Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 44

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Ian Furst in topic Anesthesia
Archive 40←Archive 42Archive 43Archive 44Archive 45Archive 46→Archive 50

Medical cannabis

Latest comment: 10 years ago85 comments14 people in discussion

I've begun cleaning up primary sources, but the task there is larger than one editor can complete. Any help? I know there are reviews on some uses ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This is a good example of the problems I mention above ... there is no way I can get to everything in this article myself, it is citing primary sources galore, and because it looked well cited, people might take medical advice from it. Help!!! Or add a disclaimer. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I can imagine this will be tricky (not having looked at it yet), and a good example of why elevating at least some of MEDRS to policy would be useful. WP:DISCLAIM would be cited against disclaimers. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 02:21, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
We allow {{current}} and {{recent death}}; would ya think medical misinfo is at least as important? Anyway, on Medical cannabis, I can strip the primary sources, but since I don't have full journal access, it's harder for me to re-add reviews. I Would Love Some Help in there-- it's massive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Oh sure, personally I think the quality of medical content on WP is a big (maybe one of its biggest) problems; I'm just anticipating the arguments you'll run into in what is likely to be a controversial editing area ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 02:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

So, as SandyGeorgia has posted on my Talk page, further digging shows we have:

These, in their health information, constitute a gigantic festival of POV, built on poor medical sources and selective, spurious interpretations. Anybody getting their information from WP on this would think cannabis is not only harmless, but a wonder cure for many things from bipolar disorder to cancer. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes there are occasionally attempts to add this sort of content to other articles. And I try my best to keep it well sourced. Agree that there appears to be a number of editors very favorable to its use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
What are they smoking? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Charming. I do not see a neutral point of view towards the article subject matter in some of the comments here, and that is unfortunate. At this point, 52% of Americans support medical cannabis, so to find editors who appear to also is hardly noteworthy. I question Alexbrn's ability to be neutral and, lacking NPOV, to use PUBMED appropriately. Sandy helped me to understand MEDRS and the use of PUBMED only last night. Yet with only one day of experience, I was able to find a wealth of information that conflicted with Alexbrn's take. I see from comments above what appears to be a lack of understanding or education about the topic, and a clear POV. This isn't going to help. I hope someone will review Alexbrn's edits to the cannabis articles, as well as research to see what was missed, or twisted. It took a good 45 minutes just to deal with this one (MS) section. I want help reviewing these edits, or please stop changing the articles and instead just tag them so as to not make things worse. petrarchan47tc 04:34, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm glad you know what my clear POV is on this topic, because I certainly don't! If you can improve the article over what I've done that is great (and you seem to have found better sources for the MS stuff than I did, which is likewise great) - but that doesn't somehow validate prior poor sourcing or misrepresentation, of which there is a lot in this suite of articles. I'm not sure why you seem to bear some kind of grudge here; in the face of the serious and extensive problems these articles present it isn't helpful: editing resources need to be going into improving the content, not bickering. If you find something specifically wrong raise it in Talk or fix it, but please don't try and make this a venue for a continuation of an argument about Monsanto from several months ago. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:35, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
(Add:) Actually, though initially blithely accepting Petrarchan47's replacement content as better than mine, on closer inspection I'm not quite sure that the sourcing is the best:
  • this has a principal author who is chairman of the German Association for Cannabinoid Medicines, and a co-author who serves on a working group of the International Association of Cannabinoid Medicine; follow-up correspondence has raised an eyebrow.
  • this seems to be a rather polemical opinion piece by three gentlemen who are not best-credentialed (two Jesuits and a lawyer, it seems). And - is this not a pay-to-publish journal?
  • this I can't say anything about since I cannot locate a full-text online and it seems it's in Spanish (which I don't speak). I am assuming Petrarchan47 has reviewed the full text.
So yes, further thoughts on this sourcing would be useful. It seems (in general, at least) Europe and US may have slightly diverging views. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:53, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Petra, are you saying that a scientific, evidence-based approach to editing medical articles is "POV"? If so, perhaps you would take that discussion to the talk page of WP:MEDRS. I've responded to similar personalization of this issue on my talk page; I hope we will see no more of this. We can discuss which are the highest quality, and most recent reviews, without resorting to personalization. There are problems in Muller-Vahl's work, and a built-in bias. We all want accurate medical information presented to our readers: like Alexbrn, if you detect a POV in my editing, I'd like to know what it is, other than the POV that says we follow MEDRS. Also, I do speak fluent Spanish, and I have subscribed to that Revista, and no, Petra did not fully represent that source, so I'm not sure whether s/he speaks Spanish or accessed the full text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

To the above list we can add:

Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

This is akin to the POV walled garden of articles found in the autism suite back in 2007; it took Eubulides about a year to clean it up. We've got duplicate, poorly sourced text all over the place, and it is of the worst kind-- that is, the kind that people might mistakenly use for (bad) medical advice, because it looks well sourced. We could use some attention on this entire suite of articles. Too much for one or two editors to deal with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
No. I've come across some usable secondary material on this, but there won't be enough for a standalone article IMO. Looking at the cannabis "suite" as a whole, I'm beginning to think there is enough for two articles, "Cannabis" (history, botany, sociology, cultural, etc.) and "Cannabis and health" (or somesuch) about medical uses and consequences. But how to get from here to there? My first impulse is to remove some of the worst primary-based material across all the articles, and see what that leaves ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Bingo (Lesion). Dealing with the POV walled garden will be more expedient if the text is rationalized, duplication minimized. It's the same primary-sourced crap repeated across multiple articles. I will be busy for a few days, Alexbrn is hard at work on it, hope someone can help. There are secondary reviews available, but I don't have full journal access (only Cochrane). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I have now nuked the cannabis in pregnancy article, leaving two sentences. There were two reasonable sources, one of which was being misrepresented (now fixed). The remaining stub should probably be merged somewhere in the long run and expanded with material based on good sources (for those interested, I have preserved the removed article content on the article's Talk page). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I added a merge proposal. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

And this hot-off-the-press article looks like it might be very pertinent. Unfortunately, Springer journals are about the one thing I don't have access to :-( Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

That would be:
  • Gordon AJ, Conley JW, Gordon JM (2013). "Medical consequences of marijuana use: a review of current literature". Curr Psychiatry Rep. 15 (12): 419. doi:10.1007/s11920-013-0419-7. PMID 24234874. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link).
I will try to get hold of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
In response to Alexbrn, one thing that I think a lot of wikiprojects and subjects would greatly benefit from would be some sort of "prospectus" of topics which are demonstrably significant enough for inclusion here, and sources which could be used to gather preliminary material. Basically, I'm thinking of pages like those in Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, and some others which I am still developing along those lines. At least one such list, from the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, I'm still a day or two of active review of the sources themselves to adding here, because of the markedly different content and outline structures of the two editions. But if someone wanted to review reference works on cannibis or any other medical topic to see what gets more and less attention, or none at all, in them, that would probably help in developing the comprehensive nature of the content here on those topics a lot. John Carter (talk) 20:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Summarized anew below
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The garden grows

and {{Cannabis}}.

All with medical content that relies on primary sources, all containing original research and synth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:42, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Might want to add:
Similar problems in evidence. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:59, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
And
Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 21:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
This article as well seems to be pretty high up on the list of WP:Cannabis. MEDRS should really be applied here, I would start but I need to get to bed.
CFCF (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Now there is also this
I'll take a quick look, but considering what we've found Medical cannabis in the United States might need to be scrapped entirely. CFCF (talk) 10:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
  • It's because I was uneasy with the heavy implication of medical effectiveness by accumulation of anecdote, without at least some properly-sourced medical context. This is an area I think where WP:FRINGE comes into play: articles shouldn't be devoting a lot of space to uncontextualized claims that (e.g.) cannabis has halted somebody's tumour progression. Searching around, I haven't (yet) found any high-quality medical material on this (there is http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J175v02n01_02 - but this seems a bit iffy ... but might be useful for helping with the BLP aspects). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:46, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Language issue

I'm beginning to think I speak Chinese. Or don't read English. Some eyes at Talk:Medical cannabis might help move things forward. I'm frequently unable to understand why the massive walls of text in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Where does work stand?

One HECK of a lot of progress has been made here in a few weeks on the POV primary-sourced walled garden at {{Cannabis}}, so maybe other editors would be less fearful to wade in now ... summary:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work here, Sandy; it is appreciated. As I'll have some free time to edit in the next few days (no diving this weekend), would you be able to suggest one or two of the above articles as a priority that I could try to help on? --RexxS (talk) 21:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, RexxS! I've got to do some Christmas prep now, so I'd be most appreciative if you could continue the rebuilding and citing of Cannabis dependence (to really finish it, we need someone with a copy of DSM5; I found a treatment article that is freely available, but haven't yet incorporated all of it, and there's lots uncited where I removed old primary sources). Others that might need attention next are Effects of cannabis and Long-term effects of cannabis. I think most of the primary sources have been removed, but those articles haven't yet been rebuilt, in particular, ummmm ... none of the "negatives" have been included yet, because the NPOV work needed has been rough there. Gateway drug theory will probably be a chore-- I haven't even looked. Happy Holidays to all! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Gateway drug theory is clean but could be expanded-- free full-text reviews found. Revisiting, RexxS, the biggest mess still is at Long-term effects of cannabis-- the hard work there hasn't even been started. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I just looked at Cannabis and memory, another primary-sourced original research mess. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Recruiting

At ANI, mention of an Australian group that has been a no-show: [1]

And mentioned among other places, "...I have a biochemist friend who studies cannabinoids, and who has agreed to join us in working on these articles ... " and "I am also calling in some scientists/researchers in the field, and as your team also has a doctor, I don't see how this could be viewed as a problem, or as anything but a great benefit to our readers."

  • And on MastCell's talk [2]
  • And on Petrarchan47's talk [3]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

The biochemist is Shuunya, and he has agreed to help me with cannabinoid research. One other person agreed to help with research at some point. petrarchan47tc 04:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Cannabis and schizophrenia

In an attempt to demonstrate that I do, in fact, understand MEDRS, even after I have showed a lack of understanding over and over and over, I have put together an article regarding the potential link between cannabis use and schizophrenia. It is currently in my userspace here, and I would like it if highly-experienced editors *cough* SandyGeorgia *cough* could look at it before I send it to AFC and tell me how I can improve it. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 03:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Jinkinson, I have most certainly seen you demonstrating growing knowledge in how to use sources and secondary reviews, and at a quick glance, it looks like you did so in sandbox. But, I don't believe we need a stand-alone article in that realm, and if you create one, several you-know-whos are likely to come down on your head. Do you really want to create another content fork in a contentious area? We only need summarize the most recent reviews in the main articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

And now to FA Schizophrenia

With no MEDRs sources: [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

We have brought a heap of MEDRS sources, and have essentially concluded that the science shows no causal link, from what I can tell. However, the article has not been updated. petrarchan47tc 04:10, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Some possible coatracking

At Brownie Mary - a GA; "medical" material snuck in to the "Legacy" section. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Nabilone

Also has some problems. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Charlotte's Web (cannabis)

A strain developed for medical use, full of medical claims related to epilepsy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As the creator of that article I can assure you that this has always been on my mind. I'm fully aware of WP:MEDRS and seek to follow it. If you will look at the talk page, you'll see this: "To comply with WP:MEDRS, no direct medical claims are made, only documentation that such claims are made." If I have inadvertently crossed the line somewhere, please point it out and I'll more than gladly fix it!
There is one piece of research on this strain, and it is definitely not MEDRS compliant. I was very reluctant to include it at all, and have only done it with a reference, and a hidden editorial note about its status. I included the ref strictly as documentation of terminology, NOT to back up any claims. I believe that is a justifiable way to use it. It is currently ref 9. Here is the actual text visible to editors:
  • <ref name=Gedde_Maa>{{Citation |last=Gedde |first=Margaret |year=6 Dec. 2013 |title=Whole Cannabis Extract of High Concentration Cannabidiol May Calm Seizures in Highly Refractory Pediatric Epilepsies: CW Oil Retrospective Survey Abstract - American Epileptic Society 67th Annual Meeting, Dec. 6-10, 2013 |publisher= |publication-place= |page= |url=https://docs.com/YJM3 |accessdate=2014-01-01 }}<!--NOTE: As a small primary study, this does not pass our MEDRS requirements for making any medical claims. It is only used here to document terminology. --></ref>
I have also included the doubts and reservations of physicians, making it clear that more research is needed, and that not all agree.
As you can see, I've tried to be very careful. Any guidance would be welcomed. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
I see undue emphasis on the CNN documentary and one case; see the old discussion from Colin at the ENI incident. Your version is much better put together (doh :) but similar issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay. I don't have time right now, but I'll look at it in a few hours and get back to you. Fortunately this isn't a BLP issue, so no harm done. Thanks for bringing this up. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Back again. I wasn't aware of that ENI thing, and didn't know this subject had ever been mentioned anywhere at Wikipedia. In fact I was rather surprised no one had written an article yet. Well, let's continue at the article's talk page. Sandy, I look forward to working with you again. We worked on the Andrew Wakefield article and you really put a lot of good work into it. I welcome your input and suggestions. I'm going to hat this so we don't end up with two different discussions. It can be reopened if necessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
To make this easier, I'm going to copy this whole thread there, and we'll just pick up where we left off here. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As much as I respect the work we did together at Andrew Wakefield on the MMR vaccine controversy, no, I'm not comfortable hatting this serious issue-- actually, the most serious yet that I've encountered in the cannabis suite. Yes, there are significant medical statements in this article, which reads almost as an advert or coatrack, promoting cannabis as an epilepsy cure based on a TV show, in the guise of being about one strain, while neglecting all secondary medical reviews on the topic. I recognize you set out to write an individual interest story, but a) that gives undue attention to one case about which we have no reliable medical sources, and b) the scope of the article is determined by Wikipedia policies and guidelines rather than a personal interest story one editor might want to write. Since this article is about a cannabis strain, yet goes into a lengthy description of one case documented on television of a child whose family claims her epilepsy was cured by cannabis, what we have here-- sadly, for me to say-- is something as bad as the media role in the MMR vaccine controversy, and borderline coatracky. Let's get it fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

From this, to this; other opinions would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
I have not looked at the history of the article, but in its current state, it makes few medical claims. Overall, it looks like a reasonable article, balanced and supported by references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Axl I'm relieved to hear that, since I just went through and fixed the issues I noted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
On the whole some good work. I might quibble over some minor details, but that's all. I'll comment about anything else. It's good to tighten up an article. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
BullRangifer, I'm off for the day, but hope you're able to be comfortable with the kinds of adjustments I made, particularly more attribution of claims, and less quoting of people of dubious knowledge ... all yours now for fixing my fixing. By the way, some of the cannabis editors have a tendency to go off the charts when folks refer to "marijuana" rather than "cannabis", so you might be prepared for that, and consider which word you want to use. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I like the attribution. "When in doubt, attribute", is a motto I've had here for a long time. I know there's a discussion about moving articles (retitling them), and there have been some very strong feelings, many times not based on any policy. For some reason it really gets people worked up. I have my own ideas about that, but I haven't really thought about that in the preparation of this article.
I can think of one term right now: "medical marijuana", which unfortunately redirects to "medical cannabis"...., is the most common term, including on the official Medical marijuana cards (correct term) people get, and in the law. There might be some exceptions, but they are the exception that proves the rule. Our article on Medical cannabis in the United States contains massive OR by using "cannabis" when it should use "marijuana" much of the time. (Cannabis is the genus name for the marijuana plant, so they are synonyms. One is the scientific name, and the other the most commonly used name for the plant (and the drug, when in the form of dried plant parts).) If you can think of other terminology issues, please mention them. If we can change any to avoid controversy, without violating any policies, we should probably do it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Discussion about cannabis v. marijuana was had, and is being reviewed here; for now, it looks like cannabis has consensus, and I don't see your voice in that discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I just don't have time to spread myself that thin, even though I do have opinions on the matter. I'd prefer to see cannabis (with marijuana redirecting to it, because it's a synonym) as the basic article about the plant itself. It would have two fork articles, one for drug use and one for non-drug use.
1. Marijuana (drug) as a fork of the cannabis article, it being the main "drug use" of the cannabis plant, because "marijuana" is the most commonly used name for the drug (when used as dried plant parts), with various preparations having their own subarticles (hash, hash oil, etc.).
2. Hemp as another fork of the cannabis article, because it is a "non-drug use" of the cannabis plant, with various hemp products having their own subarticles (within reason).
So basically we'd have a tree with two main branches, and they would each have a few smaller branches.
The articles I see the greatest problems with are the ones related to medical marijuana, as I mention above. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:06, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

CNN and NPR

The issue of Charlotte's Web (cannabis) was the topic on National Public Radio this morning, and there was a CNN report yesterday on a three-year-old child whose mother was investigated for refusing chemotherapy for her child's cancer after moving to Colorado to use the marijuana extract. I've removed a number of lesser quality sources from this article, and some claims that were dubiously sourced, and added this new information. I would appreciate more eyes to review the article agaiin, and to check this work, and to watch the article because of the recent high profile publicity. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Overall the medical claims in the article are carefully qualified, but I can't help but feel uneasy about the testimonial power of one or two phrases such as "Her parents and physicians said the results of her first dose were astounding" (my italics) - my general preference is not to include such "testimonial" statements in medical articles unless there is some secondary RS commentary on them specifically, because they are so heavy with implication (which is why many altmed promotions are purely based on testimonials). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed the "astounding" wording (sensationalist); each time I look at the article, I find something. Which is why more eyes would help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
"When in doubt, attribute" is a motto I have followed here for many years. We always have to tread a fine line, and for quackbusters and opposers of so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM) (like all three of us here), it's an uncomfortable one, but our job as wikipedians requires that we document the sum total of human knowledge, as revealed in RS. That means that NPOV requires that opposing POV must be included in articles, and even nonsense is stated plainly.
We must keep in mind the difference between documenting that claims have been made (even if false), and actually making the claims in Wikipedia's voice. All our alternative medicine and fringe articles must do this. It's called NPOV.
An article about this subject, or any other notable topic which includes possibly dubious POV and behavior, must document what that POV is, and what that behavior is. That's where we have to (sometimes are required to, and policy specifically allows it) use primary sources from the perpetrators. We then need to frame, qualify, and attribute it appropriately, without violating OR, SYNTH, and NPOV, but going so far as to fail to paint the picture found in RS by not including it at all is censorship and violates NPOV, and that's very unwikipedian. So, while I share your concerns, we need to be careful not to go too far and allow our "quackbuster hat" to dominate over our "wikipedian hat". -- Brangifer (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
If (not sure) you are arguing that we have to retain words like "astounding" from biased observers, I'm arguing that "astounding" can be left out as sensationalist, tabloidish, and unencyclopedic. Particularly as related to unreviewed medical claims. I hope we're moving closer to a move neutral and objective piece than the first version which said in Wikipedia's voice that Charlotte Figi "experienced an immediate and remarkable reduction of her epileptic seizures after her first dose of medical marijuana", and included numerous claims about the marijuana extract that came from the manufacturers only. Wikipedia is not a publicity agent, and again, when medical claims are made (they were and are), they should be based on quality secondary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
No, words like "astounding" wouldn't necessarily have to be kept, but that something out of the ordinary has been claimed by many, and confirmed by physicians, that's what the RS say, and that meaning should be conveyed, IOW that "they said it". Yes, the sources do make medical claims, and therefore attribution should be used, and proper framing also, to make sure readers are clear that these are medically unconfirmed claims. For example, we do this in articles about homeopathy (many claims are made), chiropractic (also many claims), Hulda Clark (she claimed to cure "all diseases"). We document that those claims have been made, but we also document the reactions of the medical and scientific community to those claims, per NPOV and MEDRS. Per FRINGE we make sure that the mainstream rebuttals have the most weight. Is that any clearer? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
TBH, this is an editing area where I feel uncertain - and I have certainly been guilty in the past of writing "skeptical" articles which are full of criticism, yet neglect to spell out what the-thing-being-criticized is. It's tricky - and at the moment I'm inclined to quite a hard-line approach. So if some person makes an amateur statement about something biomedical ("I took the pills and my tumours shrank") my general reaction is "so what?". If that biomedical claim (for that is what it is) has not been subjected to expert review then why should Wikipedia include it. Even if the claim becomes popular news it is still, in essence, a biomedical claim being carried by sources which are not RS for the knowledge it purports to convey. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 16:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
That's where you are coming into conflict with our notability criteria. Lots of notable lies, nonsense, dubious ideas, weird theories, and conspiracy theories MUST be included here. We are obligated by the mission of Wikipedia to do that. If the claim is so small and remote as to never be mentioned in any mainstream scientific source, and yet it has attained a degree of notability in fringe sources, then we are allowed to go to skeptical sources (which come from the mainstream medical POV) and use them to rebut the claims. IIRC, if even they never touch the subject, then the subject hasn't risen to the degree of notability for inclusion at all.
I don't recall if Hulda Clark's claims were ever discussed in any mainstream medical sources, but they were certainly notable, and we also had plenty of skeptical sources which criticized her claims, and we used them. In these cases, Wikipedia serves a great purpose as a warning to the public about nonsense. We don't censor it. We actually have articles about it, and in those articles we present the best evidence against the nonsense. Scientific skeptics and quackbusters who oppose the inclusion of such subjects here are not doing their job as wikipedians, and also as skeptics, who should welcome the opportunity to debunk this nonsense.
I share the attitude of one of our distinguished administrators, User:DGG:
  • "[I have a] "distaste for quack anything: medicine, science, psychology, social science ... I often vote to keep articles on these subjects, because the advocates of orthodoxy here sometimes seem to be even less reasonable than the quacks--and because I think the best way to expose quacks is to let them state their views plainly." Source
When dealing with subjects like medical marijuana, there is no doubt that some of the claims are highly exaggerated, irresponsible, quackery, and pseudoscientific. Yet there seem to be some areas which would fall into what Stephen Barrett would likely classify as unproven/experimental. (He has a spectrum which runs all the way from deliberate fraud, to quackery, to unproven, to experimental, to nonsensical, to disproven, and to pseudoscientific. See here. Obviously some of these can be combined and overlap, but some can transition from one group to another if research and experience dictate.) I see some aspects of certain medical marijuana products tending in that direction, where scientists and the law are opening up for previously forbidden research. It's about time!
We must maintain contact with reality by keeping in mind that before properly done RCTs conclusively prove that something really works, it is already working, and the proof does not make it "work" any more or less. It only documents what some have been claiming all along:
  • "Absence of proof is not the same as the absence of fact; it simply demonstrates the lack of adequate research." - Robert Sydenham. "Lack of evidence in the literature is not evidence of lack of effectiveness."
  • "Evidence-based methods are effective, and effective methods should be evidence-based. If a method appears to be effective, then it should be possible to prove it. If the research has not been done yet, it should be." - BullRangifer  
Brangifer (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, as I said I think it's a tricky area. We don't include details of the (well-documented) "cures" that have been claimed for the Burzynski Clinic, and we don't include details of any of the huge number of testimonials for Christian Science healing. I don't think Charlotte's web is in the same category (it's more of a "we don't know" case).

I am inclined to think that the "information" that Wikipedia conveys must be reliably sourced, and am wary of the tactic I see in some articles whereby adding a trivial level of indirection is claimed to launder that information, making it policy-safe: the POV-pusher will change "Wongo juice cures cancer" to "Dr X says Wongo juice cure cancer, as reported in Smalltown News" or "Historically, tribal peoples used Wongo juice to cure cancer". As policy has it: "It is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge" (my bolding). So I think this whole question actually revolves around quite subtle questions of meaning, reception, and the rhetoric of Wikipedia. People don't read like computers - if I write an article that makes a claim, even if it is carefully attributed as opinion, it can have the effect of conveying information. As I said above, this is why altmed is often promoted by testimonials: many readers will not read them and think "that's just unevidenced claims", because many readers don't have the same framework of thinking about evidence-based medicine as us editors here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I also worry about the "Dr X says Wongo juice cure cancer" workaround. I'd prefer (when sourceable) to say something far less encouraging: "Dr X is hopeful that Wongo juice may treat cancer, but no credible research has been completed, so its effectiveness is unknown".
My normal approach is to check for the presence of true (analytical/transformative) secondary sources. Most news stories are WP:PRIMARYNEWS (although independent, so clearly better than a marketing department). Extraordinary claims need extraordinary sources, and a quotation from one person in a primary source is not even close to extraordinary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Based on Alexbrn's and WAID's feedback, I've taken another look at the article. I don't believe we are currently in dangerous territory in terms of "Dr X says Wongo juice cures cancer" (I've replaced most of that with more balanced statements from reputable organizations), but we are in fact in a worse position. We are saying "Politican Y, just before elections, repeats unsubstantiated biomedical claims from the manufacturer's website", and then it gets even worse. Continued on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Chikungunya

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Further comments are requested here [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

AIDS denialist active

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

31.185.137.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I love that he tried to defend those changes as "correcting negative bias". If only bias could be fixed by throwing more contradictory bias towards it... Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  09:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Adrian if you run across that sort of thing again, ping me and I can at least block the IP or semi-protect the articles as necessary. Zad68 03:04, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Zach. One seems to pop up every few months or so. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hypothermia

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please check recent edits. I wrote most of them and I tried to use good sources. Still sources contradict each other, see Medically qualified people please check this article. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not a good soure [6]. We do not typically use the term "victim". The refs are not formatted properly. We rarely use quotes. We typically try to use higher quality sources per WP:MEDRS. Will look it over. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:12, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Some of it also appears to be duplication of text already present. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Dietary supplements

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Wikipedia's articles on dietary supplements contain a fair amount of health content, and some of it is problematic. I've added {{medref}} templates to the following incomplete set of problem articles:

  • Choline ("may prevent heart disease")
  • Ephedrine ("promotes weight loss")
  • Guarana ("of interest for its potential effects on cognition")
  • Inosine ("for administration after stroke")
  • Phosphatidylserine ("promotes a desirable hormonal balance for athletes")
  • Pygeum ("used to alleviate some of the discomfort caused by ... benign prostatic hyperplasia")
  • Synephrine ("1 - 3% solutions of the drug to the nasal mucosa of patients with sinusitis did produce a beneficial constriction") - sourced to a 1931 paper
  • Vinpocetine ("widely used in the body building community as a vasodilator")

Since this is big business, there is the suspicion about how some of the "bigged up" claims got here; and these are popular articles—Ephedrine for example is comfortably getting > 1000 views/day. (Collectors of Wikipedia's bad health information take note.)

Some of these articles are not categorized as falling under WP:MED - should they be? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes should be WPMED. Feel free to aggressively correct. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't have time to look up sources, but it shouldn't be hard to document that ephedrine promotes weight loss -- it's a rather potent stimulant. The other statements are more dubious -- although the one about guarana is worded in such a weasely way that it is clearly true as stated. Looie496 (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Lol diff

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This is the funniest edit I've seen in a while: [7]

Who needs medical info? Just book an appointment with us. Do it now. Lesion (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like they might be advertising on the wrong wikipedia... Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

More eyes please

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do not resuscitate and Futile medical care could probably use some more eyes given recent additions. Yobol (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I am watching. Warned who seems to be the main culprit. Basalisk inspect damage⁄berate 19:45, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nominated for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-SSRI sexual dysfunction. Please comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Formerly 98 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Tinnitus

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could use more eyes. User promoting benzos beyond the conclusions of a 2013 Lancet review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Adult Diagnosed Dyslexia

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Dear medical experts: Here's another one of those abandoned Afc drafts. Is this worth fixing up? It seems to have some references. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like mostly an essay, and possibly promotional (one book). I don't see any good reason the topic needs an article separate from the general dyslexia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks; I'll let it go. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
My own practice on such articles is that unless there's another problem, to accept them and mark them for merging. (The usual criterion for accepting articles at AfC is not that it be a good article, or even a "necessary" article, but that it has a reasonable chance of passing AfD.) But in this case the essay-like contents is such that it almost certainly is not an essay written for WP, but a copypaste from somewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Pending revisions on Marfan syndrome

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Would someone who understands the pending revisions thing please approve this edit. I was told that there should be somewhere a button to click to accept/approve the edit but for the life of me I can't find it =(

Is this because I don't have "reviewer rights" or something? Lesion (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Done and you are now a reviewer :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:19, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. That must have been the issue. Next time a pending revision comes along I will see if there is an accept/approve button. Lesion (talk) 23:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Requesting a FAC review on a mid-importance WP:MED article

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Since I'd prefer to avoid a potential wait of 6–9 weeks for my FA-nom to close, I'd really appreciate it if a few people from WP:MED would provide their input on the amphetamine FAC page. Any/all constructive feedback or criticism is welcome!
(Cross-posted on WT:PHARM) Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This FA nom hasn't received any feedback for over a week. I'd really appreciate some input from anyone at this point. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
These things move slow. Number of edits and editors are down over the holidays. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
I am currently peer reviewing an article and FAC reviewing another. I shall try to get to "Amphetamine" after that. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! I look forward to reading your feedback. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much longer this nomination will be open, but if anyone else is interested in providing feedback/taking a position on the amphetamine FAC, more input is always appreciated.   Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like I'll be reposting this thread in two weeks... Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:18, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Cold-fX - Expert review requested

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Major changes have been made to this article by a single user. It could probably use a review with an eye for neutrality and WP:MEDRS. Thank you. 108.16.32.78 (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Will likely need further eyes when the previous contributors do not like the conclusions of the only two reviews on the topic (especially the better of the two). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

The IP has returned and has removed all the secondary sources here [9]. Comments? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Does this project have a watchlist?

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Is there a watchlist where interested editors can see changes made to articles that have been tagged by this project? If so, where is the link to it? Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. The project currently has 31,000 articles tagged. It would be impractical for a single editor to try to monitor all those articles. The project page has a table near the top right with links to view recent changes. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, here. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 15:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Alexbrn and Axl are correct in sharing what exists, but a watchlist could be more interactive and it could give additional data like pageview statistics if the tools were more developed. I have explored a bit at the WP:WikiProject Council about options for making a watchlist for wikiprojects. Right now there are no good solutions for this, although some bots do manage certain features. In the future, I hope that wikiproject participants and developers work together to make public watchlist tools. If you want to talk more about what has been tried and what is in place then I could talk with you about this. In my opinion the lack of public watchlist infrastructure is a major barrier to getting more community participation. Something that I would really like is for anyone to be able to set up public watchlists with little effort, for example, classes in the education program or small nonprofit organizations which want to organize volunteers to improve 10-20 articles over a period of time. I presume that Wikidata structure will eventually address this problem. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry while we are on this topic, as I do not know how to go about navigating the Wiki-heirachy, something I feel would be extremely useful for Wikipedia as a whole would be to have a standard set of tools provided by the WMF or a similar body made available to wikiprojects. That would include a popular pages count, cleanup count, and this watchlist. Having a supported set of tools would not only enhance the productivity of Wikipedians and decreased wasted time but mean that we are not all subject to having a bus factor of one (which is something that we saw when the Mizabot went down).--LT910001 (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
LT910001 There is no set plan for navigating the hierarchy, but you may know that Wikipedia has grown and become better funded in the past few years and perhaps if we developed a request and found someone to execute it then funding would be available to hire developer time and maybe even get WMF oversight to manage it. What you describe is what I want also and what I was hoping existed, but it does not. Message me sometime and we can talk a bit on phone or Skype. I set something up at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/WikiProject management suite and after some time, I will better develop this with links to the tools which already exist. If you have ideas jump in. The biggest problem with this is going to be communication. I feel like if the community could explicitly describe what it wanted then the WMF would seriously consider requests. Most of their current development is for new users, and I think they would welcome a community proposal for development of tools to support Wikipedians committed enough to participate in WikiProjects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Have written what must be my longest single talk-page entry describing the process to give some insight into the problems faced and issues that could be resolved here: meta:Grants talk:IdeaLab/WikiProject management suite. --LT910001 (talk) 13:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't know of such a comprehensive list for all possible changes beyond the page Alexbrn noted, but there is a combined watchlist for deletions, XfD, good article nominees, etc., at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts. --Mark viking (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, this template: Template:WPMED_related_changes. Is this what you are looking for? A recent changes list of all articles, in addition to articles sorted by importance, are provided. This list is also found at the top of this page. --LT910001 (talk) 04:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this a primary source?

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Can't access full text. Suspect it is primary. Many thanks, Lesion (talk) 14:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

PubMed entry is PMID 6933857, looking... it's from 1980, are you suggesting using it for historical purposes? Zad68 14:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • (ec) No, it's secondary. Not an in-depth review, but more a commentary-like piece (but I only glanced rapidly). If you like, send me an email and I'll email you the PDF. --Randykitty (talk) 14:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Agree after looking at the abstract it's not primary research but it looks like it's arguing a new theory or something. Would be interested in what it's being proposed to support. Zad68 14:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh it's secondary? Thank you for checking for me. Didn't spot the date... it was already used in the article mouth breathing before I "descended upon it". MEDDATE says it needs to go in that case. It is being used to support content about abnormal dentofacial growth (long face syndrome/adenoid facies +malocclusion) secondary to chronic mouth breathing in children. I'm just getting my head around the literature on this, but it seems like an old theory with some evidence. This review summarizes some of the evidence [11], still looking for more sources. Lesion (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Nasal obstruction not synonymous with nasal congestion?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Comments appreciated here: Talk:Nasal_congestion#Nasal_obstruction_not_synonymous_with_nasal_congestion, many thanks. Lesion (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Rejuvenation Research

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi, an editor wants to remove some sourced information (admittedly not very recent) from the article on the journal Rejuvenation Research. I have reverted this for now, but am very willing to be convinced of the opposite. I would appreciate the input from some non-involved editors here. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 20:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Without extensive review, first glance it looks like an SPA is reverting well sourced and balanced text based on original research.[12] Perhaps I'm missing something. Or not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:11, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
I fail to understand how two outdated texts from a popular magazine writer in 2005 and an anthropology graduate student in 2008 are balanced texts based on original research. The only source which comes from a biologist (a PhD professor at the University of California, Irvine) is coincidentally the only favorable source included, which praises the focus of the journal. As I mentioned on the talk page for this journal, research explicitly investigating rejuvenation is not controversial, and is commonplace in the field of biology nowadays. It is not uncommon to see papers on life extension or rejuvenation published in the most prestigious journals (e.g., Cell, Science, and Nature), and many renowned professors openly discuss the prospects of rejuvenative therapies from their research. This is distinct from the culture of science in 2005 and 2008, where publications of this type were less common and not so much in the public eye. A big reason for the cultural shift between now and then is that we now know that rejuvenation of aged or damaged tissue is possible, as several landmark studies have been published demonstrating this in recent years.
If this is not convincing, what would, in your opinion, justify the removal of the appreciations section for this journal? Mostly Translucent (talk) 16:16, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Another person finally said it

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

"Wikipedia is the single leading source of medical information for patients and healthcare professionals." IMS Health is distributing a book in exchange for your email address on their sketchy tracking site. In this book there is a ten-page chapter about Wikipedia.

Seeing things like this make me feel less crazy for having spent years telling this to everyone I have met in every context. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Wow... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
"...the public perception of Wikipedia being a legitimate source of information has increased dramatically in recent years. For healthcare in particular, patients are concerned about the validity and neutrality of the information they seek out, and Wikipedia increasingly meets this need ... nearly 50% of U.S. physicians who go online for professional purposes use Wikipedia for information". The RfC on medical disclaimer is still open, folks...
(btw Doc James, page 23 of the report has a random paragraph specifically about you!) Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 21:48, 22 January 2014 (UTC))
Gah. At least we can fix Wikipedia. We cannot fix the pages of pharma companies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

While Valeant Pharmaceuticals is already aggressively editing per [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:47, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

What is Abrogation?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I know the term abrogation in its colloquial and legal senses. But I see that it is widely used in scientific contexts, too, particularly in molecular biology, where it seems to refer to some kind of canceling or preventing of the expression of genes. I've Googled variously but been unable to find a decent definition or explanation of its technical nuances. Anyone resolve the mystery?—PaulTanenbaum (talk) 18:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

No idea... if no-one answers here, suggest try Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. Lesion (talk) 01:16, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Divided visual field paradigm

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello again, here's another old stale draft that was never submitted for review. Is this a worthwhile topic, and should the article be saved from deletion? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Delete it please. The only (valid) reference uses the phrase "divided visual field method" (not paradigm or technique) in passing as way of describing the investigation principle used. I could not find any other references to support the phrase as a notable subject. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:36, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emotional clearing

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

discuss....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

We need to talk about dose information

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

I noticed James reverting dose information this morning:

  • 11 April 2007 to 22 January 2014: Featured article Bupropion: "A recent meta-analysis of anti-obesity medications ... confirmed the efficacy of bupropion given at 400 mg per day for treating obesity" without explaining it should be taken in 4 divided doses over 24 hours and single doses should not exceed 150 mg.

So I entered "dose" and "the" in the Wikipedia search box and started reading. The third relevant item was the section mentioned in the above thread, recently merged from a stand-alone article and significantly improved by User:CMBJ.

Our medical manual of style says "Do not include dose, titration or pricing information except when they are extensively discussed by secondary sources, or necessary for the discussion in the article." I don't think that's safe enough. My preferred position on dosage is that we say nothing about actual dose (mg, frequency, equivalence) unless the information has been fact-checked by a named expert or two and the article (or relevant section if that's possible) is fully protected. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree that we should stay away from dosing mostly. I do not have a concern with saying high / lower when there are good sources. Like currently for colchicine we use lower doses as they are just as effective but give less GI upset.
With respect to the equivalent dosing chart. I am conflicted. Carefully done and if well referenced I am okay with it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep. Everything an encyclopedia needs to say about a treatment can be said without specifying mg (or milliamperes in the case of TDCS). It would be nice to have the confidence to add those details too, but under the present model I think it's always reckless. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
This is getting slightly ridiculous... I agree with not including doses unless supported by strong sources. Disagree with the rationale that it is dangerous, because in my mind it is a higher degree of potential harm to readers to not tell them how much they should be taking. The genuine reason for not including excessive detail on doses is NOTHOW, and has nothing to do with "safety" for readers. Lesion (talk) 13:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Equivalent dosing is commonly discussed/used with benzodiazepines (diazepam equivalents) and antipsychotics (chlorpromazine equivalents (CPZE)) and discussion of dosing is important in discussing and assessing effectiveness. This information should come from secondary sources....like all the other medical information. Is someone sugesting we treat it differently? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem with using nonspecific dosing terms is that it's difficult to describe "how high" and "how much higher" when talking about toxicity or therapeutic dose vs overdose, especially when "high doses" mean different things between sections. A while back, I came up with the solution of using suprapharmacological or supratherapeutic to address part of this, but that's medical jargon and lots of article reviewers don't like jargon. :P Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Per James, equivalence is an edge case, and I'm unsure. But specified recommended doses, safe doses, toxic levels ... I'm fairly confident we should avoid that completely under all circumstances - unless the facts are checked by genuine experts and the article is locked. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:57, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, I didn't mean exact dose, I meant relatively - e.g., comparing effects at different orders of magnitude, like 10–100mg,100mg–1000mg,1g+, or comparably general ranges. It's more precise than "high, very high, and extremely high", but not "greater than maximum approved dose of X mg." I'm stating this in the context of a particular drug, so this kind of comparison probably isn't relative for all pharmaceuticals. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
We do not need to state mg at all. We can just state 1:10, 1:100 with the understanding that the units are the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:48, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
That's not ideal if the formulations change. Compare Tylenol adult liquid vs Tylenol pills vs Tylenol children's liquid vs Tylenol infant drops—and that's all from the same manufacturer. Pharmacy websites seem to indicate that the standard doses are something like "six teaspoonfuls", "two pills", "one teaspoonful", and "one dropper-ful", but the ratio by mass is approximately 20:13:2:1. Converting between these is not easy for most people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
"Bupropion" currently describes risk of convulsions with various doses. There are also brief dosage statements in other parts of the article. To comply with WP:PHARMMOS, these doses should be deleted. It is adequate to state that higher doses are associated with an increased risk of convulsions. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
I think equivalence can be encyclopedic and should be discussed if there are heaps of WP:MEDRS (e.g. steroid equivalence when converting prednisolone to hydrocortisone or dexamethasone - this is well established).
Actual doses of prescription medicines are usually meaningless for the reader, and might actually be different in individual countries (e.g. aspirin for cardiovascular prophylaxis in The Netherlands is given at 81 or 100 mg, while in the UK it is 75 mg). I agree with Axl that we can simply say that higher/lower doses have a particular response and risk profile. JFW | T@lk 20:34, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

On my talk, Johnbod inquired why WP:MED doesn't link to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages, which would give us a good indication of where work is needed.[14] (See Johnbod's note about Carlos Finlay.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

It is in the navigation bar section on the right 5th down. Could be more prominent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Oh, dear. It took me quite a while to find it, even knowing what I was looking for. Which reminds me. The WP:MED project page has deteriorated rather dramatically over the last few years. I wasn't paying attention, so I don't know what happened, but that page is a wreck. Why is our basic navigational template buried at the bottom of the page, while other rather peculiar items are highlighted up top (peculiar being things only a few editors will use). I am quite dismayed about how bad, unreadable, and unnavigable our WPMED page has gotten. It would be nice if someone would re-do it to restore it to some of what it used to be, or at least make it navigable with important info easier to find. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
A couple of people re-worked the project page and the navboxes just a couple of months ago. It was discussed right here, including at least one discussion started by you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't want to force the change, so you need to use the parameter |popular=yes to produce this.
Original on the right. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

 
 
Recent changes in WP:Medicine
Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

 Top  High  Mid  Low  NA  ??? Total
 99  1,068  11,547  38,907  20,638 1,267  73,526 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:
 
 
Recent changes in WP:Medicine
Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

 Top  High  Mid  Low  NA  ??? Total
 99  1,068  11,547  38,907  20,638 1,267  73,526 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

OK, so back on topic. Our main project page is dreadful. Why is the navigation bar, which contains most of the most needed information, buried towards the bottom, and why do we have a bunch of information at the top that is relevant to very few editors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Turpentine bath

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Turpentine bath is an article tagged by wp:med which is in very bad shape. It is basically identical with the article Alexander Zalmanov and both are basically a copyvio of this web site which is also the only source. AfD or is it worth saving? Ochiwar (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Nominated both for deletion. Not notable, no good sources provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:18, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Tinnitus

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An IP is attempting to refute the conclusions of a 2013 Lancet review with a primary source. Extra eyes / opinions requested. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a shame to see these same sorts of bad IP edits came back soon after the previous round of protection expired. Redid semi for 1 month, let me know if the same kinds of problems return after that. Zad68 13:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Givens (2nd nomination)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

discuss...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

pulp capping

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just created this article and there's a featured picture tag in the middle of it. I have no idea why and can't see any reason for it. Can an editor or admin with more experience than I take a look? Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 15:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the errant tag. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:23, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Young–Madders syndrome

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have started the above, but not being a medical man - or familiar with your infobox - could someone have a look and help clean it up and expand the infobox a bit? Would be very much appreciated. --S.G.(GH) ping! 19:17, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

G-Spot needs immediate attention

Latest comment: 10 years ago33 comments9 people in discussion

Going through transcluded changes to the anatomy project at [15] I struck upon a number of articles concerning female anatomy and function that were; to put it mildy, of questionable value. This article in particular is stated as a good article at WP:Sexuality, but is severly lacking in medical sources, using CNN to make claims about studies, using primary sources all over, and advocating a process called G-Spot amplification, which I've never heard of before and doesn't seem generally accepted. If the article only had claims about different sexual methods I would probably have tagged it with the anatomy tag and then left it alone, as editing these articles can be quite touchy. Seeing the medical claims I'm concerned that some of them may be potentially dangerous, and that this really needs immediate attention. CFCF (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe a GA review nomination? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Done, see [16]CFCF (talk) 07:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Note the current GA assessment took <8 minutes... Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Nope, CFCF has blown this matter completely out of proportion, as like I stated, the G-Spot's existence has never been proven and it is a highly debated topic, with the vast majority of gynecologists, doctors and researchers doubting its existence, as shown here, here, here and here, except for when acknowledging that it is likely an extension of the clitoris. In fact, most material on this topic concerns whether or not it exists. ... This topic is far more of a social topic than it is a medical or anatomy topic. Furthermore, with regard to the WP:MEDRS sourcing, note where it states the following at Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence: "These instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." The "need to be relaxed" part of that text is exactly the case with the G-Spot topic. And the G-Spot article most certainly is not advocating for G-Spot amplification; it quite clearly has one paragraph stating that the procedure is sought by some women and how it is performed, and one paragraph making quite clear that the medical community is generally against the practice. Also take not that the G-Spot amplification material used to be an article, and I merged that text into the G-Spot article because "there isn't enough material on this topic, especially medical material, for the article to significantly grow beyond what it was. Not to mention, medical authorities are against the surgery." Also see Talk:G-Spot amplification.
CFCF engaged in his usual WP:Edit warring, without much knowledge on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
"'areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published' ... That is exactly the case with the G-Spot topic" ← there's a fair amount of recent material according to Pubmed, including reviews. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:53, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The topic is still (by far) mostly a social topic instead of a medical or anatomy topic; it is far from requiring strict WP:MEDRS sourcing (sourcing that allows news sources, by the way, especially for social material). Again, most of the information with regard the G-Spot topic is about whether or not it exists and its impact on society. Flyer22 (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Let's see. We've got (in Wikipedia's voice), "Studies using ultrasound have also been used to identify physiological differences between women[8] and changes to the G-Spot region during sexual activity.[6]" - sourced to a 2008 primary study of 20 women, and CNN. How is that (a) not biomedical or (b) okay ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 09:02, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I didn't state that it's not biomedical or okay. As for using such a source... Again...the G-Spot's existence is highly debated, with most of the debate leaning toward "It does not exist...unless it is a part of the clitoris," and I'm certain the majority of journals on this topic are primary sources. WP:MEDRS does not ban news sources for biomedical content, and the source is merely reporting a study with regard to an entity that has never been proven to exist to begin with. Treating this topic as a serious medical or anatomy topic, instead of the primary social/political topic that it is, is extremely dubious. It is hardly anything but a debate after debate. As for "Wikipedia's voice," I don't understand what you mean on that in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 09:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
The majority of journal articles in any subject are always primary sources, as I stated to you at the talk page. Its in the very nature of what a primary source is. Apart from that there are a number of secondary sources, and a very recent one is here [17]. Currently the article uses sources from 1982, which doesn't comply with MEDRS. CFCF (talk) 09:30, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I still have not read all of your second commentary at that talk page; I'm too busy dealing with other comments and/or edits with regard to that article. And with regard to primary sources... Let me rephrase that: It is the proportion of journal primary sources compared to the proportion of journal non-primary sources that is one issue, which, like I stated above, "Wikipedia:MEDRS#Use up-to-date evidence" addresses can be an issue for certain topics. There are not an abundance of non-primary review articles on this topic. Go ahead and see how many systematic reviews you find on it. You are treating this topic as though it should adhere to strict aspects of WP:MEDRS, when it generally should not. The most it can generally adhere to with regard WP:MEDRS sourcing are book sources such as this one (cited above). And being an anatomy editor, you know very well that we generally do not go by the standards of "reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years" for anatomy articles, including for recent WP:GA anatomy articles such as Stapes, mostly because information on anatomy is generally consistently the same. Flyer22 (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
As I commented at the GA review page, the article goes deeply into anatomy, physiology, gynaecology and other areas of medical research. I do not understand why it should not adhere to WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDOS. Flyer22 argues that this is mostly a social article and not a medical one. Since the G-Spot's existence has never been proven and it is a highly debated topic, with the vast majority of gynecologists, doctors and researchers doubting its existence as Flyer22 states above, this is the more reason why only high livel sources should be used. Ochiwar (talk) 09:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
And what do you think qualifies as a high-level source for this entity that has never been proven? Just how many of these sources do you think there are? Flyer22 (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
What qualifies as a high level source is defined in WP:MEDRS as you know. There are quite a few medical publications on this topic, even if most of them are not reviews, and quite a few are in the reference list of the article already. But some of the article references are quite inappropriate, see for example the first reference in the article, from the Times of 1982 used to support the opening sentence of the article which claims that "the G-Spot is bean shaped". Can this be upheld in view of more recent publications, as the next paragraph states "disagreement persists over its existence as a distinct structure, definition and location"? Though I appreciate the Times as a tertiary source, I think I would prefer a current anatomy text book as a teriary source in this case. But if details to its shape cannot be found in current anatomy or medical publications, then maybe we should not write about its shape. Ochiwar (talk) 11:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Also, "bean shaped" is not very helpful. What kind of bean? a French one? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure which is more perplexing, WPMED's obsession with all things genital, or the title of this thread... Lesion (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Don't think its an obsession from WPMED's side, as much as from the internet as a whole. WPMED on the other hand does cover these subjects and will in cases run into resistance upon trying to improve. CFCF (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Ochiwar, then your approach is somewhat different than CFCF's on this matter...since CFCF seems to think that there are a lot of medical publications on this topic that are reviews, or an abundance of systematic reviews out there on it. What we generally have to work with regard to sourcing this topic are WP:Primary sources, book sources and news sources (which is what the article already does, like you partly noted), unless of course someone wants to apply the "reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years" standard to this article. Flyer22 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
See over at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/G-Spot/1, I've linked 6 relevant reviews and stated that there were a number of other articles. There is sufficient content to replace articles from 1982 and a large number of tertiary sources at the very least. CFCF (talk) 13:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

As tickled as I am about the title of this section (hey now, Lesion!), it'd be better not to stir up unnecessary alarm. Yes the sourcing on G-Spot could be improved but it's not an emergency. Tagging up the article and jumping right to a review without first trying to work through a round of updates seems premature, I really wish those concerns were brought to the article Talk page first. Zad68 13:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree not a huge hurry. But this article could use some work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:04, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, agree... let's detail how the article can be improved on the Talk page and point to better sources, doing it that way will be collaborative/constructive. Zad68 14:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I may have been rash in my language, and though it isn't an immidiate emergency I was concerned about the passages on G-spot amplification (some of which has been dealt with). I reacted especially strongly seeing as this is supposed to be a good article. As for the GA reassessment I was following a suggestion as I was unsure of how to else proceed.CFCF (talk) 14:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
CFCF, thanks for understanding! It's always best to start off with a note on the article Talk page about your concerns and suggestions for improvement. If you get no productive response for while, that's when you might consider article-wide tags to draw attention to the article, but you can also do that by coming to WT:MED (it's probably even MORE effective than the tags!). I'd always rather give editors a change to improve before taking to tags, etc. Zad68 14:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Relatedly, there seems to be a similar kind of sourcing problem with statements at Orgasm#In females - agony aunts, web interviews, etc. used ... Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree, Alexbrn, that the sourcing in that article (including some sourcing in that section) needs to be improved. I have addressed sourcing issues with regard to that article in the past on its talk page; for example, see this discussion I had with an IP there. And months ago, I queried Zad68 to help out with that article (among other articles) when he gets good time to do so. We're both currently busy with other matters, however, including the G-Spot article. As noted in my discussion with that IP, I have been replacing sources in that article with better sources bit by bit. But as for sources such as WebMD and Go Ask Alice! (and your tagging Go Ask Alice!), while they are not the best sources, they are allowed per WP:MEDRS. In fact, WP:MEDRS explicitly allows WebMD. WP:MEDRS also allows sourcing with regard to experts in their respective field. That is why I'd included this interview as a source, though I included it at a time when my grasp on WP:MEDRS was not as improved as it is these days; I've been meaning to replace that source for a long time now. I assure you that I do not lack an understanding of WP:MEDRS. I often address non WP:MEDRS-compliant sources when I see them, such as recently in this case at the Herpes genitalis article. And again, anatomy aspects on Wikipedia generally are not subject to the same WP:MEDRS sourcing that say, for example, a disease article is subject to. Anatomy aspects on Wikipedia generally do not go by "reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years" standard. There is a reason that Gray's Anatomy holds up so well -- generally-speaking, the structures of body parts are the same now as they were many years ago. Flyer22 (talk) 15:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, unfortunately there is too much to do and too few of us editors to do it. Generally, I like using WebMD as a source - I'm not so sure about Go Ask Alice! especially since, in the case I tagged, its description of the anatomy of the clitoris seems to be at odds with what our main Clitoris article describes. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
There have been a few people saying recently that everything is a disaster and worse than it used to be. I think that it's worth knowing what it used to actually be like—not what we remember in our perhaps rose-tinted memories, but actually used to be like, when this qualified as a Featured Article, despite sourcing that would make many of you cringe now (DrSpock.com! University web page! About.com!). It's not just the one, either: Online etymology website! Elderly sources! Primary sources! And it's not just sourcing: see inconsistent citation formatting with few links.
There is a lot of work to be done. Our standards have gone up dramatically, which means that there is even more work to do than there used to be. But we are making progress, and our final product is better than it ever was in the past. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep, WhatamIdoing, I mentioned at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/G-Spot/1 (in my "10:34, 24 January 2014 (UTC)" post), "back during a time when WP:GA standards, even for medical articles, was lower."
Alexbrn, thanks for explaining your reason for having tagged that. Hmm, that Go Ask Alice! source certainly is not the most accurate when describing the prostate gland as lying "just inside the anal opening." But with regard to female anatomy... Let's see, you tagged "with 'legs' that extend along the vaginal lips back to the anus." That actually is not at odds with the Clitoris article. By "legs" and as you likely know, Go Ask Alice! is referring to the clitoral crura (clitoral legs). As for "vaginal lips," that usually means labia minora...so I don't think that Go Ask Alice! was referring to the labia majora. Not to mention that it's nowhere close to accurate to refer to the labia majora as the "vaginal lips," any more than it is accurate when people refer to the vulva as the vagina. Anyway, notice that in the Clitoris#Glans and body section of the Clitoris article, I mention, "Each crus (singular form of crura) is attached to the corresponding ischial ramus – extensions of the copora beneath the descending pubic rami." In the "General stimulation, practices, and arousal" section of the article, I mention the fact that the pudendal nerve gives off the inferior anal nerves and divides into two terminal branches: the perineal nerve and the dorsal nerve of the clitoris. I also mention the "vaginal lips" aspect that the Go Ask Alice! source does, while using that source to support it. In other words, the crura and labia minora are connected in a way, and the anus and clitoris are also connected. Like Go Ask Alice! states in this source, "In reality, total separation between the vagina and clitoris is mostly artificial, and often based on a misunderstanding of what, where, and how big the clitoris really is. The clitoral organ system actually surrounds the vagina, urethra and anus." This factor is further discussed in the "Clitoral and vaginal orgasmic factors" section. Also, Rebecca Chalker states (page 47), "Knowing that muscles surrounding the clitoris and the anus are connected to one another helps us to understand why anal stimulation feels good, and that it is an integral part of sexual response."
Still, I'll likely add a better source to replace the Go Ask Alice! source (or to go in conjunction with it), not only in the Orgasm article but in the Clitoris article as well. For example, this scholarly source (page 74) states, "As the shaft progresses deeper into the woman's body it splits into two forks, called crura, which extend along either side of the vaginal opening and attach to the pelvic bones." It might also be best that I reword the "extends" and "extending" material so that readers don't get an inaccurate picture of the crura's design. Flyer22 (talk) 17:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Well, I'm no great clitoris expert, but it was the connection "to the anus" bit which got me thinking - that doesn't seem to be what the well-sourced anatomy content in the clitoris article says (though there are a couple of mentions in this direction, again poorly sourced from lay sex guides). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I thought that might be more of what threw you off. This anus aspect partly goes back to the pudendal nerve factor I mentioned above. The "connection to the anus" aspect is worded better in the Clitoris article since it states "or by the crura ("legs") extending beneath and along the labia minora back to the anus." Again, I'll add a better source. I wouldn't necessarily call this source a poor source, though; it's written by scholars such as Beverly Whipple and Barry Komisaruk, but I'll add better sourcing for the text in question. There's still more that I need to tweak or add with regard to the Clitoris article anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
The better-sourced stuff in the article has: "Concealed behind the labia minora, the crura terminate with attachment to the pubic arch (according to some), or follow interior to the labia minora to meet at the fourchette (according to others)." This description is then contradicted by the "connected to the anus" stuff sourced to poor sources discussing butt-plugs &c. My fear is that this thing about the clitoris being connected to the anus is just a myth - it seems to contradict anatomical sources and is poorly sourced itself. But as I say, I know nothing of this myself - all I'm asking for is well-sourced consistent content. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 19:25, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
I think what the Go Ask Alice! source might mean by "back to the anus" is "back toward the anus" (or something similar)...as in "pointing toward, verging on, but not quite reaching." The crura certainly are not attached to the anus; not in the strict sense. I've also read fairly reliable sources state that the crura surround the anus (or simply that the clitoris does), but, if you look at anatomy diagrams detailing the crura, the rest of the female genital anatomy and the anus (such as this one), it does not look like the crura actually surround the anus. But then again, like the Clitoris article notes (Clitoris#Historical and modern perceptions), clitoral anatomy has been misrepresented for many years and even today "volume of clitoral erectile tissue is ten times that which is shown in doctors' offices and in anatomy text books." The second Go Ask Alice! source I linked to above is a bit different since it states "[t]he clitoral organ system actually surrounds the vagina, urethra and anus." As for the "or follow interior to the labia minora to meet at the fourchette" text, that is sourced to Rebecca Chalker, who also, as noted above, says "that muscles surrounding the clitoris and the anus are connected to one another." Keep in mind that Chalker is well educated on clitoral anatomy and is one of the people who revolutionized beliefs about the clitoris by producing anatomically precise illustrations identifying 18 structures of the clitoris.
Give me some time to look further into this, over all of the anatomy books I have at home and some more online (already looked at several) to better judge the accuracy of the "crura are somehow connected to anus" aspect. If I don't come across a satisfactory source, or maybe at least two or three satisfactory sources connecting the crura to the anus, I will remove that material from the articles it is mentioned in. All that stated, the clitoris does have a connection to the anus when you take, for example, the pudendal nerve into account; like the Pudendal article states, "The pudendal nerve is a nerve in the pelvic region. It carries sensation from the external genitalia of both sexes and the skin around the anus and perineum, as well the motor supply to various pelvic muscles, including the sphincters of the bladder, external anal sphincter and the rectum." This scholarly anatomy source supports that, and this is what the Whipple and Komisaruk source (a source that you consider poor) is essentially stating. And I already noted above that the "pudendal nerve gives off the inferior anal nerves and divides into two terminal branches: the perineal nerve and the dorsal nerve of the clitoris." You mentioned the fourchette, which is the frenulum of labia minora; this part of the female anatomy is near the anus. And the posterior commissure of labia majora unites the labia majora posteriorly in front of the anus, like this anatomy book states. There's also another interesting aspect noted in this source, The Development of the Perineum in the Human; it states, "[S]uperficial dorsal urogenital stroma gives rise to the dorsal frenulum of the labia minora ventrally. Dorsally, labia-deprived fibrovascular tissue from around the anal orifice extends ventralward and forms a more or less distinct broad elevation occupying most of the region."
By the way, I included that Whipple and Komisaruk source because that section is about sexual stimulation, sexual practices, and sexual arousal...and I have not yet come across a better source for information with regard clitoral nerves and how the anus plays or can play an aspect in that when it comes to sexual activity. Not too many anatomists and/or sexologists give much of their time to anal stimulation as a part of sexual activity. Whipple, Komisaruk et al. give some good time to it in that piece. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Vitamin D

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

User attempting to refute a recent secondary source with old primary sources and popular press books. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:05, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Does this project cover notable hospitals?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

If it does, or even if it doesn't but someone is interested anyway, please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Instituto Medico San Nicolas (IMSAN). The regular AfC reviewers seem to be unable to decide if it is notable. BTW some of the sources are in Dutch. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals is what you need. JFW | T@lk 09:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Brilliant! thanks. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Coryza and Rhinitis

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

The first links to the latter in the see also section, stating "another term for this set of symptoms". The reader is left thinking that these 2 articles refer to the same thing. Perhaps we should merge, or at least properly define why there are separate encyclopedia articles? Lesion (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

This is the only recent human disease paper that I found that mentions coryza in the title. WP:OR: I have occasionally read of "coryzal symptoms". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:21, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Note also that Common_cold lists "acute coryza" as a synonym (although no inline citation for this)... Lesion (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

We have a number of alt med texts that use the term [21] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Only 8 results on PubMed, and 6 of them are more than 50 years old: [22] Personally, I think "acute coryza" should be removed from the common cold article. Jinkinson talk to me 23:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
We have lots of books that support it such as [23] and [24] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
These two terms need merging. Coryza is rhinitis per [25] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:50, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, Lesion (talk) 12:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Toothache

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

lesion and I have been doing a major rework of the toothache article for the past 6 weeks and I think I've read it one-to-many times to see the forest through the trees. If anyone has the time/energy to take a read for copyedit/improvements/suggestions it would be much appreciated. The aim is to submit for GA status. Thx. Ian Furst (talk) 17:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Ian did most of the work here, including uploading several great new pictures and diagrams. Thanks also to the folks at the graphics lab for providing a brilliant new cross-sectional anatomy diagram. Some more work required before GAN imo. Lesion (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Equisetum article

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Could you-all look over this article and maybe keep an eye on it? As Horsetail, it's a very popular health food supplement. I don't know if this [26], which contains several warnings, is an acceptable reference. Novickas (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Template DorlandsDict

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The template has been broken for years. It was edited to point to the web archive. The template documentation was not edited to reflect that change. Many of the transclusions of the template now point to error pages on the webarchive site.

The template talk page should have {{WPMED}} added. The template talk page has suggested using a free online medical dictionary (medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com) instead. Is there a template for that? The archives of this talk page have suggested pointing to the print version of Dorland's. Dorland's does not provide free online access to their dictionary.

The fix should include editing the template and template documentation, and editing each page that uses the template, probably with a bot. I suggest replacing it with both a revised print version of the Dorland's template, and also a template for the free medical dictionary, which reliably hits the correct page when used as (http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/MEDICAL+TERM) I can edit/create the templates and contact a bot operator when it is time to go live. Ordinary reader (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. As it's not working, and I don't see why we need to mass link to a medical dictionary, especially one that is not free, and considering the size of our articles already. I've proposed a delete in this light here (Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_27#Template:DorlandsDict), please feel free to contribute to the discussion there. --LT910001 (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

London Wikimania Presentation

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hey all. Hoping to present at Wikimania in London regarding the work we are doing. If people here are interested in attending / helping out please sign up here [27] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Would you consider giving me five minutes at the podium to put my point of view? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Aspergillosis

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all, I'm going to spend a few weeks revamping and expanding our article on Aspergillosis. At the moment it's a start class but this is a serious and well known collection of infections, with plentiful literature to describe. Any help would be appreciated, and we can discuss it over at the talk page. Thanks! --—Cyclonenim | Chat  10:17, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cyclonenim! That sounds like a great project, but I really just wanted to say that it's great to see you again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! :) You're more than welcome to help out; I'm a little rusty on policy... 198.23.71.75 (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC) also known as... --—Cyclonenim | Chat 

Sleep apnea, obstructive sleep apnea and central sleep apnea

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The parent article, sleep apnea goes into too much detail about the subtypes obstructive and central. My interpretation of summary style, is that there should only be 1 or 2 paragraphs for these sections. Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 14:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
It's been a while since I read that page, but at least the old advice was that the summary needed to be longer than the lead for the linked article. If you're linking to a well-developed, long article, then having five or six paragraphs was recommended.
On the more practical end, you need to provide a complete summary, so that people don't need to click through to the subarticle (most of them won't). The existence of the subarticle doesn't excuse the main one from being a "comprehensive" description of the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
My intuition would be to merge sleep apnea into the larger parent article about sleep and breathing as all forms of sleep-disordered breathing are discussed in context. Or rather... it's got loads of empty sections that are begging to be populated. JFW | T@lk 19:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
WhatAmIDoing, you are right. From "WP:DETAIL": "The summary in a section at the parent article will often be at least twice as long as the lead section in the child article." However note that the page is a guideline, and the statement uses the word "often". Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
JFW, that is a reasonable suggestion. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:30, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Candida (fungus)

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

This page has a strong reliance on pseudoscientific "alternative medicine" practices and contains little information on conventional medical treatments. The related Candidiasis is in much better shape, and I think similar balancing is needed in this article as well. I'm pretty incompetent in this field, having no background, study, or interest in medicine; so I don't really trust myself to fix this. :) If anybody wants to balance this out, I'd be most appreciative. ThemFromSpace 19:59, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Since we have a dedicated candidiasis article, it might be better to move most clinical/alt med info to candidiasis, and throw out the content based on dated, primary or otherwise unreliable sources. Not sure what others think of this suggestion. Lesion (talk) 20:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Lesion, keep both, but merge the information from "clinical characteristics" and "alternative therapies" into the candidiasis page. From this disambiguation page it looks like Candida (fungus) is a botany type page, whereas candidiasis is the medical page. Ian Furst (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Amendment: notice that candidiasis is from Nov 2001 - pretty old article.
Both pages currently look okay. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:46, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the input! ThemFromSpace 23:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

'sex reassignment therapy' article, 'effectiveness' section

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I've been trying to get access to commonly accepted reference texts for psychiatry, but have only gotten access to one (Kaplan and Sadock's CTP), and medicine that might elucidate the effectiveness/efficacy of sex reassignment therapy in a way that the majority view may be clearly discernible. Three reference texts were cited in a recent U.S. Tax Court ruling O'Donnabhain v. Commissioner in which the court ruled that hormone replacement therapy and sex reassignment surgery could be deducted as medical expenses; the reference texts played a part in the majority opinion granting those deductions. The reference texts were named in footnote 19 on page 16 of the ruling, which is here:

http://www.lexisnexis.com/documents/pdf/20100204104451_large.pdf

The reference texts cited in the ruling are, namely, New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry, Kaplan and Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry, and Psychiatry (published by John Wiley & Sons). (The only one I've had any access to has been Kaplan and Sadock's.)

The court says that these "widely used psychiatric reference texts" support the medical necessity of some aspects of sex reassignment therapy; pursuant to Jimbo Wales's statements regarding the "majority view" and "commonly accepted reference texts" as quoted in WP:UNDUE, this suggests that some aspects of sex reassignment therapy being effective/efficacious could be established as the majority view and so should be accorded much weight in Wikipedia.

Unfortunately, as stated above, lack of access to these reference texts, and also perhaps not being quite able to fully interpret the one I did read, makes it really difficult for me to make much use of them. Previously, the "effectiveness" section seemed to something of a back and forth between primary sources that didn't seem to really establish weight; I've been trying to move away from repeated back and forth arguments and to establish the proper weight due to each medical view, pursuant to WP:UNDUE.

I ask, Are there any editors here who are knowledgeable about the subject and have access to "commonly accepted reference texts" on the treatment of gender identity disorder who would be able to point the way? Also, what would be the best way to structure the "effectiveness" section as we work to give proper weight to different points of view? --Beneficii (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Your overall approach sounds very good. I think it might be helpful to spend a while thinking about what effectiveness means in this context. When you're talking about an antibiotic, you usually think in very simple terms: "37% of people taking this antibiotic stop having strep throat within 3 days". But in this context, it's far more complex: Is it effective at letting people pass socially for their preferred gender? Preventing suicide? Sexual function? Making people happy? Supporting romantic relationships? The list could go on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. In response to that, I intend to rely on what the sources each specifically say it helps and make that clear in the article. Also, I was able to get a look at the Merck Manual at my local library, so I've added that in. Thanks for your help! --Beneficii (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Autoeponym

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Recently I found the article "Autoeponym" in CAT:O, and I tried to de-orphan it. My revision of the article "Apostrophe" was reverted. Maybe other editors who monitor this talk page will be able to do find appropriate articles from which to link to "Autoeponym".
—Wavelength (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC) and 19:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not in the (full) OED, which is a warning sign. Hoax? (Add: actually I see it's in a 1992 T&F dictionary: still it seems ... novel) Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
What does "T&F" mean?
—Wavelength (talk) 23:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure...Taylor & Francis maybe? Jinkinson talk to me 23:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Linking student essays

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

At Lyme disease [28] we have someone trying to add this "essay" Weather_and_climate_effects_on_Lyme_disease_exposure to a see also section with in the article.

I am seeing a fair bit of this lately. We get students who more or less duplicate the main article giving it a new title and a slightly different angle. They write an essay in main space. And than someone tries to link their essay into the main article. Really these articles should either be merged or deleted.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:53, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Is this a course requirement for some students? People looking to become involved with Wikipedia and having a rough start? Ian Furst (talk) 11:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
We have a lot of courses running on Wikipedia. The results unfortunately are often mixed. This example is from a couple of years ago now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Two points:
  • That's not an essay. There is no "personal reflection or opinion" in it. That page has none of those qualities. In fact, I'd be hard-pressed to find a single sentence that I thought really required a re-write for tone. "Encyclopedic" does not mean "most boring possible writing style"—in fact, we prize Wikipedia:Brilliant prose. Here's the description of "essay-like" from the template docs:

    Use this tag to identify personal essays. Personal essays describe the author's own feelings about a topic. Although Wikipedia is supposed to compile human knowledge, it is not a vehicle to publish users' personal opinions.

    This template should be used when the article contains the editor's own personal comments on the subject. Use it when the article does not necessarily representing a blatant opinion or opinion piece, but is still overly judgemental in tone.

    Do not use this template to tag fact-oriented pages that sound like they might have been written as research papers for school (called "essays" in some parts of the world). Instead, if those pages need a different writing style or tone, use general templates like {{Tone}} or {{Copyedit}}

  • You all know that I'm a dyed-in-the-wool mergeist, but if you're going to spinout an article on a subtopic, you must provide enough background information that the resulting article can be read on its own, without reference to the main article. Some duplication is required. An article on how weather affects the transmission of Lyme disease really needs to say something about Lyme disease and several things about its transmission. You can't effectively explain how weather affects the behavior of ticks if you don't mention the ticks in the first place. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
There are enough suitable references to establish notability. There is enough material in the article to justify it as a stand-alone article, although it does need some clean-up. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:24, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
I had already trimmed much of it. It contained content like "Generally, a course of antibiotics for several weeks provides successful treatment of Lyme disease." which has nothing to do with weather or climate.[29] This was a WP:Content fork. It is better now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:25, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Equianalgesic#Morphine-centric chart

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

I'd like to either delete or vastly reduce this. It contains dose advice that, if wrong, could cause significant harm. I'd be OK with restoring it once all the facts have been checked by experts and the article has been fully protected. Thoughts? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted it for now. [30] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The equianalgesic chart shouldn't be deleted, but its content does need to be carefully verified from top-to-bottom. See here.   — C M B J   04:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Hum. Conflicted. It is not a recommendation of a dose. Just a comparison between doses. I think it is okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:54, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

How confident are you both at this moment that the information presently in that chart reliably represents what the best reliable sources say? Is this the last significant correction needed? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:PHARMMOS states "Do not include dose, titration or pricing information except when they are extensively discussed by secondary sources, or necessary for the discussion in the article." The table did not include dose or titration information. I find it highly implausible that a health care professional would use that chart (in Wikipedia) to convert a dose of one opioid to the equivalent dose of another opioid.
It is possible for any disease article that mentions a drug treatment to have the wrong drug listed. To use reductio ad absurdum, we should remove all mention of drug treatments from disease articles to prevent readers from using/prescribing the wrong drugs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The chart does contain dose information. The question is, is this information so sensitive that it should be excluded from this encyclopedia, due to this encyclopedia's vulnerability to idiots and psychopaths, and errors by intelligent, good-faith non-experts. As I've said, I'm unsure. One thing I am sure of, though, is it shouldn't be restored to the article until there is a strong reliable source backing every claim. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It does not say, "You (or anybody else) should take 10 mg of morphine". It says "The equivalent of 10 mg morphine is 100 mg of codeine". 10 mg might be five times what the (adult) patient needs for a single dose (for pain) (assuming no particular previous tolerance), or it might be a third of what the patient should receive. The only thing that chart does is tell people how to convert from one form to the other, which is not the same as telling them how much to take. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree with WhatAmIDoing. Link to the table. While we could delete the "Equivalent dose" column and leave just the "Strength" column, that would hinder the table. It is much easier to understand with the "Equivalent dose" column, and indeed is less likely to be misinterpreted. For what it's worth, 10 mg of oral morphine is a modest dose (for an adult), as I am sure you are well aware.
In any case, without any indication explicitly listed, I don't think that the table falls foul of WP:PHARMMOS. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:43, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
It contains dose equivalence information. It does not contain dose volume information. I notice WAID has restored the entire table. It's late here, but tomorrow I'll have another look at it and strip out any unsourced claims in that table (about half of them from memory). If you, WAID, or anyone else here, has a problem with that, let me know in the next 8 hours. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The requirement under policy is for material to be verifiable, not for it to be already cited. If that material is correct, the you should WP:PRESERVE it, not blank it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Yep. That's a better fix. Thanks. I don't know if they're correct so I'll add "citation needed" tags to the unsourced claims when I get a chance. I'm traveling. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Effects of physical exercise on memory

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Found this article on my Wikitravels, and it seems to be the work of a number of authors but has thus far been unassessed. I added it to WPMED. There are a number of issues with formatting of sources, making me believe there will likely be issues with primary sources etc. as well. I will take a look tomorrow, but would be good with some additional eyes. CFCF (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Great study in the Mental Health and Physical Activity journal, Volume 2, Issue 1, June 2009, Pages 16–22 Physical activity and mental performance in preadolescents: Effects of acute exercise on free-recall memory.Drbriggs (talk) 08:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Another student report. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:08, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
After more than a cursory glance I see a number of less than desirable sources, but as you are working now I will jump into it this afternoon. CFCF (talk) 10:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Am done for now :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Autism and the Somali population of Minneapolis

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, folks. There is a talk page discussion about Autism and the Somali population of Minneapolis: Talk:History of the Somalis in Minneapolis–Saint Paul#Autism

There is an argument that it is out of balance to cover a study about it: see reasons in the talk page. Does anyone have access to the full text or to any specialist sources (medical journals reporting on this study)? WhisperToMe (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been following that issue in the media; will check in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Broader opinions would be helpful here. I have been following this issue recently, but did not realize (until I just looked anew) that the news coverage of the autism occurring in the Somali population in Minnesota extends back to 2008. In other words, we are beyond WP:NOT (news) and WP:RECENTISM, and although we don't have secondary reviews (only laypress and primary sources), there is a lot of interest in sorting out whatever it is that is going on there, and the anti-vaccinationists are involved. I am wondering if we should put this topic somewhere, but I'm not sure where. There is a possible Vitamin D connection, but no secondary review sources to support that, and some reasons not supporting it. Perhaps Sociological and cultural aspects of autism? Could others please have a look at the sources listed at Talk:History of the Somalis in Minneapolis–Saint Paul#Autism with an eye towards whether we might include this topic somewhere? There are many more sources than those listed, and Middayexpress seems to also be up on the issues, including possible biases in the samples/reporting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, no feedback. Well, after reading another very good article, I came up with the idea that the Somali/Minnesota autism issue might be mentioned at epidemiology of autism. I'd still appreciate feedback, since we have only primary sources and laypress at this point, but the issue has been under investigation since 2008, has lots of coverage, and it seems we should be mentioning it somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Stephen L. Hauser needs eyes

Latest comment: 10 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

I just stumbled across the article about Stephen L. Hauser, and it looks like one of the more peacock-y biographical articles I've seen recently. Help would be appreciated with regard to rewriting the article in a more neutral tone. Jinkinson talk to me 01:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I had not heard of him, but if all the accomplishments and roles are accurately reported (I checked a couple and they were) then the description in the lede seems pretty accurate. Very impressive credentials and contributions, scientifically and publicly. Please provide examples (on the Talk page) of peacock-y terms you see; I'll admit I am no expert on BLP standards. -- Scray (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I have done some cleanup and removed a little bit of fluff. Highly notable researcher. I don't think anything peacocky is left, but let me know if you think otherwise. --Randykitty (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I peeked at it last night, and just peeked at it again, and it's still quite dreadful. But it gets worse. First, look at the page of User:SalCorr, the SPA who created it.[31] Second, consider that it was vetted through AFC (which makes me appreciate the posts here from Anne Delong about med articles at AFC). Third, click on just about anything in Category:University of California, San Francisco faculty to see more of same (and most of the physician bios are not tagged WPMED on talk). Fourth, highly notable or not, the article is not written in encyclopedic tone, and is not correctly sourced. Let's start with the first line:
  • Stephen L. Hauser is a physician-scientist whose work has advanced our understanding of the immune mechanisms, genetic basis, and therapy of multiple sclerosis (MS).
"Our"? Then, a whole lot of the article is uncited, or cited to studies about his work that don't mention or discuss him at all. For example, where is the source for "A leading neuroimmunologist,"? Most of his awards are uncited. This is a prototypical dreadful example of the ways Wikipedia is used as a webhost for incorrectly sourced bios. If he's all the article says he is, it should not be difficult to find independent sources that make the claims made in the article, rather than citing studies on which he is one contributor, but saying nothing about the person.

And the most discouraging part is seeing that a) it got through AFC like that, b) there are scores more just like it in the UCSF faculty category, and c), next term's student editing debacle will hit soon, and I've been trying to get as much work done as I can in the between-term space, and know it is futile to spend my time on a bio like this, which needs to be entirely rewritten and correctly sourced.

Jinkinson thanks for bringing it to attention-- I'm sorry I can't do more to help. If anyone wants an example of how medical bios can be written and sourced, I offer my Donald J. Cohen. Hauser may be the bee's knees, but that isn't how we source bios. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh dear, you actually picked up a lot of things that I missed... Some of the things that need sourcing can be found rather easily (I just did one), but I have right now no more time for this (busy wiping egg from my face... :-). --Randykitty (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
When I spend hours creating and correctly citing bios of ultra famous physicians like Donald J. Cohen, it just sets me off to see publicist-created bios on Wikipedia,[32] no encyclopedic tone, no correct sourcing, and vetted at AFC no less. It is just dismal to consider how much of this is out there. Wikipedia is not a webhost for physicians to write their own CV based on no independent sources. Besides, I'm glad Jinkinson is learning :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
And by the way, Jinkinson, you asked on my talk that I clarify why I declared that I wouldn't work on James Heilman per COI. I would think it clear that just about any of us at WPMED, who work closely with Doc James, would have a hard time being objective about his BLP; YMMV, and perhaps my COI definition is overly strict, but no, I do not know Doc James in real life. I just know it sets me off to see primary sources used to source bios, and I don't need to tangle with other med editors on that BLP, creating an issue here where we have to work together. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I've had little interest in BLP, but this specific example is very helpful for me - thank you for the details. -- Scray (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Actually, that's why I engaged (instructive purposes) ... it is a very instructive example of how often we see a bio that looks cited, but is cited to the studies that say nothing about the person, and this is something we need to get a grip on throughout the medical bios. Seeing how many just like this are in the UCSF category alone is ... frightful. I'd love to go clean up all of them, but I've still got work to do before the next student term hits and turns me into a grouch. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
This is actually more intelligent than many such articles, because it gives the specific accomplishments and papers, as well as vague generalities. That makes it fairly easy to judge and rewrite. I've seen a great deal worse accepted at AfC. Further, UCSF is a place where many of the senior faculty will indeed be notable, which is not the case everywhere.
The first course with such articles is simply to remove the adjectives and puffery. I think the awards , and the named chair at an exceptionally good research university.do show him a "leading investigator" but there is still no need to say so--the awards say it by themselves . If we want to get better articles, there are only two methods: one is to write them ourselves; the other is to take what we get and fix them. Normally when I accept at AfC I rewrite at least somewhat. I note some omissions, characteristic of much PR work--the dates of his degrees, the name of his advisor. the title of his thesis, and an account of all his positions before UCSF. I sometimes add this sort of factual material when it is readily available, though it's not as critical as removing the puffery. On the other hand, I think asking for citations beyond the CV for awards is a little absurd-- university CVs can be trusted for such things. I've seen almost no false factual claims in an academic CV in many years here, and none at all from a major university.
Has anyone thought of contacting the school public relations department? I've done it from time to time--it has been known to work, if I put in enough effort. DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC) .
Perhaps Jmh649 or Kevin Gorman will contact someone at UCSF. (And I think awards should always be cited, even if only to the faculty webpage-- but something.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Given the userpage of the user involved, I'll look in to contacting someone later today. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Kevin Gorman, extensive copyvio as well. Cut-and-paste from his UCSF profile. Why aren't these things picked up at AFC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:37, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Afc's defense, I would like to say that there are so many things to keep in mind, and such a wide variety of topics and problems, that it's inevitable that some things will be missed. Also, Afc gets quite a few complaints that we are being too strict and that any article with potential should be passed out for improvement by the community at large. This article was accepted in 2011; we've improved our reviewing instructions and tools quite a bit since then. By the way, right now any confirmed editor can review at Afc, although the regulars do talk to any inexperienced editors and ask them not to. There's been a proposal, which has been closed positively, to require three months experience and 500 edits as a minimum. Now there's an implementation proposal which also includes having the reviewing tools not function for those not on Afc's reviewer list so that we'll have fewer drive-by reviews. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback Anne Delong; what happened to the bots/scripts whatever that used to screen new articles for copyvio? Large parts of the Hauser article were lifted from his UCSF prfile-- didn't CorenBot used to screen for that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know have any information about that. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This is from memory Sandy - but from what I recall Yahoo decided to restrict the number of searches you could run for free through their API, which is how corenbot had been able to pick up copyvios. I know there were negotiations with Google at some point to use Google's API in a similar way, but I haven't heard an update on them in ages. Without a search API that would let a bot run an unrestricted (or at least very high) number of queries, writing a bot to check for copyvio is nearly impossible. Regarding AfC - bluntly, I've never really thought it was a particularly good process. I certainly have respect for the people who regularly review there (I have reviewed off and on myself, and not found it exactly the most rewarding thing ever,) but with the number of submissions to AfC compared with the number of reviewers, it's inevitable that mistakes will be made - it's either that or have articles at AfC languish in limbo for eternity. I think that when talking about AfC, it's also worth keeping in mind that the alternative is just having people dump articles directly in mainspace, or even worse, use the namespace moving bug to bypass patrol entirely. I hope that some day soon we find a good article creation pathway for new users... but currently all of the ones that exist are pretty FUBAR. Anyway, with regards to this particular article, the CoI issue has been resolved (at least in that it will not repeat,) and I've confirmed there aren't copyvio issues, and I'll be looking to improve the article to a solid state within the next week or two at most (normally I'd be faster, but I'm slammed with stuff this month.) Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:39, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Ack, Kevin Gorman, been busy, just now saw this. I wasn't aware that we no longer had a bot, and I was still laboring under the misimpression that new articles were checked for copyvio. SO ... thanks for the info ... more that needs checking :/ :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi SandyGeorgia - I ran across User:MadmanBot the other day after it tagged a page, but for reasons I haven't had time to dig in to yet, it's nowhere near as effective as the previous bot was. Unfortunately it's pretty routine to find googleable copyvio in new pages that was not flagged by Madmanbot. When looking at questionable articles, I now always do copyvio checks manually :/ Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:47, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

reliable source

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I've been seeing these NIH public access papers (such as this one on IHD in women) that are non-systematic reviews, usually by a single author, in a peer-reviewed journal then ?republished on the NIH site. What type of weight should I be affording these? Valuable secondary source (because it's open-access) or primary source? Ian Furst (talk) 23:33, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It is not listed as a review by pubmed. Would prefer to see a more formal review used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
K thx - where secondary sources exist, will replace them. Ian Furst (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
It looks like a review to me, and we know that PubMed's labels are at least partly wrong in a non-trivial number of cases. User:Hildabast, are you around? Do you know if grant-supported papers are listed as "Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural" by default? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes I think they are, based on what I could see on the ncbi nlm nih website.Drbriggs (talk) 07:55, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
They are better than many other references. Am not against their use. They do not state any search criteria. Thus not as good as a systematic review. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:11, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
A systematic review is good at answering only a narrow range of questions: Does this work? Which is better, X or Y? A narrative review is far better suited to other questions. The one listed above is perfect for a ==Research directions== section and could easily support claims that relatively little is known about the physiology of IHD in women or the specific list of research questions that remain unanswered. You'll never find a systematic review on research directions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
They didn't give this one a publication type - not sure how often that happens. Being open access doesn't make it more (or less) valuable as a source, although I'd agree that given two of equal (or close to equal) quality, that the open access one should be preferred. This is where you see what all those tags mean: PubMed help. You'll see the type of grants down below on that record in PubMed - all of those specific grants the author has are NIH extramural - there are other grant sources it could have been (NIH itself is 2 types - NIH extramural as here, or intramural like me). Systematic reviews can answer many different types of questions, not only intervention effect questions. You would always prefer a well-conducted systematic review over a non-systematic review - but a lot of information you want might be background information. That may or may not be higher quality in any type of review - it depends how comprehensively and systematically they went about the background bits. In general, a more recent, more systematic review would be better. 2010 is pushing it in heart disease literature, because there tends to be a lot happening in that area. Hildabast (talk) 03:36, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Helium

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A bottle helium and a plastic bag seems to be a advertised method in some books and this "advertisement leads to increases cases of suicides by this method. The featured article helium needs a little bit of help to get to the standard for references. I put some references for the increased number of cases on the talk page. I want to have some help from this project to improve the Hazards section of the article. I also asked the death project because they might be more involved in the suicide business then the medicine and elements project.Thanks.--Stone (talk) 20:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I've done my best to tidy up the incoherent structure and grammar of the section. I must question, however, the encyclopedic value of a long catalogue of deaths caused by helium. Frankly I don't think that every incident needs to be mentioned because of WP:WEIGHT and a simple summary would be far more appropriate in my opinion. I am also troubled by the fact that the first reference I checked (http://web.archive.org/web/20120109032345/http://www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-riverside-teen-helium,0,6589649.story) showed that the teenager died from asphyxiation, while the article mistakenly stated it as barotrauma. I've since corrected that but it leads me to suspect all the other references. I can't do more today, but I'd appreciate it if someone had time to cast an eye over that section, Helium #Hazards, and give a third opinion on the suitability of the content for a featured article. The references need to be brought into line with the others in the FA, but I don't want to expend energy in that if others agree that the section has been unduly inflated and needs to be cut back. --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree that it needs to be cut back. Also, most of the sources are either primary newspaper sources (including at least two copies of the same AP article) or websites that sell the stuff (three copies of the same text). I think that section should be cut back dramatically to communicate two points: Breathing Helium displaces oxygen, so you can get hypoxia (and maybe die) and breathing Helium (or anything else) straight out of a pressurized tank is even more dangerous. It should be possible to handle it in a single paragraph and with no more than two or three decent sources. I'd maybe keep the BMJ piece and the Slate article (to provide a purely lay-person option, although I think the BMJ piece is easy enough to understand). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Public edit-a-thon at the Wellcome Library in London, UK

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

On 26th February, the Wellcome Library in London is hosting an edit-a-thon event themed around medical history, contemporary medicine and biomedical science in society. This is a free public event, with catering included, supported by Wikimedia UK and Jisc. The editing will take place 11:00 to 16:00 UTC. Follow the link for more information and online sign-up or to suggest pages for us to improve. MartinPoulter Jisc (talk) 12:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Martin. Great to hear. Best of luck. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:14, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
...with the new online collection at wellcomeimages.org [33]. 81.147.165.192 (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Hyperkinetic disorder, Hyperkinesis and Hyperkinesia

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Do we need all three? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

"Hyperkinesis" and "hyperkinesia" are synonyms; the content of those two articles should be merged. "Hyperkinetic disorder" is a syndrome, distinct from the symptom/sign of hyperkinesis. "Hyperkinetic disorder" should be kept separate in its own article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Convection Enhanced Delivery

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Dear Medical experts: Here's another one of those old abandoned drafts. It's never been submitted. Should it be, or is it fatally flawed? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it me, or are these deadlines getting shorter?   Lesion (talk) 21:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, there was a sudden flurry of deletion among the old drafts yesterday. I check them as fast as I can, but there are still 10,000 to go and there is not always agreement between those who want to rescue good content and those who want the backlog gone as quickly as possible. If you think that topic sounded reasonable, I can ask for it to be restored so that you can take a look at it. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I saw another user had deleted the page shortly after you posted here, just making a lighthearted joke. No offense intended. I think your work is beneficial to the encyclopedia.
Regarding the article, it may have been notable as indicated by this pubmed search: [34]. Other wiki articles do mention the term, including this:
Restoring the draft might be an option...not sure what others feel. Lesion (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sertraline

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Have nominated for FAR. It is mostly supported by primary sources. This concern was brought up by Anthony months ago and has not been addressed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:35, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Assessments largely outdated

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

After encountering the mess that was our B-rated article at spondylolisthesis (a poorly sourced essay tagged since December 2008-- five years-- including some advert material and almost all sourcing to outdated primary sources), I scanned some other articles with a B-class assessment on topics I'm familiar with. A good number of them were wrong. Articles with long uncited text (both tagged and untagged) and maintenance tags like POV, wrong text, and anecdote are listed as B-class. Our quality scale is at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Quality scale; enough of those I checked were wrong that I suggest we need to initiate some sort of re-assessment sweep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

We've updated our standards since most B-class articles were assessed, and C-class has been invented since then. Back in the day, B-class meant "not good enough for GA, but too much to be a mere 'Start'".
The presence of maintenance tags is really neither here nor there; many of them are outdated or wrongly applied. As a quick rule of thumb, an article that is barely good enough to qualify will have most (not all) of the main sections that you expect; it should have at least one inline citation per section (not paragraph, not sentence), and no problems that actually make you cringe and/or scream. Of course, most of the pages that ought to be tagged as B-class are better than this, but that's the minimum. The minimum is noticeably lower than WP:Good article criteria, which in turn is noticeably lower than WP:Featured articles. If you find something that meets this minimum, then you should tag it as B-class with a clear conscience; if it doesn't, then pick a lower rating. If you just can't decide, then post it in the list at the bottom of WP:MEDA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes our classification scale has changed over time. Looking back at what passed for a FA 5 years ago would struggle to be classified as a B class article now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree with all, so there are two problems with our assessments. Articles deteriorate/improve over time, and with the invention of C-class and MEDRS, standards have changed. Both leading to the conclusion that we need an assessment sweep, which would need all hands on board to complete, but shouldn't take more than a week if we all committed ... I did find glaring issues, and our assessments between start, B and C are likely off. (That's without going in to the number of GAs and FAs that really aren't any more ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Our article grading scale is only very rough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Prizes for fixing tech issues

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have decided to start offering prizes to who ever can fix specific tech issues. The first one is here meta:WikiProject_Med/Tech. Will likely add to the list as time goes on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:43, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

External peer review of Wikipedia articles

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I just emailed 2 academics who had authored some of the main secondary sources used on olfactory reference syndrome and asked them if they would read over the article for accuracy.

Probably will not get any response, but who knows... if this is beneficial perhaps we should start regularly doing this for articles before/after they go to GA/FA to ensure they are top quality. Lesion (talk) 01:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Surprisingly, one of the profs emailed back saying they will be happy to review the article. I guess it doesn't hurt to ask. I will update further if anything comes of this. Lesion (talk) 11:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Wonderful. My experience is that many professionals are very much interested in getting involved. They just need smaller projects to suck them in :-) And many have limited time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone copy edit this?

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hey all, just rewritten pathophysiology section of allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis. If someone could read through and dissect it, that'd be great! Thanks :) --—Cyclonenim | Chat  12:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a job for me. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:50, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I presume by the minor changes that all was in order? :) thanks! --—Cyclonenim | Chat  14:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
I have finished my review of the section. Please see the article's talk page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:08, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Hehe, I did initially miss that! Thanks for the comments, hopefully sorted now. Onto diagnosis! --—Cyclonenim | Chat  16:29, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You might have already seen this

Latest comment: 10 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

http://www.imshealth.com/deployedfiles/imshealth/Global/Content/Corporate/IMS%20Health%20Institute/Reports/Secure/IIHI_Social_Media_Report_2014.pdf

about Social Media, esp. Wikimedia, and medicine. Doc James in mentioned. I've just skimmed but some scares me, looking a bit like Big Pharma might want to target our articles as sales vehicles (general feeling of the text only, so far). Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's actually been discussed here before; see #Another person finally said it. So, in fact, some of us have already seen it, including Doc James himself. Jinkinson talk to me 23:28, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
That previous discussion now migrated to archive at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 44#Another person finally said it. DMacks (talk) 04:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
"This report is intended to look specifically at the impact of social media on the use of medicines, including the role that pharmaceutical manufacturers are playing in leveraging social media platforms as part of their business model. It includes new analysis of the role of Wikipedia and its linkage to medicine use. It also assesses the current level of social media engagement undertaken by pharmaceutical manufacturers."

I am not very inclined to see Wikipedia "leveraged" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:37, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

We are getting a bit of press includeing [35] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
To put this in context, we should remember that the pharmaceutical companies already strongly influence the sources were are using in the first place... Verifiability not truth and all that. Perhaps in the future we might see organization-wide IP bans as happened with scientology. Lesion (talk) 01:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
This will be tough to get across. There are a few other tricks we may keep up our sleeves though :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
"Big Pharma is going to destroy Wikipedia" is a common boogey man, but have any of you read the rules that pharmaceutical companies are required to follow? If you look at the biggest fifty pharma companies, more than half have a policy of doing nothing at all on any form of social media because they don't want to get fined out of existence. For the most part, they don't tweet to patients (they might send investor-related information), they don't have Facebook pages, they don't let consumers post comments, and they avoid replying in public about any health-related issue. In many cases, they have to simultaneously comply with directly conflicting orders from drug regulatory agencies: they must list this possible side effect in the US, and they may not list that same side effect in the EU.
Look at this summary of UK requirements. Does that sound like a legal green light for promoting drugs on Wikipedia to you? The forthcoming FDA rules are not expected to be helpful to companies that want to engage without violating US laws (i.e., all of them). The general expectation is that companies primarily selling prescription drugs will continue to avoid or minimize their presence in all forms of social media, including Wikipedia (which is even more complex, if you're trying to comply with regulatory requirements, because the consumer can't see that it's you, and because your legally approved information can be changed by anyone). Oh, and it looks like, under the upcoming rules, they explicitly require the companies to submit every social media action, such as links to tweets, including tweets posted by employees or third-parties from their private accounts if those communications were posted at the direction or under the influence of the company. This means that a diff of every edit to Wikipedia would have to be submitted to the FDA for review as "marketing".
And now ask yourself: How many drug company employees have you seen around here recently? We've got lots of MDs, but how many PharmDs are in this group? The fact that we can't find these people when we really need their expertise, e.g., about biochemistry and production techniques, should tell you something about how little editing this sector is doing.
If I were going to worry about corrupting influences, I'd worry more about independent salespeople involved in multilevel marketing of dietary supplements. Their legal liability is pretty close to zero, their internal corporate controls are non-existent, and their knowledge is usually limited to their sales brochures. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
That WAID this is great to hear. User:Smallbones recently linked me this User:Smallbones/Questions_on_FTC_rules. I have only dealt with three companies that have decided to ignore the rules (not including the one person/company who was exceedingly open about it). Of course there are going to be some who do. Did not realize that their was regulations against it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:37, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Doc. User:Smallbones/Questions_on_FTC_rules is just a place in my userspace to try to figure out the best questions to ask the FTC on their advertising rules. Everybody is invited to pose questions, and we can see which we might see as the most important or confusing. But it is not about Wikipedia policy, rather about U.S. law and how it applies to Wikipedia. There's no guarantee that the FTC will respond (in a timely manner). But I think they will via some type of public statement, sooner or more likely, later. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

An example of the danger/our power

Daily example. I just came across this mirror of our article at Charlotte's Web (cannabis). The mirror was taken before I removed the wreckless and irresponsible statement from a small-time politician:

"[Do you] know why we're talking about helping children with this drug? Because you don't see any adults with the illness. They don't live long enough to grow up."

implying that Dravet syndrome had a near 100% childhood mortality rate, and that the use of a marijuana extract for seizures was literally saving lives. (Someone else might produce a recent updated secondary review, but my preliminary search showed about a 20% mortality rate.) That text was only added on 25 January, and because I took a few days off, I didn't remove it until 30 January, with this explanation on article talk. So here we have an example of a fairly low-profile article on a topic upon which lots of desperate parents are making potentially life-altering decisions. And no docs watching the article, where we have irresponsible and wreckless content now propogated throughout the internet.

What concerns me (and I suspect also Anthonyhcole and Scott Martin and Jayen466) is that some WP:MED participants believe that by focusing on our top importance articles, we can clean up the messes in here. What consumers are making important decisions about their blood pressure based on Wikipedia? Plenty of parents are likely taking information from this article, so focusing on top importance isn't going to get us where we need to be. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree many articles need work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
We can't do it all, no matter how many we recruit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
If we had a thousand contributors and each took 20 article we would have it covered. But yes Wikipedia will always potentially have issues. People need to use common sense and a bit of skepticism. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:26, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Parents of desperately ill children are unlikely to exercise "skepticism"; even some of our more skeptical editors don't always. My point here is that our goals need to include articles with high potential for life-altering effect. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree. I aggressively cull poor quality content when I come across it. The whole epilepsy area was bad. I have recently brought epilepsy to GA and tried to clean up a bunch of articles. So much to do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

While I (maybe) have others' attention to this article, can anyone explain this synth tag? I'm not getting it (although there is synth in the article, via an attempt to discredit an epilepsy researcher, claiming he has a conflict of interest because he is researching a pharmaceutical compound). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

COI. Is this OK?

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

In this diff it seems that the person whose text is used as the ref is the editor who added the content. Is this never OK, or OK when it seems to not be a problem? --Hordaland (talk) 20:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a review article. So not so concerned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:CITESELF, which is your second option. Also, see if you can recruit the editor. We need more subject-matter experts. Someone who has written a review, for example, could probably tell you what other reviews might be worth citing for that area, or if any of the information in the article was significantly out of date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both! Hordaland (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/coresatin

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Dear medical experts: Here's another old draft. Should it be improved or deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:32, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like an advertisement to me... Lesion (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Atherosclerosis article

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

New Wikipedia editor Swietonn (talk · contribs) recently added a lot of material to the Atherosclerosis article. Noting that here for checking. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Have provided some feedback. Further help may be useful. It appears to be a class assignment. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:05, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I was about to nominate the chiropractic for a GA review but my improvements were reverted

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

This revert was a major step backwards. This version with your help can reach GA status. QuackGuru (talk) 00:17, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi QuckGuru. Didn't have time to compare the 2 main diffs you posted, but regarding the individual diffs:
  • "MEDRS violations" - agree with what you did there.
  • "Lopsided text" - It is difficult to understand the meaning of your added text, let alone decide if it has corrected or indeed introduced "lopsidedness".
  • "OR" - seems like the figure 50 was previously used whereas in the source it is 5. Agree with what you did there.
  • "Redundancy" - agree your wording is closer to conclusions of the source
  • "Rewrote text closer to source" - this is the same diff as "redundancy" above. Assume you meant to paste another diff. Lesion (talk) 00:56, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
The problem you've encountered, QG, is that you did a massive number of edits in a short space of time on an article that we both know is controversial. If you are going to improve the article (and thank you for trying), you are going to have to take the other regular editors with you. The best way I know of doing that is to take one section at a time: either make an edit and justify on talk, or propose new wording with your choice of sources on talk before making the changes. You'll need to take it slowly and get some level of agreement section-by-section. Listen to the feedback and accept that an article like Chiropractic can't be completely revised in one day. I'm prepared to pitch in when time permits - and I can see that some of the regulars here have already done so. We all want the same end result, improvements to our articles, so make use of the goodwill available and try not to rush. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 02:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I am is interested in having a well written scholarly encyclopedic article on Wikipedia for chiropractic. If you check the edit history of the article, not everyone understands how to write a well written lede or ensure that the text passes V or we should use recent reviews. Both pro and anti chiropractor editors have a hard time writing according to Wikipedia policies. I corrected the diff above. I meant this diff for redundancy in the effectiveness section. Each specific section discusses the research. I discussed the part about the lopsided text on the talk page. See Talk:Chiropractic#Despite this finding.3F. My last edit was reverted and all my recent improvements were reverted. QuackGuru (talk) 02:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
One of the most reliable methods of sabotaging your GA nomination is to make a bunch of changes that the other editors at the article don't agree with. Even if you're right, the article isn't "stable" in that state. I don't think that you should nominate this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Lesion, here is the rewrite for the lopsided text: "A 2008 survey of 6000 American chiropractors demonstrated that most chiropractors seem to believe that a subluxation-based clinical approach may be of limited utility for addressing visceral disorders, and greatly favored non-subluxation-based clinical approaches for such conditions. The same survey showed that most chiropractors generally believed that the majority of their clinical approach for addressing musculoskeletal/biomechanical disorders such as back pain was based on subluxation." QuackGuru (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Dosage

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments8 people in discussion

68.49.0.133 posted this comment on 29 January 2014 (view all feedback).

I was hoping to find more in regard to average doses prescribed to children and adults.

Given that this is something some readers come to Wiki articles for, how should this be handled? Do I just ignore this feedback?

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I was giving a Wikipedia lecture to a group of about 50 general dentists' last night (btw, thanks for the presentation doc james) and one of the dentists that said he used Wikipedia "frequently" to find disorders he was unfamiliar with, a) wanted to know the same thing and b)had no idea Wikipedia could be edited by anyone. In his words, "I thought all of the articles were written by some expert in the field." I explained how Wikipedia worked and that, while it's generally accurate, I wouldn't rely on it for clinically critical decisions like dosing. With that, what about adding links to the bottom of the article that point to pages which give dosages in some non-committal way? ==Webpages to consider for dosaging== or something like that? Ian Furst (talk) 23:34, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Sounds a bit like a how to manual imo. Lesion (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
We don't do that per wp:MEDMOS and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Style_guide. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:18, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
LeadSongDog, I'm not sure what "that" refers to, but no matter what it refers to, if people believe it's a good idea, then we could actually change the guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Every drug box in the right upper hand corner has a link to the AHFS monograph which gives drug dosing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:51, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Updated the androgen replacement therapy page, with FDA decision to investigate safety (heart attacks, strokes, and deaths) on Jan. 31, 2014, discussion of the most recent studies raising safety flags. Xylany (talk)xylany —Preceding undated comment added 21:27, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog: You're suggesting that we should completely ignore feedback requests for dosage information?
@Jmh649: The presence of that link without indicating posology information can be found there doesn't address the IP's feedback/request for dosage info.
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
No, not ignore, reply with explanation. It's a chance to educate editors, even ips. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:38, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any mechanism to make a reply/"educate". Axl ¤ [Talk] 03:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
You can "discuss on the talk page" or you can respond on the IP's talk page.
(I don't usually find that it's very useful to reply with broad "philosophical" questions like this, since you're really only reaching one editor out of many thousands for that article, and the question will re-appear even if the one person sees your answer.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. In both situations, the reader is unlikely to read the reply. The issue of readers' feedback has been discussed here before, and I consider it mostly a waste of time and effort. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:57, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Transporter Classification Database

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Wikipedia:WikiProject Transporter Classification Database is a new WikiProject.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The talk page states that the project is not currently active. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Amphetamine FAC - round 2

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hey everyone,

In the event anyone is willing, the new amphetamine FAC could use some non-technical reviews for the more esoteric aspects of the MOS; it has 3 technical MED/PHARM reviews completed or in progress atm.

Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Medical claims in Rong Xiang Xu

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Rong Xiang Xu has a whole lot of medical claims in it that I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at it. I came across the article working through he backlogs and a whole batch of removed self-sourced claims about the subjects recent work. A whole of content has now been added in relation to his earlier work. It has what appear to be primary sources, and I'm unsure of it's appropriateness in a BLP. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

He sued the Nobel Prize committee for not giving him the Nobel prize? Awesome. (Fringe-radar going off loudly...) Yobol (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed a whole lot of primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:40, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

New neuroanatomy atlas (1960)

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
 

I've uploaded a new atlas to the commons, and a few of the images are very good.
Currently the page covering the images is not complete, although there is a link to the source where captions can be found, and a table of contents displating the different chapters. It is avaible here: User:CFCF/Lawrence
To get an idea of what images there are, it may for now be best to use: commons:Category:Lawrence neuroanatomy
The atlas in question is A functional approach to neuroanatomy, and has lapsed into the public domain.
It offers a simplistic approach, and has a number of images and diagrams which can explain complex topics in a simple manner. --CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Great. So it is public domain because "lapsed into the public domain 28 years after creation due to failure to renew copyright" How do we determine if someone failed to renew copyright? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:11, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
The publications concerned are from between 1923-1963 published in the United States. One way of looking up whether or not they have had their copyright renewed is this page [36] by Stanford, although there are others.
A way to find books which have already been controlled is through the HathiTrust [hathitrust.org], which allows for the viewing of an enormous (millions) strong collection of books. Many are still under copyright and therefor unavailable, but you can search among free books as well.
I've been considering whether they were interested in any cooperation with us, they have several books by Netter which weren't renewed, but they may be copyrighted as there was an issue with prior publication etc. I'm making inquiries on that matter, and will get back once I get any answers. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 21:48, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
A small guide on researching copyright status is available here: User:Quadell/copyright. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 21:51, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Diagnostics template

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Anyone know how to add a Width parameter to this template? Its currently making any images added into the infobox very, very small.

Template:Infobox_diagnostic

Thanks, CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:38, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I know we can with infobox disease. Not sure if we can with this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:31, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
It's |image_size=. I fixed Two-point discrimination for you; you can go adjust the width to whatever you want now. I've also added the parameter to the list at the infobox's documentation. Please don't use that parameter unless you truly need to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks. Wide images like the one there look especially small and need to be a bit larger. I'm trying to keep it within the limits of max 300px in width, and only for images that have enough detail that they benefit from being larger. Thanks, CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:22, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Autopsy images of Ngatikaura Ngati is largely my work, and I'd appreciate someone a bit familiar with medicine and/or autopsies taking a look. Stuartyeates (talk) 05:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The only part that may fall under WP:MEDRS is possibly the section of Life and Death, where bruising is discussed. On the other hand I don't think its applicable to a single case like this one, and therefore the best sources should be used. If there is any direct statement or publication from those who did the autopsy that would be preferable to a newspapers statement. There aren't that many on Wikipedia who work with forensic pathology, (I know of none) so we might not get any more in depth answers.
Apart from that I found it a well-written article and a tragic story. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:43, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Models of addiction

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The Life-process model of addiction article has a list of notable supporters of that theory. The Disease model of addiction article doesn't. Should the disease article also have such a list of notable supporters, or should the list in the life-process article be removed? Should either or both article have a list of notable dissenters added? --Geniac (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that the disease model of addiction is the normal, generally accepted model, so listing prominent supporters would be a bit like listing the prominent supports of the current model for how atoms work. It might tend to suggest that the number of supporters was so few that it was possible to name them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I went ahead and deleted the list, mostly because it was unsourced. Normally we don't have these lists at all, but for some fringe views it may be good to have a list. The article needs some general work as well and I tagged it with MEDREF and refimprove. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've recently expanded upon allergic bronchopulmonary aspergillosis quite significantly, with signs & symptoms, pathophysiology, diagnosis, treatment, and epidemiology now written up. I feel a lot of these sections (particularly diagnosis and treatment) are too wordy for the general reader.

I would appreciate help in reducing the complexity of these sections—any any other improvements—so that I can start fixing issues and pushing it towards a GA review. Images are incoming within a few days, too.

Many thanks to Axl for his help with the pathophysiology review.

--—Cyclonenim | Chat  15:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

recent articles for attention

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've come across a few unreviewed recent articles (created within the past 3 months or so) that can benefit from some scrutiny from someone more savvy than I. --Animalparty-- (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know anything about these, but the first two sound like they could be usefully merged. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

.swf to .gif

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've got a 15sec .swf that I captured and wanted to convert it to a .gif to place in an article. Can anyone convert it for me (or point me to a website that will do it?)Ian Furst (talk) 10:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Disregard, found a open source solution to capture animated gifs

17:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Vaccine controversy

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Does anyone have access to this? http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2386034

From all the media attention, it seems like "everyone" believes that vaccines are harmful, but that doesn't seem to be the case. It would be nice to report in ==Society and culture== sections what the actual public acceptance rates are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried hitting the "Download this Paper" button? I could download it. Yobol (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I got a request to register and login. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
That's odd, never logged in, had no problems getting the paper. Can try e-mailing it to you, but it's a large file. Yobol (talk) 18:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
So could I (though it's very large--82 pages!--and it's taking forever to download on my computer). Jinkinson talk to me 00:20, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, I couldn't find much of the "media attention" of which you speak--the most I could find was this Mother Jones article, which doesn't seem to say anything like "ZOMG, everyone thinks vaccines are harmful!" What it does appear to say is more like "Liberals aren't more likely to think that vaccines cause autism than conservatives are, and in fact, they are slightly less likely to." Jinkinson talk to me 00:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I meant the media attention to the scare stories, not to this paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
note that eh above article does not appear to have undergone traditional peer review, making it non-WP:MEDRS. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It is a primary source. Would need to be careful how it is used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Since the subject is what the general public believes, which is not "biomedical information" by any stretch of the imagination, then it doesn't matter if it's MEDRS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Per WP:RS we should be using secondary sources for all material and need to be careful about using primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:07, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Editors who monitor this talk page might wish to monitor User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult.
—Wavelength (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Images and Support from a Pathology Laboratory

Latest comment: 10 years ago14 comments5 people in discussion

I work for as a systems administrator for a small Pathology laboratory and recently decided that I wanted to make use of my position here to help out Wikipedia. I have spoken to my employer and they have offered steep discounts, and to possibly do free work, to help improve pathology related articles. Any costs that they will not cover I will eat. I am planning to look around the Pathology related articles and try to find articles in need of improvement (especially images, we have a nice imaging setup here), but if anyone has any suggestions or things that I could help with in general, I would absolutely love to hear them. Possibly COI Disclosure: My employer is Alizee Pathology which is owned by Dr. Serge Rousselle. I do not intend to edit any articles in a way that could be considered biased, but I ought to put it out there anyhow. Zell Faze (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Great to hear. What sort of work are you thinking of taking on? We would definitely love more high quality pathological images. Help with the pathophysiology sections of disease articles would also be great.
When it comes to medical content the two most important guidelines are WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:46, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure what sort of work I am thinking of taking on actually. I know next to nothing about Pathology and am really heavily relying on the fact that I am surrounded by Pathology experts to help me along in this process. A lab technician has agreed to help me edit articles, and my work has agreed to produce images for me. I need to some help identifying articles that could use images and from there I can attempt to acquire the tissue/samples required to improve them. I know that we have a very good setup for producing images of slides. We often provide clients with images upwards to 10s of GB in size each. If I am lent some help finding articles that need improvement, I also have access to Dr. Rousselle's library, and have a lab technician who is experienced in staining and speciality staining that can help me work through the books. I could probably convince some others here (such as our imaging specialist, and a member of our Quality Assurance Unit) to help edit articles as well.
My actual area of expertise is IT, programming, information security, and networking. So this is definitely out of my usual area of editing, though I am not new to editing on Wikipedia itself (~950 edits on en.wp and ~450 edits on commons according to global contribs). Zell Faze (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Also thank you for pointing me to those resources. I had found the one, but had not yet seen the other. Zell Faze (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
New high-quality pathology images would be a god-send for Wikipedia. We can pretty much say that all articles could use additional images. I've learned that pathology can be very difficult because variations of the same disease can make it hard to correctly categorize it. The more we can show various forms and representations of a disease the better, and articles can definitely use several images. Apart from work with additional images there are a large number of slides on Wikipedia that aren't added properly to articles at commons:Category:Pathology. I personally uploaded around 800 images from Flickr on gross pathology as well as slides and adding these and integrating them into articles would be tremendously useful for the project. There is a list of all articles that fall under pathology on Wikipedia somewhere, and there should also be a list of which are the most popular, I'll go looking. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Let's start small, with a test case, so that we can work the bugs out of the procedure. It's not as easy to upload an image, with copyright and license stuff sorted from the start, as it ought to be (and it's even harder if you're uploading it but aren't the person pushing the button on the camera).
What do you think would be easy to get a picture of? Is there some sort of tissue that they deal with all the time? Odds are, whatever you can get a picture of would be helpful, but if you tell us four or five names, then we can figure out where the need is most dire. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll see if I can elicit some help in trying to categorize some of those images. I can't promise anything there, but I'll try to get someone. I am willing to try and get a few images to upload as test cases. I think I can handle the licensing aspects, I am reasonably well versed in copyright law as it pertains to Wikipedia (I'm a member of the FSF and Pirate Party) and I have previously used OTRS. I'm not actually sure what I can acquire yet. My employer has asked me what I needed, and you guys have asked me what I can get, and to be honest I'm not sure the answer to either question. I'll ask some of the RAs and Lab Techs what is common and easy to acquire. Our Morphometrist suggested that I try to get a blood smear as that would be easy to acquire and I could provide it myself even. He also told me to make sure that I mention that we are not a diagnostic pathology laboratory, but a research one. If someone came to us wanting a second opinion on what they think is a tumour biopsy, we couldn't help, but if they wanted to test a new medical device or needed toxicology work done, that is more up our alley. I don't know if that gives you guys any sort of clues as to what I can get easily. As far as scanning goes, we have an Olympus VS120 which I have been led to believe produces pretty high quality images. Zell Faze (talk) 15:18, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
It means that you should be able to get images of normal easily, which is very helpful. How about an additional picture (or two) for Basophil granulocyte? The one in the infobox is showing at its maximum size. Maybe a zoomed-in image of a Neutrophil granulocyte? (Neutrophils will be easier to find.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes the WP:AN WP:Anatomy group will love this stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

I can only assume you mean WP:Anatomy and not the admin noticeboard? I've talked to a a few of the lab techs and they are willing to make a few blood smears for me with me as the donor. I should be able to get them H&E stained, though if another stain would be better I can talk to them about it. I need to discuss slide creation with management as they have only explicitly approved doing imaging for free, but I don't see them minding, and I am willing to eat any costs associated. I'll keep you guys updated with things as they progress. Zell Faze (talk) 13:18, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Have started a discussion on WP:ANATOMY's talk page. A great opportunity to improve the quality of our microanatomy articles. LT910001 (talk) 13:57, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Joined the discussion on WP:ANATOMY's talk page and am watching the page now. While I attempt to secure permission to get blood smears done I'll be trying to get some photos of our lab equipment. I'm not sure if any of the articles might be able to make use of those, but I can't imagine there are many photos of the relevant equipment either. Zell Faze (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
That's an excellent idea. It's amazing how few basic photos we have for some things—and when we do, it's either 50 years old, obviously a marketing image, or something sitting on someone's dining room table. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Off the top of my head I know at least two articles that lack any images:

& the image on Foreign body granuloma is quite poor
(I can find many more if you like, but those might not be so hard to find) -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Impacted wisdom teeth

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I've created the new article Impacted wisdom teeth after discussion about improvement of the article re: wisdom teeth surgery (see Talk:Wisdom teeth if interested). If one of the admin's has a few minutes could you review/OK the new article so I can start moving/changing some stuff on the Wisdom tooth article? Thanks Ian Furst (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks good, with many great new pics as usual. What to do about tooth impaction? I think the next most commonly impacted tooth is the upper canine, and this is barely mentioned at all on that article, which mainly focuses on wisdom teeth... there is so much duplication in fact, that potentially tooth impaction could be turned into a short DAB style article with a definition and a short list of how often each tooth is impacted, linking to pages like the one you just made, and perhaps Canine tooth#Pathology, etc. Lesion (talk) 02:03, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Probably should be "Wisdom tooth impaction"? Lesion (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
not sure what's best. The most frequently searched term is "wisdom teeth", then "wisdom teeth removal". Impacted doesn't seem to be a term people use in search terms very often. Probably best to flip it around, then we change the "wisdom tooth" article to Wisdom tooth (anatomy) and Wisdom tooth impaction (surgery) or something like that with a diamb page for wisdom tooth? Ian Furst (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Monetary awards

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments4 people in discussion

Wondering what people think about the possibility of WPMEDF offered monetary awards for bringing key medical articles to GA/FA? Would it be useful, harmful, or have no effect? Of course realize that it may be a little controversial as there is no paid advocacy but there are some within the Wikimedia movement who do this for a living thus their is paid work occurring. Would those here for example find the offer of a $200 award for bringing stroke to GA encouraging or discouraging? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Would find it encouraging. One problem may be determining authorship. LT910001 (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes a few criteria would be:
  1. Would need to be a heavily read and important article
  2. User would need to bring it through GA
  3. All sources in the article would need to be high quality recent secondary sources in line with WP:MEDRS
  4. WP:MEDMOS recommendations would need to be followed
  5. Language needs to be reasonably simple.
  6. User would be the top contributor (or very close to the top)
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think GA is appropriate for this, because of the erratic nature of the reviewing. FA is even less appropriate, because of all the bullshit it involves. If we are going to do something like this -- and I'm generally in favor -- we should set up an "A class" for WPMED, with appropriate mechanisms. My thought is that we could handle it a lot like GA, except that we would have a list of reviewers, and people wanting to be added to the list would have to get consensus at this page or some page set up for the purpose. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the idea of requiring specific reviewers. I think we can leave it at GA rather than A class though. The nice thing about GA is it gets the green plus in the right upper hand corner. If we go ahead this will likely only be open to these 80 articles Book:Health_care at least initially.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
From a partial sample, it looks like over half of those are already GA or FA, and most of the remainder are close. Looie496 (talk) 16:49, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes am working on bringing them all to GA. The ones that are not yet at GA still take a good 4 weeks / 500 edits for me to bring them there. Many of the not yet GA's have issues with reference quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:13, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Re monetary rewards, this sounds like it could only help, so definitely worth a try. I would certainly find something like this encouraging. Assuming here that James is offering to sub this out of his own pocket, in which case kudos for being so dedicated.

I also find Looie's suggestion v interesting. Class A has not tended to be used as far as I know for medical articles... we could come up with a medicine-focused set of criteria. I have noticed that those editors who have reviewed more than a handful of articles for GA seem to have a sort of personal system, and it would be good to standardize the best aspects of these systems as a guideline for how to conduct a review. Here are some of my own ideas:

  • A person with "real-life" expertise in the topic to review for accuracy ... if no wikipedian is available who meets that description then an external invitation, although I think invitation of academics to review articles should also be routine (although probably not mandatory since none may respond in a timely fashion)
  • Inviting more than one wikipedian who professes not to have any specialist medical knowledge to review for a general audience
  • Turning on the "article feedback" for a period to get opinions from the non-wikipedian general public. Lesion (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
With some fine-tuning, such a group-sourced review process would be far more thorough than a typical peer review in a journal. Lesion (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure we need anything quite that heavy. What we mainly need is a way to guarantee a review that (a) pays attention to compliance with MEDRS, and (b) makes a serious effort ot assess the validity of the content. Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay will draft something. I like the idea of a GA reviewer with "real-life expertise". Those of us here I think know more or less who those people are. Thus when a person brings an article to GA they will need to request one of those reviewers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:08, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission

Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Care to have a look at this stub submission? Thanks again, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The title may be misspelled. Did they mean "quadriga"? Because there are far more results for that than "quadrigia." Jinkinson talk to me 16:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
PMID 22170246 109.158.185.136 (talk) 12:41, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, seems to be a typo. Here's another one! Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 02:42, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Translation from simplified English

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Today I created a simplified / shortened version of all the articles involved in the WP:TTF as can be seen in the simplified column here [37]. They are basically a simplified version of the leads of the articles in question.

Some of the issues we were facing was that in the smaller languages of Wikipedia 1) there is often a limited vocabulary 2) readership may not want the same level of detail 3) less availability of volunteer translators 4) communities in these languages have a lessor ability to maintain content.

It is also superior from a public health perspective to translate a large number of small articles giving a general overview of many conditions than a few in-depth articles. It is also easier / better for us to fix up the leads of many English article, than the entirety of a few. If people fix up a lead of a specific article of general medical importance and wish to nominate it for translation please leave me a note on my talk page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cardiac Research Institute at Masonic Medical Research Laboratory

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Dear medical experts: The above old Afc draft was declined because the subject exists; however, there doesn't seem to be a lot of overlap between this and Grand Lodge of New York#Community and charity. Should this stale draft be kept or deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

User:Blueboar is the expert on Masonic organizations. My inclination is a merge to Masonic Medical Research Laboratory (except it doesn't exist) or to the sponsoring org. The sources are weak for independent notability (#2 through #12 are primary literature, not about the org itself). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:12, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The MMRL does deserve to have its own article... but WhatamIdoing is correct in noting that the draft, as it currently stands, needs more in the way of secondary sourcing to establish notability. I'm fairly sure we can come up with such sourcing, but until we do...
As a first step (with WP:PRESERVE in mind)... I would suggest adding the material to the Grand Lodge of New York article... (in a sub-section entitled "Masonic Medical Research Laboratory"). That may not be the best place for the information... but it is an acceptable temporary home for it. Making it a sub-section within the GLNY article will save the information from being completely lost (which would happen if the draft was simply deleted), and once we do find the needed independent reliable sources, we can always split the sub-section out again, and turn it into a stand-alone article. Blueboar (talk) 15:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I have postponed deletion for six months using {{Afc postpone}}. If some sources can be found in less time than that, the merge may not be necessary. Also, one good thing about these old drafts is that since they are deleted using db-g13, just for being stale, they can be routinely "refunded" by request of any editor who takes an interest in them.—Anne Delong (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Oral rehydration therapy Comment

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello. I short while ago, I made an extensive copy edit of Oral rehydration therapy which it was tagged as needing. I understand that any contribution can be changed - that's fine - I'm not here to crush sour grapes. I'm just letting you know that there is a problem with the article in that the current editor is simply undoing most changes and is not able to collaborate. I'm sure the editor believes he is protecting his own work in good faith but has no expertise in the field and is making some misinterpretations of the literature. I can't make any headway I'm afraid. Myrtle.Myrtlegroggins (talk) 06:59, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

If you use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS you will have my support. The use of primary sources does not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Copyediting does not normally involve changing the sources. If the sources are weak, it's not the fault of the person who is fixing grammar. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Paolo Zamboni's unusual claims about MS

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Paolo Zamboni needs a serious work over. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have added stuff from the National Multiple Sclerosis Society's website, which I think is at least a somewhat reliable source. From what I can tell, it seems that the results have, so far, been inconsistent in verifying his results (e.g. see here), so he's not a total crank. If he were, every study would be contradicting his hypothesis, as was the case with, for example, Andrew Wakefield. Also, I can't help but think of this whenever I see his last name. Jinkinson talk to me 02:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
These MS societies are patient groups. They are grasping at straws. No one other than Zamboni has been able to get positive results. It to a lot of years before Wakefield was discredited and some in Hollywood still support him. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The Zamboni article has not kept pace with the one on CCSVI, and even that one still reflects outdated sources. Reviews in the past year such as PMID 23443168 PMC 3652697 are pretty clear. Some updates are needed. LeadSongDog come howl! 05:31, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree. One of my major concerns was the use of primary sources, contrary to MEDRS. We can use them to document Zamboni's original claims, but otherwise must be careful. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Anesthesia

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

I was going to start some work on anaesthesia and was looking for a quick opinion from more experienced editors. The article is almost all about who can give anaesthesia rather than what it's about. We had the same issue on dental implant. Imo it makes the article unreadable to someone trying to learn about anesthesia. I'd like to restructure the article to follow the Surgeries and procedures MEDMOS and move the "personnel" discussion to the end (or depending on references out and merge info with anesthesiology, or something to do with the people instead of the procedure). Thoughts on a rework of this article? Ian Furst (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

This might be more what you are looking for: Anesthetic. Advise also that "anesthesia" can also be used to refer to a symptom of a disease. Lesion (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
checked out both already. anesthetic is the drug and anesthesia (lack of sensation) is on a disamb page. This seems to be the popular page that everyone hits when looking for info on anesthesia. The intro covers what you would think the scope would be but the article doesn't. There's also sedation which is less visited but closely related. Ian Furst (talk) 15:32, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
...or sedation? Lesion (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Now I'm completely muddled. I just found the Outline of anesthesia at the bottom. I have no idea what this page is supposed to cover. There are a ton of pages on the various types of anesthesia, the people that work in the field, blah, blah, blah. However, this is the page that users seem to land on. Is it supposed to be an overview of anesthesia? Link to all the other relevant pages? Structure it just like the Outline of anesthesia (in terms of sections)? Don't touch it? Ian Furst (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

will move discussion to Talk:Anesthesia Ian Furst (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:Outlines are pretty much organized navboxes, as far as I can tell. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
just realizing this now - the editor who added it, seems to do the work of organizing batches of content all over wikipedia with their own project. I'll use it to find links but not for the outline of the article. Ian Furst (talk) 17:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thought it might be a good time to bring it up, but the article Hemianesthesia could do with some at least rudimentary content. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 23:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we're talking about two different types of anesthesia CFCF. The one I'm working on is anesthesia as a means to cause unconsciousness during surgery. I believe hemianesthesia refers to the loss of sensation on one side of the body. The topic made need attention but it's out of my area of knowledge. Ian Furst (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_44&oldid=1136413830"