribbled a quick mnemonic. The artist has chosen to use lead III, whereas lead II would be more accurate and useful. I left a message on the file's talk page at Wikimedia Commons. Given that the artist uploaded the image on 12th November 2016, and this is the only activity by the uploader, I wonder if this was indeed by one of the aforementioned students. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:55, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
In the absence of any response, I have removed the diagram from the article and nominated the diagram for deletion at Wikimedia Commons. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:16, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
*sigh* My edits were reverted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:08, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead in drug articles

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)



more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Chloramphenicol and gray baby syndrome

An IP has expressed concern that our article about Neonatal conjunctivitis mentions the use of chloramphenicol for treatment, given the risk of gray baby syndrome when this antibiotic is given to infants. I'm guessing this would only be a risk for systemic administration of chloramphenicol, whereas conjuntivitis would be treated topically. But I didn't want to revert the IP without confirmation from someone with more medical knowledge than me. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 08:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Based on this review/commentary plus what we know about absorption and idiosyncratic drug reactions, the best we can say is that it's a potential risk. — soupvector (talk) 12:12, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent edit on Sarcopenia article

Hi I'm new to editing on wikipedia and wanted to get some feedback on a recent edit on this Sarcopenia article under the classification section. Thanks Danagg12 (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

if your referring to [7] then [8] is ok, as its a practice guideline...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

US Federal Trade Commission announces requirement for disclaimers on homeopathic "medicines"

See https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/996984/p114505_otc_homeopathic_drug_enforcement_policy_statement.pdf I wonder if this will have an effect on articles here. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

should have been done long ago([9] ...should be included as ref in such articles)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
There's an open question whether that's going to have the effect that most editors here would like.[10] WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Poster for Wikipedia in medical schools

Editing Wikipedia for medical school credit

Regulars on this board saw the September 2016 post about the "Why Medical Schools Should Embrace Wikipedia" paper. The update is that Wikipedians made this poster to summarize and present that paper at the November 2016 Association of American Medical Colleges annual conference.

This poster is designed to be timeless so if anyone needs anything official looking to demonstrate the opportunity of using Wikipedia in a medical school in the next few years, then please remember that this poster exists to help anyone make the case for Wikipedia in classrooms.

The documentation for this classroom outreach project and this research are at WP:UCSF. Authors of this poster are

and again, the authors of the broader paper are those plus Bresler, David MD, MA; Leon, Armando MD; Maggio, Lauren PhD; Whitaker, Evans MD, MLIS; Orlowitz, Jake; Swisher, Valerie; Trotter, Fred; Ross, Will. We all need each other here! I <3 WikiProject Medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

great (and informative)poster Blue Rasberry--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Ratio of fatty acids in different foods

Can I request a second (third, fourth) opinion on Ratio of fatty acids in different foods. To me, not only is this an obvious indiscriminate collection of information, and a huge violation of WP:MEDRS, but it's packed with weaselly-worded dubious health claims. (The lead manages the impressive feat of only consisting of two sentences, each of which completely contradicts the other.) However, it's survived in this form for a few years now, so possibly other editors don't see an issue with it. ‑ Iridescent 12:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I changed the lead sentence to agree with a recent review; the page is dubious - tilting toward WP:SYNTH. — soupvector (talk) 15:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a whole slew of fatty acid articles that needs fixing up. Has been on my to-do list for ages. and yes that is the worst one. Jytdog (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
In fairness, fatty acids are always going to be a problem area; it's very hard to convey "scientists agree that they are significant, but disagree on what the significance actually is" within Wikipedia's model without descending into 'teach the controversy' woo. TBH, my issue with this particular article is at least as much with the sprawling table, as with the questionable "good vs bad fat" speculation presented as fact. ‑ Iridescent 04:08, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

mdcalc.com

A user, User: Mxdlvn, has been adding ELs to articles, and using as a ref, sites within mdcalc.com.

Examples:

They have been doing this off and on for several years now.

They seem to be pretty savvy about diagnosis, per edits like this (badly reffed but well intentioned), and same here.

Generally their pattern is add some content, then the EL to mdcalc.

If you review their talk page you will see that various folks have reached out to them, and they are not responsive; they have used a talk page twice, ever.

Bottom line, is mdcalc.com a useful EL or should we delete the ELs and refs to it? Should we add it to the spam blacklist?

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm not aware of any unique value of mdcalc - have used it off and on for years - there are many competitors in that space. — soupvector (talk) 00:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • While I don't think the site is actively harmful, there isn't much evidence for editorial oversight beyond the website creators, nor could I find much in the way of reviews of the site. So it doesn't look like an RS by WP standards. The Medscape calculators might have a better shot at reliability. Blacklist seems like a too-strong stance, but also I don't see a compelling case for this being the online medical calculator of choice at WP. --Mark viking (talk) 01:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • WP:External links do not have to be WP:Reliable sources. This is the kind of thing that you have to use your best judgment for: Would some readers of the particular article in question find this link interesting/educational/valuable? If so, then leave it alone. Is there a better one for that particular page (using whatever value you have for "better", e.g., works in more web browsers, has less advertising, offers multiple languages, whatever)? Then swap that one in. We don't have to use the same website for all calculators in all the articles, but it's generally preferable to have only a single calculator linked in any given article; for example, readers will benefit from having a BMI calculator linked in the BMI article, but they aren't really going to benefit from having a dozen different ones. (Since the editor has only touched two articles this entire calendar year, there's basically no chance of getting it added to the spam blacklist.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Jytdog:If they've engaged in WP:LINKSPAM for years now for one particular website -- and have also ignored talk page notices repeatedly about same behavior -- is that not blockable? Sagecandor (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
maybe but i posted here to focus on the content issue; if folks think the link is valuable we shouldn't consider it spam. Jytdog (talk) 06:52, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
If people above said there are better links instead, maybe just replace them? Then, if the guy comes back to put his preferred links in instead, again, we know his true purpose is a spammer to only add WP:LINKSPAM. Sagecandor (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
my intial question was real - for all i know some people might find great value in the ref. and in any case it is good to get consensus before making moves that affect multiple articles. am still looking for more input, as there is not really a clear consensus to me yet and this has only been posted less than a day. Jytdog (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with both Soupvector and Mark_viking -- should address the issue by repeal and replace the links in question. Sagecandor (talk) 14:16, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure what we'd replace with - I would welcome suggestion of a "better" resource than mdcalc (criteria WAID suggested make sense to me) but it's ultimately a question of what's best for the readers of the article at hand. — soupvector (talk) 14:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, just wary if a single account is using the site for WP:LINKSPAM purposes, especially if resulting in Web promotion. Sagecandor (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Medcalc is somewhat useful and an okay EL IMO. No strong feelings. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:53, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This is not LINKSPAM. This is apparently a good-faith medical professional who occasionally adds a relevant link to a web-based calculator that s/he uses. And by "occasionally", I mean that we're talking about someone who not only adds unrelated information but who has made fewer total edits in nearly three years of editing than you've made in the five days since you created your account.
(If you are still looking for the templates, try {{Alternative account}} or {{User alternative account name}}.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
We have at least one current systematic review (at PMID 27154483) which looked the HERDOO2 score, the Vienna prediction model and the DASH score. It says that "none of the models can be considered ready for use". LeadSongDog come howl! 18:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Newbie editing about falls in older adults

Hi everyone. I’m new to Wikipedia and still trying to figure out my way through the wiki world . I have a special interest in ageing. I have been adding some information to the Falls in older adults article, and really appreciate the feedback you have given me so far(on the definition section). Could you please give me some more feedback on my recent edits? English is not my first language, so I’m aware that my writing could be smoother.  Thank you very much! --MonWiki (talk) 20:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Cochrane reviews are very good references to use, your edits look fine[11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Ozzie10aaaa: Thanks for your feedback.--MonWiki (talk) 11:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested edit on Influenza vaccine page

Hello, I posted a comment to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Influenza_vaccine. I want to make sure that I am interpreting the results of the systematic review properly as I propose a change to the current version of the wiki article. If you have a chance, please let me know your opinion. Thanks very much. JenOttawa (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I tried my hand at a revision to add in new the reference. If you have a chance, let me know what you think. Thanks JenOttawa (talk) 15:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
[12]very good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:KRN23

Is this stubby draft good enough for mainspace? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

should be merged into X-linked_hypophosphatemia...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. — soupvector (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with moving a future treatment to its own article. But if it's going to be merged, does it make more sense to merge it to the (currently) targeted disease, or to FGF23 (the molecule it binds to)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm going to Accept it at AFC now, the merge, or whatever, is up to you folks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Nasal Mist Flu Vaccine Influenza vaccine

I realized that the US has modified their recommendations re Nasal Mist for 2016-17 flu season. I think that the wiki article should be updated accordingly, unless I am missing it. Last I heard, Canada is still supplying the nasal mist for children in 2016-2017, but also offers the injection. I am not sure about other parts of the world. Does anyone in the community want to try to tackle this in the wiki article? It comes up in a couple different sections Influenza Vaccine. It has already been addressed in the Live Attenuated Virus wiki article, and there is a link from the Influenza article, but I think that it is important to update it on the influenza vaccine page as well.

http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0622-laiv-flu.html

JenOttawa (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

commented talk/article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

DSM-5 article -- the New England Journal of Medicine piece

Will editors here have a look at this edit by Prinsgezinde (talk · contribs), which I reverted? I reverted because it's not lead material; it's undue weight, and because it looks like POV-pushing to me. Should it be anywhere in the article? It states, "An article in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that 68% of DSM-V task-force members and 56% of panel members reported having ties to the pharmaceutical industry, such as holding stock in pharmaceutical companies, serving as consultants to industry, or serving on company boards."[1] Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

____

References

  1. ^ [1]
I'd encourage you to start a section on Talk:DSM-5 to explain your concerns, as that would be more visible to editors of the article, especially once this page is archived. I agree that the edit is far too detailed for the lead and does not represent a summary of any part of the body of the article. I doubt that the information is undue for the article, though, as a similar point is made in the last paragraph of the General Criticism section, DSM-5 #General. Perhaps you could suggest the compromise of incorporating Prinsgezinde's edit into that paragraph? --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The connection to industry is not the least bit surprising. This was fairly neutrally worded " 68% of DSM-V task-force members and 56% of panel members reported having ties to the pharmaceutical industry, such as holding stock in pharmaceutical companies, serving as consultants to industry, or serving on company boards." but I agree belongs in the body of the article rather than the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Thanks for your opinions. I will address the topic on the talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Ah, never mind. Doc took care of it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Category help - Category:Monoclonal antibodies versus Category:Therapeutic antibodies

My sense is that most of the pages currently categorized under Category:Monoclonal antibodies really ought to be categorized under Category:Therapeutic antibodies. Populating Category:Monoclonal antibodies with recombinant antibodies used as drugs gives the sense that Monoclonal antibodies are chiefly relevant as drugs (which they're not). NickCT (talk) 15:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The solution is not obvious to me (as a clinician and immunologist). The two categories do not overlap completely - there are members of each that are not members of the other. — soupvector (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
@Soupvector: - Seems to me that Category:Monoclonal antibodies should definitely not be a subcategory of Category:Therapeutic antibodies. I think that sort of implies that all monoclonal antibodies are therapeutic antibodies.
I could be wrong here. I'm not super familiar with categorization rules. NickCT (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
My understanding is that the categories are not exclusive. If something is a therapeutic antibody and also a monoclonal antibody, then both would apply. I don't see a compelling reason to avoid the overlap. — soupvector (talk) 20:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
There are certainly monoclonal antibodies that are never used in therapeutic applications (e.g., the monoclonal antibodies used in home pregnancy tests). Polyclonal antivenins are going to be therapeutic but not monoclonal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Soupvector: - I may need to polish up on my understanding of the categorization rules. I would have thought if an article were categorized as a "Monoclonal Antibody" and "Monoclonal Antibody" is a subcat of "Therapeutic Antibody", then by implication the article would have something to do with therapeutic antibodies. I may have that wrong. Let me brush up on policy. NickCT (talk) 11:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Ahh - sorry - I was responding to the content of the question, not the structure of the categories. These two sets intersect, but neither is a subset of the other. I think WAID is saying the same thing. I'm not sure how the categories should be structured to account for the reality that they are both subsets of antibodies, with substantial overlap. — soupvector (talk) 12:20, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Soupvector: - re "neither is a subset of the other" - Yes. I think that's the point I was trying to make. Category:Monoclonal antibodies should definitely not be a subcategory of Category:Therapeutic antibodies. NickCT (talk) 02:25, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with that statement. I don't think this will solve the "problem" with which you started the thread - it's likely that Category:Monoclonal antibodies will continue to contain a predominance of therapeutic antibodies. — soupvector (talk) 02:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
@Soupvector: - Yes. Well I guess one potential solution would be to remove Category:Monoclonal antibodies from Category:Therapeutic antibodies, then just add the Category:Therapeutic antibodies to all the articles in Category:Monoclonal antibodies that it correctly applies to. I think this is right solution. Unfortunately, this is going to require bulk category addition, which isn't something I've done before. I think Wikipedia:HotCat can do this pretty quickly.... I'll look into it.
Anyways, appreciate your thinking through this with me soupvector! NickCT (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Genital modification and mutilation article -- Circumcision/male genital mutilation

There is a discussion at the Genital modification and mutilation talk page about adding a Male genital mutilation section. See Talk:Genital modification and mutilation#Adding a Male Genital Mutilation Section. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Concern with Wikidata redux

After the thing discussed above i put changes to wikidata on my watchlist. there was a change to the entry for parkinsons so I looked it over. all kinds of weird drugs were listed there as treatments, like Filgrastim. I removed a bunch. garbage in, garbage out... Jytdog (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

it is best if we all(or as many as possible of us) watchlist wikidata for the issue(s) you mentioned...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how long i will keep watching wikidata. i don't have a lot of interest in curating a database but i do want to understand it better, especially as we seem to be moving more and more toward integrating freely with it. i have had concerns for a long time that there is a lot of garbage in Wikidata and i will be posting here sometimes when i find things I think are notable, like the one above. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
The point of Wikidata is to make facts available to all of the Wikipedia projects. You could argue that as the largest Wikipedia by far, the English Wikipedia editors could do a lot to spread information beyond the English-speaking world by improving the reliability of the 24,500,000 items in the Wikidata database. We could spend a little time adding references to information there, particularly for articles that we have an interest in. Magnus has created a gadget that allows you to drag and drop references from an en-wp article onto its Wikidata entries that I've found makes the process far quicker and more intuitive. See Wikidata -> Preferences -> Gadgets -> Drag'n'drop with a quick visual tutorial at "Drag'n'drop Wikipedia references to Wikidata" on YouTube. That not only makes the data more reliable for us to re-use, but also makes reliable data available for the other 280+ language Wikipedias and third-parties. --RexxS (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hm. the next video that youtube presented to me was a training video, where the instructor, who is teaching people how to edit WD, notes empty fields in a WD entry, jumps to the related WP article, finds something about those fields there, and types it into WikiData. The stuff he grabbed was unsourced, and the instructor -- the instructor - didn't even pause to look to see if the words were sourced, much less if the source was reliable. Horrible. I worry that a lot of the stuff in Wikidata got there this way - that people just run around sucking words into WikiData with no regard for sourcing. Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
And in this video, Lydia Pintscher spends twenty minutes teaching an undergrad class how to create an item in WD, and they do an entry on a person. They get going and very soon in, she says, "I have been told this person is a composer" and types it in. Same thing with citizenship, member of a band the person is in, etc.. Deeper in she encourages people to go around in WD and add stuff if they see it missing. No mention of sourcing. Not a single word. So this lack of concern for whether words being entered into WD are true or false or even verifiable is apparently baked in very deep. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't think you've got the memo about how we now inhabit a post-truth world. Get with the programme, man. Alexbrn (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
You can see the problem that many folks who spend time at Wikidata haven't spent their editing career trying to hold back a flood of POV-pushers and paid editors on the encyclopedia. It's easy for us to tell others that sourcing is the most important element in editing, but we've learned that lesson the hard way. For your edification, you can paste {{#invoke:Sandbox/RexxS/WdRefs|seeRefs}} into any section of an article and preview it; it will tabulate the Wikidata claims related to the article and the corresponding Wikidata references (if any). I always find it disappointing how many items are unreferenced or "imported from xyz Wikipedia", but you can understand why that is. I suppose it will only be when regular Wikipedia editors decide to curate the Wikidata entries corresponding the articles they care about that the situation will improve. --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata new developments

I wish to confirm all the criticism stated above about Wikidata by Jytdog, RexxS, Ozzie10aaaa, and Alexbrn. Wikidata's current practice of permitted uncited content is a major problem. In the long term, lack of sourcing is intolerable. In the short term, I understand that projects need time to develop, but I think anyone would be right to worry about how long poor quality information can be tolerated and how much that poor quality information influences Wikipedia and Wikimedia content readers.

Although I have trouble imagining how to reconcile the good and bad with Wikidata, the power of the good things which I see amaze me. I also am continually surprised by the pace of development of Wikidata tools and applications, which I feel come quickly and often and with a complexity of possibility that I feel is monumental even if I do not understand them. I cannot articulate the significance of this, for example, but perhaps someone would look at this with me -

These are SPARQL queries at https://query.wikidata.org. I think that many WP:MED supporters would be interested to know that query.wikidata.org exists, and might like to check what it can do. I suggest starting with the "famous cats" query. That one is easy to understand, because it asks for all the Wikidata items that are "instance of" (which is property 31) "cat" (which is item 146). The other queries are more complicated, like "show me the breakdown of causes of death for every royal person in history", "show me the gestation time of every animal in the graphical format that I choose", or something like "map all the ABC which are not XYZ".

About the sourcing - quality control is coming. Wikidata has about 300,000 items for references. When the time comes that meta:WikiCite allows more, then I expect all 60 million of PubMed entries will be among the first to be imported, but with Wikidata currently only being 25 million entries, it would overwhelm the community there to have so many citations now. Part of the reason why Wikidata is not currently using more citations is because they do not want to manually manage a few hundred thousand like English Wikipedia - the project is anticipating grabbing PubMed, the Chinese ones, the German ones, and then the table of contents for every book and magazine in the world. I just have no idea of when this will happen, but if anyone wants to see how it will look, check out the symptoms section of gout for example d:Q133087 then follow the reference. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

good info(will continue to watchlist wikidata)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Scleroderma pages

We presently have three pages for scleroderma, CREST syndrome (aka limited scleroderma) and systemic scleroderma. Should we continue to do so? I would propose that we have a single page for scleroderma that includes both limited scleroderma and systemic scleroderma. Would others be okay with that? Is someone more familiar with fibrosing disorders than I am and willing to spearhead the merger? I hadn't heard about this disease until earlier today so I probably am not the best person to lead this. Best, NW (Talk) 01:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

the NIH has three separate entries [13], [14], [15] I fail to see why we shouldn't as well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Scleraderma is the main article. The other two are subarticles. Arranging in both ways is reasonable as long as the main article provides an overview of the other two. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

RODIA

Relative Optical Density Image Analysis and Rodia, Medical Diagnostics should be merged. 36.81.14.214 (talk) 00:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yup and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Dual brain theory

This article seems kind of fringy. It mainly cites the work of one researcher on a proposed psychological treatment to rebalance the brain's hemispheres after traumatic experiences apparently cause one half to become dominate. The sources look to be primary, are mostly from a single author, and half are from the nineties. It has been tagged as needing expert review for over six years. Sizeofint (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

The author of the papers was active on the talk page five years ago and made a single edit to the article adding a few references [16]. The last major update to the article was in 2012 by a single purpose account with a tendency to cite the same author [17]. Sizeofint (talk) 09:20, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
[18]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:17, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I've started looking at this, and I think the best result is to split/merge/redirect it. There are a couple of pieces here, but the main story goes something like this: Back in the 19th century, they decided that one hemisphere was dominant over the other (and the "correct" way was for the left hemisphere to dominate; if it didn't, then you got inferior people, such as women and criminals and non-northern-Europeans). This idea was both the state-of-the-art medical opinion and also present in pop culture. Then in the 1920s, when modern medicine started, they ignored it. But then in the 1960s, it came back, because of split-brain syndrome after surgery, which developed into silly pop (pseudo-)science and doubtless some lucrative careers for buzzword-spewing business consultants (see Lateralization of brain function). The idea in this article is that something similar to split-brain syndrome can happen as a result of psychological experiences (an idea that originated in the 19th century) rather than purely as a result of surgery or other physical insults to the brain.
So my recommendation is to merge this away, leaving behind the history because of some material that I copied to another article, and also adding a brief mention in Lateralization of brain function that says this old idea (that unpleasant experiences can cause changes to brain function) has been revived by so-and-so. Does that sound good to everyone here?
(Also, if you're interested in the history of the idea, then https://books.google.com/books?id=y4YMSE9HUEMC seems to know what it's talking about.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The "Dual brain and psychology" section is probably UNDUE. That leaves the history section which is very small and so I agree merging is probably in order. Is there anything else worth salvaging from the history section? Sizeofint (talk) 06:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Monument to the X-ray and Radium Martyrs of All Nations

Colleagues may be interested in an article I've just written, about the Monument to the X-ray and Radium Martyrs of All Nations, in Hamburg, Germany. I'd be grateful for full PDFs of the two British Journal of Radiology papers I've cited (from online previews), if anyone has access, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

my library doesn't have it; i requested through interlibrary loan and will ping you when they come. Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Caries

Toothdecay

Seeking to confirm my layman's guess about the meaning of "spinal caries", which we mention in at least two articles, and find out what causes it, I came upon Talk:Caries, which justifies making caries into a redirect to Dental caries based on the usage of caries for an osteolytic bone lesion being antiquated. It seems we don't have any article dealing with osteolytic lesions of bone to which I can redirect the now inappropriate links going from "spinal caries" and the like to the "caries" redirect. But I note we're also using that term in one or other of those forms in at least two articles. Is there indeed some link target I've failed to find? Otherwise, I think we do need an article on caries/osteolytic bone lesions in general, similar to the scope of the pre-redirect caries article and reflecting currently used terminology. Since that was a wholly or entirely unreferenced article and I very obviously don't have the necessary educational background, I can't do this myself. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

So you are proposing making a "Caries (disambig)"? That includes dental caries and osteolytic bone lesions? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:59, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, we can't make a dab page until we have more than one article - and even then, a hatnote is preferred if there are only two articles. The first thing to do would be to create osteolytic bone lesions, which I see has just been redirected to Osteolysis. The previous version of Caries is still in its page history as Special:Permalink/560445640, so perhaps there's something there to salvage? There's only one reference though. I'll make a temporary fix by putting a hatnote on Dental caries, and perhaps the articles that should be linked directly to Osteolysis could be updated, if that's appropriate? --RexxS (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, the redirect works well; I didn't have the medical knowledge to confidently create it myself. I've added it to 3 biographies mentioning spinal caries, 2 of which were misleadingly linking to caries, but must now go to bed, as I'm starting to typo altogether too much. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Googling for instances I'd missed, I see references to tuberculous spondylitis—which we cover at Pott disease—as being a better name for it; maybe that's just the most common cause, where TB is still rampant. Some See alsoing needed? Yngvadottir (talk) 13:28, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
The most thorough way to find incoming links is to check Special:WhatLinksHere/Caries. Most will be related to Dental caries, of course, but looking at all 105 links is sure to find all of the existing instances. A lot of them can be skipped if they are not in article space. I'll do the last 55 if somebody wants to check the first 50? --RexxS (talk) 18:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
I've done that in the past, but in this instance I'm concerned with what's meant rather than what's linked (at least one biography had no link at all). I think I've tracked down all the instances of "spinal caries" now, and enough of the instances of osteolytic lesions of bone where a link could usefully be added (some already linked osteolytic). This is a new concern based on the same issue, that as a person with no medical training I can't be expected to know what it is, let alone what it's called these days. I've now found a source saying it's now recognised as having actually been tuberculous spondylitis, and searching for that led me to a different article, so I'm wondering how they should be linked for the reader. If I were confident I am interpreting correctly, I'd put a link in the text at Pott disease to osteolysis and a See also at osteolysis to Pott disease. I'm puzzled by the total failure of the osteolysis article to mention tuberculosis, which is very much still present in many parts of the world. But I don't know what I'm doing, hence I ask here instead. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, I found one link that wasn't Dental caries. It wasn't referring to Osteolysis, either. In Ibrahim Iskandar I, we were informing the world that East India Companies were interested in cowries and caries. That should have been "caires" (coconut fibre), a rather more profitable trading commodity than tooth decay. --RexxS (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
LOL well found and well parsed. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)


Why so many citations ???

Why so many citations for one part of one clause of one sentence?

Isn't that too many citations???

Sagecandor (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Some are okay, maybe one or two or three per claim. But this is too much. It was all added back in March 2016. Sagecandor (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
You might be interested to see the essay WP:Citation overkill if you haven't already Sagecandor. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Good articles

Hypoglossal nerve

Several articles have been nominated for Good article status.

If anyone's interested, then please be bold. It's not usually difficult: look at the specific criteria, and see whether it meets those. (You can ignore all other considerations.) If you'd like to give it a try but you're not feeling too bold, then I'd be happy to help you get started. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

the Behavioural genetics article is awful. a ton of words to say nothing. Jytdog (talk) 21:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I haven't looked at it, but general subjects are difficult to do well. That's why so few WP:VITAL articles are GAs or FAs (and most of those are about people or specific things rather than general concepts), despite editors working on them for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Is Loretta Marron in the scope of WikiProject Medicine?

I hope you don't mind if I ask a basic question here - I can't find a policy for what articles would fall in the scope of this Wikiproject. An editor who is not a member of the project has just added a {{WikiProject Medicine}} tag to the article Loretta Marron, and I am not sure whether it is appropriate. This is a biographical article about Marron who is not a doctor, but she is a campaigner for evidence-based health care. Can somebody pleawse advise whether this article is appropriate for this WikiProject?--Gronk Oz (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The FAQ is at WP:MED?. I suspect that several editors here would be happy to support that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The signpost to the Assessment department is somewhat hidden under our flashy new project page, but the page is still there and the section on scope can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment #Is WPMED the correct WikiProject to support this article?
A biography falls into the "use judgement" category:
  • "Physicians or other healthcare workers: {{WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes}}. Add WPMED only if the person is notable for substantial contributions to medicine, set | importance=Low, and add society=yes |society-imp=Mid ".
Does that help? --RexxS (talk) 03:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
checkY That's exactly what I needed, thanks @WhatamIdoing and RexxS:. I replaced WPMED with WP Biography, because while she has done a good job supporting medicine, I doubt that a case could be made that she "is notable for substantial contributions to medicine". Having the criteria is a huge help for those of us not familiar with the intricacies of WPMED.--Gronk Oz (talk) 06:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Body mass index

The body mass index article gives too much weight to arguments like published here without mentioning the prevailing scientific opinion about the origins of the "obesity paradox". It was suspected for a long time that unhealthy lifestyles can also lead to low BMI e.g. smoking, but you can also have people who don't eat well due to all sorts of health reasons like depression, drugs abuse, etc. On needs to do very sophisticated statistical analysis to correct for all the relevant effects before you can reliably extract what the expected health effects to some individual would be if that person were to lose or gain weight. In this recent article the results of a rigorous analysis based on the data from the Nurses' Health Study has been published, the results are not at all surprising to me at least:

"Conclusion Although people with a higher BMI can have lower risk of premature mortality if they also have at least one low risk lifestyle factor, the lowest risk of premature mortality is in people in the 18.5-22.4 BMI range with high score on the alternate healthy eating index, high level of physical activity, moderate alcohol drinking, and who do not smoke. It is important to consider diet and lifestyle factors in the evaluation of the association between BMI and mortality."

"Discussion After adjustment for the effect of high levels of physical activity, healthy diet (AHEI scores), moderate alcohol drinking, and never smoking, men and women with a BMI in the range 18.5-22.4 have a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and total mortality. In contrast, men and women with a BMI <22.4 and unhealthy lifestyles had a significantly higher risk of mortality than overweight individuals. Our findings suggest that the U shaped relation between BMI and mortality detected in previous epidemiological studies could result from an over-representation of people in our industrialized societies who are, or most likely became, lean because of the chronic accumulation of metabolic, inflammatory, and pathological conditions caused by long term exposure to smoking, a sedentary lifestyle, and unhealthy diets. Interestingly, our data indicate that even in overweight and obese individuals, the exposure to one or more low risk lifestyle behaviors significantly reduced their risk of mortality.".

Count Iblis (talk) 04:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Did this article really just conclude that smoking, sitting on the couch, and eating junk food causes weight loss? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it concluded that becoming seriously ill – as a result of a lifetime of smoking, sitting on the couch, and eating junk food – could cause someone to become emaciated. --RexxS (talk) 18:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
If you replace a healthy diet by an unhealthy diet and keep the caloric value the same, you're not necessarily going to gain much weight. There are many people who have a normal weight who don't bother taking the time to cook, they just buy ready to eat meals from the supermarket and put that in the microwave. Such ready to eat meals are not always high in calories (I would lose weight rapidly and become underweight if I tried to live off such meals), but they often do contain a lot of salt and they often lack enough vegetables.
But this is not the central point of the article, they simply report on the results of a proper statistical analysis, the results of which are in conflict with previous results and the most likely explanation for that is a hidden subgroup of people with a normal weight who live a very unhealthy lifestyle. Count Iblis (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Which describes my formerly-chain-smoking, once-anoreixc mother to a "T". (grin) Montanabw(talk) 06:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC regarding addition of text

Pertaining to chronic fatigue syndrome Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

That RfC is a train wreck. More eyes needed. --RexxS (talk) 23:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

No edit to that article will ever be entirely without controversy. JFW | T@lk 16:31, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine on NPR

In San Francisco today 28 November around 8:23am NPR aired a 5-minute conversation with James Heilman, Doc James, about medical content on Wikipedia.

I do not know how to link to their programs, but they seem to archive them at http://www.kqed.org/radio/. I see no way to listen to what they played around 8:20 this morning, and am not sure if this was part of any more broad show.

I thought I would share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

there was a blog post on Nov 8; you can listen to the piece that aired today here. Jytdog (talk) 17:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Tweeted. Bondegezou (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Excellent!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
60 hours a week is too much. Wikipedia:Wikipediholic. NickCT (talk) 18:22, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Use of primary sources in medical articles - Neuroangiogenesis

Neuronal growth cone

Hi, I work as the Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Edinburgh and my colleague, Dr Chris Harlow (ChrisH2015) has been running Wikipedia assignments for 4th year Honours undergraduates in the Reproductive Biology course this year & last year, whereby the students research a reproductive medicine term not represented on Wikipedia and then co-create the new article. Last year, they helped research & create the Wikipedia article on Neuroangiogenesis. Recently, while the latest iteration of the assignment was going on with approx 40 students creating 8 new articles on reproductive medicine, Chris worked to improve the Neuroangiogenesis article by citing some research findings published in reliable journals. These were flagged as WP:Primary and the edits reverted. Chris has been arguing, not unconvincingly, that the research these articles indicate should be allowed on Wikipedia as the quality of review articles can often be inferior in comparison. As a layman when it comes to writing medical articles, I realise that WP:Primary is an important issue for medical articles but I wondered if Chris had a legitimate point. Would you be able to clarify the stance on the use of such articles as sources for medical pages? Or be able to point me in the direction where such discussions should be taken? Chris would obviously be able to articulate his concern better than I so could discuss on his Talk page or here on the WikiProject Medicine Talk page perhaps? Let me know what you think anyway. Best regards, Stinglehammer (talk) 18:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Stinglehammer. Why not use secondary sources is the question? Yes some secondary sources can be of poor quality but many are of high quality and we should be using the high quality ones. If the content has never been mentioned in a high quality secondary source it does raise a bit of a red flag that it could be a one off. One major aspect of the scientific method is repeatability. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with you that secondary sources are not automatically better than primary ones. On the other hand, an astoundingly high percentage of primary biomedical research cannot be reproduced. Furthermore, results in animals often do not translate into humans. This is especially true with Alzheimer's disease where therapeutic approaches that appear to work in animals models have spectacularly failed in human clinical trials. It is much safer to cite high quality review articles that weigh the available evidence. Preclinical research result are not prohibited in Wikipedia, but per WP:MEDANIMAL, it is essential that it is not implied that the results of testing in animals will also apply to humans. Boghog (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
For what its worth there is an essay WP:Why MEDRS? that explains some of this (I started it but others have worked on it). Briefly, every WP content policy (WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V) says we should use secondary sources, and that is because our mission, per WP:NOT, is "to summarize accepted knowledge". Secondary sources are where we can most securely find "accepted knowledge" and get a good sense of what is widely held, what is a minority opinion, and what is plain FRINGE. MEDRS just makes that more explicit, and as Boghog and Doc James eloquently explained there are lots of reasons why this is extra important in health/medicine. Why MEDRS? explains this in too much detail. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello Stinglehammer and ChrisH2015. Since I reverted the content and literature in question, let me comment. First, the existing literature for the Neuroangiogenesis article is mostly WP:PRIMARY, with no systematic review on the topic among the 8 references that would satisfy WP:MEDRS. The first proposed article to include PMID 21771586 in transgenic mice is more about VEGF than angiogenesis, so is preliminary/primary to the topic. The second article PMID 22850316 is an hypothesis opinion not suitable for summarizing facts about neuroangiogenesis. The existing article is highly speculative, similar to what might be included as "potential mechanisms" or "future research" in a research article, not adhering very well, in my opinion, to the goals of Wikipedia per WP:NOTJOURNAL, 6-7. There is a WP article on Alzheimer's disease research where the Ambrose review may be better suited, but it also is plainly stated as an hypothesis which is not a good WP source. --Zefr (talk) 23:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Zefr: To imply something only becomes a fact when it is proven in humans is nonsensical. WP:MEDRS makes no such argument. Given the enormous amount preclinical research that has been performed in neurodegenerative diseases that is back up by secondary sources, per WP:MEDANIMAL, this is fair game for inclusion into Wikipedia, as long as it is made clear that these results may not translate into humans. While PMID 22850316, 25061056 contain opinions, they are also full of facts about the current state of knowledge concerning neuroangiogenesis as it relates to Alzheimer's disease. Boghog (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes this is a review article[20] The journal it is published in has an impact factor of 4.2[21] Hum I have therefore restored some of the content[22] User:Stinglehammer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Dan Riskin

need opinions on whether to move this article to main or not?..thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This ref[23] does not support the text it is behind.
And neither does this one[24]
This ref does not even mention him[25]
Like much paid editing, the text is written first and than refs are thrown on to make it look supported.
With respect to paid editing the work is usually so poorly done that it is easier to delete it all and start over. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
[26]done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Acne vulgaris FAC Request 2

Hello everyone, this important page still needs experienced FAC reviewers to help give the article its final push to FA. For convenience, here is the link to the review page [27]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Remember to VOTE before Dec 4th

We have 11 candidates. Both myself HERE and User:Tryptofish HERE have put together our opinions on the candidates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)


Also, please don't forget to vote in the m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey. I have it on excellent authority that this dev team would be very pleased if you find the best proposals and advertise their existence to anyone who would benefit. There are no "canvassing" rules at Meta, and the devs explicitly say on the voting pages that a reasonable amount of "canvassing" is desirable and helpful. There are too many proposals for 99% of editors to read, so please do spread the word about the proposals that you think will be most helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

[28] is an important fix that is needed to prevent a bot edit after a poor quality edit from hiding that poor quality edit.
Would make it easier for me catch up after going on holidays :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move of "Carl Jung"

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks,  Paine  u/c 01:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


Recent edit to Fibromyalgia

Hi I am part of the Wikipedia:Cochrane online classes October 2016 and new to Wikipedia. I have made some edits on the Fibromyalgia page in the medication section with an updated Cochrane review from 2016. Please let me know your thoughts! Wikilens (talk) 04:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts, but I reverted due to significant issues, e.g.: (a) the cited source does not say that the prevalence of FM is 11%; it says that it's 2.1-2.9% in the European population - see Background section of that ref; and (b) the line you added beginning with "Psychiatry..." is neither a sentence nor intelligible. I suggest that you start again, a bit more carefully, and not put so much in one edit - break up edits in different sections, for example, so that each can be evaluated on its merits. — soupvector (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
more eyes needed on the article[29] in regards to User:Petergstrom--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Including all phases of clinical trials

Discussion here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


Assessment?

I tried to find the Article assessment dept here to post this message, but was unsuccessful. Just wanted to let them know I changed the assessment of Pharma Medica. Ottawahitech (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment. Thank you for your help in the ongoing task. --RexxS (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
@:RexxS Thanks for replying. I checked out the assessment page for this wikiproject which you mentioned above, but it does not seem to be active. For example the last posting on the talkpage which has not been replied to was posted almost a year ago. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2016 (UTC)please ping me
Yes that is the place and yes it is mostly inactive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:24, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Question on Talk:Pain re: removing a sentence that appears to be primary research

I posted a comment on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pain regarding removing a sentence from the wiki article, results from a single study (primary research). If you have a chance, I would like some feedback and advice on this. Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 14:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


Image at female ejaculation article

There is a discussion at Talk:Female ejaculation#Image restored about whether or not to use a real-life image depicting female ejaculation. I have concerns because the existence of female ejaculation is heavily debated among scholars and people have been known to photoshop photographs to look like female ejaculation, especially in the pornography media. Some pornography actresses have faked female ejaculation onscreen. As this 2013 Cosmopolitan source states, "Porn has encouraged men to believe that when they've truly rocked a woman's body, it starts doing an impression of the Bellagio Fountain in the second-to-last scene of Ocean's Eleven." In that same source, sex therapist Ian Kerner states, "Involuntary squirting is the Loch Ness Monster of sex. In other words, an unverifiable legend." The literature commonly attributes the type of "gushing" seen in the debated photograph to the bladder (meaning urine or mostly urine, or closer to urine to than to female ejaculate). Even Kerner, in the Cosmopolitan source, categorizes gushing as "closer to pee than it is to female ejaculate." And a pornography actress in the source states that "the extreme version of squirting — is often smoke and mirrors." She believes "squirting" is real, but thinks that it's rare and difficult to achieve. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Weighted in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

National Foundation for Cancer Research

Can someone take a look at this article? Is the copypaste even relevant to the article? Natureium (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not an encyclopedic entry, reads like part of a home page, had copyright material only recently removed, and violates WP:NOTHOSTING, among others. As there's no content and various recent violations, I submitted a WP:PROD request. --Zefr (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it has been well trimmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Not well enough. I've taken a larger set of shears to the undergrowth. In my opinion, it wouldn't survive AfD unless someone can find a couple of independent secondary sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:ORG. --RexxS (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

To tag or not to tag, that is the question...

Are articles about medical journals within the scope of this project? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I would say yes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
It's not covered at WP:MED?, but if editors here are willing to support a topic, then there's no reason why not. I should add that WP:WikiProject Academic Journals is active and an obvious first choice to find interested maintainers, but there's no reason why an article about a medical journal shouldn't belong to both. --RexxS (talk) 22:02, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, if it is covered there than I do not think we need to include it here. But no strong feeling either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
BTW, there is no direct link to WP:MED?, or even a mention of it, anywhere on the project main page. It is unusual to have the Scope guide of a project "hidden" as a subsection of its Assessment sub-page, as it isn't actually related. Other WikiProjects I visit tend to be far more upfront and explicit about their scope. Other professional/scientific projects tend to specifically include journals within their scope. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
I've added a link on the main page now. It was lost in the revamp where we removed hundreds of outdated or unnecessary links. This does seem to me an essential link, so I reinstated it, but we need to keep it terse for it to be useful. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧
If you do much of this work, then it may be helpful to know that such information, when it exists, is most commonly at a page named "WikiProject ____/Assessment". This is common enough that if you can't find it, it's worth searching for that page name to see whether it exists. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Picture of an elderly woman

Wondering what peoples thoughts on this as a lead image? Talk:Urinary_incontinence#Image Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Per the image description, this picture doesn't seem to have anything to do with the article other than that the woman is old and is in the demographic for likely incontinence. I think we should find a different image, because right now it looks like a random clickbait stock photo and is of no informational value. Natureium (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
[30]seems better--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Wheat

We have several threads open at Talk:Wheat:

In summary, an editor, RAMRashan, wants to remove the term "toxic" referred to wheat gluten for people with celiac disease [31] (which is used worldwide in this context for years -see [32] [33][34] [35]), because he does not like it and against Wikipedia policies (such as WP:NPOV , WP:MEDRS, etc.).

Perhaps we are facing a WP:SPA or a WP:COI. Here are the top articles from RAMRashan's edit count:

Please, more opinions. Thanks.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 20:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The POV pusher here is Ballena; sample dif where they actually added content to an article that flatly described gluten as "toxic". We might as well describe water as "toxic" every time we mention it as thousands of people have gotten brain damage or died from exposure to it. When you make blatantly bad edits like that you can expect them to be reverted. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
When I and others at the gluten at wheat pages suggested bringing up your behavior here yet again BallenaBlanca, it wasn't so you could cast blatant WP:ASPERSIONS about editors. I was giving you the benefit the doubt of this all being part of language barrier issue or just being overzealous for whatever reason in this topic as a claimed gastroenterologist, but your edits combined with attacking editors is very much looking like the hallmarks of WP:ADVOCACY. Ironically, compared to RAMRashan where this is no evidence of COI and actually a good spread of topics for a newer agriculture editor (SPA claim is silly there), BallenaBlanca has stated their main research is on celiac disease and associated autoimmune disorders. This may be evidence that they are too close to the topic at hand in terms of COI themselves, but that's probably better brought up at WP:COIN.
The main issue here is that BallenaBlanca is having a lot of trouble with due weight and really overblowing the idea that gluten is "toxic" and that there has been a sudden paradigm change in the literature that gluten is now considered a major problem outside of celiac disease. We already extensively discussed their behavior already at this project. I'm not sure what else we can do here for this mix of behavior and content issues with BallenaBlanca, but it does look like they're overall edits need a second look. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Even after heavy editing today, the section on wheat health effects remains over-weighted and over-referenced to the gluten story, likely misleading the typical encyclopedia user to believe that the main health issue about wheat is its small gluten content and the impact this has on only 1% of the general population. I find this uneven emphasis to be ridiculous, but Doc James prevails on editing with a heavy hand. --Zefr (talk) 00:10, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Zefr you are cutting out important well referenced details. Three relatively small paragraphs is not excessive. There is more to gluten than celiac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis is also notable.
I have replaced "toxic" with "harmful for people with coeliac disease" as 1) it is stating a fact 2) is easier to understand IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:16, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your neutrality, Doc James.
Jytdog maybe you have not read this [36] [37] Health Hazard Assessment for Gluten Exposure in Individuals with Celiac Disease: Determination of Tolerable Daily Intake Levels and Levels of Concern for Gluten (Office of Food Safety Center of Food Safety and Applied Nutrition Food and Drug Administration) “ …other toxic grains (i.e., rye, barley) associated with CD…” “A range of work conducted over many years has established that each of these subfractions (of gliadin) can be enterotoxic in sensitive individuals” etc.; and other messages and information in wheat talk page.
There are dozens of references that speak about the toxicity of gluten in celiac disease, that I was previously linked. Probably, this is one of the most outstanding: PMID 22313950 Spectrum of gluten-related disorders: consensus on new nomenclature and classification. "The high frequency and wide range of adverse reactions to gluten raise the question as to why this dietary protein is toxic for so many individuals in the world. "
If it is already a mistake to compare gluten toxicity in CD with an allergy or an intolerance, I have no words to define your comparison with water and drowning...
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 00:41, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
You are abusing your editing privileges to make WP a platform for making people "aware" of gluten. Your gluten editing violates two policies - WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UNDUE. I get it that it is your life's work but when you come here you have to take off your gluten-glasses and look at things globally. You have to. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog, remember not confuse WP:ADVOCACY with WP:STEWARDSHIP. I am in the second case. I seek to be neutral and correct the deficiencies of Wikipedia pages. I have no objection to trim information, if necessary, in dialogue and reaching consensus, etc. That's what I always do. I edit and contribute in a wide range of pages to help in the Wikipedia community work, I wish I could be more useful but it takes a long time because of the language.
IMO, you are pushing your POV, you do not want that CD or NCGS are mentioned, especially their relationship with certain cases of neuropsychiatric disorders and you pressure me to shut up. Here is one of the examples of your stressful pushing against genuinely mentioning CD or NCGS [38].
IMO, you are abusing your editing privileges to push against me, you handle Wikipedia policies very well and you always find some one to use against me.
I'm really sorry, because I really liked the times you and I worked together. And honestly, I wish we could continue to work together, as for example we did here [39] [40]. Can we, please?
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 02:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
I am very clear about what advocacy is, and you are not. You constantly push this gluten stuff too far. You do great editing in other areas. Done here. Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Your conclusions about advocacy and me are as successful as comparing toxicity of gluten in CD with water. What a pity... Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 03:38, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Ballena, what exactly are you trying to communicate when you use the word toxic to describe a protein that most people can eat with no apparent harm?
I looked at your suggested searches. After limiting it to reviews during the most recent five years, I found that they produced very few sources (nine, if you want to run the search more efficiently) – and that many of those few sources seemed to use the word rather loosely, instead of being precise about the distinctions between toxins, antigens, allergens, etc. Those nine contrast with the 542 reviews (about 98%) during that period that mention gluten and/or gliadin and don't use that word. That comparison makes me feel about 98% against the idea of using that word to describe the protein. But presumably you've got a point that you think should be made, and it's presumably something beyond "be scared, because this is just as toxic as snake venom and pesticides and dioxins and mercury". If you can tell us what your goal is, then we can probably come up with a way to present that information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Toxicity is only in the context of celiac disease, I have never said otherwise. We can also use cytotoxic or enterotoxic or immunogenic.
You can see Gluten immunochemistry in which I have not done any edit [41] and the use of the terms here "antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity", here "toxic protein" and here "toxicity of gliadins" and several refs, present since the first version, edited by Pdeitiker at 06:44, 19 June 2008 [42].
Anyway, we have removed the term from wheat (all the possible terms) and the result is good, I agree with it [43]. I will not insist, I explain this to you because you asked. As I said [44], oats could be the best example why it would be convenient to explain what toxicity means for people with CD, and avoid they be surprised by the term. World Gastroenterology Organisation Global Guidelines on Celiac Disease American College of Gastroenterology - Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Celiac Disease.
You searched the term "toxin". No, no toxin, but "toxic". And we have 88, 20 of them from last 5 years. And note that the first mentions go back to 1972. And if we expand the search with cytotoxic or enterotoxic, we find 106, 28 of them from last 5 years.
Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 01:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
So the main problem with writing "toxic" isn't that less than 5% of sources use it. It's that normal readers will misunderstand it. Because if you go to your neighbor, or the grocery store clerk, and you ask them to name a couple of toxins, they're going to think about "chemicals" and "poisons" rather than "common food that some people happen to react badly to". And if you tell them that this is "toxic", then they're going to think that Wikipedia says that it's just like scary chemicals and poisons. In other words, if we write toxic, we'll be mis-educating nearly all of our readers.
I think that immunogenic would be a good choice. It feels like it has less room for such misunderstandings. Will that work for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@BallenaBlanca:How much salt, sugar, and fat did you eat today? Count Iblis (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, what you say makes sense. I agree. The issue of toxicity is a matter of adapting the language for the lay readers, you're right. One observation: the percentage of sources that mention it is not relevant, it depends on the concret topic on which they focus, not always talk about pathophysiology. The fact is that it has been used for more than 40 years among specialists.

In summary, we have removed the term toxic, and two paragraphs about gluten-related disorders "is not too much in an article this size and is far from undue weight" [45], especially taking into account the format of other similar Wikipedia pages [46] and the criteria that have been followed by the editors in them [47].

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 23:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

using used commercial cat litter as farm/garden fertilizer

i am exploring the safety & efficacy of using used cat litter as fertilizer. it is certainly full of nitrogen? & toxoplasmosis & ? thousands of pounds are purchased & discarded every day. how can this resource be safely reused. Can & should the new litter be modified? Most litter seems to have a clay base. Lets make some money & improve the environment by getting this stuff out of the garbage truck & landfill. Please advise - if u can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markl sparkol (talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

This is not a place for questions like that. You can try the WP:Reference desk though. Jytdog (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wishlist pitches

2016 Community Wishlist Survey - Proposals related to "Recent Changes"

Hello WP Medicine members! I noticed that you make extensive use of RecentChangesLinked to produce change patrols under "Recent changes". Here's a couple Wishlist Survey proposals related to making these pages more productive:

  1. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
  2. RecentChangesLinked should search associated pages

Please consider and vote on these by December 12. Thank you for your time! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings WikiProject Medicine/Archive 90 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

We now have top 5000 which comes out once a week which fills much of the gap.
And there is this new tool[48] so likely not that hard to get it up and running again.
Getting it up and running is less essential for us than other projects. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Other calls

Please see above

For myself, I wish for "Support Wikipedia Education Program courses on Programs & Events Dashboard". I want Wikipedia in more medical schools and development of this tool would make this easier in many ways.

If anyone else wants attention, please share. The rules say, "A reasonable amount of canvassing is acceptable. You've got an opportunity to sell your idea to as many people as you can reach. Feel free to reach out to other people in your project, WikiProject or user group." Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Stevietheman and Blue Rasberry thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I haven't read the lists myself, but Wikivoyage seems interested in these two:

The first is interesting to WPMED, since it would let us fix problems with Wikidata descriptions (seen in some search results) and other things easily. I haven't read up on KML files, so I'm not sure if this would be useful to us (e.g., to make maps of disease prevalence). If anyone's aware of other lists, please feel free to share links with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Casein#Autism_content

eyes would be useful, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Also a possible link to type 1 diabetes is a hot topic. Count Iblis (talk) 04:28, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Is anybody familiar with the journal Biochimie? It's the only secondary source offered in support of the content. --RexxS (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Biochimie appears to be a legit MEDLINE indexed peer-reviewed journal with an impact factor of 3. Boghog (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that the Diagnosis section in Draft:Cerebral Folate Deficiency related to Folate Receptor Autoantibodies in Autism may be an indicator of why this subject is important to its author. I've commented on the talk page there. --RexxS (talk) 14:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Argh. That draft was moved to main space. I looked at the sourcing carefully. Several articles by E.V. Quadros and J.M. Sequeira were cited (most of them not MEDRS). The papers disclose that the two of them are inventors of methods to diagnose various things by detecting folate receptor autoantibodies. This appears to be PROMO or advocacy. Oy. I have redirected to Folate deficiency and put one sentence in a new Research section. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you figure out who was selling the testing kits that the article was advertising? I almost ordered one using a fake credit card. --RexxS (talk) 00:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
:) no it doesn't seem to be commercial yet - i did look tho. Jytdog (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

New article needs attention

Please see Structured Triage System, the sources are all in Spanish so proficiency in the language would be useful. The topic seems clearly notable but the devil's in the detail, in some areas the referencing seems a bit thin. It could also do with more wikilinks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

per [49] page documents an English Wikipedia content guideline... 10 of 12 refs need to be replaced w/ the English equivalent(or have article available in both languages, did not find evidence of the English equivalent)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
There's no such rule. MEDRS only uses the word English to say that pop-science magazines often have the virtue of writing in "plain English". Non-English sources are permitted under the policy WP:NONENGLISH.
Since this program is currently used only in Spanish-speaking countries, I think that it's unlikely that we'll find very many sources about it in English (or any language other than Spanish). We have a handful of Spanish speakers here at WPMED, but if we need more help, then we can ask at the usual places for finding translators (WikiProject Spain, Wikipedia:Translators available, etc.). WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
because this project is in English, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones[50]...however I do see your point( its an important article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
It's important to read the whole sentence: English-language sources are preferred if and only if they are "available and of equal quality and relevance". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia editathon at Imperial College London

I am not sure who organized this. The event was hosted at Imperial College London. They tweeted updates, which show that apparently they had t-shirts and hoodies made especially for this event. Battleofalma, you tweeted about this event. Do you know who managed this or how it came to happen? Great event! Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I've previously been involved in editathons at Imperial, but I was unaware of this one and nobody contacted me about it. The press release contains a bunch of completely different names, suggesting this is an entirely separate effort. JFW | T@lk 10:58, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The release said it was done in conjunction with WP:MED. Hm. this tweeted image shows a guy talking with WMF-branded slides and this tweet says "learning from the experts @wikimediauk". Jytdog (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Introduced a big bolus of copyvio content in one of the four articles, Duke Activity Status Index. fixed it. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
they worked on the content discussed above at [Student Editing section. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, what was the big copyvio? Battleofalma (talk) 18:13, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The instrument is copyrighted but a student copy/pasted the whole thing into WP and cited an WP:ELNEVER source. Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, how did this editathon come to be associated with WP:MED in the IC press release? Jytdog (talk) 18:22, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Associated with WPMEDF and likely they just dropped the Foundation bit.User:RexxS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Neural Empowerment

Hello medical experts. The draft above has a lot of sources, but I don't see anything in them about "neural empowerment". Is this a neologism? If so, I will decline the draft.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Smells like marketing. (And they are marketing this idea: [51].)
I get one hit on the name at scholar.google.com, and zero at PubMed. I doubt the notability of the subject. Specifically, I doubt that it's a sufficiently separate thing from the components in any sense except the sense that trademark offices care about. (A quick search indicates that they have applied for a trademark on this term.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, WhatamIdoing. I had noticed the lack of hits at Google Scholar. I have declined the draft.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that here Anne and nice catch on the TM WAID. Jytdog (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Megahype jargon for "learning"? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I like that you used "&bull;" for the markup in this context rather than typing • symbols. DMacks (talk) 06:21, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
It's been deleted as advertising.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Quality update of Transgender health care

Hi everyone, I have been working on the Transgender health care article and believe that it has improved past a Start-class designation. I would love to have people look at the article and give me any feedback that they might have! Brookeenglish (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

will look(hormone replacement therapy subsection[52])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_90&oldid=1235456699"