Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 30

Archive 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

→

Archive 35

That ALCAT business again...

User:Plot Spoiler refuses to answer a straight gf query as to the existence of any COI with Cell Science Systems, the marketers of the ALCAT test, simply providing an edit summary that reads Ridiculous accusations that don't deserve a response [1]. Given this user's history (a previous username failed to meet Wikipedia's username policy because it was "that of a product or company" [2]) and editing habits I feel that the question is anything but ridiculous. Any suggestions on where to take it from here? —MistyMorn (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

When pressed, the user has now stated: There is no COI [3]. —MistyMorn (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Are you confident pressing that issue is appropriate and part of Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest (even if it were a COI, but in this case it is only suspcious)? Biosthmors (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I probably didn't word my last post very well. No I wasn't confident, which was why I posted here. I found the refusal to answer my plainly worded civil question in the standard template I posted [4], per Wikipedia:COI#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest, both arrogant and suspicious. But the user has now stated There is no COI [5]. And I feel it's right to leave it at that now, with the answer on record. Hope that's clearer, —MistyMorn (talk) 20:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Our COI policy is useless and those who try to apply it need to break the much stronger "no exposing people" and thus those who do end up banned. I simply ignore the policy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the gentle reminders that the article's Talk page isn't actualkly the appropriate place to address COI concerns... As suggested at the head of WP:COIN, I've now posted a Help request. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:29, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Auto generate ref name from first author last name + year of publication?

^ Is there any way of doing this? 23_2{(SBST:SU:m.}} (talk) 16:06, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Not as far as I am aware. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Well there is for Harvard referencing, using {{harv}} or {{harvnb}}, e.g. the wikicode {{harvnb|Tepi|2012}} generatesTepi 2012

These can be modified by the use of the |pages= parameter, or augmented by the use of the {{rp}} template. Adding para^[6] to the {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, etc in wp:LDR form should link it, as for {{cite web |last=Tepi |year=2012 |title=Auto generate ref name from first author last name + year of publication? |work=Wikipedia |date=2012 Oct 29 |ref=harv }}

I'm not aware of a specific wp:MEDMOS equivalent, though it may exist. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Same ref being added by a number of editors to a number of pages

This ref [7] is being added by User:Socialpsychra and User: Keyblade5 to a lot of pages. It is not pubmed indexed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Is Pubmed really the most relevant indexer for psychology journals, or are we getting into scope creep? Perspectives on Psychological Science is pretty high-impact (4.890 per JCR 2011), and it is held in the NLM, and even if it is not indexed on Pubmed it is indexed on several other services. Cheers, LeadSongDog come howl! 19:19, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Good point. I content maybe reasonable. Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#Addition_of_text_with_ref_which_is_none_pub_med_indexed Is this WP:DUE? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

They'd still need to determine whether it is an independent, secondary source, and whether the edit uses the source appropriately (not cherry-picking, e.g.) I don't personally have the necessary full-text access to make such an assessment. I simply state that I would not reject it solely on the basis of the choice of journal, or that of the absence of Pubmed indexing. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Myoclonic epilepsy

FYI, see the talk page of Myoclonic epilepsy where I said this student could ask questions at WT:MED or my talk page. There seems to have been a little confusion. Colin°^Talk 15:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Colin- I am a student and part of the myoclonic epilepsy article you took a look at. I'm very confused by the plagarism issue. If the sources are cited then how it is plagarism? Some of parts of the article was 100% copied from a book but I thought that didn't matter as long as it was cited where we got the information from. Please let guide me in the right direction here. thank you R.EEGbrittry (talk) 17:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:PLAGIARISM. In summary, verbatim copying of text counts as plagiarism even if the reference is given. This is because unquoted text implies that this is original text based on the reference. Related issues are close paraphrasing and copyright violation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

FRom WP:PLAGIARISM: "Stronger attribution is required when content is copied or closely paraphrased from sources. This helps to maintain the clear distinction between work submitted by Wikipedia editors as their own work (which can be "edited mercilessly"), and work marked as a quotation (which must be properly credited and left essentially untouched)." Such "copy & quote" text should be reserved for situations when a direct quote from the original speaker enhances the reader's understanding beyond that of new text based on the source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:23, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Colin-- Will you take a look at my talk page and tell me what you think of the updated version for the myoclonic epilepsy article? I would like your feedback to make sure I referenced everything correctly. thanks! R.EEGbrittry (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Wait—I'm not Colin. I suspect that you should be asking these questions on Colin's talk page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:25, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi, there seems to be a little confusion over WT:MED vs my talk page. Anyway, yes we need to write Wikipedia articles in our own words and we can generally only lift other people's words directly when they are in quotes. And we don't build articles from lots of quotes. Any significant amount of copying is a copyright problem, which is rather serious hence the knife taken to the changes. I will try to get time to look at this but am not sure I will have time tonight or tomorrow night. I could only review your work against the source text via a Google Books search as I don't have that book (though I have a couple of others too) If someone else here on WP:MED can help that would be appreciated. The issues are covered on the article talk page. In addition to rephrasing source text, some help with wiki formatting/referencing might be useful. Colin°^Talk 15:37, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Trouble at talk:caffeine

The article is running into difficulties with an editor who is convinced that Islam forbids caffeine and defends that view at quite incredible length, but can cite no specific evidence whatsoever to back it up. The only way I have found to deal with situations like this is force of numbers. I know it's annoying to deal with walls of hysterical text, but any help would be appreciated. Looie496 (talk) 02:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

omg... p = 0.05 (talk) 02:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have brought two different sources--an encyclopedia and a textbook, both by Ph.D.s in Islamic studies--and provided a suggested edit based on them. If that doesn't meet the editor's satisfaction, the problem there isn't one of content but rather behavior, and will have to be settled at the WP:Dramaboard or the like. Zad68 16:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sugar high

Could someone have a look at Sugar high? It was changed from an article to a redir to List of common misconceptions some weeks ago, and now the article has been restored. I find it a bit fishy but don't know enough to decide whether this condition actually exists. Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if it needs to be a separate article or not, but either way the article needs some serious work. I've removed some unnecessary content, some of it redundant and copied from sucrose, but it still needs some attention from someone familiar with the subject. Personally I think it should be redirected to sucrose, since most of the article seems to be copied from that article, with maybe a brief sentence explaining "sugar high" and whether it's a thing or not. I don't think this needs its own article; if you took away all of the unsourced content, there's hardly anything there. - SudoGhost 09:33, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Commented at article talk. There's real science and ongoing debate about a complex and important area, with overlapping dietary substances, reward system modification, metabolic modification, addiction, economics, and mass marketing all involved. As they say, "It's complicated". LeadSongDog come howl! 14:14, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Except that the current page, title and topic included, seems to be about something else again (which, personally, I do think should be a redirect to Sucrose to avoid confusing our general readership). —MistyMorn (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Being fat isn't bad for your health?

This article Fat_acceptance_movement#Modern_movement appears to claim that being fat isn't bad for your health. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:27, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I see no suggestion in that section that there are no medical consequences to being overweight or obese. A little farther down, in the criticism section, issues of cmedical consequences are given some airing, but personally i find the anti-shaming arguments generally compelling. Also, the clinical terms, as above, are "obese" and "overweight," not "fat" which seems to carry slightly more stigma than the former two, at least at the moment. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 10:39, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

The Fat_acceptance_movement#Modern_movement section certainly deserves its tag, imo. At the same time, the stigma issue is clearly a relevant topic from a health perspective [8]. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "bad for your health". There was a media flurry a little while ago reporting that obesity, if not accompanied by hypertension, diabetes, etc., had no negative effect on heart health. About a quarter of obese people fall into that group, and if heart disease is your definition of "health", then it's not bad for that lucky minority. Also, overweight people are more likely to survive a MI than thin people, so it could even be positive, in a limited sense. I think the comment in a prior section is probably right: "it's complicated". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Within scope?

Is Mindfulness-based_stress_reduction#Benefits within scope of this project? It appears to state that there are benefits to this therapy and that it says "Practicing MBSR can change the brain and how it works". The poor sourcing, and quotes of benefits from the proponents, raises a red flag for me that there might be cherry picking going on. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think this would be more WP:PSYCH's bag, though there's no bright line UseTheCommandLine (talk) 11:53, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Imo, each of the claimed health benefits should be substantiated by WP:MEDRS (irrespective of project scope). —MistyMorn (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Adding: This PubMed search string "Stress, Psychological"[Majr] AND mindfulness[ti] AND (2007[PDAT] : 2013[PDAT]) AND (Review[ptyp] OR systematic[sb]) turns up several more potential MEDRS from recent years (and there may well be other relevant candidates, eg [9]). It seems to me though that, sourcing and encyclopedic style apart, there's probably a basic issue of perspective (advocacy?), perhaps outside the scope of this particular project. Just 2c, —MistyMorn (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MistyMorn; it's definitely within the scope of this project. Flyer22 (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Page move

Hola,

I've tidied Klinefelter's syndrome a bit the past couple days, which led me to notice many sources refer to it without the possessive. I've started a section discussing a move, in case any WT:MED participants wanted to pop by, or perhaps a bold admin wants to move it over the current redirect. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I commented there. Flyer22 (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

very imprecise method of deciding which is most notable...

	No pubmed hits
Klinefelter	3717
Klinefelters	9
Klinefelter's	1752

...probably flawed due to way a simple search works, but maybe this can support your case for rename.p = 0.05 (talk) 21:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I see this was already pointed out on the talk page =) p = 0.05 (talk) 21:20, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

ICD 10 goes with "Klinefelter syndrome" so we should to. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:23, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I much prefer leaving pages where they are, as the preference for "'s" in eponyms seems to fall within the aegis of WP:ENGVAR. JFW | T@lk 23:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Renaming Skene's gland

Seeing as Skene's gland has been renamed to "female prostrate" by the Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology[10], I think it would be appropriate to change the article title as well. Autharitus (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Not based on the Seattle Times I hope. Do we have a better ref? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

article is from 2006, but i can't find a copy of the FICAT terminology and it seems like propagation is slow, not seeing the term widely used elsewhere in my searches. UseTheCommandLine (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I found this paper. However the phrase is rarely used. The article should remain with its current title. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I did manage to find the Terminologia Anatomica: International Anatomical Terminology on googlebooks [11], but here they are instead listed as minor vestibular glands. The book is published in 1998, however. If the article in the Seattle times is true, one can wonder what the point is in having an international committee that sets standards in medical terminology while not informing the rest of the medical community about them, and whether they should be considered an authority on the subject on an online wikipedia. Their official website looks rather shabby as well. Oh well. Maybe someone else knows more about this; from my (minor) experiences in the subject, it seems that medical terminology is trying to move away from non-functional (if that is the correct term?) names. Autharitus (talk) 12:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Leave as Skene's gland for now, since it's the common name and there's no apparent consensus for change in reliable sources. I want to emphasize, though this was obviously just a typo, that there's a huge difference between the words "prostrate" and "prostate", though problems with the latter can lead to the former condition. -- Scray (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

AfD: ALCAT test

Just thought some here might be interested in AfD: ALCAT test. -- Scray (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

German translation

If someone reads (medical) German fairly easily, commons:Category:Plates and drawings of human anatomy from Der ärztliche Ratgeber in Wort und Bild by Siebert has some disease-related drawings with German captions. It would be handy to have a translation, or even a transcript (which would be searchable, unlike the text that is in the original images, and something that could be pasted into Google Translate at a pinch). I'd like to get these categorized as something more specific than "diseases and disorders", and that's a lot easier to do when I know what I'm looking at.

As each drawing only has a few words on it (e.g., one says only "Windpocken", which means chickenpox), I suspect that the translations will be quick and simple.

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Introduction to academic publishing

Can anyone recommend a good book or other resource that describes and explains the academic publishing market today? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

from what perspective? UseTheCommandLine (talk) 07:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Maybe User:DGG could assist you? —MistyMorn (talk) 14:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

How many peers typically review an article submitted to a prestigious peer-reviewed journal; do they get paid and if so how much; are reviewers still usually anonymous; do all or only some journals charge the author to submit an article and if so is that determined by their quality? I guess those are my immediate questions; if anyone knows, you might save me some reading. But I'd also like to get an overview of the academic journal and textbook industry today. I'll post this at WP:RSN in a few days if no one's got this at the front of their mind. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

sounds like you should talk to an academic librarian. from what i understand, only having been on the submitting end of things a handful of times, reviewers by and large dont get paid (though editors may), reviewers are usually anonymous (never heard anything to the contrary), and most journals charge the author to submit an article ("editing fees"), though again, my experience might be atypical. unaware of any basic overviews like this, but if you find one it would be great if you could share the link(s). UseTheCommandLine (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, some of your specific questions are easily answered. Policies vary, but typically a peer-review journal will send a submission to 2, 3 or sometimes even 4 unpaid reviewers who (in theory at least) have little to gain beyond prestige. In most journals reviewers are still anonymous, though BMC, for instance, have adopted signed reviews an open access reviewing processes allowing anyone to access the entire pre-publication peer-review documentation [12]. Others, such as PloS and BMJ group journals have more hybrid systems.[13][14] —MistyMorn (talk) 16:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We do have articles on peer review, on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and on their Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, plus wp:WikiProject Academic Journals, all of which would seem good resources. The Vancouver system article is in need of some care and feeding. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

In recent years, the peer review process has been a hot topic in journals like the BMJ [15] and Nature. International conferences have been held since the 1990s [16], with the proceedings published either in journals like JAMA or as (expensive) books. A couple of books with (inexpensive) google previews here: [17][18]. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks everybody. That's given me plenty to be getting on with. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

For the submission to Open Medicine we received 3 reviews. They where anonymous but have agreed for us to release their comments under a CC BY SA license. Thus will be releasing them soon. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Can you let me/us know when that happens? Meanwhile, I've found A Guide to Academic Publishing: An Overview, Scholarly Paper, Peer Review, Etc by S. Dawkins. Should do the trick. Only $17.75 at Amazon. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

At Talk:Dengue_fever#Formal_peer_review_by_Open_Medicine. Biosthmors (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Some resources on peer review

• Peer review: a guide for researchers
• Resources for editors and peer reviewers at EQUATOR Network
• Contributions by Sense About Science
• Nature's peer review debate (2006) and peer-to-peer blog (closed)
• BMJ peer review training materials, including How to survive peer review

—MistyMorn (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism of WP content (again)

Hi,

I have posted at the Village Pump Idea lab with the goal of getting some clear policy/procedure guidance on addressing external plagiarism of WP content. Since I know many of you here were involved in a discussion over the same topic a few weeks ago, I would appreciate your input in that forum. I recently ran into another, more trivial external copyvio, and think that we could probably come up with some template language and guidance that would be of benefit to WP and outreach efforts.

thanks.

UseTheCommandLine (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Rejuvenation Research

As I am withdrawing from WP, somebody else should take over this discussion. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 22:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunate to see you withdraw. Good editors are really needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know what happened? This user's talk page says that they were getting off-wiki harassment related to their actions on Wikipedia. I would like to know more so that whatever happened could be prevented for others. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It's my impression that he's encountered a POV-pushing stalker. There isn't a reliable way of completely preventing appalling behavior like that, since anyone can create an account. We sometimes just have to clean up the mess after it happens. Wikipedia:How not to get outed identifies some precautions that editors can take if they want to reduce their risks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Circumcision#Discussion of effects on sexual function almost completely excluded from this article

Any of you care to comment on this?[19] 108.60.139.1703 (talk) 20:48, 9 November 2012‎ (UTC)

I agree that information should be added if sources are found. I inserted a request for sources on that discussion topic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. And as for sources, like I mentioned (even in my most recent statement at the article talk page[20]), we had a whole article on it (with views from both sides) and some of the material is still currently in the Foreskin article. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 01:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Outside orgs

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#stamp_of_approval_for_pages_from_recognized_organizations_.28specifically_medical_information_pages_within_Wikipedia.29 might interest some of you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Redirects from Latin terminology

Hi. I have a general request that I hope you will help me with. When you are editing and especially creating new articles, could you please make a redirect from the Latin term to the article? Since most European countries with the exception of the UK use Latin terms it would help a lot of people to find information with these redirect (the Latin term is often included in the article so it would not take more than additional 30 seconds). This would also make it easier for many people to add to the anatomy project. Thank you --JakobSteenberg (talk) 00:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Etanercept & traumatic brain injury

I have a dispute about inclusion of this information in "Traumatic brain injury". Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Interstitial cystitis

User TylerDurden8823 has worked to get interstitial cystitis WP:MEDRS compliant per a previous GAN I addressed, but closed. The article is now up for peer review: Wikipedia:Peer review/Interstitial cystitis/archive1. If others would comment there to ensure the article is up to the WP:good article criteria, that would be helpful. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 02:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS status

What is the MEDRS status of journals like Evid Based Complement Alternat Med? See here: Talk:Mānuka_honey#New_ressources. I'm not sure of the reliability of these papers about Honey and cancer since the mainstream papers I found only provided these assertions: Mānuka_honey#Medicinal_properties. The paper in question seems to say things like honey is a "natural immune booster" (whatever that means, sounds so generic as to be meaningless). IRWolfie- (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The journal is consistent with WP:MEDRS. It is a peer-reviewed journal [21], its scope is to encourage rigorous research of CAM [22], it is indexed in PubMed and multiple other medical journal indexes [23], it had an an impact factor of 4.774 according to Thomson Reuters (ISI) in 2012 [24] and it has a multi-disciplinary editorial board [25].Puhlaa (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

"There is now a sizeable evidence that honey is a natural immune booster, natural anti-inflammatory agent..."

One of these things is not like the other. Immune-boosting == inflammation-increasing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Removal of medical text at Antifreeze article again

Hi. In September, a few of you commented in the Current discussion section at the Antifreeze talk page about the contested removal of medical information from this article. The editor who opposes an appropriate summary of this material has challenged the inclusion again and has recently replied on the talk page. Will any of you who participated in the discussion last time participate in the discussion this time, and/or will any of you who didn't participate in the discussion last time participate in the discussion this time? 134.255.247.88 (talk) 21:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The dispute seems to have been going on for at least three years. The persistent editor wants to remove this material:

"Such poisoning is difficult to identify without specialized testing, as it often mimics other illnesses, and various symptoms can result from such poisoning, including severe diarrhea and vomiting. In the human body, it forms crystals of oxalic acid which can cause illness and death, while leaving characteristic physical evidence of poisoning."

to leave the Antifreeze#Ethylene glycol#Poisoning section at only three sentences (one of which constitutes practical advice). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep. The wording has changed somewhat since the wording you cited, as acknowledged on the article's talk page, but it's still the same material (just with minor changes) that he's been objecting to including. That, and any mention of calcium oxalate crystals. He's yet to offer any good reasoning for this objection. 134.255.247.88 (talk) 23:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ozone therapy - attention needed

A new editor is promoting Ozone therapy as if it was an accepted mainstream medical specialty. TTBOMK it's only a fringe alternative medical practice without any scientific support and with some dangers. They are editing and creating articles and also adding categories, all in an attempt to make this seem like an accepted practice. It seems like they are using Wikipedia to create an alternate reality and notability for the practice. Their edits need to be checked for NPOV and for adherence to MEDRS. I don't have time to do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks like it is being dealt with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:45, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

ongoing IP edits at Ventilation/perfusion ratio

IP editors have been swapping the definitions of V/Q mismatch (shunt vs dead space) in this article, three times in 24 hours. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 21:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Looks stable now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:46, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Gates of Delirium

An editor associated with the European Delirium Association has posted an outline for improvements to the delirium article on the talkpage. The effort has the support of the Association. Would those with an interest please watchlist the article and provide support where possible? I'd say this is an exciting development. JFW | T@lk 08:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

That sounds great. I started Talk:Delirium#Experienced_editors_interested_in_supporting_new_editors so people can list their name if they are willing to be contacted directly about how to edit. Biosthmors (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Afd: Goldilocks Mastectomy

Goldilocks Mastectomy -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goldilocks Mastectomy if interested. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 18:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Progressive myoclonus epilepsies

Some wisdom would be helpful with the naming of this article. See history and talk page. Per policy, guideline and the ILAE, this article topic should be plural. It is a group of diseases that form a syndrome. Please give your opinion at the talk page. Thanks. Colin°^Talk 21:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Is everybody hibernating? -- Colin°^Talk 12:51, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Well I would like to help, but it appears out of my pay grade at first glance. Is it a pretty simple once one reads all the discussion? I just skimmed it. Biosthmors (talk) 20:05, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

New article: Dutch hypothesis

Hi folks, I'd appreciate some eyes at the Dutch hypothesis article that has been created recently. I'm clueless about medicine but, aside from the obvious grammatical and structural issues, I am concerned that if it is indeed a hypothesis (and, yes, I've read The_Structure of Scientific Revolutions and a bundle of other such books over the years) then perhaps the current depiction might possibly be one-sided. I know, in a vague sort of way, that the MED standards are necessarily quite high but the area that this project covers is really not one in which I have any expertise.

A disclaimer is in order: the creator and I do have a bit of history on articles far, far removed from medicine. If the article is ok then that is just fine by me.- Sitush (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

The topic itself is clearly notable: see http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%22Pulmonary%20Disease%2C%20Chronic%20Obstructive%22[Mesh]%20AND%20dutch%20hypothesis[tiab]%20AND%20Review[ptyp]. —MistyMorn (talk) 23:33, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes. I was not concerned about notability. It is just that I've glimpsed some controversy concerning the validity of it as a hypothesis but I'm out of my comfort zone and also do not particularly want to antagonise the article creator. - Sitush (talk) 19:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Until a scientific hypothesis is disproven it remains, well, just that... a hypothesis. In the present case, the Dutch hypothesis still appears to be a plausible candidate [26]. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it enough for an own article? Unless it gets expanded quite a bit we don't want to have the information spread into another million of articles. Richiez (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the source, MistyMorn. I recall seeing brisk discussion in the NTvG about it, back in my younger years. I think the content should ideally be merged somewhere. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to clean up and expand the stub a little, but unfortunately our edits overlapped. I've tried to integrate the changes you made, but I may well have missed/bungled something. Yes, I do agree that the content really would be better placed/merged in COPD or, ideally perhaps, in a subarticle dedicated to research into its etiology and pathogenesis. In the meantime, I feel there's nothing seriously amiss here, at least as far as the core information regarding this particular hypothesis is concerned, although the wider picture obviously needs to be filled in. —MistyMorn (talk) 22:47, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Psychoanalysis

This section: Talk:Psychoanalysis#To help update/revise Evaluation of effectiveness etc per WP:MEDRS needs attention from editors aware of WP:MEDRS norms for clinical efficacy. IRWolfie- (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, although not obviously "medical" perhaps, psychoanalysis/psychodynamic psychotherapy is used to treat serious clinical conditions. One to watch, imo. —MistyMorn (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I think also. What the authors MistyMorn and IRWolfie means is: Only three jounals are relevant in psychiatry, clinical psychology, psychotherapy and of course psychotherapy research. It would be glad if anyone can tell them the truth about scientiffic publishing. Thanks! --WSC ^® 10:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I am not prepared to return to kindergaten [27]. An instance of the Dunning-Kruger effect here, it would seem [28]. —MistyMorn (talk) 11:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I'll note that WSC/Widescreen is currently blocked from the german wiki. It might be fruitful to look at the reasons behind the blocks: [29]. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

The reason is, that I called some admins nazis. Or better I said, that they act like in the 3. Reich. I think, they take it personally. :o) --WSC ^® 19:04, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

With the length of your block list, I think that you probably have called every administrator on WP-Germany a nazi! :-P--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Not only nazi. I'm really creative to describe their behaviour. ;o) --WSC ^® 06:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

According to Godwin's law, as soon as you call the other side nazis, you lost the argument ...jokes =D lesion (talk) 17:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

It's just a matter of evidence. In fact I said: " Lastly you can found such methods [of censorship and surpression of expression] in the 3. Reich" (Solche Methoden gab es zuletzt im 3. Reich.) ;o=) --WSC ^® 17:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I genuinely believe that questions of clinical effectiveness, such as this one, need to be taken seriously on Wikipedia. I did try to help out. But when I read (in an ANI discussion which has already been closed) that I've thrown around accusations of incivility without cause, which often indicates a person is on the losing side of the argument--very irritating, such accusations I feel like saying thank goodness for the Dutch hypothesis! —MistyMorn (talk) 23:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for trying! Unfortunately I haven't been there to analyze the issues and help out. Biosthmors (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. Sadly, I have to say it's not an experience I'd recommend. —MistyMorn (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and serious is only what MistyMorn produces. Others haven't a clue about the subject, sure! I'm still supprised about MistyMorns proposal, only to use "core journals" for the question of (clinical) effectiveness (whatever clinical means, in this case). He gave a list of journals where only three journals about psychiatry are mentioned. I wonder how to wirte about effecitvness when the most RCTs and meta analyses are beeing excluded, because published in non-core journals? Sorry, this is a simple trick to exclude findings MistyMorn don't like. Nothing else. Now he's wondering why his argumentation is being attacked and called up WP:CIVIL. I tell you what: Calm down and accept that your argumentation fails. Not least because the argumentation is nonsense but also because you try to exclude relevant sources in a special case. Have a look at the recent comments on talk:psychoanalysis. --WSC ^® 09:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Germ theory of disease

• Germ theory of disease

The article is incredibly small. It needs expansion. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes we are a work in progress. Feel free to jump in an attempt it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Quantifying project needs through templates

I'd like to have a page for WP:MED that quantifies and segregates articles tagged as needed attention from various templates, similar to Category:Wikipedia backlog and http://www.wikihow.com/Special:CommunityDashboard. Is there any interest in collaboration or suggestions for what to include? Feel free to add to the list. Biosthmors (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean separate from Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention/Medicine and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Cleanup_listing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks I didn't know about those! Yeah I'd like to work on one that is digestible in one screen, and links out, as Category:Wikipedia backlog does. Biosthmors (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

These two pages could use some love. Would it be possible to turn them into what you imagine? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:21, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

That might work nicely. Any suggestions from people familiar with the types of edits that would be required? Biosthmors (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Relatedly, is there a way to see what categories Requested Articles would fall under? If so, we could maintain a list of Medical articles needing creation. Or some other way to do the same... Ocaasi ^{t | c} 16:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

You mean like this page here Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences/Medicine Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

A listing of any Articles for Creation page that dealt with medicine would be nice, though I don't know if they get put into any category at the moment. Biosthmors (talk) 21:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

In response to a request on my talk page by Biosthmors. The targets of red links are non-existent pages; I cannot easily determine to which wikiprojects unwritten articles might attach. The most useful report I can produce would be a summary of red links arising on pages associated with Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. I've posted one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Red links. - TB (talk) 11:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Neuroscience class

A neuroscience class I am an ambassador for just posted a lot of their initial work. Their final draft is due in a week. Maybe that means some suggestions would be taken. See User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested in wikifying and copyediting at least one of these articles, but would it be best to wait until the class is over? Sasata (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I say give it a go if you're willing. Immediate feedback should strengthen this kind of project. Biosthmors (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yikes – I hope they're not all like this. Will require some effort to bring this up to a respectable standard ... Sasata (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I know... my hopes are pinned onto guiding the next class effectively... If a wholescale revert seems best, go ahead and be bold... or stubify, perhaps? It's quite a burden for established volunteers to deal with messes, but I figure if I can help the class/professor learn things, then it might help Wikipedia for years to come. I think this professor has been assigning articles for several years now. Biosthmors (talk) 08:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh great. Wikipedia now says cerebral malaria is caused by a virus, that the lack of vaccine (to "cure" it) is due to an uncaring unaffected West. This is yet another example of a student picking a subject they know nothing about and expanding it beyond what a hyperlinked enyclopaedia should properly hold in one article, so it repeats (and wildly contradicts) related (parent/child) articles. The folk at WMF think there's no difference between the average newbie and a student. Show me a newbie, who doesn't even know the difference between a protozoan parasite and a virus, with the over-confidence to attempt write a 2000-word article on an advanced topic on the world most popular encyclopaedia. I think it would be best if the article was shrunk considerably to contain essentially the aspects of cerebral malaria that are distinctive. Colin°^Talk 09:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Well well well. Facepalm. I understand your frustration! I fixed that. Biosthmors (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with culling with most of what's there; if the article doesn't improve much by the time the class is over, I'll replace the current contents with a shortened version that meets MEDMOS/MEDRS standards (luckily, I'm familiar with the sources, so it shouldn't be too strenuous). Sasata (talk) 22:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What also worries me is that if Biosthmors hadn't published this list, would anyone have spotted it? This article was expanded from a redirect. How many folk watchlist a redirect apart from the one editor who created it and probably left the project years ago. Same goes for the stub->GA stuff that students are asked to do. There is sometimes a reason why these subjects are stubs. Colin°^Talk 16:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Nutrition transition

Hello. My name is Nehemiah Ankoor. I am a doing a project for my poverty, justice, and human capabilities class at Rice University regarding the global nutrition transition. As of now the page is seriously lacking organization and readability. It has been flagged for clean up since 2008 and I plan to do just that in addition to integrating new content. The page currently has a decent amount of information but it does not flow from each section to the next fluidly and there are many issues regarding the subject that are missing. In order to reorganize it, I plan to change the main sections to a brief overview, causes related to globalization, case studies, health outcomes, policy implications, references, and external links. Each main section will consist of several subsections that further break down the information. For example, under causes related to globalization I will list media and food promotion as a subsection. For the case studies section, I will not provide much information, but I hope that other authors will choose to expand upon it in the future considering the tremendous amount of research conducted concerning specific countries and the nutrition transition. Most of my information will come from Barry M. Popkin and Benjamin Cabellero, the most prominent authors/researchers in regards to nutrition transition, but I do have plenty of additional sources to help balance their comprehensive research and findings. I would greatly appreciate any and all suggestions you can provide to help improve my project. Thank you. NehemiahAnkoor (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to the article, so we know what you're talking about? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

"Nutrition transition". Nehemiah, thank you for helping with this article. Please read WP:MEDRS and try to use secondary sources as references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Whenever I see vague article titles like this, I can't help but think there are already existing articles (or better titled potential articles) in need of the planned content. Obesity, nutrition, healthy diet, history of human food come to mind as possibilities. Why should the article exist? (See Wikipedia:Merging#Reasons_for_merger, for example.) Nehemiah, could you please explain why this is a notable topic that deserves its own article without being merged into other existing articles? There's already so much here to do. I'd rather we not spread ourselves thin. Does your professor only give you credit on "new" articles? Is that your incentive structure? Thanks again for your message. Biosthmors (talk) 21:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not a new article. It was created in March 2008. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. It also gets about 40 page views a day, and I still wonder why it should exist. Wouldn't a merge/good history section written at human nutrition work? That page gets about 400 page views a day. Biosthmors (talk) 23:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the relevance of quoting the frequency of pageviews?

"Nutrition transition" contains a lot of text, but it desperately needs clean-up. Before a merge could be performed, first an editor would need to sift through the existing text to find the salvageable material.

"Human nutrition" is already quite a large article, and a major expansion of its "History" section is likely to place undue weight on this, as well as bloat the article—at which point a spinout article would be better. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in prioritizing articles with higher pageviews because work there has a greater impact. Here is an excellent presentation which gives one user's review of how frequently users expend effort on articles which are less read. A conclusion of this presentation is that developing popular articles is better for the readership than developing less-popular articles.

I have been developing a system to get new users interested in editing articles by using article pageviews as a motivating factor. I would like to get comments about this system from other Wikipedians interested in health topics, but I would like these comments by voice because I think it is best that I personally show the system while talking to someone. If anyone would be interested in having a chat with me, at least 15 minutes, then please message me. We could do this by Skype, Google Hangout, phone, or I can invite you to an in-browser web conference if you do not have Skype and do not want to install anything. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

3,5k google book hits strongly suggest this a notable and stand-alone topic. Unless anyone here is an expert on nutrition, the fact that one thinks it sounds similar to another concept is hardly a valid argument. (I am not American, and I think Washington, DC and Washington, state sound similar, let's merge them, and throw in George Washington into the mix, using this logic, how about that? :>). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 16:35, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

When I go and try and find a definition I get "The concern about this period is so great that the term the nutrition transition is synonymous, for many, with the shift from Pattern 3 to 4." While students writing about fuzzy academic concepts might be great for a classroom assignment, I think our readership would be best served with straightforward and factual health/nutrition information. I think both interests (assignment/readership [see here]) can be met simultaneously. Biosthmors (talk) 20:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

" It also gets about 40 page views a day, and I still wonder why it should exist. "

— Biosthmors

To me, the second part of that sentence seems to be a non-sequitur. Biosthmors still hasn't explained the significance of "40 page views per day". I am asking Biosthmors for clarification.

In Biosthmors' second reply, he directed a series of accusatory, confrontational questions at NehemiahAnkoor, without even checking first to confirm his assumptions. This is "WP:BITE". Biosthmors has not apologized nor acknowledged any wrong-doing. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry if I offended anyone, I'm just trying to improve the encyclopedia, even if that requires asking tough questions. I think I've explained my position above. And Bluerasberry has expanded upon my logic. I edited a lot of student draft articles lately (and some I'm not sure should exist) related to the class I am an ambassador for, and perhaps my patience was a bit thin. Is this reply sufficient? Biosthmors (talk) 23:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for the apology.

To return to the article itself, I believe that the topic is notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. In particular, BM Popkin's various publications are enough establish notability.

Whether it is a suitable topic for students is perhaps best decided by educationalists. (I accept that Bluerasberry and Biosthmors may be educationalists.) If the topic is really so unsuitable, a gentle discussion with the student and/or teacher may be appropriate. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. I also left conciliatory remarks at User talk:NehemiahAnkoor, where I think they will do the most good. Then I'm glad we have an article on it, and I'll be happy to see Nehemiah improve upon it. I guess I just needed to vent from seeing too many student mistakes in one day! Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 00:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for all the feedback everyone. Biosthmors did bring up some excellent points and I was not at all offended by them even though I do believe the page should stand on its own. Because it is a very interdisciplinary topic, it would be very difficult to integrate into another page even if that were Malnutrition or Human nutrition. Although I do plan to link Nutrition transition within those pages as well as some others i.e. Obesity, in order to increase traffic to the nutrition transition page. Right now I am putting together my rough outline for the page since I have consolidated most of my research. I will post that within the next few days before I begin to go live with my edits. NehemiahAnkoor (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice re "Kendra's Law"

Hi. I just wanted some advice in regard to the applicability of this Cochrane study on the efficacy of community treatment orders to the article on Kendra's Law. If it is suitable for inclusion would it be appropriate to create a section on efficacy which would include a basic summary of the main findings or should it be integrated into the section on "opposition". Any advice appreciated. Thanks FiachraByrne (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

This is legal stuff. We at WPMED value Cochrane very highly for medical content. A section on "evidence" may be useful.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James. FiachraByrne (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Pictures

I just noticed a fantastic set of 4 pictures at lipoma taken from the open access journal Journal of Brachial Plexus and Peripheral Nerve Injury. It prompted me to make these edits to the project page.[30] Please add other journals there, thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

There is loads of images out there in open access journals that we can use. The Journal of Brachial Plexus and Peripheral Nerve Injury actually has its own category on Commons, just like over 100 other BioMed Central journals and many other journals.

There are several ways to find your way to these materials on Commons - one is simply by journal or publisher categories on Commons, which are used for indexing. The other is by way of topic categories there, e.g. commons:Category:Lipoma. These latter ones are currently being reworked (mainly split into more specialized subcategories - e.g. commons:Category:GTP-binding proteins and subcategories thereof) in order to accommodate the multimedia files (9k so far) brought in by the Open Access Media Importer. Help with that would be much appreciated - for instance, most of the imported files (and some of the categories created along the way) still need category review, and interwiki links to and from Commons are often still missing. Of course, if an article contains multimedia files relevant for us, it is likely to have a few useful images, text bits or references too.

So I would suggest not to list individual journals here on the project's page, but to make systematic use of the infrastructure already there (or developing) on Commons, for which a link to commons:Category:Open access (publishing) would be sufficient. There is also WikiProject Open Access (which highlights an Open Access File of the Day every day) and WikiProject Academic Journals (which maintains articles on academic journals). -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 23:32, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's great information. Thanks. Maybe I should copy/paste it into a new essay WP:Pictures for medical articles? Biosthmors (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

We have a list of potential sources for images here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Resources#Images. Feel free to add to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:51, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I copied and pasted the chart to the essay I created. I think a separate essay devoted to the topic makes the most sense. It is now at WP:MEDPIC or WP:PICMED. Biosthmors (talk) 04:11, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure. We should leave a small overview within the first article though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Thanks for the edit. Biosthmors (talk) 16:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Medical student elective for 3/4th years at UCSF

There is ongoing discussion of setting up an elective for 3/4th year medical students at UCSF here [31]. The hope is to launch this initiative in Jan 2013. I have agreed to spend a week in San Franscico in early Jan to give some talks and hands on editing sessions. We still do not know the number of people who will be interested. More details will occur on this page as time goes on. If people are in the area and wish to become involved would love to have you join. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:50, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I won't be in the area but it would be wonderful to be involved somehow. This also dovetails with the timeline for a project at my own school for first years, which we expect to properly announce soon. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 06:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

What kind of on-the-ground help do you anticipate would be useful? How many meetings/talks are scheduled/might be possibly scheduled, etc.? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 22:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Not completely sure. User User:Michaelturken is leading the on the ground stuff this being his medical school. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Community pharmacy

I'd like to "nominate" the Community pharmacy for attention. I don't think I can do a very good job with the topic but the article is such terrible quality that I'm tempted to nominate for deletion or stub it. Any help with the article would be great. --Aude (talk) 04:44, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

From a quick glance, I say stub it. If you're up to the task, I thank you in advance. Biosthmors (talk) 16:51, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it needs a lot of work, but I don't think that stubbing it will necessarily be the best choice, because there is a lot of good information and concepts there. If you go that route, please at least leave a diff of the stubbing on the talk page so that anyone trying to expand it can find the details later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Monthly statistics

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages#Monthly statistics if you have any ideas, comments, tips, etc. or if you'd like to work on this. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 21:45, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

In October of 2012 we had our highest viewership yet coming in at 231 million pageviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:11, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Beryllium poisoning

An article that you have been involved in editing, Beryllium poisoning , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Scray (talk) 05:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Second opinion

An IP is wanting a second opinion regarding this edit here [32] The ref does not state that these are "common". And the ref is popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:43, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Need input to help build journal evaluation tool

Hello WP:MED members, I'd like your input on a project. I'm considering building a journal evaluation tool. The idea would be that you'd give it a PMID or a DOI or a name of a journal, and it would give you some basic information to help you evaluate where the journal or journal article would rank on the WP:MEDASSESS scale. Some of the outputs would be: Is the journal MEDLINE indexed? What is the journal's impact factor? Is the journal associated with a major medical organization? How much other publishing have the authors of an article done? The idea is to improve our articles by helping editors evaluate sources, and to help resolve "my journal article which says X is better than your journal article which says Y" disputes. The end product could be added to WP:CITETOOL and could live on the Toolserver alongside things like this. Any interest in providing this sort of input? Thanks... Zad68 13:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

That's a neat idea, but I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, having a tool that did some of the basic spadework when checking up on a new source could be handy. On the other hand, I fear that such a tools' output (depending somewhat on how it was presented) might also be susceptible to abuse—article X got all the green checkmarks in the assessment tool, so we have to use it-type problems. In other words, there may be a temptation to substitute the tool's numbers for an actual understanding of the scientific literature and the place of a given work within it; feel free to read that as me being an elitist snob.

I guess the other question is, do we actually have much trouble evaluating a journal's overall quality or identifying whether or not a paper's authors have a significant research history? In my experience – others may differ, please comment! – our experienced editors generally have no difficulty quickly determining when a paper is an uncited, decade-old, primary study, in a crappy journal by authors who only publish fringe nonsense about how magic crystals cure cancer. From my experience, we tend to have longer, more active (and sometimes more acrimonious) discussions when a source does meet some (or many, or even all) of the MEDRS checkboxes. Sometimes a journal publishes something outside their usual experience or expertise. Sometimes a generally-competent and oft-published scientist starts pontificating on stuff they don't really understand (perhaps from within the warm and fuzzy cocoon of tenure) and it gets tagged in PubMed as a review article and pushes our 'ooh shiny secondary source' buttons. Sometimes the article was written by an editorial board member and the peer review was kind of squishy. Sometimes there's just a bad paper published in a good journal, for whatever reason. On the flip side, sometimes there are good papers in low-impact journals: young scientists, yeoman work on confirmation, etc. I'm wary that a journal/article evaluation tool might inadvertently frame or distort our current organic approach to evaluating sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:18, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have to agree with these considerations. —MistyMorn (talk) 21:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I was going to use this with a few tweaks (font and color changes) for my interface design. Zad68 16:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Too complex for some, but will no doubt be popular in certain, erm, spheres. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand who would use this or when. The information you named ought to be in an infobox for each journal, and once it is there, why should it be anywhere else? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly is the "infobox for each journal" that you're talking about? Link to an example? Maybe I'm missing some awesome resource that everyone else knows about. Zad68 20:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think Bluerasberry meant that part of what you were thinking to do might be covered with a parameter in Template:Infobox journal. Biosthmors (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I actually think something like this would be helpful; while most of us regulars know how to do this, having this option available to the wider audience may make it easier to recruit people to help us out. I agree with TenOfAllTrades that this could be misused, but as long as the documentation clearly states that this is just a tool, and not a substitute for critical evaluation, I see more upside than downside. Yobol (talk) 01:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Genetics and Endometriosis

At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endometriosis#Genetics it is written that "There is an about 10-fold increased incidence in women with an affected first-degree relative." I look at the reference written there, and I did not find the '10 FOLD' claim anywhere there, or somewhere else. Can you please let me (and the readers) know where this '10 fold' come from? - I found references saying there is higher risk, but no source put it as "10 FOLD". Can you please give me a reference or otherwise, fix that sentence. Thanks, Ronen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crxsmh (talk • contribs) 16:57, 25 November 2012

Great question. I'll make my comments to the talk page over there, but thanks for asking here! -- Scray (talk) 18:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history

WikiProject Military history has a nice project page and I think we would benefit to model our project page off of theirs. That's a goal of mine. Is anyone else aware of good WikiProject pages that could be used as models? Biosthmors (talk) 23:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

That's one of the better WikiProjects around. I would have no objection. JFW | T@lk 23:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I like keeping the page fairly easy to edit. When lots of templates are used this can become difficult.

But agree that making it more professional looking could also have benefits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

it's a nice page. The progress bars towards goals are good. A picture at the top of the WP:MED page would also be good.lesion (talk) 02:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I am interested in helping reform the page but I would want to talk about this first. In addition to sorting the work I would also like to increase this project's ability to help individuals collaborate with each other, and I was thinking that some of the structure used for meetup or chapter organization could help with this. There are some resources for this which we could consider.

• The Wikipedia:United States Education Program is in the middle of a major reform. The idea is to encourage every university to have a "Wikipedia club" to encourage classes to participate in Wikipedia editing. This is relevant because every club will need a Wikipedia project page to host and coordinate volunteers. A template to create project pages will need to be developed, and the style of those project pages will likely be based on a review of many project pages. Some useful insight should come of this and we could probably collaborate to our mutual goals.
• There are problems in organizing collaboration pages in general. Wikimedia DC and Wikimedia NYC are not so organized, and WikiProject Medicine will soon face the issue of being complimented somehow by meta:Wiki Medicine. Wikimedia UK is a brilliant presentation. I would like for WikiProject Medicine to be able to efficiently sort and support anyone who wants to contribute.
• I am not sure who are the players in trying to organize WikiProject business. Going to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council seems like a good step. User:Another Believer has spent more time than anyone I know sorting standards for page structure and categorization of projects, meetups, and social organization.

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

The most important thing of course is having an active community of editors who support each others efforts. [Wikimedia CA] has a similar page to WM UK. Wiki Medicine will eventually have something similar. WM MED will be much more project oriented rather than content oriented. Both sides will hopefully work closely together. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

AfD -- epineurial repair

This one is from the class I'm an ambassador to: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epineurial repair. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 04:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Fecal incontinence article

This article needs some major attention from this project. A related article was recently merged into it and now there is a lot that needs sorting out, as is mentioned on the article's talk page. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Fecal incontinence ... putting up for WP:PR, in the understanding that this should happen before Good article nomination, is this correct? lesion (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is review page, ty for any advice. lesion (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Also no WP:GI task force rating for page...lesion (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, is no-one going to review this article?...I know it is not a glamorous topic and all, but since I started editing and creating articles, there has been no formal peer review. Instead, there is only baptism of fire, trial and error feedback about what is more or less likely to be rolled back, and this appears to be arbitrary, dependent mostly upon the traffic on the article...I feel I might be damaging the encyclopedia through ignorance without review of at least on of the articles. I could then apply those principles to the others. Thank you in advance.lesion (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

problems at psychiatry articles

We currently have a tendentious editor with a strongly anti-psychiatry point of view causing trouble at psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, bipolar disorder, etc. In my experience the most effective way of dealing with things like this is to get more editors involved -- please take a look at the articles if you can. (The issue has also been raised at WP:NPOVN, but in my experience this is a better place.) Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

watched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And unwatching ... this guy is posting the same TLDR IDHT stuff on five six pages, and I don't have time for that on my watchlist at the same time as the university term is ending and my watchlist is hit by bad student edits that need repair. At the rate this is going, it will end up in higher forms of dispute resolution. When it does get bumped up the DR chain, if someone will remember to ping me, I would be grateful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The general questions brought here are

• 1. - Whether the deletion of all medical claim not supported by a source is WP:TEND and WP:POV, or whether it is something that is required per WP:MEDRS.
• 2. - Whether "minority" can be asserted re a position regarding a medical practice, without sourcing the assertion.
• 3. - Whether being a (supposedly) "minority" view on a medical practice implies that WP:UNDUE trumps WP:MOS (lede) - "include significant controversies".
• 4. - Whether publication of a controversy in multiple major mainstream peer reviwed medical journals, specifically on topic to the article topic, establishes MOS (lede) "significance", no matter whether it is a minority view or not. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• 1. I deleted unsourced medical claims, and they were immediately put back in, again without sources, violating MEDRS.[33] Deletion per MEDRS is not POV, especially since when I first put citation needed tags up, then Looie496 took them down as "pointy".
• 2. The second lede paragraph of the DSM article at WP states "It has also attracted controversy and criticism. Some critics argue that the DSM represents an unscientific system…”.
• 3. There is corresponding controversy specific to article topics psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, and bipolar disorder.
• 4. Per MOS (lede) - "summarize the most important points — including any prominent controversies". I applied MOS (lede) with solid MEDRS and RS sources, International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and New York Law School.[34]
• 5. My edits were deleted with edit summary claims unsupported by any RS - "far too strong" as simply too strong, and sources disputing whether psychiatry is a science are in the minority"and "These edits blatantly push an anti-psychiatry POV". ParkSehJik (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Wikipedia articles are not communicating information found in WP:MEDRS? Please keep it short, because WP:TLDR. Biosthmors (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• 1. Biothmors, this[35] reversion of my deletions added back implicit and explicit medical claims without any sources, violating both MEDRS and RS.
• 2. This series of reversions of my edits supported by MEDRS and RS, had edit summaries unsupported by any RS - "far too strong" as simply too strong, and sources disputing whether psychiatry is a science are in the minority"and "These edits blatantly push an anti-psychiatry POV" ParkSehJik (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Checking the links above, you seriously put "dubious" tags on statements like psychiatry is medicine? Um, yes, we have a POV problem here and a WP:TEND issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like there is a lot of stuff here. I am having trouble determining what needs being addressed. If you want to discuss content issues can you summary one issue with refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

First, Park, read WP:TALK and refrain from excessive markup in your posts. Second, article comments do not belong on this page; confine them to article talk and keep them off of this page. Finally, I suggest someone move these comments to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

But which article? Agree one should just post here to ask for further eyes. Than discussion should occur somewhere else. We all here agree more or less to WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the problem (which article)-- Park is all over the map, with similar issues. So cap off the whole discussion above as an inappropriate use of this page and let the original poster use article talk pages appropriately to address individual items and create a new post here to address the overall. Perhaps he is able to do that without hollering, using excess markup, relying on appropriate uses of sources, and by accurately reading policy and guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Now shortened. [36] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Better; thank you for adjusting so quickly. Regarding your points 3 and 5, see WP:LEAD and WP:CRITICISM. There was notable criticism of DSM-3, we don't require Criticism sections in articles, and also see WP:UNDUE as it explains how we would determine what controversy should be added to aricles. Also see WP:MEDMOS on how we organize medical articles; controversy would be incorporated in the correct section. The rest of your points are still article specific and belong on article talk, not here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted at Talk before editing. I got no response. I asked for sources for the edit summary claims of "minority", and of UNDUE since minority. I got no response. There is certainly significant controversy, as the sources I provided are peer reviewed then edited mainstream sources, different from those cited in DSM, critical specifically of the article topics I was editing at, but related to the DSM controversy. I put up citation needed tags on unsourced medical claims. Looie496 took them off as "pointy". I then deleted the unsourced material entirely, and it was immediately put back in withuot sources, violating MEDRS. . There was not RS cited to support WP:UNDUE trumping MOS (lede) "significant controversies". I put up construction tags to hold the edits while I tried to improve the articles and the construction tags were removed within hours.

The general question brought here seems to be whether it is POV to apply MEDRS to delete all med claims without sources, and whether being a (supposedly) "minority" view on a medical topic makes WP:MOS (lede) - "include significant controversies" trumped by WP:UNDUE. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have asked you to read WP:TALK, avoid excessive markup, and stop hollering. Bolding removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia - Thanks, I have now read WP:TALK and applied it. ParkSehJik (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And, based on the links above, you are misrepresenting. Putting "dubious" tags on psychiatry as medicine is pointy and we don't need citations for common knowledge. Now, I will no longer be responding here-- take your items to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What is your source for saying that putting dubious tags on psychiatry as "medicine" is pointy. That is the very essence of what is argued in the deleted sources. Part of psychatry is medicine. Psychiatry is not all medicine, according to the WP definition of medicine as being all suported by scientific method, according to my deleted mainstream MEDRS sources, and per recent discussion at Alternative medicine re the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Flight from Science and Reason conference. There is a significant question as to whether certain psychiatric catgories describe are correlated with "disease" at all, or worse, are entirely imaginary, like demonic possession. For example, "penis envy" was used in 20th Century forensic psychiatry to involuntarily inter people and sieze their assets , and what is practiced at Guantanamo does not "heal". That is the significant controversy cited by the sources I added. If someone has a source calling ALL psychiatry medicine, then put it in the article. If someone has a source challenging certain practices in psychiatry as not being related to "disease", or not being science based, i.e., not medicine, then this is not being pointy. What is your source? ParkSehJik (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

what the hell are you talking about may I ask? lesion (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

ParkSheJik, psychiatry is a combination of medicine and psychology from a medical perspective. Diagnosing and treating mental illness, requires a lot of skill as much as psychiatric scientific knowledge. I don't think there is any debate that psychiatry is a mixture of science and skill, such as the skill of psychoanalysis and the ability to consider differential diagnoses etc. Even medical doctors don't practice pure medicine and a lot of their work will require aspects of psychoanalysis, gut instinct etc when assessing and diagnosing patients. I don't really see what your position is or where you are coming from clearly? Are you coming from the anti-psychiatry angle that because psychiatry is not a pure science that psychiatry is not legitimate?--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the motivations of an editor are less important than how they edit. I suggest that we focus on the latter. I have urged ParkSehJik to slow down and listen to advice from experienced editors. A lot of WPMED content (particularly Psychiatry content) is poorly sourced, but in many cases excellent sources exist and simply need to be cited ("excellent" being defined as clearly representing consensus - scientific or otherwise). -- Scray (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I made a post on the NPOV noticeboard about this user and his/her edits:

• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_dispute_at_Psychiatry_and_Forensic_Psychiatry

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out that this user's edits are still up on forensic psychiatry. Most of these issues don't even relate to forensic psychiatry at all.

There is controversy regarding the motives and scientific validity of forensic psychiatry findings of mental disorders. Forensic psychiatrists are frequently called “whores”. In psychiatry, “politics and economics has replaced quality science”. Unlike evidence based medicine or even traditional medicine, psychiatry may use the term “disease” or "disorder" without a systemic etiology indicated, i.e. even without any observable and measurable abnormalities in anatomy, chemistry, and physiology hypothesized as causative for mental categories declared by psychiatrists to be diseases or disorders. Psychiatry may apply the term “disease” politically, for the mere belief that a cluster of symptoms must be a disease because the symptoms are very uncommon, to justify crude its own specialty treatments such as lobotomies, to justify involuntary commitments, and for financial profit to justify the sale of psychotropic drugs.

...Really? Whores? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, have a look at the abstract (in PubMed) of the reference embedded in your quotation here: In 35 opinions, professionals were termed or compared with "hired guns"; five cases described testifying experts using the word "whore," and five cases used some variation on "prostitute." As has been suggested above, discussions like this below on the article's talk page, but I don't think the editor should be attacked for using text found in an abstract on PubMed. In direct response to your question: "yes, really". -- Scray (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the supportive AGF. I expect editors new to reading RS on the topic will gradually come around per the RS and MEDRS.

• 10% of legal opinions (re forensic psychiatry) termed or compared expert witnesses to “hired guns”, “whores”, or “prostitutes”. (source - Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 27:414 –25, 1999 – 2). Prosecutors made the plurality of the comments. This is not just a review of usage on the street, this is a review of legal opinions. 10% of legal opinions, the majority of which are by prosecutors, is significant per MOS (lede), and is in no way UNDUE. And that is just a citation of what is in the legal record, so it the very most conservative number on prevalence of opinion in the legal profession.

• There is also RS that such usage has a rational basis in the way the profession is currently practiced, of which I am compiling. Here are four of many RS on the topic - (1. “Hired guns,” “whores,” and “prostitutes”: case law references to clinicians of ill repute, D. Mossman, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 27:414 –25, 1999 – 2. Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice, Hagen MA, New York: HarperCollins, 1997 – 3. Reel Forensic Experts: Forensic Psychiatrists as Portrayed on Screen, Susan Hatters Friedman, MD, Cathleen A. Cerny, MD, Sherif Soliman, MD, and Sara G. West, MD, J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 39:412–17, 2011.

• Hagan criticized the methods of clinical assessment and psychological testing (in an evidence based and very reasoned and manner) and argued that mental health testimony is business rather than science, which is only a small part of the many bases of my placement of the Dubious tag on “medicine” re forensic psychiatry, and thereby on "all of psychiatry" being medicine. I was ridiculed as not being worthy of responding to re my arguments to keep the content I put in with MEDRS, with no sourcing for the ridicule, and simply because I put a dubious tag per the MEDRS and RS. This is not a good way to treat editors, nor is it a good basis for editing andarguing on talk, citing "common knowledge" to trump MEDRS sourced info.

• Samuel Gross (a Michigan Law School prof) writes “The contempt of lawyers and judges for experts is famous. They regularly describe expert witnesses as prostitutes.” This is RS for the use of “famous”, in addition to the source I provided describing “frequent” use of the expression. No wiki editor critical of my edits is citing any sources to base their opinions. The New York Times published similar remarks re being partisans rather than science based medical practitioners (In U.S., expert witnesses are partisan, Liptak A, New York Times. August 12, 2008, p A1).

• This is not just a “minority” “opinion”, and my recitation of what is in highly MEDRS and RS sources is not POV. It is citing sources. Deletions based on editors (likely as yet uninformed) opinions are not justified. I expect that in the end, these editors, likely deleting in good faith, will read the RS and MEDRS literature, and the material will gradually go into the article. In the meantime, editors should stop attacking me because they are uninformed as to what is in the MEDRS and RS sources, and is a prevalent, if not dominant, view in the legal, medical, and scientific community.

This discussion belongs here, as well as in the three articles whose content and POV is in dispute, because of the general points I raised at the top of this section. Please read the sources, or refrain from comenting, and in any case, as I requested at the outset of this section, please comment on the sources, not on me. I am simply regurgitating what is all over in the RS and MEDRS, all evidence based, like it or not. ParkSehJik (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

All I see here is a lot of attention seeking. If this topic is notable as is suggested, it may be put in its own article (where the user can rant on that talk page)? Call it "antipsychiatry movement" or something, and those who want to read this kind of stuff can go there.lesion (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

@Tepi, your attack on me, "attention seeking rant", is nonresponsive to the points I made, and offensive. ParkSehJik (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose Allen Frances would be the head of Tepi's "antipsychiatry movement" demanding standards, at least greater than "monkeys achieving throwing darts"? -

"DSM 5 will accept diagnoses that achieve reliabilities as unbelievably low as 0.2-0.4 (barely beating the level of chance agreement two monkeys could achieve throwing darts at a diagnostic board"[37] - Allen Frances, M.D., was chair of the DSM-IV Task Force — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkSehJik (talk • contribs) 06:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

To which article dose this discussion pertain? And it should than probably be moved there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that the Samuel Gross comment refers to expert witnesses in general or is it specific to psychiatrists? If the former, are the views of prosecutors of psychiatric expert witnesses different to their views of other expert witnesses? FiachraByrne (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. It appears in isolation to be to general experts, but I was working from hard copy source which quoted Gross, which was about forensic psychiatry experts. I believe the quote first appeared in Wisconsin Law Review (although he is at Michigan Law). I will do more research. Per these sources however, WP:SPADE seems to be more appropriate re the "people who will do anything for money" phenomena in court, including locking people up for life or putting them in assisted living, and seizing all of their assets to sell off to pay themselves and for the involutary internment, all done based on highly dubious claims of a basis in "science", rather citing POV and BATTLE just for stating what is in multiple RS. ParkSehJik (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there are notable controversies regarding forensic psychiatrists and their opinions in court, which deserve some form of mention on wikipedia. I think the issue is giving appropriate WP:WEIGHT to the controversies. Forensic psychiatry is an important field but like many fields, there are always complexities and controversies.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion re uniform application of MEDRS standards to all WP articles

Link is here Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Discussion_re_uniform_application_of_MEDRS_standards_to_all_WP_articlesDoc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your input appreciated at an active RFC!

Hello WP:MED folks... your input would be very much appreciated at an active RFC at Talk:Circumcision, direct link to the RFC is here. Thanks for your input! Zad68 22:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't quite figure out the question here, but it's something about sexual side effects of circumcision, if anyone is interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Parasitology expert?

Hi everyone, I'm working on Ann Bishop (biologist), which is at FAC right now, and one of the reviewers has asked if I could track down a parasitology person to look it over. Is there anyone here who could help? Thank you so much; I would really appreciate it. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

GrahamColm (talk · contribs), the FAC delegate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Also try DrMicro (talk · contribs). Sasata (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Also Jfdwolff (talk · contribs)-- he wrote dengue fever, so may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You might try Tim Vickers (talk · contribs). He seems to have been away but has a few recent edits. Maralia (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes goes live in two hours

Just a reminder that, after an exhausting round of RFCs, WP:Pending changes goes live in a little less than two hours. The policy is in the usual place, at WP:Protection policy. Requests should be handled like any regular request, i.e., at WP:RFPP.

Requests for WP:Reviewer permission can be made at the usual place (WP:Requests for permissions). Admins automatically have the permission. If you have the permission, you can review changes and will see notes about any articles needing review on your watchlist. Please do your best to review changes quickly, and squawk here, at WT:PC, or on my user talk page if you need help.

People who are just thrilled about it are reminded that it's for real problems on lower-traffic pages, not for universal deployment, and sincerely, strongly begged not to drown RFPP in requests during these early days. Also, please keep in mind that it's rumored to have some performance issues, so it's not good for very large or very busy pages. It might be perfect for a short, obscure vandal magnet, though.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, pending changes is a special kind of page protection that allows unregistered users and newbies to edit the page, but doesn't display their changes to the readers until someone else "approves" the change. This lets us move pages out of WP:Semi-protection and into a semi-sorta-protection mode, because these people can edit directly, but if the change is vandalism or libel or other serious garbage, we can reject the change and no reader will have ever seen it. It makes more work for the rest of us, but it should reduce problems that the readers see. If you're interested in helping review changes, you can request the permission/userright.

Good luck, to all of us and the wiki, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally :-) This has been in discussion for years. Is there a list of all WP:MED pages on which PC has been applied? It would be great if lists of pages needing review could be viewed by Wikiproject. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You can get the complete list of all articles under PC at Special:StablePages, and the complete list of all articles needing to have an edit reviewed at Special:PendingChanges. Additionally, if any page on your watchlist needs to have an edit reviewed, a note will appear on your watchlist. At this moment, no articles (in the entire encyclopedia) needs to have an edit reviewed, and only Malaria is under PC for this project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Collaborative publication

For those interested in "WP:MEDPUB", I posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaborative_publication#Priorities. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2 involves a user whom a few of you may have encountered. Rhode Island Red does some work in articles about AltMed/herbal-type products. It appears that the immediate area of contention is the biography for the founder of the Melaleuca MLM company. RFC/U pages are about a user's conduct (not article content) and are open to anyone who believes s/he can be helpful, so if you're interested, feel free to see if you can help resolve the dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes though he added balance to some alt med topics. It is a difficult subject area to edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome and DSM-V

Asperger syndrome will be dropped from the DSM-5 in May 2013. It is a featured article. I believe that if it is rewritten carefully, it should be able to retain its featured status. I suggest that, since IPs and others are dropping in there increasingly often after seeing press reports of the pending change in DSM-5, that work should get underway soon. In order to retain its featured status, working carefully and collaboratively in sandbox might be a good approach. Is anyone willing to help? The holidays make it hard for me to take the lead in this effort, but if the med editors don't do the work, IPs and random editors may cause the article to deteriorate to the point of losing its featured status. See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would be very conservative about changes and wait how practice changes. Would not advocate a rewrite just because DSM changes. Richiez (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• What is the fear? Why would the article need to be rewritten? I think that there should be a section about the re-classification of the condition, but that does not change the other content in the article, does it? I am willing to help. If someone proposes a source to add then I will add content to the article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It needs the new info, but some text will also need to be switched to past tense ... and a review of anything else it might need. And to make sure the new info and re-classification is well sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Why the past tense? Surely we wait for our scholarly sources to refer to it in the past tense, and to do so globally. A quick glance at the some autism websites shows no change at all in the way they describe AS. I do encourage folk to watchlist the various autism spectrum articles and be on the lookout for folk just taking scissors to the articles. AS is like a 100w incandescent light bulb. -- Colin°^Talk 16:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

      I don't think they're saying it doesn't exist, but surely any sentence like "is listed in the DSM" would need to be put in the past tense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

      • Is it May 2013 already? Colin°^Talk 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what we would do with PDD-NOS and Autism as well. What I think will end up happening is, like the Attention-deficit disorder (ADD) article didn't change titles yet mentions in the article that it is now classified as ADHD, Predominately Inattentive (ADHD-PI). I have a feeling the titles wont need to be changed but it should be added in the lead noting what the new diagnostic terms. Everybody will know them as Autism, PDD-NOS, and Asperger's even when it does change. ATC ^{. Talk} 23:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I already have some ideas and may make a sandbox. The way I worded the last sentence of the first paragraph in the lead for Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), I'll use similar wording for describing the new terms. ATC ^{. Talk} 23:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Germ theory of disease article

• Germ theory of disease

The article is small and not that well developed. It needs a lot of work. Anyone willing to add to it?--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be great if someone took it on. It definitely has a lot of tags at the top, and it is an important subject. But I bet its length is far from its biggest issue. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages for a list that might contain articles thought by some to be higher priority. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It gets 22k views a month, and I think of articles over 20k as being of average importance. I have actually looked for sources into this about contemporary notions of germ theory, because in the developing world one of the major external health recommendations is to provide access to clean water but many local people do not see this as a priority. It upsets international health workers when they go to places which do not respect external attempts to provide clean water. About a year ago I looked for sources describing contemporary disregard for germ theory as it relates to water and sewage infrastructure in the developing world but was unable to find anything. If anyone can find sources about educational outreach for boiling water, building toilets, or teaching handwashing which ties those actions to germ theory then I would help integrate the content into this article. In the field, germ theory education is a hot topic. I just have not found literature on it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for mentioning this. Biosthmors (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the article is partly a summary of work in the 19th century, it lends itself well to re-using sections from other pages, and then editing them together. This is what I've done so far. I will expand some other areas as well. And yes, sources discussing modern people ignoring the Germ theory of disease would be very welcome. Anything discussing germ theory in the modern context would be welcome. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Medical tattoo article

Any source recommendations for this article? 199.229.232.42 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a few to get you started - it's a big topic and notably overlooked in radiation oncology. Tattooing for radiotherapy is so old that I could not easily find a recent review online. An excellent source would be a recent radiation oncology textbook. -- Scray (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

MEDRS for claiming regular food causes cancer?

There is a discussion here: Talk:Organic_food#Article_protection about whether agricultural journals are reliable for saying regular food causes cancer, compared to using only WP:MEDRS sources. More input welcome. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course regular food causes cancer. Everything in the world either causes or prevents cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, bra wearing causes cancer? Thank you for clearing that up, daily mail.lesion (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You must not have seen Dressed to Kill (book). An IP from the authors' hometown seems to come by and "fix" that article every now and again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom Election

Voting is ongoing here. A few of the people have a back ground in medicine / science. [38] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There are probably errors remaining in Leigh's disease

Based on this edit. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

A2 milk

This link is being added to a number of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Have reverted a bunch of new additions. Mostly solved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A2 milk is currently being poorly edited. It needs help Bhny (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes user is persistent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Merging the articles Applied behavior analysis and Behavior modification

Hi,
I wanted input back on merging the articles ABA and Behavior mod., as the former is a new term for the latter.
See here: Talk:Applied_behavior_analysis#Merging_the_articles_Applied_behavior_analysis_and_Behavior_modification.
Thanks!
ATC ^{. Talk} 04:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, ATC, sorry-- you asked me long ago and I never got back to you. But Cas asked the same I would ask ... are you sure the two are the same? I'm not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Some sources say it's a "former expression" for it and others do not. Also, if you are just reinforcing behavior it's now called Positive behavior support (PBS, a form of ABA). A clinical psychologist who studied, work for, and was personal friends with Lovaas prior to opening up her own clinic said "Behavior modification is what we used to called it in the old days." How are they different? If Cognitive-Behavior Therapy (CBT) used to be called Cognitive-Behavior Modification, I don't fully understand. And people still refer to behavior modification when I think they are referring to Behavior therapy which includes Applied Behavior Analysis (a form of behavior analysis) and psychotherapies such as CBT. Under the umbrella of ABA is the Lovaas/UCLA model for autism (or Early intensive behavior intervention (EIBI) for young children) and Positive behavior support; the latter of which is used for various things to reinforce behavior NOT just autism. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I found a journal explaining the controversy over the terms. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223172/. It states as follows: "A New Science? [section] Perhaps there is a tendency to draw pejorative contrasts between PBS and ABA in order to bolster claims about the status of PBS as a new and distinct science or discipline (e.g., Bambara et al., 1994; E. Carr, 1997; E. Carr et al., 2002; Knoster et al., 2003; Sisson, 1992). There may be disagreement among PBS leaders on this point. On the one hand, for example, Horner (2000) stated that 'Positive behavior support is not a new approach. … [It is] the application of behavior analysis to the social problems created by such behaviors as self-injury' (p. 97). He further stated, 'There is no difference in theory or science between positive behavior support and behavior modification. These are the same approach with different names. If any difference exists, it is in the acceptance [by PBS] of much larger outcomes and the need to deliver the global technology that will deliver these outcomes' (p. 99). Other writers have referred to PBS as an 'extension' of applied behavior analysis (e.g., Turnbull et al., 2002, p. 377). ATC ^{. Talk} 21:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

List of cancer types

List of cancer types needs to be on more watchlists, to protect it against simple vandalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Added, if it remains bad, it's a candidate for pending changes. Zad68 19:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Added. Thank you for the information. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Request For Comment on Koro (Penis Panic) regarding 1 sentence inclusion of Peyronie's Disease explanation

Talk:Koro (medicine)

Re: Adding / Removing a sentence on Peyronie's Disease in the introduction of this article.

I added a clarification to the top of this page that Koro (a psychological condition) should not be confused with the biological condition with the same symptoms (early stage Peyronie’s Disease). I cited 2 sources, The Journal of Urology (peer reviewed) and the National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse (NKUDIC). Then, “OhNoItsJamie” (an admin whose reputation for speedy & unhelpful deletions has driven people off wikipedia - just google his screen name) immediately deleted this change and cited WP:SYNTH. He did not post on the talk page or clarify this any further. Deleting my sentence due to WP:SYNTH was not an accurate application of that guideline. So, I sent him a detailed explanation of why I made the change & why WP:SYNTH did not apply. He simply replied in 1 sentence that all information has to be sourced & reliable (apparently ignoring the fact I cited the leading journal in the field of urology the first time)... I suppose he saw me state that I have a MA and PhD and immediately assumed I was injecting my own personal experience. The reality is I AM using my perspective & knowledge of these topics to draw the information from the sources (peer reviewed journals) - and that is the point of wikipedia (multiple people coming together with different sets of knowledge). Some people are going to know more about topics than others, and having rules applied by people who are ignorant of the topics just makes the articles worse.

Therefore, I would like to keep my statement as it appears in the edit, which simply stated “This psychological condition should not be confused with Peyronie's Disease which is a urological condition in which the penis shrinks in size due to scar tissue.” I also added "Peyronie’s disease" to the “see also” section (which OhNoItsJamie also deleted for unknown reasons). So, I want to add that back as well. His complaint that I am not citing sources makes no sense, given that I cited 2 prominent sources. As far as talking about 1 disease in an article where another disease is mentioned goes (the WP:Synth complaint), that is not a violation of WP:SYNTH. Every disease that is related to another disease gets discussed on Wikipedia articles. And, I am only asking to add 1 very short (but important) sentence - not an entire section on Peyronie's disease. Additional information is on the Koro talk page. I would really appreciate people from this project to please help on this issue. thank you. Angelatomato (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the articles you cited connect Koro with Peyronie's; you making the connection is plainly WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Please take the time to read those policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a DIRECT source that connects the two which is not "original research" or "synth" as you (OhNoItsJamie)want to insist: http://connection.ebscohost.com/[scratch that - it appears I copied the wrong link...hence the argument below...sorry]. If you cannot access empirical journals (usually only through universities or libraries) to see this, google google "koro and peyronies disease" so you can see previews where they are mentioned without having access. This is a RARE condition so you will not see 1000s of sources, but here's one. Since the symptoms of the two are identical in the early phase, it was just an obvious statement not requiring a reference - but here you go anyway.

OhNoItsJamie - Please just accept that I am trying to improve the article and move on. Your application of wikipedia guidelines is incorrect (wp:synth is not violated and it is a flexible policy - go read it again yourself). I am asking for other opinions from people with actual science / medicine backgrounds since you have you missed the point of what I wrote & of the citations entirely. You are making irresponsible edits that harm the quality of the content and other users for some reason that I cannot fathom. I have a PhD in psychology & your issues are obvious, but I won't even go there...I've read complaints about you all over the web. People have stopped using wikipedia because of you. Google your screen name & count the number of people you've driven off this site with your bizarre power trip behavior. I've published in peer reviewed journals & responded to 30 pages of criticism which have been easier to deal with than your behavior...I'm leaving it up to others to add their opinions. Remember, this is a collaborative website. You don't own it. Angelatomato (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A list of articles from periodicals targeted to the general public does not constitute a connection (other than a shared keyword). Learn to tell an article from a list.Novangelis (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh...I have a PhD, and you don't think I can tell an article from a keyword? I was trying to make it easier for people who are not at a university (or other library) to read articles because they won't have access to medical journals. Sorry for that. If two (both extremely rare) disorders have identical symptoms, it is virtually impossible to find an empirical article about them at all - let alone connecting them. That's just how it is. Nobody is going to publish it and no journal editor will let it in. If you do not have experience publishing in empirical journals, you won't understand & I do not expect you to. Just use your common sense. If I want to say that the early stages of a heart attack should not be mistaken for a panic attack (supposing they had the same symptoms) - it would not require a citation to say they are frequently confused with each other. Rather, common sense would allow someone to say "here are the sympoms of a heart attack" and "here are the symptoms for a panic attack" and "there may be confusion between the two". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelatomato (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If no one is going to publish it, then you are done. "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought"Novangelis (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not "original thought" - the lists of the symptoms for both are the same - and those are published (and what I cited). I gave you the heart attack / panic attack analogy...what is the confusion? I am not interested in publishing my original thoughts here. I am interested in improving the article with facts...as I have cited. If you fail to understand that, then you should move to another topic. Nothing is "done" - I just opened the rfc last night.Angelatomato (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is a published connection. None of the abstracts I saw mentioned them. Googling both terms pulls up articles related to one or the other, but not both. If you fail to understand Wikipedia policies, you should move on to another encyclopedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You said " I'm done discussing the matter with you (i.e., any further posts on my talk page by you will be removed). Feel free to continue your crusade on other venues"... So why are you back? Anyway, yes I do understand wikipedia policies & am acting within them. You are not - and that is why I have opened this up for other opinions under wikipedia guidelines that allow me to ask editors for other perspectives. Nothing is "done" - I just opened the rfc last night. And, that was a published source...my point (above) was that if you are not in a library (or have online access), it probably will not open (without permissions - empirical journals just show abstracts). So, I gave people keywords (who did not have library access) - and then I was told that I didn't know the difference between keywords and articles. Joy. And all this over 1 sentence...amazing. Angelatomato (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I said I wasn't discussing it on my talk page' anymore. You've already admitted that there aren't any published sources connecting the two, and that your "expert" clinical experience was enough to justify your adding original research. We don't make policy exceptions based on claimed (or verified) credentials. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You said you are done discussing THE MATTER and I.e., (which means "in other words") you would delete things on your talk page. I live in the real world w/ patients who have this issue - so what I "admitted" came from my daily life, where I do not need to find citations for obvious facts in my...however, since it is necessary here, I will continue to look for them - and I have put out a RFC (which you called a "crusade") to get opinions of others. I did not do a thorough literature search through every psych and urology journal - so there may be something - and we'll see what happens. Regardless, that one tiny little sentence still does not violate any of those policies (as if every sentence on wikipedia is cited? Not to mention, nobody - in any discipline - cites the obvious). Because you disagree, I have asked for other opinions and we will see what they say. You are interpreting the guidelines incorrectly, and therefore the guidelines suggest I put out a request for comment, which I did. If every rule on earth was so back and white, we wouldn't have millions of lawyers and judges, would we? Sorry we are seeing this completely differently, but I doubt this is the first time it happened on here. Look at your talk page - first I asked you to work with me to come up with a sentence that satisfied your interpretation of the guidelines & the information that is published...but you decided against it...so I posted the RFC & per the RFC "promotion" guidelines, I put it in the medicine section, which you then called a "crusade"...it appears you are only interested in deleting the sentence and being right - and not improving the content at all. Angelatomato (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We should not create a cognitive link between conditions without support from appropriate sourcing. If common knowledge, support should not be too hard to find (I sympathize - I've had to do this, too). It's important to remember that just because something else on WP is poorly sourced is not a good reason for us to worsen the problem. -- Scray (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's the latest / closest thing I could find for the original statement: Bernstein, R. L., & Gaw, A. C. (1990). Koro: Proposed classification for DSM-IV. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 1670–1674.Angelatomato (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

One alternative would be to do a list of related conditions and symptoms. I have already added body dysmorphic disorder (with a citation) - so this would work in my mind - but I dont want to spend time on it if it will be deleted. Angelatomato (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I posted 3 additional sources on the Koro talk page...I think the issue is resolved. Now, the problem is - how to integrate this into the existing article... Angelatomato (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome: re-evaluation by APA

Expert attention is welcome at Talk:Asperger syndrome#Time for a revisit to this article (version of 15:15, 8 December 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Paedophilia epidemiology

There are major issues on the paedophilia article regarding its prevalance. I am wondering if anyone here is interested or knows how to resolve this problem? The problem is as follows. According to wikipedia 1 in 10 men approximately are fixated on prepubescent kids. To me this is obvious nonsense. I suspect that either sources have been misinterpreted, such as prevalance rates in prison samples have been extrapolated across into the general population or else adolescentophilia, particularly hebephilia has been included in these statistics without informing the reader. The big problem is that for obvious reasons there are no solid estimates as to the prevalence rate of DSM IV-tr paedophilia in the general population but I just know it is not 1 in 10 men! People with access to full text medical articles are particularly needed. The discussion is here for all who are interested, Talk:Pedophilia#Prevalence_rates.--MrADHD | T@1k? 20:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a claim in the article that 10% of men are pedophiles. Can you tell us exactly which sentence concerns you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The prevalence section says estimates range from 3-9 percent of people have paedophilia with 5 percent suggested as an average. The 10 percent comes from two places. Half of the population is male, and almost all paedophiles are male, thus the 5 percent statistic needs to be doubled or almost doubled for men as the article does not state that it is talking about men only. Even 5 percent of men seems way way off to me. The other thing is the estimate ranges up to almost 9 percent, which if you double that up you could argue our wikipedia article is saying up to almost 18 percent of males are paedophiles as the article currently states from 3 percent and up to 9 percent of the population are paedophiles.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the figures are being misused. The relevant passage from the first cited Seto article is:

The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is unknown because large-scale epidemiological surveys have not yet been conducted. Much smaller surveys of convenience samples suggest that the upper limit for the prevalence of pedophilia is around 5%, as almost all of these surveys have shown that 3% to 9% of male respondents acknowledge sexual fantasies or sexual contact involving prepubescent children (e.g., Briere & Runtz 1989, Fromuth et al. 1991, Templeman & Stinnett 1991). Only some of these respondents might meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, however, as these surveys have not asked questions regarding the intensity or persistence of sexual fantasies or behavior.

Some of this is closely paraphrased in the article, with some fairly important qualifiers having been removed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well probably what they are detecting with the wording of those questions is mostly non-paedophiles who at some point in time have on occasion allowed their mind to wander into perverse thoughts about prepubescent children, probably when they were highly 'sexed'/horny for want of a better expression. They probably could have detected similar rates of sexual thoughts involving the elderly, if they asked the same questions regarding the elderly but that doesn't mean 3-9 percent of men are gerontophiles. As the author states, only some of these people would have prepubescent fantasies recurring and dominating their sexual thoughts, so yes the source(s) have been grossly misquoted. Thanks for digging out the source content!--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The article says that "is estimated to be lower than 5% based on several smaller studies with prevalence rates between 3% and 9%", not that it is estimated to be 5%. I've clarified, and used the opportunity to remove a primary source while I was at it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah my bad memory, I didn't quote article text correctly. Thanks for helping with the article. :)--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, did you mean to remove the SetoReview refname? The 5% part looks unsourced without that beside it. And shouldn't we keep the fact the 5% is based on several small studies? As for the "prevalence rates between 3% and 9%" information, is removing it better than rewording it in some way? Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Especially since the information has been somewhat misrepresented? Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, it is a review article; just needs to be better summarised so as to not misrepresent the source.--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

IMO SetoReview ought to appear only once in that sentence. Where in the setence is not terribly important to me.

I do believe that it is appropriate to remove the 3–9% claim, since that detail is basically unimportant and tends to de-bunk the conclusion of the review, which is that the prevalence is less than 5%. I can go either way about including "based on several small studies", but I removed it because we don't normally want to call out the details of how a review article arrived at its conclusions per WP:MEDMOS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case I feel that we need to convey to the reader the nature of the prevalence evidence. The review author states themselves that only some of the 3-9 percent of people reporting ever fantasising sexually about prepubescents would be actual paedophiles; that doesn't sound like this review author believes that anywhere near 5 percent of men are sexually fixated on prepubescents. I feel we either need to briefly explain the origin of the statistics and that the review author felt that only some of the sample would actually be paedophiles or else exclude the 3-9 percent and the below 5 percent of men statistics. Otherwise we are going to have lots of readers with a warped view of reality and a warped view of the review authors thoughts, regarding the incidence of paedophilia and male sexual thoughts.--MrADHD | T@1k? 00:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, as always, thanks for the reply WhatamIdoing. I'm aware of WP:OVERREFERENCING, but I've seen too many cases where, even when the reference is placed earlier on in the line, the rest of the line is thought to be unsourced because it doesn't have a reference at the end of it. But that way of thinking makes sense because there's no reason to place the reference near the beginning or middle instead of at the end of the line. Other instances, though, such as one reference supporting an entire paragraph at the end... It irks me when editors don't realize that the entire paragraph is supported by that one source, and then place a citation-needed tag somewhere in the paragraph. It's understandable when they don't have access to the source, especially since there are cases where a source at the end of the paragraph doesn't support all of the paragraph's text, but people should always check the source(s) before adding a citation-needed tag. I've even seen cases that are the reverse of the SetoReview example, where even with the reference at the end of the line, an editor will think that first part of the line is unsourced because the line is talking about two different matters. Anyway, end of rant. I've gone ahead and duplicated the SetoReview refname to the end of the line.

MrADHD, I definitely don't feel that the above statistics information should be excluded altogether. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Suggested text: Anonymous surveys of adult males have found that 3-9 percent men admit to having ever as adults sexually fantasised about prepubescent children, however, it is likely that only some of these men would be paedophiles. Anonymous surveys of the general public asking questions regarding age related sexual preference or exclusive interest to obtain an accurate picture of the number of paedophiles in the general public has not yet been carried out. From what is known the incidence of paedophilia in men is believed to be below 5 percent.--MrADHD | T@1k? 00:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You're probably aware of this but Seto has a 2012 article where he again reviews the evidence for prevalence rates - available here. That source appears to be a little more detailed on this question and it's not cited in the article. Personally, I think it would be important to state that current estimates are based on non-representative samples. I'd also be inclined to follow Seto's wording that the 5 per cent figure is an upper limit. Also is James Cantor still active on Wikipedia? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

MrADHD, yes, that wording is fine. I feel that the initial wording of "The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known" that is in the article should stay, though. Also, keep the spelling consistent with the article's spelling, per WP:ENGVAR; "fantasised" should be "fantasized," "paedophiles" should be "pedophiles"...and "paedophilia" should be "pedophilia."

FiachraByrne, MrADHD is new to this topic area, as stated on the Pedophilia talk page (by MrADHD). So I'm sure that he didn't know about that 2012 article. Thank you for presenting it; we should definitely use it, especially since it's a fairly recent review of the same material. The thing about trying to follow WP:MEDRS's recommendation of "Look[ing] for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years." for the Pedophilia article is that recent material is not always coming out for every aspect of pedophilia; this is why WP:MEDRS also states that its instructions about up-to-date material "may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." Some of the sources in the article, though old by WP:MEDRS's standards, are the most up-to-date for the information they are supporting. And, yes, James Cantor (James Cantor) is still active on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I also still feel that it should be stated that the above statistics are based on only several small surveys. So I would prefer the above proposed text begin with "Several small anonymous surveys." And "would be pedophiles" should be "are pedophiles." And a comma should be placed after "From what is known." Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I have no objections to the suggestions made. So, who is going to do the honours and update the article text? I could give it a try but I am not experienced in this topic area.--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Kyle M. Johnson

Kyle M. Johnson was PRODded. Maybe there is something notable about his operation, then I guess it would be Brain operation of Kyle M. Johnson if there is something notable there. Biosthmors (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyone could boldly WP:MERGE that to craniectomy. It's not unusual to include a short list of notable patients if there are famous cases. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I second the merge in principle but the current sources and content are not worth merging. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Badhan (blood donor organization)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badhan (blood donor organization). -- Trevj (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I responded. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Does pseudoscience in Psychiatry merit an Alternative Medicine category and WP:SPADE info that it is integrative medicine?

Is Psychiatry integrative medicine? Related discussion of whether DSM is MEDRS is here[39].

Extended commentary posted to multiple places
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Discover Magazine just named this story as "Top 100 Science Stories of 2012" - The "Bible of Psychiatry" Faces Damning Criticism—From the Inside From that story - "...the most recent attack comes from within the DSM-5’s ranks. Roel Verheul and John Livesley, a psychologist and psychiatrist who were members of the DSM-5 work group for for personality disorders, found that the group ignored their warnings about its methods and recommendations. In protest, they resigned, explaining why in an email to Psychology Today. Their disapproval stems from two primary problems with the proposed classification system: its confusing complexity, and its refusal to incorporate scientific evidence. That is the very definition of pseudoscience in out article on the topic. The resigning doctors are quoted as saying - "The proposal displays a truly stunning disregard for evidence. Important aspects of the proposal lack any reasonable evidential support of reliability and validity. For example, there is little evidence to justify which disorders to retain and which to eliminate. Even more concerning is the fact that a major component of proposal is inconsistent with extensive evidence…This creates the untenable situation of the Work Group advancing a taxonomic model that it has acknowledged in a published article to be inconsistent with the evidence." Part of psychiatry is clearly evidence based and is science. But the field integrates this with pseudoscience and worse (forensic psychiatry and its associated fraud). Per the WP arricle, integrative medicine "integrates" evidence based medicine with the other stuff. Does WP:Spade apply here, or must there be a secondary source calling the spade a spade?

Does the clear pseudoscience in psychiatry merit an "Alternative Medicine" category in the article, and WP:SPADE info that it is thereby integrative medicine? ParkSehJik (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

No, unless you can find very high quality sources which specifically calls psychiatry a form of "alternative medicine", this is all WP:OR to take the opinions of individuals to label something on Wikipedia. Poor form. Yobol (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Response here [40].

Popular science books like "Discover magazine" are not reliable sources. Psychiatry is medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

As always, reliability depends on context (=what you're saying in the article). Discover Magazine is a perfectly reliable source for some kinds of claims, like "In the October 2012 issue, there was an article on ____" or "Scientist Suzy said _____ at a press conference". It is not, however, of such a high quality that it would be an ideal source for statements like "The number needed to treat is 23.5 with euphemism du jour to cure one case of Scary Disease", especially if such a claim disagreed with similar claims made in higher quality sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Park, please post content in one place so discussion will occur in one place. You have posted this same question TWICE on this page (while still hollering at us in boldface). The discussion link is given; that is all that is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Is DSM MEDRS?

Extended commentary, this post was made simultaneously in two places:
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Does DSM meets WP:MEDRS standards to be included as a source? Discover Magazine just named this story as "Top 100 Science Stories of 2012" - The "Bible of Psychiatry" Faces Damning Criticism—From the Inside From that story - "...a psychologist and psychiatrist who were members of the DSM-5 work group for for personality disorders, found that the group ignored their warnings about its methods and recommendations. In protest, they resigned, explaining why... 'The proposal displays a truly stunning disregard for evidence. Important aspects of the proposal lack any reasonable evidential support of reliability and validity. For example, there is little evidence to justify which disorders to retain and which to eliminate. Even more concerning is the fact that a major component of proposal is inconsistent with extensive evidence…This creates the untenable situation of the Work Group advancing a taxonomic model that it has acknowledged in a published article to be inconsistent with the evidence." Is DSM MEDRS, and if so, how do we tell which parts of DSM are MEDRS, and which parts are "inconsistent with extensive evidence", and thereby violate MEDRS?

Discussion is here[41]. ParkSehJik (talk) 17:28, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it does meet MEDRS. The disagreement you cite just means, that there is a content dispute regarding one section of the DSM V involving a single psychologist and a single psychiatrist who felt that their colleagues were not following evidence in their opinion. Not very surprising in a book with hundreds of pages in it to have content disputes.--MrADHD | T@1k? 17:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is MEDRS but the field of psychiatry is more controversial than most areas of medicine. This is partly because the underlying pathophysiology of the conditions are much less understood. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

WHY is this discussion started simultaneously in two places, even after multiple requests to Park to stop doing that? WHY will Park not read WP:TALK and stop hollering at us in posts? Simultaneous discussion is at: Wikipedia_talk:MEDRS#Is_DSM_MEDRS.3F. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

• Endorse hat Trying to conduct the same conversation in multiple locations is very counterproductive and an inconsiderate waste of one's fellow editors' time. Zad68 20:26, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to post at relevant talk pages and direct to one place with the above link - "Discussion is here[42]" I appear to have done it incorrectly, but cannot find where the error is. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Typically one simply picks one place and writes their. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

If you had just left out everything I hatted, it would have been fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

adding: Once you have started a discussion in one location, it's perfectly fine to notify an appropriate audience at, for example, a project page. This is normally done with one quick, neutrally-stated sentence like, "Hi, there's a conversation regarding whether DSM-4 is a WP:MEDRS-compliant resource here..." and give the link to it. It is not a good idea to give the same lengthy arguments you are giving at the discussion location when you should just be posting a quick notice about the discussion. Zad68 21:13, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) In my opinion the conversation over at MEDRS talk page should have been the conversation to be hatted, rather than the conversation here being hatted. Better the conversation carries on here and hopefully reaches a resolution or burns itself out rather than on a guideline talk page.--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Dementia

Something's going on at Talk:Dementia. Not sure if it is students with new ideas or what. They could use welcoming. Biosthmors (talk) 00:55, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It is students. Will post at WP:Education noticeboard instead if necessary. Biosthmors (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

Book Unaccountable

The book Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won't Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Health Care is reviewed at http://www.thedoctorwillseeyounow.com/content/healthcare/art3884.html. Wikipedia can have an article (Unaccountable: What Hospitals Won't Tell You and How Transparency Can Revolutionize Health Care) about the book.
—Wavelength (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what you are suggesting? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like they are just putting in a request for an article on the book, and they think someone here might bite. Thanks Wavelength. Biosthmors (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I am suggesting that someone write an article about the book.

—Wavelength (talk) 23:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Dispute about MEDRS now at WP:DRN

There has been a dispute about the appropriate application of WP:MEDRS on Organic food, which has now moved to WP:DRN, and can be found here. More eyes and commentary from those familiar with the application of WP:MEDRS would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment

Hi, this article (the result of a class assignment) could use some attention of an expert. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Tag it with Wikipedia:TC#Expert_needed and specify what kind of attention you think it needs on the talk page? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) It needs major rework; lots of errors, such as it's description of the pharmacodynamics of neuroleptics sounds closer to the pharmacodynamics of amphetamine and the article says ECT is a surgical procedure. They are are just a couple of examples, lots more errors on the page. Sourcing seems at first glance to be poor and biased with a suggestion of possible misuse of references and WP:SYN. The article title, may lack notability, as it really is just a theory promoted by Dr Peter Breggin, and few others and he is on the fringes of psychiatry; so the article may end up needing deleted.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Nominate for WP:AFD? Biosthmors (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Is the class assignment finished? I would feel a little guilty if we were to delete the article when it is 'being marked' by her tutor.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Assignment finished! The final version to be graded was the version on the 28th. See more details at User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro. Biosthmors (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, great. :) I have started the AfD, here,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Student assignments on Wikipedia

Comment: I agree with the AfD that the article should be deleted, and have said so there. But I am puzzled by the comments above. Do we have a policy or a general feeling here, to retain unacceptable or unencyclopedic articles temporarily as a favor to students doing assignments? Personally I wouldn't feel "guilty" at all about deleting such an article if it deserved deletion, and in fact I kind of hate the whole idea of professors telling students to come here and post their homework in the middle of an international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I am not too happy about encouraging or supporting this use of Wikipedia either. Maybe the articles could be posted to AFC instead, and then a notice about each one could be posted here at WT:MED. Then we, or any of the regular patrollers at AFC, could review them, and accept or reject them as normal. Zad68 19:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be better. It would also "protect" the essay as written - give the student ownership of their work, as is not the case on Wikipedia mainspace. What happens to their assignment if someone comes along and does a major edit or rewrite - which they have to accept as a possibility when they post here? --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! And, every AFC accepted automatically increases one letter grade. And, if the AFC is accepted by someone who is NOT a member of WP:MED, it increases TWO letter grades! Zad68 20:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Not in my discussions with the professor. Biosthmors (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, everyone is expected to write about notable topics. Unfortunately I wasn't around to help this class with topic selection at the beginning of the semester. Whether or not someone wants to let empathy temporarily delay a deletion request is not expected (nor is it desired according to any Wikipedia guideline I'm aware of as it would be preferential treatment), but it is of course a personal one and I respect those who take either side of the issue. There is no requirement to give preferential treatment. Please only don't WP:BITE or be uncivil. That's all. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider discussing education-specific issues at WP:Education noticeboard. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How are people expected to know that they are dealing with students, and that they shouldn't "bite or be uncivil", if the articles are simply tossed into mainspace rather than a more forgiving environment like Articles for Creation? And how do you deal with the student's ownership of their work if it is in mainspace? I would really urge you (and the professor) to have such articles posted to AfC in the future as suggested by Zad68. What I am trying to say is, I have a real problem with this kind of assignment; I think it violates several Wikipedia principles including WP:ESSAY, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:OWN. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please post and discuss at User talk:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro. Biosthmors (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Melanie, I don't think it really hurts us to have an article on a borderline-notable topic hang about for a few extra days. Being a little less quick with the deletion button is one thing we can do to improve editor retention. We don't have to worry about editor retention, but threatening a new editor with deletion as soon as the article has been posted is one of the actions that is proven to run off new editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Assignments for student editors is an essay that now exists on this topic. Consider editing it or commenting at the talk page if you are interested in the issue. Biosthmors (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Unassessed medicine articles

A lot of new pages have been tagged in the last few days, so Category:Unassessed medicine articles needs some attention. I don't think I'll be able to clear it out for a few days, so if someone else wants to have a go, I'd appreciate it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've cleared about 10 already in a matter of minutes and it's surprisingly painless. Most are super easy to spot as either start class or stub class and I've been assigning a low importance to everything so far. 171 remaining for anyone else who wants to jump in. Biosthmors (talk) 23:10, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The list has more than doubled since I originally posted. Most are quite easy, and you can always skip anything you're not sure about. Normal diseases are Mid priority. Rare diseases, people, and organizations are Low. Anatomy isn't even us (unless there's a good section on diseases inside it); it's WikiProject Anatomy. There are detailed instructions at WP:MEDA if you want to sort out a complicated case. But mostly, this is a quick and simple process that anyone here should feel capable of doing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:45, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Enencephaly.jpg

file:Enencephaly.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 07:09, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a horrific and shocking image. It has educational value and images of this sort have a place on Wikipedia, but I would not recommend anyone clicking the link lightly. Anyone who wants to skip to the deletion discussion without seeing the image can go to Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2012_December_10#File:Enencephaly.jpg There are two issues here. One is that the image is not properly licensed by the uploader. The other is something that is within the scope of the proposed group on meta, Wiki Med. See here - meta:Wiki _Med/Advocacy#Statements_on_fairness_of_using_health_media. A doctor has taken a picture of a person. It is often ethics, not law, which decide whether using a medical image as a teaching tool is appropriate. On Wikimedia projects there are not solid guidelines on when this may or may not be appropriate. If anyone else ever sees privacy discussions relating to medical images them please post them on the Wikimedia Medicine page talk page to which I linked above. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately we have people who attempt to remove images that they do not like or that they find unpleasant (see smallpox for another example). Those with anacephaly have never been alive (per brain death) and thus would be no different than any other pathological sample. If we are going to be a professional source of information (which we are) we need to make sure that we cover all topics and do not sensor stuff that some find unpleasant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Leaving this case aside, I would like to see any policy anyone has ever written on uploading media content for pathological samples versus various levels of risk of that media file being linked to the identification of any particular person. So far as I know there is not one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

This image is not of a "person" as anecephaly is never technically alive per the definition of brain death. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay. Leaving this case aside, I am curious about any policy of sharing anyone's embarrassing broken bone x-ray or tumor. I would be in favor of getting access to hospital archives and sharing lots of media if possible. The variable of interest might be the extent to which the image identifies a particular person. A pathological sample, for example, may be unique enough for someone to recognize it as having come from a particular person who could be identified. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as no person is identifiable from the image or caption than there is no concern. If the person is identifiable than signed consent is needed either from the person in question if they are competent or from their next of kin if they are not (as in a child). I have already been legally accosted by another Wikipedia on these matters and it went to a legal review. This was more of less the determination. This is also the conclusion of the medical literature.

I had someone ask my a while ago if this was their father [43]. It was not but I guess their necks look similar. One cannot identify someone from their x ray or a slice of their cancer (maybe the pathologist who originally saw them and took the picture could but then they know them anyone). If we want the academic community to join us we need to use image guidelines similar to the academic press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of adopting the established policies of academic press. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:24, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Great similar images to the one we are discussing here can be found in academic textbooks and journals. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The argument seems to be that those with anecephaly are living humans and thus their consent must be obtained before their images are used. The majority of those with this condition however are stillbirths and the majority of the medical community would consider them to be brain dead and thus never alive. The image does not identify the parents and thus would be anonymous with respect to them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:17, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Please see Commons:Patient images, which is an essay. Started by another Wikidoc, I expanded it with guidelines drawn from various sources. Medical journals take an "if there is any chance at all that the patient might be identified" stance. Many UK professional bodies, including the GMC, have dispensed with the notion of whether the patient can be identified or not: you need consent to take a picture of someone's left pinky. In addition, doctors can't just go around snapping photos of patients or their bits using their cameraphone. (See the end of this page).

As far as this picture goes, I think the "never alive / not a person" argument is a fairly clinically/legal-minded response that fails the duck test. Many people would regard this as someone's tragically dead baby and worthy of the same respect. I think the doctor behaved unethically in taking this picture, if he did not have the parent's consent, and believe he should have written formal consent before uploading it to WP. Without an assurance on this point, I think WP should delete it. If the consent was achieved, then the image is acceptable. I'm no expert, though. I suspect if any UK doc had asked their professional body about whether they needed consent for this picture, they would be told yes, even if that yes was erring on the side of caution. So should we. -- Colin°^Talk 19:39, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes verbal consent is required from patients when you are taking pictures of them but not of pathological samples or histology slides. Many people want a whole bunch of images removed from Wikipedia including ones dealing with religion and sex. The physician who took this image would not need consent from the parents and there is no identifiable human being in the image. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not think this discussion should continue without references. Academic journals, governments, and various organizations have published guidelines for this. The least surprising way to settle this issue is to follow guidelines which already exist. Discussions in medicine have the benefit of being able to be built from a large amount of published, citable, precedent. If anyone wants to give input in the appropriate forums then Commons:Patient_images Commons:Patient images and the Wiki Med page would be better places than here to centralize the permanent record of discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

(ec)I don't think everyone will agree with you that "there is no identifiable human being in the image". Describing this as a path sample is pretty heartless, sorry James. In the UK, we're rather sensitive about unauthorised use of human tissue, especially our dead babies and there are legal issues surrounding these, including display. Hence the The Royal College of Pathologists guidelines that consent is recommended. This Act came about from doctors just regarding this as so much random human tissue to do what they like with -- like taking photos with their mobile phones. And the change of attitude was intended "to foster the underlying assumption ... that all human bodies, body parts and tissue ... be treated with appropriate respect and dignity" (source). This absolutely isn't a NOTCENSORED issue. Nor is it about legal definitions of human life. It is just about respect and medical ethics. Perhaps the culture is different across the pond. -- Colin°^Talk 22:05, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Colin, I shared the links you gave on both the Commons page and the Wiki Med page. Thanks - these are important and relevant.

The following is not directed at any preceding commenter, but rather to anyone who joins this conversation: This is not the place for deciding which region's culture is best, but it is the place for providing links to explanations of what a particular culture's practices are. The laws, customs, and ethics of one place may be different from those elsewhere and that does not necessarily make them less valid or right. Assume good faith when anyone shares a perspective here. Asking for references to descriptions of professional precedent whenever someone speaks on behalf of their culture is a productive way to manage conversation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm friends with James so I'm sure he's fine with my robust description of his POV :-). Some of this is documented, some of it isn't. For example, the GMC guidelines are relatively recently catching up with the Internet and previous guidelines on consent were written in an age when it was assumed that medical photographs only went in medical journals and textbooks and couldn't really be seen by joe-public. Wikipedia, Commons and Flickr take the public exposure of these images to a new level, well beyond the "for educational use" that patients or doctors may have considered the photographs to be consented for. We can make our own standards, or even lead the way.

I agree that different folk have different views on this and that no one view is more "right" but the most permissive view wrt hosting images isn't necessarily the one that should "win" by default. Whenever ethics comes up on WP or Commons, there's a tendencey to reduce the argument to what is legal (which is a low bar) and to be deliberately insensitive to any religious or emotional concerns.

Here's some duck tests:

1. If this was a normal live baby born in the maternity ward and was taken away to be cleaned up, would it be acceptable for the doctor to take snaps with their mobile phone and upload to the net to share? If the baby had been born without any legs would that change the ethics? If the baby had been born without a kidney would that change the ethics. This baby was born without much of its brain. Does that change the ethics? The law may see a distinction, but would the parents?
2. Would the doctor have done this in front of the mother? If they had, what might be the mother or father's reaction to having their stillborn baby photographed on some doctor's mobile phone?

Colin°^Talk 15:32, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Colin. I encourage other people to respond as they like. I am withdrawing from this conversation. I would be interested to talk with anyone by phone or Skype about these things but I feel that text in forums is not preferable to voice when having casual exchange on controversial issues. I am personally interested in these topics and would like to meet others who want to talk and share public notes about conversations, but not here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

During university we had access to human babies in jars with varying major genetic abnormalities. The University of Calgary also has many similar ones on displace at their medical museum. I guess I could take pictures of these but some may find them more rather than less "disturbing".Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

There would be no parent with this case who can distinguish this case of anecephaly from any other. This IMO this image would be anonymous. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:44, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to have these frank conversations. Colin and I do come at this from different perspectives and I respect his opinion. If a baby was born with no legs than yes I would feel taking pictures of their lower extremities (which are not identifiable) would be legally and ethically okay. I take pictures of identifiable people (see Cleft lip and palate) for example among others. I however get signed consent for release under an "open license" and onto Wikipedia when the infant is identifiable. Now would I take this picture in front of the mother? I have delivered similar cases and the mother realized that this was the case long before. This was before I got involved with Wikipedia but my bet is that she would have bee okay. My experience is that most are happy to provide consent for these sorts of images and the doctor in question may even have gotten such permission. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I should have made clearer that the doctor would be doing these things without consent or even asking. Just doing it. If the doctor asked in a tactful way, I'm sure the situation would often be different. But there's no indication on the photo page that the doctor asked for or got permission, and I'm sure if he had then he'd have said so. So would you have just whipped out your iphone and started taking pics? Colin°^Talk 16:59, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I do not list that I have received signed / verbal consent for the images I have taken even though I always get consent (signed if identifiable, verbal if not identifiable). I guess may be I should start. I do not see this as any different than discussing the possibility of organ transplantation. You are offering the family the opportunity to do a little good with a bad situation. I have shared the signed consent with my college but will not give these consents to anyone at Wikipedia / Wikimedia as I did not get permission for that. The physician in question may have gotten consent. Why are we assuming that he has not? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I've spent the last few months trying to clean out commons:Category:Diseases and disorders. Given the <insert nice word meaning incompetence here> I've seen in categorization and descriptions, I'd assume nothing at all about a failure to say "Yes, I did get consent from the patient/parents for this picture". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

As I noted on the deletion discussion, we routinely ask uploaders to explicitly confirm an image is "their own work" or "where they got it from" -- we delete images with unknown provinence. Similarly, if consent is required for an image, I think the image description page should have a statement from the uploader that appropriate consent for WP/Commons was received. Colin°^Talk 09:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The consent for medical photography forms in my neck of the woods ask for specific levels of consent for what the pics will be used for: i. for use in the patients own case records and nothing else, ii, for local teaching use (i.e. stays within hospital), iii. for use in academic journals and presentations. I am thinking that many patients would not tick a box that said "for use on wikipedia", that would probably scare them a bit. It 's popular domain, not some "dusty" academic journal that laypersons do not significantly access...My Q is that to be fair and transparent, is it necessary to inform the patient exactly what use the pic will be put to? lesion (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I tell them I am an editor of Wikipedia, that the image will be used on Wikipedia and will be under an open license and thus can be used anywhere on the internet. Only one person I spoke to was not comfortable, the rest where happy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:16, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Have a read of the patient images page on Commons. My research shows that standard UK consent forms do not have an option that would allow for use on Wikipedia/Commons. There is an issue here that images without the necessary consent for Commons will be uploaded from open-access journals and other sources if they have the necessary free licence. Commons generally does not give a damn about "non-copyright" issues as they are a matter for the subject and the photographer only. I think James is right that a consent form drafted to allow WP/Commons use can be presented to patients with success. The issue of consent is one of respect. Colin°^Talk 09:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe someone could start a section at WP:Pictures for medical articles titled "For clinicians who want to take patient pictures" or something similar? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Formatting the template for requested medical topics

See Template_talk:Image_requested#For_medical_topics for a requested modification. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

What I've requested is that every {{reqphoto|medical subjects}} template on the talk pages of medical topics link to the essay WP:Pictures for medical articles because it is much more comprehensive than saying to people "The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites" (the current default that is already mentioned at said essay). This would affect ~1900 talk pages. Your comments could get the job done! Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Need a pre-reviewer to check Circumcision for a WP:GA review

I think we're pretty close to having Circumcision for a WP:GA review. I've never gone through this process before. Would someone with familiarity with the process please look through the article and give me any notes on the Talk page as to how close it looks, any obvious stupid quick-fails that I'm missing, and any other general feedback. I'm not looking for a WP:GA review, just a pre-WP:GA review. Appreciate it! Cheers... Zad68 19:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No takers?? Anybody? Otherwise I'll just dump it into the GA pool and see what happens... Zad68 05:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think your odds are very good. NB that I haven't read the article; I don't need to know what the article says to hold this pessimistic view. GA reviews often develop fatal difficulties if the reviewer believes that there are, or have been, POV problems. All it takes is one POV pusher to kick up a fuss during the review, and that topic is so contentious that I expect you'll have several people willing to derail it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me take another look. I have managed to get through a few controversial articles including obesity and HIV/AIDS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:21, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, I'd hate to hear Wiki-politics would scuttle all that work. Or, well you know what I mean. I'm not too sure how high the GA bar is... Zad68 20:25, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Not wasted. The article is much improved. I typically work on disease related articles. Procedure related ones are a little more complicated to get to GA. This however is one of our most viewed articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thank you very much for all your work! Very valuable. Biosthmors (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Is this article ok?

Neuroscience and race, given the active arbitration remedies? It seems to have a lot of primary sources in it, but I don't know enough about the subject matter to assess it myself confidently. See Talk:Neuroscience and race Thanks, MathewTownsend (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Ask at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience? Biosthmors (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

discharge summary

I was very surprised to find that WP doesn't have an article on discharge summary [44] (or a disambig page epicrisis). It seems this term is the most common one used in both UK and US English, whereas medical case summary seems to be an insurance and legal term for a different kind of document. The terms referral feedback, final patient report, and patient report seem to be much less common and perhaps also refer to other documents. --Espoo (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Do we really need a whole article on that? Why not include it as a section in a larger article on discharging patients, or in Inpatient care, which already talks about discharge planning? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, we do have progress note, SOAP note, admission note, etc. Not sure if that's a good thing or not...Yobol (talk) 22:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Presently, "Discharge note" redirects to Inpatient care#Progress.Novangelis (talk) 23:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree that we should cover discharge summaries - arguably the most important document of a hospitalization (PMID 17327525 for example). -- Scray (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Have been in discussion with a couple of people about creating open source discharge summaries on Wikibooks. Anyone else interested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:33, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

An article needs your help

• Jumping to conclusions (AfD discussion)

Now that we know what the psychiatric name for it is (You'll never guess.), the article is in need of attention with respect to what medicine says about this. Uncle G (talk) 14:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't even need to read the article to know that it needs to be deleted!! Zad68 16:38, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Cochrane collaboration

Cochrane is interested in working with us. We are looking at a more formal way to update our references / content from the Cochrane collaboration. Are there others interested in this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:31, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

This sounds exciting. I'm interested in hearing more. I started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Evidence_based_content_for_medical_articles_on_Wikipedia#December_2012 where those who are interested can get more details. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great, what's involved? Zad68 20:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

psychology.wikia.com and template:enPW

Is psychology.wikia.com a reliable source? This question is in relation to the attribution template {{enPW}} now under deletion discussion -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 06:04, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I replied at the deletion discussion for that template. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Colloid cyst Stub

I do not like reading

"Do we have a policy or a general feeling here, to retain unacceptable or unencyclopedic articles temporarily as a favor to students doing assignments? Personally I wouldn't feel "guilty" at all about deleting such an article if it deserved deletion, and in fact I kind of hate the whole idea of professors telling students to come here and post their homework in the middle of an international encyclopedia."

I have put in a request with wikipedia that our group will acquire the admin of the Colloid Cyst Stub seeing now this "Project medicine" is the work of a Students and their homework and not a medical organization.Timeholder (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. What do you mean "group"? I'm not sure what you're saying, but from Talk:Colloid cyst I think you want to edit the article. Are you working here as part of an assignment for student editors? Anyone can edit Wikipedia but please follow WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS if you edit the page. Thanks! Biosthmors (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody "owns" or controls any article. You don't need to ask for permission from an admin to improve that article. You just need to click here and make an improvement.

We (the other volunteers who want to improve medical articles) hope that you will use very high-quality sources, like medical school textbooks or literature reviews, to improve the article. We have some advice on how to write a good article and what to include in it. You may find that advice helpful.

Good luck, WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I just talked to this user in #wikipedia-en-help and I can answer some of your questions:

Timeholder is a survivor of the condition. The "group" refers to a group of 533 survivors of this condition. He (and the group) wants to edit the page, but apparently the edits have been reverted or they need to be approved (it's not under the "Pending Changes" pages, so the latter probably isn't true). He wants to rewrite the article from a 7 sentence stub to an article with more information, references, etc. Hope this helps, πr² (t • c) 06:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

He's probably referring to this: [45]. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

• The material was a copyright violation; which I have now removed. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

  I've tried to explain that copying from other websites and close paraphrasing is not allowed, but I hope that the user will not be discouraged by this. πr² (t • c) 17:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

There are a few MEDRS available to work from, but the article definitely needs some love.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:32, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Primary research

There is an attempt to force primary research into the article on cystic fibrosis. Comments appreciated Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Commented at article talk and user talk. Hopefully they discuss and refrain from reverting again. Biosthmors (talk) 00:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

(this case aside) There is a tendency to downplay the usefulness of primary sources. Many primary sources begin with a background section, which is like a mini-review of the topic. Personally, I feel it is not a problem to ref the background section of a primary source. As long as the original research parts of the sources are not referenced too much... lesion (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Those background sections tend not to be as neutral as a proper review article. They tend to be summaries of those parts of the background that support the research at hand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:48, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and for that reason they don't help support WP:WEIGHT much. Cystic fibrosis is a major genetic disease: there's no need to be using scraps for this topic. Colin°^Talk 08:32, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think this is not all the time, a good quality background will summarize all the available literature, including those previous findings that counter the coming arguments. Also, as per WP:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes a section covering contemporary research should be included. I think WP:undue weight is overused...primary research should be mentioned in a "research section". To include the contemporary research is just as important as the history section. Human understanding of any medical topic is just a model that tends towards reality, as our understanding is refined, the model is adapted. I would like to see editors think rather than just undoing edits of (usually inexperienced) newcomers. Instead of putting them off at the start, can the primary source be mentioned briefly in a research section? lesion (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If we included all primary research on a topic in a "Research section" that section would be thousands of kb long. This is an encyclopedia, not a repository for every single research study ever done. Important research and primary studies can obviously be included, if they are mentioned as important by secondary reviews. Yobol (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Basic contemporary research can be mentioned in an article but with appropriate weight, and for that you need secondary sources. Wikipedian's have a tendency to search PubMed or read the Daily Mail and try to include all sorts of weird, wonderful and often dead-end basic research as though it has huge clinical significance and confidently state cancer is already cured by eating, or avoiding, grapefruit or whatever. For example, in my own pet subject, PMID 22509165 (online here) provides an up-to-date summary of the state of research in the ketogenic diet beyond epilepsy. But in contrast, the background section of a paper researching in rats the ketogenic diet for Alzheimer's disease might only include supportive studies that agree with the researcher's proposed mechanism-of-action. And we need to be careful who the audience of these research papers is: not the general public, but other researchers and grant awarding bodies. So they will have a tendency to big-up the importance of their petri dishes. And while the intended audience know fine well this is just puffery, our Wikipedia readers may not. Colin°^Talk 15:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think this issue comes up frequently enough for us at WP:MED that I'll write an essay on it. As of now, I have the sentence "In 2012, two studies found a clinical benefit in taking aspirin to prevent recurrent VTE" in DVT#Research directions. I sympathize with lesion's point, but I feel like the burden of thinking/researching about the appropriateness of a primary source should be on the person who added it. We can help by having an essay to refer people to. Just saying "see WP:MEDRS" after (something I've done myself) may be perceived as too WP:BITEy. Biosthmors (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

TRIPdatabase.com is probably the best site to help people find secondary sources.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:09, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

So you are saying only to include mention of contemporary research if secondary sources mention it, and not cite the primary research...and also only to cite the most significant/promising contemporary research in the article rather than every study on the topic.

In the example given I would simply say simply "the role of a ketogenic diet in the etiology of Alzheimers has been investigated." ...nothing wrong with that right, no POV, just factual really. You can usually find review papers of topics like this. lesion (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes I have managed to write about 20 good articles and never used a primary source. Primary sources are only needed if you wish to push fringe views or breaking research neither of which IMO we should be doing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can find review articles, use those, not primary articles. Good review articles place the primary research in proper context to mainstream thought as well as how productive/useful that line of research is. Yobol (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@lesion, WP:MEDREV allows the careful use of primary sources if no secondary sources are available, and there is no blanket prohibition against them. I just think it takes some wise editorial judgement and a dedication to the article. If one is going to add primary sources, then one should also be ready to replace those references to secondary sources when they become available. Biosthmors (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I vaguely remember the last time someone said that, their suggested appropriate use of primary sources turned out to either have problems or was replaceable by secondary sources. There may be a good reason why no secondary sources mentioned the research: it turned out to be irrelevant or mistaken, and nobody wants to fill a review with all the non-notable dead ends. There is a tendency on Wikipedia to throw in everything to an article, when our readers would thank us for a bit more editorial control. Colin°^Talk 19:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

True, which is why I like WP:MEDREV. See my example above for DVT where I've cited a couple recent NEJM studies to support one sentence. I agree that editorial judgement is important, and I don't want to encourage people citing dead ends. But I also don't want to discourage them from improving the encyclopedia. Biosthmors (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the use of randomized controlled trials published in a high quality journal like NEJM in a research section would be a good example of what is a good example of appropriate use of a primary study; however, most of the time we get low quality retrospective observational studies/case studies/case reports/animal studies, published in low quality or non MEDLINE indexed journals that are used to rebut secondary sources. Good high quality primary studies that deserve to be mentioned are by far the exception, not the rule. Yobol (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

And that is if we are lucky. Much of the primary research stuff I see is from petre dishes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Something that actually "summarize[s] all the available literature" on cystic fibrosis is going to be book-length, or at least a long chapter in a book. Half a dozen paragraphs of summary in a primary source can't do that, no matter how hard the authors try.

I generally agree that we want to avoid citing the primary literature whenever possible. I am not convinced that articles are improved by a long series of statements like "<My pet idea> is being researched in this disease". And when you consider major diseases, like breast cancer, you would indeed get a very long list of such statements, even if you restricted the list only to those things that had already seen multiple papers published on it. The best approach is to find someone else who has already written about the state of research ("Whither ____?" articles are not usually that hard to find) and use their summaries instead of whatever happened to catch our eyes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To Tepi/lesion: "WP:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes" does not say that a section covering contemporary research should be included. It says "Include only if addressed by significant sources." This is not an endorsement for primary sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps that should be revised to say "Include only if addressed by significant secondary sources". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:42, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Agree as well... that's been my rule of thumb. First, no primary research. Second, no primary research. Third, if there must be primary research, it has to be referenced specifically by a secondary source, and only used in conjunction with and in the context of the use of that secondary source in the article. I think WP:MEDRS is probably overdue for an update. The way it is written isn't exactly how it is being applied/enforced by the WP:MED folks. WP:MEDRS should probably be updated to make its de facto "enforcement" official. Zad68 14:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes would support this change Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the term "primary research" is confusing. Note that WP:MEDRS is all about sources, not content. A discussion over what to cover in articles is more of a WP:MEDMOS thing, which already briefly discourages discussing individual studies in detail. In fact, one could write an essay on Wikipedia's over use of "A study .... found that ... However, another study .... found that..." non-encyclopaedic text. It comes from folk taking news and putting it into an encyclopaedia, or from too much reading PubMed abstracts and not enough reading reviews and books. There is a place to discuss studies in some articles: the history or the research sections are appropriate places. But we should try very hard not to discussing them in an indications section for example. Colin°^Talk 17:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't that contradict WP:MEDREV and discourage people from citing the two recent trials published in NEJM highlighted above in DVT? Biosthmors (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It is interesting that you have chosen to quote RCTs from the New England Journal of Medicine as evidence to support the use of primary sources. In my opinion, the NEJM is the highest quality medical journal. RCTs published in it are the best primary sources, often better than many secondary sources.

According to WP:MEDASSESS, we aren't supposed to consider the quality of a paper before using it as a reference; we can only consider the type of paper. For example, an RCT published in the NEJM has the same weight as an RCT published in Homeopathy: the journal of the Faculty of Homeopathy. (I have argued with WhatamIdoing about this matter before, regarding secondary sources.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The quality of the publication isn't mentioned as something that should be ignored: "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions." The reputation of the journal itself doesn't seem to fall into this list of exclusions. Things like sample size might, but the publication itself isn't really about the type of study, is it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you believe that the general quality/reputation of a journal is helpful when deciding its suitability as a source? Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry WAID, but "Do not reject a high-quality type of study due to personal objections to the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions" is just terribly confusing grammar. While I can parse past the triple negative, I shouldn't have to. When you then add "doesn't seem to fall into this list of exclusions" it just gets more confusing. How about "A high quality study in a reputable journal may be acceptable even if you have personal objections to its content, inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions" instead?LeadSongDog come howl! 23:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Peer Review Request

Peer review has been requested and reviews will be appreciated for the article Globalization. Meclee (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Does this relate to medicine? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe that the article is relevant to WikiProject Medicine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 00:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Just one section, Globalization#Health. LeadSongDog come howl! 00:46, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Logo for WikiProject Medicine at UCSF

Is this a community logo which we can use as a basis for remixing one of our own?

Has the topic of a WikiMedicine Logo been discussed? As part of the WikiProject Medicine at UCSF I'd love to include a logo that communicates Wikipedia and Medicine at one time. I imagine there are rules guiding modification of the Wikipedia logo, but I can't find any on here. Would it be ok for me to use something like this to advertise our upcoming events on the UCSF website? Michaelturken (talk) 21:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The globe and stylised text are copyright the Wikimedia Foundation, and I doubt you'll find it easy to gain permission to make derivatives in the way you want. An overview of the rules you're looking for can be found at http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Trademark_policy - have a read and see what you think. It may be still be worth approaching the Foundation to see what they suggest though. --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

As I am associated with Wikimedia Canada and am at UCSF partly as a representative from Wikimedia Canada I have authority to use the Wikipedia logo within limits. Agree we need to develop something. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have been talking with a designer for a while. If anyone else is designing a logo then I would like to be aware of it. I have no proposals just now. See here - the Wikimedia Foundation has asked that people do not use their logo. Their statement leaves me with a lot of questions, but what I would like to see is that chapters have their own base logo which is free for anyone to use and then individual chapters can make variations of that. To affect this there would need to be a lot more people in the conversation. Right now, there is no free logo for community use. I am not sure if the WMF really wants the community to fork off and brand something new, but definitely the community needs to be able to use some kind of logo. Also that link says not to use the term "Wikimedia". I am not sure what that means. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

All the chapters are "Wikimedia and then the country". I will speak to people at the WMF when I am there in January to clarify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies. 199.188.195.145 (talk) 03:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think combining http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rod_of_Asclepius2.svg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wikipedia_wordmark.svg so that the P of Wikipedia is incorporated into the image would work for this purpose. I'll see if I can get that done for us. Biosthmors (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure. I want clarification on the concept of logos for community use. I just posted about this in the same place, here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC

Talk:Scheuermann's disease

At Talk:Scheuermann's_disease#Wonderin_what_I_should_do.... a new user (and someone who has been diagnosed) was asking about optimal diagnosis/treatment. Biosthmors (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

First off, gently make sure he's aware of WP:Medical disclaimer. Second, point out that Scheuermann's disease is a only a wp:Stub-class article (well, maybe it should be Start-class) that won't be a lot of help to him. While he is of course welcome to work on improving the article as he learns more about the subject, consider cautioning him about possible NPOV and COI, and then watchlisting both the article and his talkpage. Pubmed shows 21 reviews on the subject in the past five years, it should be quite feasible to improve the article. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Global burden of disease and "Top" importance

I put Talk:Global burden of disease as a "Top" importance article, as it seems to be concept we implicitly use to judge whether or not articles are Top importance and the most empirical way (the study) used to estimate this. Public health is listed as Top importance. Shouldn't Global health be, to be consistent? Biosthmors (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I moved Global burden of disease to mid importance because this article is about one of the most important research projects in qualifying the global burden of disease, and not the concept of "global burden of disease" itself. That concept is in, as you suggest, Global health, and I did just change that project from high to top importance. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

They way I see it is that top importance articles should be of interest to most people in most walks of life. Ie do you know anyone with it. Research concepts should be mid to low.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Makes sense thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 17:09, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Med Incorporation

We are as of today officially incorporated in NY state. Our official name is "Wiki Med Foundation, Inc." Congratulations to all involved :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds great, thank you for your work! Biosthmors (talk) 17:19, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic! -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Excellent news! Congratulations & please keep us posted :-) Ildiko Santana (talk) 03:58, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Editors may wish to use Google Alerts to find notable external references for a Wikipedia article on this topic.

—Wavelength (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

additional eyes at Aspirin again

Hi,

I am hoping to get some additional eyes on my recent edits to this article, as I continue to work through the medical uses section. As I mention on the talk page, a bleary-eyed deletion of the entire "hypothesized uses" section might have been a bit too bold and not consistent with the consensus process, so I would appreciate additional comment there or reversion as necessary.

The article received GA status quite some time ago (under less strict MEDRS standards, from what I've gathered), and I'm wondering whether it should be reassessed (either now or once I've worked through the remainder of the medical uses section)? Any thoughts on whether this would be a good candidate for a FA?

-- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 17:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be good to have as an FA, but in its current state, would not be a good candidate for FAC. I see quite a few primary sources used; none should be needed for an article with this much literature. Sasata (talk) 18:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Not even a GA. Please feel free to cut poorly referenced content aggressively. I have fixed a number of WP:MEDMOS issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:47, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It is heavy handed to simply delete sections, instead look for suitable supporting secondary sources... lesion (talk) 18:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Some stuff just simply needs deleting per WP:DUE as many times there simply are not secondary sources. Would nominate it for GA review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:50, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Medical terms

A category renaming discussion is in progress at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 22#Category:Medical terms (version of 00:30, 23 December 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 00:39, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Five categories are being discussed. In all cases, the sole proposed change is from "terms" to "terminology". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Seasons greetings

Can this, I wonder, count as a reliable medical source? Happy Christmas anyway! —86.162.64.42 (talk) 01:48, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

No but their is no reliable source stating that cheese causes migraines. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:51, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine. Then pass the port. Cheers! —86.162.64.42 (talk) 02:02, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas Everyone! Christmas 2012: Research - Why Rudolph’s nose is red: observational study (BMJ 2012;345:e8311) Ildiko Santana (talk) 23:11, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Dissections

We have a user adding a number of very good dissections. Some are unhappy with the captions and do not like dissections and thus are removing them. Others thoughts [46] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see the dissection photos stay. A better caption is almost always needed, but I would personally happily add some to the pictures if this means that they will not be removed.JakobSteenberg (talk) 09:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey Jakob. The issue is that the team has limited English abilities and thus they need help on the caption side of thing. If you were willing to assist this would be excellent. They have uploaded many thousands of images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I will write some. But what would the smartest way? Should I write them in Commons and copy/paste them into the articles where the pictures are used? JakobSteenberg (talk) 13:05, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes that sounds good. Improve the captions on commons and than add these improvements to Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

medicine in popular culture?

Hi,

So in chatting with a couple other wikipedians the other day we came up with an idea that seems like it might be kind of neat -- put together lists of the medical terms used in medical TV shows (ER, Gray's Anatomy, House, Scrubs, et al) so that there are convenient links to the medical vocabulary for each episode. I notice that the page List of ER episodes has about 12k hits in the last month. This might be used as a potential point of entry for newer editors, though there are clear concerns about WP:N. Thoughts? -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

And as I check more current series, the list of grey's anatomy episodes has 300k hits in the last month. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 22:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

See User:West.andrew.g/Popular_pages for the list of most popular pages. The article for the United States television show Grey's Anatomy ranks between 200-300 by pageviews among Wikipedia's 4 million articles, putting it within the top 0.1% of Wikipedia articles by popularity. This television show is a medical drama which in every episode introduces medical conditions. Perhaps people watching the show are hearing the names of medical conditions and searching for them on Wikipedia. They are certainly searching for more information about the show.

WikiProject Grey's Anatomy is organized enough to have made List of Grey's Anatomy episodes a featured list and created many articles about the show. It might be a good idea to reach out to this group and encourage them to have Wikipedia articles on show episodes link to the Wikipedia articles describing the medical conditions the shows are depicting, if this is not already happening uniformly. Pop culture entertainment media could be a way to make more people aware that we welcome people at all levels of expertise to participate in the development of articles on medicine, and perhaps also members of this WikiProject should be aware of major pop culture depictions of medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:05, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as people do not appear and start adding unreferenced trivia to our medical articles... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi! I'm TRLIJC19, the coordinator of WikiProject Grey's Anatomy. I've developed 20 good articles, 2 featured articles, and 2 featured lists for the project, and when I mention a medical condition, I usually wikilink it unless it's something silly like a common cold. There are times, however, when I don't know how to describe a medical condition or what to link it to. Perhaps if a situation like this comes up, I could post on the talk page of WikiProject Medicine and get some help from a member of your project. As for meta:Wiki Med, I'm not really interested, but I know a few members of our project are heavily interested in medicine, so maybe one of them will see the post on the project talk page and chime in here. TRLIJC19 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your contributions! Feel free to post here if you need to know how to describe a medical condition or where to wikilink. Someone here should help! Biosthmors (talk) 04:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

would be good to include a few words on these pages to highlight any inaccuracies/controversies portrayed...e.g. when Dr House prescribes some cigarettes for a patient complaining of irritable bowel syndrome. I never really watched the other shows mentioned, so they might aim to be more realistic. lesion (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Another book extensively plagiarizing from Wikipedia

• This book [47] extensively plagiarizes from our article on asthma, they simply remove the references. The author is Erika M Szabo. Sold on Amazon here [48]. It was self published so I guess what ever.
• Part of our article on obesity has been published in the introduction of this research paper http://www.pjbs.org/pjnonline/fin2039.pdf
• Sweet and my first masters thesis http://opus.haw-hamburg.de/volltexte/2012/1615/pdf/lsab12_28.pdf I wonder if I should write them to request my certificate :-)
• And another journal article http://www.webmedcentral.com/article_view/513 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:43, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

my understanding of the copyright here is that attribution must be given. Outside of the legal arguments and instinctive reaction to someone plagiarizing your hard work, perhaps we could take this as indicator of the article quality? Also, you could look on this kind of thing as being the desired result of what is trying to be achieved, high quality information in the public domain for people to access and use as they wish. lesion (talk) 00:12, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

the Public domain is entirely different than the CC-BY-SA license wikipedia content carries, and i would caution against conflating the two. i also dont think that simply because someone is willing to plagiarize easily-accessible content this means that they are competent to evaluate the quality of the material thus plagiarized. -- UseTheCommandLine (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I do take this, partly, as recognition of just how good our content is. It is good enough to get a masters degree at Hamburg University of Applied Sciences in Public Health. If they gave us proper attribution there would be no concern. We do not ask much, just this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:16, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Vulva#Requested move

Opinions are needed on the topic of whether or not to split the Vulva article so that there is an article titled Human vulva to specifically cover the human vulva.

As the vulva can be subject to medical issues, some WP:MED editors also work on anatomy articles, and WP:ANATOMY is severely lacking in activity, I decided to post a note about this here (in addition to at WP:ANATOMY) for wider views. Flyer22 (talk) 04:18, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Have commented and brought this discussion here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Other_animals Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:54, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Birth control

We have an editor removing well sourced text here [49]. Comments appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:19, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The relevant text of the article currently reads, "The Roman Catholic Church officially only accepts natural family planning in certain cases, although large numbers of Catholics in developed countries accept and use modern methods of birth control" and there hasn't been editing there in two days. Does that seem satisfactory? Zad68 15:01, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes more or less satisfied. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:13, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, just wanted to see if there was still a need before going through the effort of starting a RSN or RFC. Zad68 15:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Two articles, same thing

Why do we have case study (which says it's also case report) as well as case report? Sumbuddy missed something; who can fix it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The case study case report article is (almost) purely medical. This is quite a focused article and I'd favour keeping it that way - perhaps it would benefit from a new title such as case study in medicine clinical case report? There's already such an article for psychology (case study in psychology). The case study article, although broader in scope, is mostly about its use in social sciences. Perhaps it should be similarly retitled (case study in the social sciences)? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

The (social sciences) case study article has little or nothing to do with a clinical case report. "Case report" is the common name for the clinical variety and is good as it stands. Could the current Case study page perhaps be restricted to the social sciences (titled something like Case study (social sciences)?. IMO, Case study is not WP:MED material: I've commented on the article talk page, Talk:Case_study#Scope.3F. —81.151.194.238 (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I've posted an alert about this discussion at WT:WikiProject Sociology. —81.151.194.238 (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Personbally, I don't see a need to retitle the Case report page. On the other hand, I feel the WP:MED template could well be removed from Talk:Case study. The present thread makes me note that the Case series page needs expansion (for instance, there currently seems to be no mention of the case-only [50] study design anywhere on Wikipedia [51]). —81.151.194.238 (talk) 13:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)