Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 54

Archive 50

←

Archive 52

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

→

Archive 60

Renaming WikiProject Medicine to WikiProject Human Medicine?

There is currently a very one-sided argument going on at WT:ANAT about the renaming of the project. The scope is human anatomy, and one non-project editor feels this must be conveyed in the name, despite the lack of a general animal anatomy project to differentiate from. My concern is this could eventually follow over to WP:MED. Feel free to weigh in. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Are a HealthTap doctor's answers a useful references in these projects? If so, in what context?

I am a physician working for HealthTap, recently I have taken a personal interest in making our content more available to the public because we have many millions of doctor-authored answers to lay questions on health topics. I feel like our public content could be immensely valuable within Project Medicine. I am hoping to find a legitimate unbiased way to contribute HealthTap content to Wikipedia's body of knowledge.

Are there any editors involved who could advise me? I am curious to know if you think HealthTap is a useful primary source and how I could best contribute. Here are some examples of questions and answers that I thought provided unique insights that would be valuable:

• answers on experimental treatment
• answers that reveal doctors attitudes toward clinical practice
• answers that reveal clinical treatment of hard to reach or understudied populations
• answers that reflect clinical knowledge of rare conditions (especially where treatment citations are requested)
• answers to new or unresearched medical topics of interest to the public where clinical opinions might be the best resource

In case you haven't heard about HealthTap, I want to give some context.

• We were founded on principles of social entrepreneurship.
• The articles written by doctors on HealthTap provide unique insights into how doctors practice; because they represent voluntary contributions and insights from the front lines of clinical care in the US.
• Each answer to a clinical topic or question is ″Peer Reviewed″ and shows the degree to which other doctors ″Agree″ with it. So the content on HealthTap reflects the collective practical knowledge of the world's largest network of medical authors (now over 63,000 doctors in over 137 specialties).
• HealthTap content is without commercial bias or influence, because HealthTap takes no advertising or sponsorships ( HealthTap generates revenue from helping individual doctors deliver healthcare to their patients.)
• HealthTap generates content dynamically, however the citations listed here are fixed URLs with content that will not change over time.

I am experimenting with posting citations directly using the citation by contributor template, requesting edits on talk pages, and using the request edit template. But I am new to Wikipedia, and hesitant about doing anything more than suggesting citations to more experienced and unbiased editors. I would appreciate feedback.

Thank you! And thank you from all doctors for the fantastic resource that Wikipedia has become for health information!

Respectfully, Andrea Burbank, MD Drea 19:14, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello Doctor drea. This looks like a useful source to be accessed directly by patients, but the site cannot serve as a reference for medical content in the way one would use a journal article or medical textbook. This is covered in WP:MEDRS, our sourcing guideline. Please have a look & I hope this is reasonable. JFW | T@lk 20:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I just messaged you on your talk page. I have read a lot about HealthTap and have thought about collaboration with Wikipedia also. I am glad to find that you had the same idea. I would like to talk more with you, either on your talk page, off-wiki, or here as you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree with JFD. While an interesting site not suitable as a ref. This seems a bit similar to answer.com but for medicine so cool. Was speaking with someone from Sense About Science regarding them launching something very similar. There might be other possibilities to collaborate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:59, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt (and kind) responses! I read the WP:MEDRS sourcing guideline. I thought it was fantastically well-written and should probably be mandatory reading for all scientists. The discpline of "slow thinking" often needs refreshers! Yes I believe according to the sourcing guidelines we would be a primary source and therefore not valid in the context of a single citation. Our peer review process is more similar to a "panel of experts" and most answers do not cite primary sources although they can be interpreted as summary opinions. As JFW mentioned we are intended to operate as a complementary source for patients where doctors interpret and summarize reference sources such as journal articles and textbooks (and even Wikipedia) for patients.

I have thought about it some more and I believe that our content could be valuable to Project Medicine in one other way: as accessible examples of a point made in a secondary source. I came to this conclusion because I got distracted by your feature article on forensic facial reconstruction. I noticed it dealt with a fairly controversial subject in a unbiased manner citing secondary sources, but that it also included individual examples of successful identifications from reconstructions. According to the sourcing guideline: "One possibility is to cite a higher-quality source along with a more-accessible popular source, for example, with the |laysummary= parameter of {{cite journal}}."

Now examples can be very vivid, so while content such as this question/answer set might be too vivid a example in the article on the Management of HIV/AIDS I suspect it could be very relevant in an article on harnessing the power of technology in international health. However I think that out of respect for the culture of Wikipedia, incorporation of these examples is best done organically from within Wikipedia rather than suggested by people affiliated with HealthTap.

Blue Rasberry I would love to meet and learn other ways that HealthTap and our doctors could collaborate constructively on this project. I do want to clarify one thing from a similar talk page on the teahouse, although we have a commercial offering for the provision of health care, we have millions of doctor answers that are publicly available for free and that is the content I am suggesting would be valuable to editors in this context. Our doctors volunteer their time like Wikipedia editors do; with similar motivations but complementary tactics. Once again, thank you for all you do!Drea 19:55, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be useful if physicians who volunteer their time looking for high quality sources to answer questions for HealthTap also checked the relevant content on Wikipedia and if it is not well sourced / written edit it based on the sources they have found. We have a help guide for new editors here WP:MEDHOW. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Doctor drea Call it freaky, but I picked up Kahneman's book at the airport on Sunday and am reading it right now. JFW | T@lk 21:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The |laysummary= idea is not a bad one, in carefully selected circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Page move

Would any passing admin please move CCPDMA to its spelled-out title, Complete circumferential peripheral and deep margin assessment? Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. See you need to become an admin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:48, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Paris syndrome

Someone please review Paris syndrome for advanced acute hoaxitus. EllenCT (talk) 23:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The BBC and Guardian sources seem legitimate, though I'm not entirely convinced that one could describe it as a "psychological disorder". AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The sources look okay, and none of them seemed to be published on April Fool's Day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Why are news secondaries okay for a "syndrome" but not the health effects of fracking? EllenCT (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You seemed to be asking whether this is a hoax. It appears not to be. As to whether it is a genuine "psychological disorder", and thus comes under the remit of WP:MEDRS, that is another question entirely. The article cites one source from a medical journal, [1] but I'm not sure that is sufficient in of itself to answer the question. I suspect that this might possibly be one of those edge cases that medical anthropology likes to look at - a culturally-bound medical condition. Which one could argue is "only in people's heads", and thus not a real condition. Except of course that one could say the same thing about posttraumatic stress disorder. The fact of the matter is that people do frequently exhibit 'real' symptoms as a consequence of psychological stress - though whether the mismatch between the 'real' Paris and a Japanese 'idealised' Paris is enough to stress unfortunate Japanese tourists to the extent that medical intervention is likely to be needed is likely to remain open to question - not something one is likely to be able to do conclusive research on, given the variables involved, and the ethical problems one would face in trying to conduct some sort of organised trial. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There are actually a fair number of sources. I however do not find it in the DSM5. Maybe next edition :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Do we allow descriptions of "psychological disorders" in Wikipedia's voice without MEDRS secondary sources? EllenCT (talk) 03:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

If it was making claims to be a "psychiatric disorder" than we would have more of an issue. Psychology / pop psychology is not really medicine. I am not entirely comfortable with this article and agree it could use better refs. There is also Jerusalem syndrome. As a cultural entity they appear to "exist" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's just a local version of Stendhal syndrome, which has no MED tag. Jerusalem syndrome is similar but overlaps with more serious & permanent conditions. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Page move of caregiver

Hello, I am requesting comment about a move. I started this discussion about 6 weeks ago and it is slow going. "Caregiver" and "Caregiving" are Wikipedia articles on completely unrelated concepts. I am proposing that "Caregiving" be the article about caring for a person with an impairment and get both of these titles, and the academic concept currently at "caregiving" be disambiguated with a qualifier. I would appreciate comment at Talk:Caregiver#Requested_moves. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

More eyes on Psychosis probably warranted.

A new editor has been placing info of questionable sources and weight in to the lead of this article. Of greater concern, an IP on the talk page noted this page which appears to be a call for POV editing on this and other psychiatric related articles. More eyes would be appreciated. Yobol (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how successful we will be at turning them into good editors. People who live with a situation are often good at writing in plain English, or at least at identifying our frequent, and frequently needless, use of medical jargon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this could be a really good opportunity. The comments that follow the blog post indicate that — despite a few voices of frustration and dissent — some in the Mad in America website community are interested in learning our policies and contributing quality psychiatry and mental healthcare content to Wikipedia. Although some disagreement over MEDRS sources is likely, I think we can work through those differences if we remember to WP:AGF and WP:DONTBITE. This is my particular area of interest/advocacy. So, I'm willing to take the lead if folks here are interested in being intentional about some sort of informal collaboration. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 02:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The key is a willingness to follow WP:MEDRS. And a willingness to discuss changes that may be controversial. Happy to have more editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:36, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Historically, activists of one sort or another have turned Wikipedia's psychiatry and psychopharmacology drugs into some of the most unbalanced and difficult to maintain articles on the site. When I started editing Wikipedia 2 years ago, the SSRI article contained 25 lines describing the drugs' uses (mainly quoting Kirch's controversial claim that they don't do anything at all in depression), 250 lines on adverse effects and drug-drug interactions, 100 lines of mechanistic speculation based on primary in vitro studies, and a 50 line Criticism section mainly describing the views of those who don't believe psychiatry is a legitimate field of medicine. Peter Breggin, David Healy, and Joanna Moncreif's views were extensively discussed, but no mention made of the treatment guidelines issued by NICE or the APA. If folks recruited from an anti-psychiatry website can be convinced to follow the rules and add content that is NPOV, I'm all for it. But it brings to mind the TV show "Walking Dead" and its episode on efforts to train zombies to be good citizens and to not to eat people. I think it will be very challenging at best. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

to that, i say "amen". Do we really want to invite a bunch of WP:ADVOCATEs? Advocacy is one of most devilish problems here and as Formerly said many drug articles already are in bad shape due to people who think drugs should be perfect magic bullets and are angry that they are not. Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Molecular pathological epidemiology

Dear medical experts: This article was accepted some time ago at AfC, but something strange has happened to the reference section since then. Can someone who understands the topic please take a look at it —Anne Delong (talk) 02:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Where was the first NICU?

I note with interest this recent edit to Neonatal intensive care unit, sadly without source. Now I'm curious. Certainly Couney was instrumental in bringing the incubator to the US, but was Yale-New Haven the first NICU in the world? The article previously claimed that Vanderbilt University held that honour which I cannot find a source to support, although they do seem to have been the first to ventilate a neonate.

Anyone know of a better reference than Design for Pediatric and Neonatal Critical Care? Basie (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I found one. Apparently it was actually in 1965, not 1960, and was opened by Dr. Louis Gluck. [2] Jinkinson talk to me 01:32, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Basie, you're back! I've missed you. It's great to see your name today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thought I recognised your name ;) Thanks! Hopefully I can help out a bit around the edges. Basie (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Common name matter: Müllerian duct vs. paramesonephric duct

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Paramesonephric duct#Move Paramesonephric duct back to Müllerian duct?. A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/National Association of Primary Care

Dear medical experts: Here's another old AfC draft. By the time copyvio bits from

• http://www.napc.co.uk/article/-national-association-of-primary-care-/napc-practice-innovation-network
• http://www.napc.co.uk/what-we-do
• http://www.napc.co.uk/pin
• http://london.cylex-uk.co.uk/company/national-association-of-primary-care-16002221.html

are removed, I'm not sure there will be enough left to make an article. Should the whole thing just be deleted? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's a recent news article in an industry rag. It might be notable. But if there's not much left after the copyvio cleanup... I don't know if it would be worth it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:36, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Mobile pageviews have arrived

For those who are interested in readership. Percentage pageviews for our top medical articles by mobile are often around 50%.User:West.andrew.g/Popular_pages. This means our graph that assumes mobile of 30% is low. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

At last! Will these be integrated into the project-specific popular pages listings? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Computer-generated audio files of articles

hi all, Ex-nimh-researcher has posted 'text-to-speech" captures of articles - audio files -- on article pages here and here. Ex-nimh-researcher explained the rationale here. a bit of discussion is here Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#Audio_files. (briefly, seems like a good idea (doc james), seems like a bad idea (me) should not have any background noise so people with hearing problems can hear it, should have time-stamp, perhaps should be automated and updated monthly (?) thoughts, before exnimhresearcher spends boatloads of time on this? Jytdog (talk) 22:46, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not the first time that people have done something like this. Wikipedia:Spoken articles. Seems like a good idea. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the best place to put it would be to have a tab beside "read" at the top that says "listen". Than have new ones produced on a monthly basis or just have it read the article in real time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I last listened to a machine-read article a few years ago. It was a rather unpleasant, grating voice. The current machine voice, while still not pleasant, is an improvement. Also, I am disappointed that the sound file opens with the tedious list of medical codes.

I am unconvinced that an embedded real-time machine reader is an improvement over browser-specific screen readers. I am particularly interested to know if people, especially visually impaired, find this feature useful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Presumably an embedded reader could be optimised for Wikipedia. For example, it could be taught not to read out links to references, and to properly deal with pronunciation information (cf File:Schizophrenia_intro.ogg). Surely this is something Wikimedia Foundation would support? Propose at the Village Pump? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:19, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think a proposal at the Village pump would be great. We should create a mock-up of what it would look like first though. Should be fairly easy to do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

"I last listened to a machine-read article a few years ago. It was a rather unpleasant, grating voice." - For some reason, computer-generated voices have progressed more further in artificial singing voices, rather than text-to-speech technology for reading words aloud. Most T2S software voices that I've come across still feel very cold and inhuman. I guess there's more profit to be made in the music industry, than people with disabilities. --benlisquare_T•C•E 08:01, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Categorization of OD symptoms

A reviewer at the FAC wanted me to convert the text covering the symptoms in Amphetamine#Overdose into a wikitable format due to the long chain of wikilinks in the current version (WP:SEAOFBLUE issue). That said, I'm not 100% certain that I categorized all these symptoms appropriately by system, so I figured I'd paste the table here for feedback on the table before pasting it into the section. I've added the current section beneath it just for comparison.

The new version of the text with the wikitable I'd like feedback on

An amphetamine overdose can lead to many different symptoms, but is rarely fatal with appropriate care. The severity of overdose symptoms vary positively with dosage and inversely with drug tolerance to amphetamine. Tolerant individuals have been known to take as much as 5 grams of amphetamine, roughly 100 times the maximum daily therapeutic dose, in a day. Symptoms of a moderate and extremely large overdose are listed below; fatal amphetamine poisoning usually also involves convulsions and coma. Overdose symptoms by system System Minor or moderate overdose Severe overdose Cardiovascular Abnormal heartbeat High or low blood pressure Cardiogenic shock (heart not pumping enough blood) Cerebral hemorrhage (bleeding in the brain) Circulatory collapse (partial or complete failure of the circulatory system) Central nervous system Confusion Abnormally fast reflexes Severe agitation Tremor (involuntary muscle twitching) Acute amphetamine psychosis (e.g., delusions and paranoia) Compulsive and repetitive movement Serotonin syndrome (excessive serotonergic nerve activity) Sympathomimetic toxidrome (excessive adrenergic nerve activity) Musculoskeletal Muscle pain Rhabdomyolysis (rapid muscle breakdown) Respiratory Rapid breathing Pulmonary edema (fluid accumulation in the lungs) Pulmonary hypertension (high blood pressure in the arteries of the lung) Respiratory alkalosis (reduced blood CO2) Urinary Painful urination Urinary retention (inability to urinate) No urine production Kidney failure Other Elevated body temperature Mydriasis (dilated pupils) Elevated or low blood potassium Hyperpyrexia (extremely elevated core body temperature) Metabolic acidosis (excessively acidic bodily fluids)

The current version of the text (being replaced)

An amphetamine overdose can lead to many different symptoms, but is rarely fatal with appropriate care. A moderate overdose may induce symptoms including brisk reflexes, confusion, high or low blood pressure, hyperthermia (elevated body temperature), inability to urinate, involuntary muscle twitching, irregular heartbeat, muscle pain, painful urination, rapid breathing, and severe agitation. An extremely large overdose may produce symptoms such as amphetamine psychosis, bleeding in the brain, cardiogenic shock, circulatory collapse, compulsive and repetitive behavior, elevated blood potassium or low blood potassium, extreme fever, fluid accumulation in the lungs, high lung arterial blood pressure, kidney failure, metabolic acidosis (excessively acidic bodily fluids), no urine production, rapid muscle breakdown, respiratory alkalosis (reduced partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the blood), serotonin toxidrome (excessive neuronal serotoninergic activity), and sympathomimetic toxidrome (excessive neuronal adrenergic activity). Fatal amphetamine poisoning usually involves convulsions and coma.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:13, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Borked reflist
References

I like the table. Did the same thing with obesity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Simplified / corrected a couple I think. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I've pasted your revised version into the article... I actually had to put the wikitable in a template (Template:Amphetamine overdose) because wikitables don't parse correctly inside the #ifeq function, which is used to transclude most of the overdose section to dextroamphetamine, Adderall, and lisdexamfetamine. Apparently transcluding the table works though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

It's much better, but I don't like the 2 main columns being so wide, which makes it harder to read. I'd about halve their width, as only the header text is at all long. This may appear differently in my wide screen to how others see it, I'm not sure. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

There's not a lot that we can do about that right now. If you set a width, you're going to have problems on mobile devices, which represent a third of all page views these days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I love summary tables. One concern that I have about this one as well as all others is that they are prone to corruption if anyone changes something. My preferred solution to this is having a citation after every information item in the table. Many people for stylistic purposes oppose this, but in my opinion, preserving data quality outweighs style concerns and there is a real threat here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Or at least put them in as hidden refs using <!-- --> Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I like the tables and their implementation, and I could get over the fact they are full width on my screen. My only concern is about "extremely large overdose". The word extremely doesn't feel professional enough for an encyclopedia, and if this is to be an example we can use in other articles I suggest it be changed. It retracts from what you really mean - "Very large" or even just "Large" would suffice. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the forced 100% width and centered the table. The current table is roughly the best I can make it look without the two symptom columns being unequal in size or specifying a px width (which would cause problems in some browsers). It looks ok on my laptop; looks better on my phone. Edit: The main reason I used the term "extreme" here as opposed to "very" is to emphasize that those effects require a much larger dose than that taken to produce symptoms of a moderate overdose (an order of magnitude usually - therapeutic doses range in the tens of mg with a max of 60 mg (per the FDA and INCHEM); recreational doses typically range from 500mg to 5g). Another minor reason I worded it that way is that the symptoms of a moderate OD may occur at idiosyncratically low doses - extreme OD symptoms do not (most of them are medical emergencies). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, is there anything preventing you from having a >xxmg or something similar in the box? Also, I understand the need to differentiate, but extreme isn't the proper word. Maybe major? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

After pubmed searching "Extreme overdose" without a filter, I see your point. I've used the scale in PMID 9656975 and changed the headings accordingly. Let me know if that works for you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:17, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Pine cone extract

Dear medical experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic? Should it be kept and improved, or deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If straight-up Google results for the term in quotes are any indication (which they might not be), then probably not, I would say. There are 15 results for the phrase on PubMed, none of which are MEDRS compliant, so it would probably become a quackfest if we accepted it through AFC. I found some results using Google Books but mostly just passing mentions, so I would conclude that it isn't notable, but I might be wrong. Jinkinson talk to me 01:37, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article

Briefly looking into the edit history of the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article, I don't see any of our WP:Med editors watching that article (at least not typical WP:Med editors watching it). I think that it's a good idea that a few of us WP:Watchlist it, just like we are watching the Ebola virus and Ebola virus disease articles. I'll go ahead and WP:Watchlist it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

I've also gone ahead and WP:Watchlisted the Ebola virus article. I have yet to consistently WP:Watchlist the Ebola virus disease article; this is because I've seen that it's well-watched by WP:Med members. Flyer22 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Flyer22. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It seems that CFCF is also now watching the article. And for documentation in this section, Dovikap moved the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa article to Ebola virus pandemic, and RockMFR rightfully reverted, as seen here. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Category for published articles

I propose a category (possibly Category:Published articles) for externally published Wikipedia articles, such as the article "Dengue fever". (Perhaps in the future, it can have subcategories.) The new category can be categorized in Category:Articles.
—Wavelength (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2014 (UTC) and 03:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
To distinguish the articles from those published by VDM Publishing and similar companies, a better name for the new category might be "Category:Articles published in peer-reviewed literature", with allowance for medical articles and other articles.
—Wavelength (talk) 05:06, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

sounds like a reasonable proposition.Docsim (talk) 12:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

How many articles do you believe would currently belong in the category? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

wise guy. :) but good point. Jytdog (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nirfast

Dear medical experts: I know this isn't directly a medical topic, but the Technology WikiProject appears to be inactive. Is there a better place to discuss this old AfC draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there would be, and this seems thoroughly promotional to me, it would likely be okay to delete. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Besides its a copy paste from here. and the nirfast website. Ochiwar (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, CFCF and Ochiwar. I have deleted it. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Active surveillance of prostate cancer

Newly moved to specific title and tagged for the project. Needs some checking, if only for links and copvio. Long and expert. It was previously called just Active surveillance, previously a redirect to Watchful waiting, which I have restored. But the new article (only about prostate) distinguishes between the two, whereas Watchful waiting treats them as synomymous. Thoughts? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Rudolph Tanzi needs eyes

Rudolph E. Tanzi, a medical BLP, is almost totally unsourced. BTW, Tanzi has been in the news lately for developing cell cultures that develop structures of Alzheimer's disease. [3] Jinkinson talk to me 15:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As so often with "unsourced" articles, it looks like a largely copyvio from the EL hospital bio. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Extending or adding infoboxes

My english isn't very good, but I'll try to explain what's on my mind...I'm sure this has been discussed before, but there are some things I miss here on Wikipedia. I was thinking that disease articles could've had additional infoboxes with general information like case fatality rate, laterality (e.g. unilateral in the case of pneumothorax, or bilateral testicular torsion, etc.), typical biological markers, incidence rates, affected sex (male, female, both), prognosis (poor, good, very good), typical symptoms, contraindications, etc. Perhaps even more technical information, like typical blood count values and so forth. Please provide a link if this has been discussed before. What do you think? Gautehuus (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I'd say it's quite hard to come up with numbers that are useful because it all depends on context. For example, incidence--where? In the US? Worldwide? How long before those figures are out of date and become inaccurate? Blood values vary with age, and prognosis is tremendously dependent on all kinds of things (how prompt the diagnosis was, access to services, probably socioeconomic status, age, general health of the patient).Basie (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of these are possible. Perhaps a different box under ==Diagnosis== would be good for blood tests. A box listing symptoms under ==Symptoms== is also possible. I wonder if that would tend to introduce editing problems. Some people might think that a box for symptoms needed to contain all the possible symptoms (and especially whichever symptoms they personally experienced). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If we do decide on something like this we would need some firm guidance on where and how many items these contain. We should be trying to write in prose rather than list form IMO. And with more boxes things can get become poorly formatted / more confusing rather than less. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're interested, we could try collaborating on a dummy/sandbox article just to see how it would look, and to find out whether it will work or not. I imagine it will be hard to create a one universal infobox, but to start this off, I think we could make one that can be used in the larger articles on common diseases. Gautehuus (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Gautehuus I am very supportive of this idea. For medicine there is less work in trying this than there is in economics. There are several issues to overcome. One is the creation of the infobox, another is deciding how to store the data which goes into the infobox, and another is deciding which datasets to present. For medicine deciding which data to present can be difficult as there are arguments about whom to trust.

For economics there is more consensus in many datasets, and at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Global Economic Map there is a proposal to make an infobox for all regions which presents the economic data by year and updates automatically every year. This proposal is not being developed by anyone but I think if it were funded for economics then based on that precedent we could try something with medicine.

What you suggest is an excellent idea and it must be the future of Wikipedia. The biggest problem right now is finding someone who is able to apply for a grant to do the necessary development to make this happen. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Torpor and Lethargy

Hello there, I just want to let you know that it looks like the interwiki links of Torpor and Lethargy (es:Letargo) are messed. A number of articles are linked to Torpor but they should probably be linked to Lethargy, since it's the same word: ca:Letargia - eo:Letargio - eu:Letargia - fr:Léthargie - pt:Letargia. I would like to ask those who have enough medical knowledge and can read those languages to take a look at this. Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

And what's with the Lethargy (a redirect to wiktionary) anyways? Shouldn't it be a redirect to another Wikipedia article? —  Ark25  (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes what do you propose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Jmh649: Sorry, somehow I forgot about this topic. I propose to take a look at ca:Letargia for example, and move it into wikidata:Q15637420 if it better fits there. The same with the other 4 articles mentioned above. —  Ark25  (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Disruptive editing at psychology articles, reported at WP:ANI

Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on the following matter: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Chesivoirzr regarding psychology articles or articles that include psychological perspectives. A WP:Permalink to that section is here. If Chesivoirzr continues to edit psychology articles, or Wikipedia in general, I am not confident that this WP:Disruptive behavior will stop. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Marburg virus,,,Pros/Cons

Recently I found opposition to include the Marburg virus [4](filoviridae ,same as Ebola) in the "Ebola west Africa" article. Though it did NOT originate in west Africa, I though it would add to the article (Congo and its 71/43 CFR, is included, though it also has no connection to west Africas' current outbreak). So im asking for opinions, of whether to push the matter or drop it.thank you.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

you have done good work per WP:BRD - you added it to the article, it was reverted, so you brought it up for discussion on the talk page where no one agreed, and now you are bringing it here to get more opinions, instead of edit warring over it. that is great. my read is that you offer no reason here why the content fits in the scope of the 2014 outbreak article; "i want to" is not a useful grounds to persuade others. There was debate in the Talk page about deleting the Congo strain content and another brief discussion here since it is not the same as the west african strain and is located far away, but a) to clarify that the outbreaks are currently different and b) due to the possibility of the two outbreaks eventually merging, the congo content has been retained (not a decision i agree with but that was local consensus). i don't see any way that the marburg outbreak on the other side of the continent falls in the scope and would also have said to leave it out. more generally, if consensus develops against, you, give up and move on per WP:STICK. Jytdog (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I will therefore drop it,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Help wanted in improving the article William Pooley (Ebola patient) and ZMapp

Hi

I recently started the William Pooley (Ebola_patient) article which has now been nominated for deletion. I'm trying to find out more information about his treatment with ZMapp, he seems to be one of only a very small number of people who have been treated with the experimental drug with no new supplies of the treatment being available for months to come. I'd also very much like to include this information in the ZMapp article.

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

mrjohncummings, i believe that under privacy laws like HIPAA you are going to find very little detail published in reliable sources about his or any other individual's treatment. speaking generally, folks have wanted to add lots of information about specific patients treated with ZMapp and I have been trimming that. The reasons are a) the article is about the drug b) what happened with the individual cases tells us little about whether the drug is safe and effective, which we'll only know from aggregate data from testing or using the drug in many people c) the structure of the article is set by WP:MEDMOS which rightly doesn't have space for individual case studies; some content on these individual treatments has been retained in the History section since they were big news; d) little information about these individual treatments is available from WP:MEDRS compliant sources, so there is little we can say anyway (except that they happened) - in other words, these studies are History, which is OK to source from sources other than biomedical reviews and statements by major scientific and medical bodies (the kind of sources we use for actual health/medical content). Jytdog (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

projectmed members, i've been even keeping names out of the article - again, the identity of the patients is irrelevant with respect to the drug, and in my view there are privacy issues (I know that people's names were reported in the media, but we don't have to do that here as well). Thoughts on this, and what i wrote above, are very welcome.... Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Regional function of the heart

New article: I don't even know where to begin. total rubbish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talk • contribs)

What makes you say it's rubbish?. Currently it's lacking references, which I give you is a major issue, but as the author Naelosman seems knowledgable about the field we may be able to salvage some if the article. Preferably we would run the article through the copyvio-bot, move it to the sandbox and get in touch with the editor who wrote it and see if we can make it adhere to WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS etc. I think the worst thing we can do is to write of a potential useful contribution as rubbish because someone isn't knowledgeable of our guidelines and reference style from the start. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The editor is also working on this page Strain Encoding MRI, and I think there may be some conflict of interest issues there. This account Nfosman seems to be related as well. — CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have just started to write the articles. I am waiting for the 4 days period to start adding more material to the article. This is my field of my expertise and I would appreciate help to eliminate the weaknesses mentioned. I am going to add more references (scientific journal publications) to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naelosman (talk • contribs) 13:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC

this account appears to be the same as Nfosman and there appear to be WP:COI issues here. hopefully the user will clarify on his Talk page or pages. these appear to be typical new editor mistakes; none are fatal and hopefully we can get things on track going forward. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move Varicose veins ==> Varicose vein

Please join the discussion at Talk:Varicose veins#RfC: Propose moving title to singular form. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC regarding Epilepsy article

There has been a long and protracted discussion regarding if epilepsy should have a "mechanisms / pathophysiology" section. Or if this content should be combined into causes. Talk:Epilepsy#Should_the_article_on_epilepsy_have_a_mechanisms_section.3F Further comments appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And in six months time I predict blindness will have a "Mechanism" section, "per MEDMOS". There won't be any discussion, long, short, snappy or protracted. Because the only person on Wikipedia permitted to edit medical articles will be James. I appreciate few people here (well, nobody) is an expert in epilepsy so may feel reluctant to get involved, or to challenge James. Well one day he'll own an article in your specialisation and you can enjoy the experience as much as Jophiel and I have recently. -- Colin°^Talk 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

This dispute makes me feel sad.

It would actually be helpful to have someone help out, especially if you know anything about the mechanism of "developing epilepsy", which is distinct from the mechanism of "having a seizure". We've got the mechanism of seizures fairly well settled, but the mechanism of epilepsy itself can't seem to get beyond some vague handwaving about "there are changes in the brain" (possibly because the mechanisms are unknown or because every form of epilepsy has a different mechanism). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of potential sources as mechanisms of epilepsy is discussed in many textbooks and journal article

User:Colin appears to be set on trying to get me topic banned per [5] and [6]

All a little strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You know, this article could really do with a neurologist's help. Wouldn't we all agree that it would be wonderful if a neuroloist joined WPMED to help with topics like epilepsy? I'm quite sure if one turned up with some reasonable ideas of how to improve the article, we'd welcome him with open arms. We'd have friendly chats on the talk page. We'd ask lots of questions, because (as WhatamIdoing knows) that's absolutely the best way to draw out what the reader needs to know. We wouldn't have closed minds. We'd be open to change, because Wikipedia merits change more than status quo. We'd help them with the wiki stuff and policies while respecting their greater knowledge of the subject. We'd ensure the general reader wasn't neglected and their questions answered in a readable way. Wouldn't we? Oh, I guess we wouldn't. No, we'd chase them away. Revert everthing they do. We'd stubbornly refuse to get the point. We'd keep repeating our misconceptions as though doing so might make them seem reasonable. We'd invent made-up rules like "every article must follow MEDMOS sections" to discourage any radical thoughts. And we'd behave so badly that a long-term wikifriend would ask for us to be temporarily topic banned. -- Colin°^Talk 07:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Yup because here at Wikipedia we are all about claimed credentials and not about sources.

Also fixed up some copy and paste violations along the way [7]

Even checked with the ILAE to see if they were willing to release the text that was borrowed under a compatible license. They unfortunately said no for now.

If this is the response I get from a wikifriend I hardly need wikienemies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The dispute is not about sources. It is about how to build an article in an online hyperlinked encyclopaedia that also happens to be a collaborative wiki with behaviour guidelines. Here's a source for that. This is a behavioural dispute, where the owner of an article (who it now appears has very limited understanding of the topic and a chronic inability to write readable prose that actually supplies relevant information) doing everything possible to treat an expert like a troll. Look above where he's keen to point out where our newbie has blundered, and yet thinks ILAE releasing text under a compatible licence might in any way help us to avoid plagiarism. There is a pride and competence issue here. That's all. I'm well aware that claimed credentials should be treated with suspicion, but there's every evidence our new editor knows what he's talking about and, I'm sorry to say, every evidence the incumbant does not. James should be working with our new editor, not against him. -- Colin°^Talk 09:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Per "limited understanding of the topic and a chronic inability to write readable prose that actually supplies relevant information", it seems like you need to take this user to WP:ANI User:Colin and request they be indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. From what you write it definitely sounds like they are ruining the place.

With respect to licensing yes I am of the opinion that if the ILAE releases the text under an open license we can than use it word for word by leaving a note in the edit summary. This is what we do / should do when we move text from one Wikipedia article to another. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Well then your opinion would be wrong. James, I am really trying to understand why you are so hostile to our new editor? And why this project, which only exists due to the combined medical expertise and enthusiasm of its members, allows this to occur. Remember when we despaired at the incompetent writings of that Candadian megaclass of first year students? James, in arguing with our expert, wrote "Benign rolandic epilepsy can be a "cause" of epilepsy". This is as dumb as writing "Acute lymphoblastic leukemia can be a "cause" of cancer". You'd roll your eyes and despair that this person was heavily editing, never mind owning the article. Please folk, how would you like it if a non-specialist turned up on an article in your speciality and kept telling you you were wrong and reverting you? Do you think you'd find Wikipedia a welcoming place if, when trying to write about liver failure, some cardiologist fought with you over every edit and insisted you reach a consensus with him before making any edits? This is the issue I'd like WPMED members to consider, not some silly poll over article sections. -- Colin°^Talk 10:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

If my opinion were wrong than we could never move something from one Wikipedia article to another.

I could have explained my position with respect to Rolandic epilepsy better. Epilepsy syndromes are types of epilepsy and these types have causes that can be described separately from those of secondary epilepsy. Thus IMO it was a reasonable heading under which to discuss the causes of these syndromes. We (including me) have now moved this to the diagnosis section where it also fits reasonably well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

See, this is the problem we have on Epilepsy. James cannot accept he might be wrong and over-estimates his understanding of the topic he is arguing about. And he will argue from this position of a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing the cows come home. This is a pride thing. James is now unable to contemplate/admit that what he's said about reusing external free content might not be correct, but rather than going to find out his mistake, he'll just argue. I'll leave pointing out where James is still wrong as an excercise for the reader. -- Colin°^Talk 12:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Colin, please stop using this as a project Talk page to pursue what should be a straight-forward content discussion instead as a venomous personal dispute. If you've got an issue with an editor's behavior, and you've been directed not to post on that editor's User Talk, take it to an appropriate behavior-related discussion venue. Please don't do it here. Zad68 12:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a "straight-forward content discussion" I've had plenty of them and they don't involve hundreds of words flying in and out of an article in a revert war. And it now involves two members of this project edit warring (James, and more recently User:CFCF). As I keep asking, why is this project so hostile to this new editor? I note you aren't asking James to stop. In fact, nobody is censuring James at all. Shame on you all. -- Colin°^Talk 13:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Likely the hostility is towards the way arguments are presented, and not towards the new editor. Simply trying to shout loudly enough to drown out others – writing swathes of text that noone is going to read may be a fully functioning strategy elsewhere, but it obviously isn't cutting it with this project. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(unindent) James, why are you so [and by extension this wikiproject] so hostile to our new editor? Who, other than WhatamIdoing, is making any effort to understand their position both on the content and as an editor? Or who is just automatically taking James's side, lifting their pitchfork, and joining the crowd to evict this monster. -- Colin°^Talk 12:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Painful to peruse... :-/ I suspect this incident could provide useful material for a case study of how a series of gf edit/talk-page interactions can turn damagingly ugly in this online environment. Imo, we need to think outside the emotionally charged "toxic environment" cliché/metaphor (it's nothing to do with toxicology!).

Agree with WAID, it's sad to see. Especially after hearing James repeatedly cite Colin as example of an admirable MED editor.

(As a footnote, I think it may be worth highlighting that "Mechanism" and "Pathophysiology" are not actually synonyms. Unfortunately, our MEDMOS initiatives - like this proposed heading change - to make medical articles more reader-friendly may sometimes unwittingly trigger talk-page misunderstandings.)
109.153.156.71 (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

may be worthwhile getting back on track. productive comment made earlier as to the mechanism of developing epilepsy which is different to the actual mechanism of one having a seizure. agree that the mechanism of epilepsy itself is vague. may help to focus on this point for added value.Docsim (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Health statistics: US vs global

When editing pages is it better to use US statistics, global statistics, or both? For example, many of the cancer pages only list a 5 year survival from a US perspective. Global stats seem more prudent to me, and I wouldn't be opposed to including both. Just wanted to get people's opinions on this. Thanks. Muscat Hoe (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We should always use global statistics, whenever possible! We do have a US-bias, but only because many editors come from the US and are savvy about the situation there, and will more likely be interested in such numbers. Additionally we aren't limited to US or global statistics either, but should display UK, EU, Japan, China etc. etc. whenever they are notable (mentioning these as they are more likely to have statistics on a variety of diseases as opposed to say Rwanda).

US statistics aren't premiered in any way, and if for example industrialized countries have a certain incidence, which is the same as the US, we are safe to assume that readers can extrapolate that the US is an industrialized country and it would not need independent mention, unless on a more list-type epidemiology article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with CFCF. Ideally, we would feature global statistics whenever possible. If there are significant differences in different areas of the world, different ages, or different gender, or specific occupations than it is important for us to use these statistics, too. We have a long way to go to do this in a consistent way in most health articles. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that we should use global statistics, but in some cases the U.S. data is collected and available and the global information is not. The CDC, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Healthcare Utilization Project, and other databases do provide much more epidemiology info than is sometimes available on a WW basis, and the EU has similarly detailed info on many topics. I'd hate to see useful local statistics that one can in many cases extrapolate from excluded in favor of non-existent stats of a more global nature. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I take the point as a general one, but for cancer, regulars here have at least 3 copies of World Cancer Report 2014 (World Health Organization. 2014. ISBN 9283204298), and CRUK's CancerStats sub-site has good global and UK figures. We are normally only giving the very top-level figures just as figures, and for more detail and explanation/interpretation should mostly be using normal MEDRS reviews etc. So both, as we all agree. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everyone else that worldwide is best, but anything (well, anything halfway decent) is better than nothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that we too often use low hanging fruit of US stats when the other content is available with just a bit of effort. So, I would like to ask everyone to think broader and make the effort to look for global stats that give a more complete picture. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

On this issue, as part of my training work, a Wikipedia:WikiProject_CRUK/Angel_training#Participants.2C_stats_team number of CRUK specialists from the stats team added basic UK stats to several cancer articles on October 3rd - eg this, with this note/disclosure on the talk page: "Hi, I'm from Cancer Research UK and going to add some UK stats to the epidemiology section complied from ONS, ISD Scotland, Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit and the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry as summarised on the Cancer Research UK website". They now plan to do the rest of the 35 cancer types they cover in the same way. At a later stage I hope we can add more on global figures and patterns, but this is a welcome start I think. I'm thinking a standard edit summary with a reference to a version of this explanation on the CRUK project page will be enough, without a talk page section each time. Do people agree with this? The figures will be sourced & referenced to the CRUK CancerStats sub-site, which they write. I expect most of you will be familiar with my pitch that for the UK stats these are the best source for us to use, as the figures published by the various official stats bodies are mostly in forms designed for professionals, so I won't repeat that. What is great is that they are keen to incorporate this into their standard updating procedures, so after I am gone from CRUK new figures will be updated on Wikipedia. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Global stats should be first if available. Sometimes they do not exist. I often than provide stats of large English speaking nations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

John, that sounds fine to me. I think it's reasonable to include stats from English-speaking countries even if we've got good global data, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel we should limit ourselves to English-speaking countries, seeing as it would be a major disservice to our readers from other countries, (of which we have very many). My fear is we could end up with list-type entries of all available statistics (even if we are far from that today), and I think we need to take the notability of a statistic into account. What I mean is that there is nothing inherently more notable about US-numbers as opposed to say Chinese statistics. Arguably the same holds when you compare US vs. Canada, with the only caveat being the difference in number of citizens. To many, US-state statistics are relevant, and Texas, Florida or California statistics cover more people than Canadian or even UK ones do.

So where do we draw the line? For a similar problem concerning regulation: Electronic cigarette was split into a daughter article Legal status of electronic cigarettes (more list-type). The main article mentions: US FDA regulation, EU regulation and Western Australia regulation, while the list article goes into much more depth with individual countries and US states. US, EU and Western Australia is hardly balanced, and maybe there is need to chisel out which statistics/regulations etc. are notably mentioned in the main article. Wikipedia:WORLDVIEW gives little info on how to solve these issues, and maybe this is something for WP:MEDMOS? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree we don't want a long list, and US & UK are mostly broadly similar (as rates). On the other hand they are very high quality and of of interest to lots of readers. We could look at Euro figures too, and Canada and Australia where they are different from other English-speaking countries.£ (see below) The WHO has Asian figures, which are often considerably different, but I think raw numbers here won't convey too much, nor perhaps % of global cases/deaths. We'd need rates. Likewise Africa, though I think the figures there have more issues. I suggest we work up one or two cancer article sections as models. Maybe lung and esophagus, which both vary a good deal around the world? Ideally we want to concentrate on what broad rate differences reveal about the causes and different patterns of treatment, but of course this involves a good deal more work. And we should have more on age and gender incidence in many cases. Wiki CRUK John/ Johnbod (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

£ (note to above) eg see the existing Skin_cancer#Epidemiology re Australiasia. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with just about everybody (I think) that we should be aiming at a worldwide perspective, though as WAID points out anything decently reliable is better than nothing. Certainly, if our information on the distribution of malaria, say, were restricted to large, non-(sub)tropical English-speaking countries, then that would indeed be a concern... More generally, it's normal for the distribution of just about any disease to vary by geography, as well as age, gender, socioeconomic factors etc. It's also true that the common availability of official statistics for certain developed countries, including the USA, UK, etc, makes it tempting to give them extra weight. Ideally, I think it would be good to see members of organizations such as (and hopefully not limited to) CRUK using their expertise to help build a well-balanced global perspective, rather than focusing specifically on (for example) UK statistics. But I recognize that this is by no means straightforward, as organically conceived contributions require an ongoing familiarity with WP processes and etiquette that takes time (and regularity) to accrue. Fwiw, I'm happy to collaborate with CRUK and other editors on developing Esophageal cancer#Epidemiology, per John's suggestion above (though I won't be around much in the next few days). I've had useful tip off that an ideal source (I believe) on the subject is due to be published tomorrow, so that should help considerably.

RE "...what broad rate differences reveal about the causes and different patterns of treatment": MEDMOS of course foresees a "Causes" section which implicitly covers that I think. As regards "treatment patterns", hum, now where does that go...? A relevant question, imo. 109.153.156.71 (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Unfortunately this is one of Wikipedia's WP:systemic biases. This includes articles about training pathways for specialists, costs to the US health system, random healthcare statistics from the US health system, drug names from the US, epidemiological figures from the US, and so on and so on. I would fully support a move towards national-level statistics. The issue then becomes what statistics - there are so many countries. One way to divide this up would be by population, extremes (ie countries with good/bad states of care), or by English-speaking countries (likely to be the majority of our readers), or a combination. This is similar to a problem we face in WP:ANATOMY where the "Society and culture" sections of articles are usually hollowed out and do not make any reference to the rich histories or knowledge of anatomical structures in arabic medicine, Ayurvedic medicine and Traditional Chinese Medicine, not to mention other cultures and ethnic traditions. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Although not a design specifically mentioned in WP:MEDRS, I believe this very recent publication (thanks to John for the heads-up) may be considered an ideal source for Esophageal cancer#Epidemiology, somewhat similarly to our use of meta-analyses. Imo, when available, this sort of worldwide survey helps obviate the temptation to focus on statistics from the English-speaking countries. I'd be interested in any feedback, especially from MEDRS regulars such as WAID (though please don't expect me to respond promptly). 109.153.156.71 (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't make up my mind about this source. It will be interesting to see how other sources react to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word "outbreak"

Currently, the article title for Ebola virus disease in the United States (a better title, in my opinion), is Ebola virus outbreak in the United States. Is the use of the word outbreak overly sensationalistic? How many cases does it take before one gets an Ebola outbreak in a geographical region? Two, ten, twenty? I know the lay press might be using outbreak, but it seems obvious to me that its usage should be someting medical sources agree upon. I think our current article title hypes the situation, just going off of my first impression. Thoughts? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, outbreak is very sensational when compared to any meaningful statistics. As is the image at the top of the article with Texas in red. There have been 3 cases, it isn't an outbreak. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What do reliable sources call it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

The CDC calls them "cases" [8] Specifically "travel associated cases" [9], very fram from outbreak. WHO are of a similar stance [10] -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I placed a requested move template on the talk page. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that might not be best. It requires 7 days of discussion. Maybe an admin could just lower the protection level and move it. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

How the World Health Organization defines 'outbreak.' [11] Also, in Epidemiology, two related cases = an outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you source your epidemiology statement? Also the link you gave states:

A single case of a communicable disease long absent from a population, or caused by an agent (e.g. bacterium or virus) not previously recognized in that community or area, or the emergence of a previously unknown disease, may also constitute an outbreak and should be reported and investigated.

May being central here, and as neither the WHO or CDC are referring to it as an outbreak, we should not either. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, I think it's premature to call the US cases an "outbreak". The West Africa cases are considered an outbreak by the CDC as seen here (http://www.cdc.gov/vhf/ebola/outbreaks/2014-west-africa/distribution-map.html#areas), but use of the word outbreak might really cause feelings of panic in those who read that language. Since the number of cases in the US can be counted on one hand, I feel the need to echo the sentiments above and say no to using that word for now. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Given that the two locally transmitted cases (i.e. other than the index case) were not in the general population, but rather health care workers inside the index case's isolation, calling it an outbreak would really be straining the term beyond the breaking point. Rather it still seems pretty well contained to one small place and subpopulation. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Surely this is also a question of good editorial judgement: in WP terms, how much weight currently to give to a particular ongoing event? Personally, I don't think giving prominence to the term "outbreak" would be editorially appropriate at present, given the emotive, non-technical associations that word may convey in common usage. 109.153.156.71 (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on the content at Outbreak, any cases at all in the US is an "outbreak", because the expected number is zero.

I don't agree that this term is sensationalistic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that it's "senstionalistic" either. At any rate, our main outbreak article has been using the WHO definition. If they are calling the one case in Senegal an outbreak [12] why should we decide that they are wrong and call the US something different? We need to keep the split articles consistant, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

logic dictates we follow WHO, and WHO dictates we follow the term "outbreak"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with WhatamIdoing, Gandydancer, and Ozzie10aaaa. It is not sensational and we are using the WHO definition on the other articles, as Gandy and Ozzie point out. The expected number in America is zero as Whatamidoing notes. We've now got 3. There are 76 healthcare workers who had contact with Thomas Duncan who are currently being monitored. The CDC expects more cases. The virus is not endemic in America nor is the suspected natural reservoir, fruit bats, in America. In addition, this page has been moved numerous times to the point that when it was moved by another editor this last time, I asked an admin to protect the page from further moves. It's too disruptive. An editor on the talk page right is saying move it now, and we'll move it again when he's satisfied it's an outbreak. That's the problem. This is exactly why I asked the admin to protect the page. It can't be done on whim. Also, keep in mind the American officials are trying to prevent any panic, but there might also be political motives, as they are always present in any event that disrupts commerce and business as usual. The WHO definition doesn't concern itself with politics. It focuses on the science. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Does any one say their is an "outbreak" of Ebola in the United States? If the answer is NO neither should we. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

When asked if the recent Ebola cases in Dallas should be considered an "outbreak," The White House said "No." (10/15) --Light show (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL. An outbreak would be scary and it's not politically correct to be scared of Ebola in the US. Yet.

This reminds me of the discussion we had on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster about the wisdom of calling some accident a "disaster" on Wikipedia, even if nobody had been actually killed, and it wasn't at all clear if anybody would ever be killed. How much a disaster can that be, considering all the man-made disasters there are? It was certainly a public relations disaster for nuclear power, but that was about it. Compare with the worst coal mine accident that killed over 1500 people and is not graced with the word "disaster" on Wikipedia: Benxihu Colliery. It turns out, after some research, that natural disasters (like the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami itself) are not called disasters in specific on Wikipedia. Just because. While man-made accidents are called "disasters" on Wikipedia sometimes and other times not. With no particular rhyme or reason [13], and it varies greatly by category, and nowhere are the worst things called "disasters" more than the others. But I was told to just follow what the press called it. We don't worry about stirring up fear, since we follow the press and the press certainly doesn't worry about that.

For example, consider Islamic-extremist terrorism. Clearly we fear THAT a lot more than aging and disease, since we've spent $1 trillion on wars since 2001 vs. $300 billion for all government biomedical research in that time. But this use of money is not a disaster because the press doesn't feel it is.

In any case, if this unfortunate Ebola emergence or outbreak (inability to deal with which, has been at least partly to cuts in biomedical research in the last 11 years while we dropped bombs on Iraqis) ever should become a "plague" according to the press, we'll be sure and let you all know. So that we can change the name here on Wikipedia, like the good mirrors of official public sentiment and nomenclature that we all are.

At least we know that no Ebola outbreak and failure to contain it, will ever be a "disaster." Not on Wikipedia.SBHarris 03:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

According to this definition from UCLA (http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/anthapha_def_a.html), the term epidemic could be used though that obviously carries similar fear-inspiring connotations. Are those fears justified? Probably a matter of debate, but in terms of meeting the criteria, it appears that the cases in the United States meet the definition of an epidemic. " A single case of a communicable disease long absent from a population or the first invasion by a disease not previously recognized in that area requires immediate reporting and epidemiologic investigation; two cases of such a disease associated in time and place are sufficient evidence of transmission to be considered an epidemic." (partial quote). The Manitoba government's definition of outbreak (seen here: http://www.gov.mb.ca/health/publichealth/cdc/protocol/investigation.pdf) also seems appropriate for the U.S. cases. Therefore, I will revise my stance on this question and say that outbreak or epidemic are both acceptable from a definition standpoint regardless of the "political correctness" or the fear that these words will likely instill in readers. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This source (http://epi.publichealth.nc.gov/cd/lhds/manuals/cd/training/Module_1_1.6_ppt_OutbreakInvestigation.pdf) also agrees that an increase in cases beyond what would normally be expected in a population qualifies as an outbreak. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

But I do not see how nurses who weren't adequately trained or given appropriate gear to care for an Ebola patient count as part of the population, which I think means the general population. The disaster of not having these nurses prepared to handle the situation is terribly tragic. As for the word "outbreak", I haven't checked out the definitions myself, but the LA Times says this is far from an outbreak. I've tagged the article as having a non-neutral title and asked for admin assistance at WP:AN. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I now see User:WhatamidoIng's point above. I might need to think about this more, but I know the importation of a case to the U.S. has been expected, due to international travel. And it's also entirely expected that cases will develop if health care providers do not have the appropriate training and resources to care for a patient. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Try User:WhatamIdoing again. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Cross-wiki infoboxes

Category:Templates using data from Wikidata has some templates that we (meaning people more technically adept than I) might want to look over. It should, in theory, be possible to use this to automagically fill in a parameter (e.g., an ICD code) based on Wikidata if the parameter isn't specified in the article itself.

The documentation is at Wikipedia:Wikidata#Infoboxes (Phase 2), and it's not completely up to date. I believe that if we figured out how to do this, and then ported the changes to the other Wikipedias, then this would work everywhere, which might be very convenient for translators. I may be wrong, of course, but I believe that it might make it possible to type just {{infobox disease}} at the top of the page, and have the entire infobox filled in, without needing to have a dozen lines of confusing, case-sensitive code at the start of every lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Yes, what you say is correct, and this is already done in some places. As I understand, we are waiting for any community member to trial this and trialing this would take a non-programmer only hours to set up. Anticipated problems include making infoxes thereafter incomprehensible and increasing page load time by seconds for when 100 data pieces are called.

There will be an IRC meetup on this 16 October hosted by Fabrice Florin (WMF).

Here are some medicine-specific past discussions.

• Infoboxes: Moving data to Wikidata, from archive 37
• Wikidata project to associate drugs with interactions, from archive 52

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, especially for things like the ongoing translation project this would probably be of great value. I am however a bit concerned with editing those data; if you look at the cross-language interwiki links, it has already become incredibly hard to do anything other than adding one language link (which can still be done with the wikipedia interface, anything more takes you to wikidata and beware if two different wikidata items exist linking to the same topic in different languages, things start getting ugly very quickly then). It would be nice if wikidata's interface could be improved a bit before this. Alternatively (but less optimally), the locally specified values could overrule wikidata values, so if you put in an infobox it would take all data from wikidata but you could still enter different data in the article itself. --WS (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wouterstomp To start I think the hope is to minimize need for anyone to localize data. Propagating things like links to WHO pages would be a good start. Numerical data which is widely accepted is another option. I do not think Wikidata's interface will be improved without a trial of this, and a trial of this is not going to be easy until Wikidata's interface is improved. This is why we have halted. I would love for someone to apply for a grant at the meta:Grants:IdeaLab space to get the resources necessary to prototype a model for this so that discussion and development can continue. The project will only be messy and problematic in the beginning. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I think we pretty much need one or two advance scouts to go figure it out and report back, so we'll have a clearer idea of what to do. ICD numbers seem like a good place to start, since they're the same all over the world, or maybe OMIMs would be good.

@Scottalter:, do you think you could figure out how to adapt the infobox to read something from Wikidata (only if the item were blank in the article)? The en.wp template side of the matter seems more accessible to me than the Wikidata side. If someone else could figure out how to get the Wikidata record fixed (just for one article; I'll suggest the incredibly low-traffic ODDD as a target), then we could try a test run to see if it works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the challenge. I think I've figured it out. The ODDD article now has its infobox data at wikidata:Q17148148 and the article uses Template:Infobox disease/sandbox. The sandbox infobox just draws the data right from Wikidata and ignores any parameters passed to the template from the article itself. But another if statement could be added for each variable to use existing data piped to the template if the Wikidata does not exist, or vice-versa. (Which data should take priority - info from Wikidata, or info in the local Wikipedia passed directly to the template?) Also, if any of you guys are admins, any chance I could get the template editor right? Template:Infobox disease is protected to that level. Thanks. --Scott Alter (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

A while ago I wrote a module, Module:Wikidata, that I intended to be usable for getting data from Wikidata into infoboxes. It takes a parameter which can be either a locally provided value or "FETCH_WIKIDATA" - in the former case it just returns the parameter (even if it's ""); in the latter case it returns the data from Wikidata or nothing if the data does not exist. If it is invoked from within a template using e.g. | data1 = {{#invoke:Wikidata |getRawValue |p494 |{{{ICD-10|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}} }}, then having a local parameter called 'ICD-10' in the infobox takes precedence; otherwise it attempts to fetch the data from Wikidata. You may be able to understand from the module documentation how you can use it, or examine some working examples at {{infobox person/Wikidata}} or {{infobox video game series/Wikidata}}. --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

That looks great, Scott. A one-line, zero-parameter template adds everything.

I like the idea of being able to override it locally whenever we want, so I'd be happy to see you and RexxS work out how to do that.

Also, would the next admin passing by please grant that request for templateeditor rights? Scott has been one of the primary maintainers of {{WPMED}} for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

RexxS, do you know how CPU intensive the module is? Another possible use of your module is to have a second function like "FETCH_WIKIDATA," but called "FETCH_KEY" that gets the language-specific name of the field. That way, the language-specific field names can be pulled from Wikidata, and then only 1 infobox code is needed for every language Wikipedia. This could be useful, but I am not familiar with how to write modules to access Wikidata, and it would take me a long time to try and reverse engineer all of your code.

The other options regarding combining Wikidata and explicitly mentioned parameters are: 1) to include an if statement for each parameter in the template, or 2) maybe simply {{{ICD-10|{{#property:P494}}}}} would do the job. The complexity of data display comes with how to parse the data for linking, rather than how to get the data. Since the data is just stored as one string, it needs to be cut up using string functions to format it properly for templates like {{ICD10}}. (Unless we change how those templates work, which I would be fully supportive of. {{ICD10|Q|87|8}} seems excessive, when {{ICD10|Q87.8}} could do the same job.) --Scott Alter (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a bit of efficiency discussion about load times at meta:Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Tools_for_using_wikidata_items_as_citations#Efficiency_issues. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Fixed your link-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Old primary sources

Should we be using these to support historical claims? Pleas comment here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

PubMed reference template generator makes reference at the bottom repeat – DOI generator does not – recommendations? PubMed ID recommended over DOI?

I just finished watching the “Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine” introduction video, and it mentions PubMed as a good choice.

If I were to use a paper, and it has a PubMed ID, should I use that to generate a template over using a DOI generator?

Also, I have a problem with reference template generators.

The following tool allows you to input a PubMed ID: https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi

I found that if I referenced a PubMed source again, the reference number would increment, and at the bottom, the source would appear multiple times.

This doesn’t happen with the following DOI generator tool: http://reftag.appspot.com/doiweb.py

Am I doing something wrong with the PubMed generator?

Does anyone have tool recommendations for generating a PubMed template that doesn’t have these problems?

Thanks.

Bboyjkang2 (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, for anything health-related, a pubmed-based ref is very much best. if you use a reference a second time, you shouldn't fully cite it the second time. instead, name the reference, and use the name the second time. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations. Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Also not all pubmed sources are suitable. Most in fact are not. If you limit your search to review articles from the last 5 years more appropriate sources will be listed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by reference number would increment, and at the bottom, the source would appear multiple times. It would really help if you can give a specific example with a diff. I have used the citation template filling tool extensively, and I have never seen the problem you describe. If you give the reference a different name with otherwise the same content, then the reference will be indeed repeated in the reference section at the bottom. If you are using the name reference more than once, it is not necessary to repeat the full citation. Use a <ref name = "name"/> tag for the second and subsequent citing of the same source (see WP:REFNAME). Boghog (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is a side-by-side comparison of the same citation generated by the two tools (important: be sure that the "Add ref tag" option is checked when using the citation template filling tool):

• Citation template generator: <ref name="pmid3776457">{{cite journal | author = Mölsä PK, Marttila RJ, Rinne UK | title = Survival and cause of death in Alzheimer's disease and multi-infarct dementia | journal = Acta Neurol. Scand. | volume = 74 | issue = 2 | pages = 103–7 | year = 1986 | pmid = 3776457 | doi = 10.1111/j.1600-0404.1986.tb04634.x }}</ref>
• DOI generator tool: <ref name="MölsäMarttila1986">{{cite journal|last1=Mölsä|first1=P.K.|last2=Marttila|first2=R.J.|last3=Rinne|first3=U.K.| title=Survival and cause of death in Alzheimer's disease and multi-infarct dementia |journal=Acta Neurologica Scandinavica|volume=74|issue=2|year=1986|pages=103–107|issn=00016314 |doi=10.1111/j.1600-0404.1986.tb04634.x}}</ref>

One difference is the reference name generated by the two tools (<ref name="pmid3776457"> vs. <ref name="MölsäMarttila1986">. If you use different reference names for the same reference, it will be repeated in the reference section no matter which tool you use. Boghog (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• There are different answers here. I think Boghog's first note is the answer to your question. Use a citation generator one time per citation. After that, copy the name of the citation then paste that in every instance where you want that citation repeated. Names look like "<ref name="pmid3776457">" and when you reuse them, you have to put a slash at the end like "<ref name="pmid3776457"/>". Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS verification

After having edit war on Ayurveda, concerning long standing content, I would like to ask if these sources falls under the MEDRS.

• Usha Srivastava. Encyclopaedia of Indian Medicines (3 Volume Set). Pinnacle.
• John G. Raffensperger, M.D. Children's Surgery: A Worldwide History. McFarland. , or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/101575340
• B. T. Basavanthappa. Psychiatric Mental Health Nursing.
• Bhagwan Dash, Lalitesh Kashyap. Basic Principles of Āyurveda: Based on Āyurveda Saukhyaṁ of Ṭoḍarānanda. Concept Publishing Company.
• S. K. Ramachandra Rao. Encyclopaedia Of Indian Medicine -, Volume 1. Concept publication. Author seems to be reliable
• Durgesh M. Bailoor. Fundamentals of Oral Medicine and Radiology. Jaypee Brothers.
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3705695/

The information that is being removed now[14] seems to be common. It is not actually claiming to be substitute of the scientific terms. Maybe we can remove the scientific terms from the every of the eight component's mention and write short description according to any of these citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The book sources are WP:MEDRS-compliant, though a person might want to go with stronger sources than encyclopedias. Flyer22 (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

[15] [16] can qualify? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That first one is apparently published by McFarland & Company and speaks of essays; it looks like it is reviewing the literature, but I'm iffy on that one. The second one ("Treatment of sexual dysfunctions based on Indian concepts" by the Indian Journal of Psychiatry) looks like a no-go. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Then again, that second one is an official publication of the Indian Psychiatric Society. Let's see what other WP:Med editors think. Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

How about [17]-[18]-[19]-[20]-[21](cited by 33 google scholar[22]) ? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems like the dispute is whether these sources can be used to present translation of Sanskrit words to English words. For example, the wikilink to Pediatrics is deleted from the explanation of Kaumāra-bhṛtya, which is the ayurvedic treatment of children. While I would not use the source cited as an authoritative medical text, in my opinion these kinds of reference works seem fine enough to say that these traditional practices are precursors to modern fields of medicine. Roxy the dog and Dominus Vobisdu, I agree that these are not WP:MEDRS sources, but this seems like a humanities issue and not a science one. What is your objection here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly though, it is actually more about the philosophical texts than about some scientific research. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: The issue is presenting a primitive, undeveloped and chaotic ragtag bag of largely ineffective superstition-based folk remedies and assorted quackery as something that resembles real honest-to-goodness evidence-based medicine. This would violate WP:GEVAL. And no, these are in no way "precursors to modern fields of medicine". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not even an answer to the question he asked. It is up to you how much credibility you want to but that doesn't means it cannot be described or explained per these valid MEDRS. GEVAL applies on directories, not here. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

DV has summed up my feelings on this quite well, particularly the "precursors to modern medicine" nonsense. Wikilinked headings such as General medicine, Surgery, Paediatrics, Ophthalmology / ENT/Dentistry etc. (need I go on), implying efficacy really need to be backed up with reliable sources, these are not. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We have established that these references are reliable sources for the type of information that is being added there. I probably didn't added then, but there are just many sources. [23]-[24]-[25]-[26]-[27] Bladesmulti (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

We most certainly have not established that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

How would I know unless you back up with some proof that these dozens of sources, and especially these last ones are not good enough for citing these longstanding facts. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Roxy the dog Dominus Vobisdu I agree with you both that efficacy of treatments without backing from MEDRS literature ought not be implied. In this case, I think the intent is to explain history and culture rather than make a medical claim, and if that is not apparent then I wish it could be made so. There are a lot of texts on the concept of "history of medicine", and if I understand Dominus, it seems that one position could be to say that the history of medicine starts about 100 years ago with the advent of evidence-based medicine. I do not think that view can be reconciled with the more common view that medicine's history goes back much further. Are you able to propose some way for these Sanskrit words to be tied to some modern concept? Every culture has child health practices before modern medicine, and tying those to pediatrics seems not unreasonable especially since Wikipedia's precedent is to allow articles like pediatrics to say that quacks like Galen, Hippocrates, and Aristotle are part of the history of medicine. Do you have any suggestions for how Wikipedia can reconcile its current practice to allow modern health articles to link out to Western historical figures when you are uncomfortable allowing articles on non-Western medicine to even link in to modern health concepts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Good explanation and it will actually work, and bringing in some extended descriptions for each of the eight components, rather than just a scientific term and a 5 words quote. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with bluerasberry. Uncomfortable allowing articles on non western medicine to even link in to modern health concepts. Seems to be a common issue with any alternative type medicine articles. Would it help listing clearly what issues are still at large.Docsim (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to translate the terms at all, as a brief definition is given with each. In any case, translating them using the names of modern evidence-based medical fields is beyond the pale. And it's not "Western-centric". We have separate terms for chemistry and alchemy, and for astronomy and astrology. Same applies here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no logic in your reasoning. Knowing that they are treated as substitute, and since these terms have been usually translated, by everyone else, why wouldn't we? Once again, can you highlight a good reason behind it? Must be policy backed. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, c'omn, Bluerasberry -- Galen, Hippocrates, and Aristotle were not complete medical quacks (as their well-referenced Wikipedia articles show they were not). What blasphemy have you committed with your words against them, LOL? I'm being half-serious. Flyer22 (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Flyer has beaten me to this, however, User:Bluerasberry and myself would like to announce our collaboration on List of Quacks. We've seen the BR contribution, mine include Max Gerson, Andrew Wakefield, Stan Burzynski, Peter Fisher (physician) and for brit TV watchers That awful poo lady. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The awful poo lady certainly does not follow the traditional medical approach. I've just had reason to quote a BMJ review of Pancreatic adenocarcinoma by 4 authors. "Patients describe foul smelling, oily stools that are difficult to flush away" they say. Am I wrong to find that phrasing hilarious? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry John, I don't see anything funny about that (well-phrased, imo) description. 109.153.156.71 (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry's right: while at the time these figures were mainstream, their beliefs would now be deeply "alternative". This may not be obvious to people who don't know much about them, or who are more inclined to focus on their general lasting values instead of their many wrong and harmful ideas. Galen pushed Theriac as a panacea. Our article on pulse diagnosis unaccountably fails to mention Galen, although his diagnostic methods included both feeling the pulse and dream interpretation. Hippoocrates thought that arteries were filled with air that maintained vital heat. They also believed in Humorism. None of that sounds too different from the ideas believed by some altmed folks I've encountered (Are you not feeling well? You must need to balance your chakras), except that no Western altmed person is likely to tell you that women were biologically too deficient in vital heat to be as smart as men—but Aristotle did, and his declaration was one of the "logical" reasons for suppressing women's rights for centuries.

Saying they're not quacks (by modern standards) is a bit like lionizing Darwin for getting natural selection right, without taking a moment to laugh at his claim that the giraffe had such a long neck because successive generations had stretched higher, or that the blacksmith's son had large muscles because the results of his father's daily exercise were inherited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

My point on stating that Galen, Hippocrates, and Aristotle were not complete medical quacks (the word complete being the keyword) is that they did a lot of good for medicine as well; their legacies are clear on that. There was good mixed in with the bad. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, in the case of Galen, if dissection of human cadavers hadn't been outlawed, and he didn't have to therefore resort to dissections of primates and pigs to better understand human anatomy, I'm guessing he would have been right about a lot more things relating to human anatomy than he already was right about by just dissecting those animals. Same for others who had to follow the Roman "no human cadavers" law. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing: You have confused Darwin with Lamarck.--Srleffler (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel we are losing some of our focus here. No matter what crack-pot theories Galen, Aristotle, Hippocrates etc. had, they were responsible for major developments in medicine, and are generally considered very influential. That being said, there are numerous influential sources in India and China and other countries that deserve mention.

What needs to be done is to hold a high standard, and to avoid using low quality sources, preferably using WP:MEDRS. Ayurvedic journals are poor sources, as are the encyclopedias of Indian medicine above. Just because something is PubMed indexed or in a book doesn't make it a reliable source, neither by WP:RS or WP:MEDRS standards. Adaptogen previously held numerous references to a book called "The Tao of Medicine" which I deleted. You have to take a number of things in account, looking at the publisher, the intended audience, etc. etc. and MEDRS is an excellent guide on how to do this.

That said, the major reason I suggest we stick to MEDRS is because it simplifies these arguments, and most of it holds true when it comes citing facts relating to anything on the history of medicine. When we say modern medicine has evolved from ayurveda we are given ayurveda legitimacy it does not deserve, when all that can really be said by reliable sources is that ayurveda preceded modern medicine. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

CFCF Good you agree about mentioning these. If we are talking about all sources, most of them are reliable sources since they are published by a reliable publisher and many of them include a notable author. Also on the article we had just mentioned the English terms for those Sanskrit terms, including their importance. No where we have been claiming that modern medicine evolved from Ayurveda.

Such claims cannot be actually found in other reliable sources(including non MEDRS) either. But if some viewer is misrepresenting, misunderstanding the actual meaning behind the content, and claiming something that we did not intended to. Then who's fault it would be? At least blanket removal wouldn't be the solution. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I am more skeptical to Pinnacle, Concept and JayPree Brother's than you are. Even if they arguably pass RS (Concept likely does), they aren't medical publishers. I think the translated Sanskrit terms are worthy of mention under an etymology section, but only when they are properly sourced and with clear distinction that despite the similarity in name, they are not equivalent. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Concept for example publishes Discovery of Divinity Within: From a Personal File under "Medical". -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is a textbook from Jaypee Brothers that copied and pasted from Wikipedia [28] Here is the write up about it in the NYTs.[29] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't said that Jaypee brothers is a reliable publisher, I had said that the sources I have mentioned and "most of them are" reliable, in terms of publisher and some of them having a notable author. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

CFCF, as noted above, these are common information, there's hardly any end if we were to find reliable sources or medsRS. How about the publication that have been recognized by the nlm.nih.gov? There are about 5 of them listed above in whole discussion.

It is far obvious that they cannot be same and they differ, but that is same with just any other subject that is separate from other. The translated terms are written for providing understanding about its specialty and effect, example is [30](Page 23), it can be an idea. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the important part is that we are strict in what we allow. I'm not questioning the fact there are decent sources, but a substantial portion of the ones linked here are not acceptable even by RS-only standards. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

These are the sources that Wikipedia most often allows, primary sources to a lesser degree. And as can be seen there, encyclopedias are included. WP:MEDRS is understandably stricter with its sourcing guideline, but it certainly allows book sources (those sources, of course, have to be WP:Reliable and appropriate for the content); they don't always have to be from medical publishers. WP:MEDRS, for example, allows encyclopedias as sources. When I stated that the book sources that Bladesmulti listed above are WP:MEDRS-compliant, I was keeping different aspects of WP:MEDRS in mind. Jaypee Brothers is listed as a medical publisher, but, based on what Jmh649 (Doc James) stated above about it, I would be cautious using sources from that publisher. I have used a few sources from that publisher before (even when wondering just how reliable that publisher is), but will be a lot more critical of using sources from that publisher now. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this edit [31] I am unsure why a MEDRS source is needed? If one is simply listing the 8 components of Ayurveda any textbook would be reasonable. We just need to make sure no health claims are being made. User:Roxy the dog Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That edit removed the association of wikilinked real medical topics to supposedly equivalent ayurvedic topics - see an earlier post I made above. I don't think we should be making that association in wiki's voice, so if my use of wp:medrs is innapropriate I apologise. The edit gives a veneer of approval/acceptability in comparison to real medicine that really shouldn't even be implied. I should like to point out that I love a good consensus, me, but we aren't there yet. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Jmh649, that sums up adequately. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay thanks for clarifying the issue. Removing splinters I agree is not surgery. And we need to be careful drawing parallels that do not exist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I was actually saying that your comment sums up, that any Ayurvedic related RS was enough for including that edit. Knowing that it was longstanding and remained until yesterday, it is obvious that none of us were drawing any non-existing parallel, but if Roxy the Dog is having misunderstanding or he is treating the translation of these Sanskrit terms a face of modern medical acts, I am not sure what can be done there.

Consensus is clear that until now there is no policy backed reason to remove any of the translated terms. A shorter description can be included, where we can add the translated terms and how they have been associated. Obviously we cannot say anything like this is it, but whole section is only concerned with the Ayurveda, nothing outside it. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Are there urls for the specific pages so we can look at what they say to support the text in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes, I will probably make a draft on here and post links of sources that are accessible for just everyone. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Extended content

In classical Sanskrit literature, Ayurveda was called "the science of eight components" (Sanskrit aṣṭāṅga अष्टांग), a classification that became canonical for Ayurveda: Kayachikitsa (General medicine): "cure of diseases affecting the body". Kaumāra-bhṛtya and Bala Roga (Pediatrics): "treatment of children". Shalya tantra: surgical techniques. Śālākya-tantra (Otorhinolaryngology and Ophthalmology#Ancient_India): cure of diseases of the teeth, eye, nose or ear etc. Bhuta-vidya (Demonology / psychiatry): pertaining to micro-organisms or spirits. Agada-tantra (Toxicology):Gada means Poison. "doctrine of antidotes" Jara Rasayana-tantra (Anti Agings) : Doctrine of Rasayana/Rejuvenation. Vrisa-Vajikarana tantra (Aphrodisiacs): deals with healthy and desired progeny. References

There Bladesmulti (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That is absolutely not going to happen. Using the names of modern real evidence-based disciplines as "translations" of ancient Sanskrit primitive claptrap is a egregious violation of WP:NPOV. Under no circumstances will you be allowed to equate quackery with real medicine. Give this up, because it very clearly violates our policies and guidelines, as you have been told repeatedly by just about everyone here. Continuing to pursue the matter is a waste of everyone's time and is disruptive. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu I am not the one doing so, it's these sources as well as others do. About NPOV, like you have been asked before, if you can arrange a single source that would explicitly state none these terms for these other general medical terms are correct, I wouldn't be objecting, but right now your reasoning of rejecting it due to NPOV just don't fit. I don't see 'everyone' or 'anyone' except you or Roxy the Dog who were against this reliably cited content. First your argument was section is unsourced and OR, after that it was Needs MEDRS and now it is absolutely not going to happen, it's better to say that you should just give up your don't like it mentality and come up with some policy backed rationale. I have lost the count that how many times I have already asked you that, but you are simply not going to hear. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I shall not be contributing further to this, as it is clear that WP:CIR applies to Blades. He appears to be reading and commenting on a different topic to that which we are discussing. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought we were going to talk about the content, but that's something I haven't observed in your comments, I am wondering why you wouldn't discover your limitations, instead find every way to distract from the actual subject with comments like above one and this[32], obviously because you lack competence, isn't it?

Until now, we have searched for the citations that would include the adequate translations that we had until yesterday, but when we search for the terms, separately, we happen to be discovering sources like this [33] Now I should believe on publication of Oxford University or someone who has been frequently incorrect about this subject? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As has been discussed what is needed are translations for these Ayurvedic terms. . Nor do translations need to be MEDRS compliant. Why would a scientist research translation or linguistics or etymology. Whether we call Ayurveda clap trap or not is not the issue here. WP is full of articles that are about clap trap. What is necessary is that this ancient system is understood and since the terms are Sanskrit, modern day readers need to understand the terms and what these physicians thought/think they were/ are doing. We aren't judging, a NPOV position, we are simply providing information. All of this is subtopic information under the tropic area of Ayurveda so there's no mistaking this for modern allopathic medicine. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC))

There is no meed to "translate them at all, least of all using modern scientific terminology which is anachronistic. It suffices to provide a brief (and very well sourced) definition, and readers will have no problem understanding them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This is an English encyclopedia. These are Sanskrit terms. Translation to English is logical and an obvious necessary step given the language of this version of Wikipedia. Further, to decide not to translate, an obvious step, may need community agreement rather than, with respect, the opinion of one editor.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC))

I agree with Littleolive oil. Our job is to describe the subject to readers. "It's shalya tantra" does not describe the subject to English speakers. "One branch, called shalya tantra, dealt with surgery" describes the subject. Only an idiot would assume that ancient surgery (Indian or otherwise) looked anything like modern surgery. We do not have a policy of assuming that readers are idiots. WP:NOTCENSORED isn't just about pictures in sex articles; it's also about not hiding verifiable facts just because some idiot might read them and might come to the conclusion that ancient Ayuvedic surgery for, say, cancer worked just like modern oncosurgery, instead of being only slightly less horrifying than the Western version of the same surgery at the same time (less horrifying because Indian surgeons made better use of opiates).

And if you really can't stomach calling the ancient practice of slicing people open with sharp implements for curative purposes "surgery", then you'll have to argue for removing the many similar links from Ancient Greek medicine and other History of medicine articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for discussing. As seen here[34], I went ahead and added back with better citations, including some changes in wording. Reasons are simple, 1st, clear consensus above, 2nd, longstanding and probably added since the article was created. Burden is on Dominus to prove that we(of course excluding Roxy the dog) are incorrect about it and there are reliable citations that would go against these terms. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu has reverted this edit with the edit summary "Per WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI", it made any sense to you? Lets see

It is not a directory.

I don't see even a single source claiming these translations to be fringed. Fails FRINGE.

We are not making extraordinary claims like Alien cured the patient but only adding the English terms. Or he's saying that publishers like oxford university promotes fringe?

While it has been confirmed numerous times that Dominus Vobisdu has sheer competence issues, his edits(e.g. [35](though it had sources), [36]-[37](exactly Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT)), wikilawyering and refusal to discuss the longstanding changes. I would like to know that what can be done about his disruptive behavior? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

This ref is okay [38], no significant opinion either way about these content changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just for a user preference, I am informing that Dominus Vobisdu has been blocked for 48 hours, reason was simple, edit warring and disruptive editing. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Scientology sources used as a source in pages:

I've found a few pages, including the Psychology page itself using Citizens Commission on Human Rights websites as a source. I've removed them and have done a crude search on Google for other pages on Wikipedia that use them. I've removed the ones on the English language Wikipedia, but there's a few in other languages that do. Please ensure that no pages use CCHR (or any other fringe group) as a source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It is definitely a group effort to keep source requirements high. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The pages were:

• Psychology
• WebMD
• National Alliance on Mental Illness

Please add them to your watchlist if possible.

I believe the CCHI sources were added in good faith by editors who were unaware of the affiliation of the group, and do not represent any kind of concerted effort by Scientologists to get their material on there. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

oy, see also

*Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia and see Psychiatry: An Industry of Death and Scientology and psychiatry

articles where bad CCHR sources were used:

• Frances Farmer (had a section on CCHR I just removed)

* Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union (had paragraph based on CCHR sources I just removed)

* Action T4 (had paragraph based on CCHR sources I just removed)

* Disease mongering (had paragraph based on CCHR sources I just removed)

* State Hospital (had paragraph based on CCHR sources I just removed)

* List of people who have undergone electroconvulsive therapy (had paragraph based on CCHR sources I just removed)

* Social construct theory of ADHD (had paragraph based on CCHR sources I just removed; generally horrible article)

* Lena Zavaroni (had CCHR sources I just removed)

Thanks for pointing that out! Jytdog (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a proper tool to check which sources are used in Wikipedia? All I did was a very crude search on google. Is there a more sophisticated tool? Can there also be certain fringe sources that can be flagged if used as a source in an article? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Harizotoh9, have you tried Special:LinkSearch? It works for most URLs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Lists of ebola patients and articles on individual ebola patients

I am finding articles like List of Ebola patients and like this Wikipedia:Healthcare workers contracting ebola (I know, wrong space - i have asked its creator to move it). But i am more concerned with the desire to create articles on these individuals and list their names in WP. I am aware of 3 AfDs (I started one of them): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Pooley (Ebola patient) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Atkins (UK nurse) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Eric Duncan. What do you all think of these lists and the individual articles. In my mind the individual articles generally violate WP:BLP1E and listing their names is a pretty ugly invasion of medical privacy. I am tempted to start deletion discussions on the lot of them, for any who are notable only for getting sick, but before I launch on that, wanted to check my head. thanks Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that these articles are BLP1E and privacy does matter, in addition I can't help feeling that there is an element of racism in singling out a few individual first world victims while thousands of West African victims remain just nameless numbers - but that is a problem of the systemic bias of the Western media -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm - dead or alive we seem to be keeping the Americans and deleting or redirecting the Brits in these AfDs. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

hmmm don't assume bad faith. as i wrote above i was about to go through an nominate them all for deletion but wanted to get some support before i did so. i have some now. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't get very worked up about these. In List of Ebola patients, only one (Pooley) is still alive, and he has been doing extensive media interviews this week, with one quoted in the article. The bravery of many of the medical dead deserves memorializing I think, and BLP issues only apply to the living. The Western cases have received massive media coverage, & imo short bios, probably best as sections in a list-type article, are appropriate. Each case has raised legitimate issues about local healthcare. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that these individual people qualify for separate articles. I think that Dodger is probably right about the systemic bias: we cover mostly what's in English-language sources, and they cover what their (mostly white, mostly non-African) audiences will pay for. But these are BLP1Es as far as I'm concerned. IMO the best way to handle it is probably to replace them with full-protected redirects to a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

There are numerous English newspapers, broadcasters and news websites in West Africa. I blame Google for never including them when one uses their "News" search filter. Even the largest solidly mainstream news sources in South Africa are excluded from Google searches whenever one selects the "News" option. Yet they take special care to include every single inconsequential Nowhereville community blog as long as it's in North America or Europe. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

someone else has nomimated Thomas Duncan for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Eric Duncan. I just redirected Mayinga N'Seka and Mabalo Lokela to Ebola virus disease; the information in both those articles also happened to be wrong. Not sure if those will stick. just nnominated Patrick Sawyer for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Sawyer (2nd nomination) Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

These articles are springing up all over the place like mushrooms. We barely have enough interested editors to monitor the main outbreak article let alone all of these splits. Some of them (actually all of them) have been started without a word of notice to the editors that work on the main article and some of them remain in very poor quality, without upkeep, and IMO, an embarrassment to WP. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Which is absolutely normal (bold page creations), even if it's inconvenient in cases like these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Non-melancholic depression

Hello again, medical experts. Here's another old AfC draft which may be of interest. Is this a notable topic? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sort of but not really as put across here as it is somewhat misleading. It will already be covered in major depressive disorder. I'd not use it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Should that term redirect to atypical depression? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Tempting...but I always took non-melancholic to be broader than atypical depression. The latter predates adjustment disorder with depressed mood really and harks back to days of endogenous vs reactive depression. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

The lead of atypical depression should probably be revised to reflect the distinction. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Casliber,WhatamIdoing, Seppi333, there is already Melancholic depression. is this the opposite? Neither Major depressive disorder nor Atypical depression mention "Non-melancholic depression", so, for a reader, redirecting the term to one of these articles would be misleading, because that would indicate that it was a synonym. If this is a legitimate medical terrm, and if it's a type of Major depressive disorder, can that article be expanded with a short paragraph describing it? Then the draft can be turned into a redirect to the main article. Alternatively, if the topic is notable, but the article just has misleading information, maybe it could be stubbed, leaving a paragraph explaining (with a wikilink) that it's a kind of Major depressive disorder, which, I presume, doesn't include melancholic symptoms, and let the reader then follow the link to find out more about MDD. The second option seems better to me, because it would make it easier for someone to add sourced content in the future. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

What I was referring to was the 2nd sentence in the lead of atypical depression, "In contrast, people with melancholic depression generally do not experience an improved mood in response to normally pleasurable events." The fact a distinction is made with melancholic depression only makes it seem that this is "non-melancholic" depression. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 14:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: - am really in two minds how to proceed with this one - I have been really busy IRL but will try to chisel out some time to look at sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Anne, my impression is that this was a legitimate medical term, but that it's been superseded since then.

What made me think of atypical depression was the description that it's the most common kind. It's always amused me that the most common kind of depression has been called atypical, because (by definition) the most common type ought to be called typical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There are 269 papers on google scholar since 2010 - mainly from Gordon Parker and colleagues, who promote the distinction with melancholic depression. I think it probably warrants a stub maybe. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I have postponed its deletion so it won't disappear before something can be done with it. It's longer than a stub now, but I guess if there's an overlap with Atypical depression some of the detail can be omitted and a link added to that page. Perhaps someone who understands this could do that, and then the draft can be moved to mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Tetrahydrocannabinol

Some WP:MEDRS related issues in the Talk section here. Comments welcome. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned articles

I have started Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Orphaned articles (shortcut: WP:MED/O) as a holding area for orphaned medical articles. Editors of medical articles may wish to add it to their watchlists.
—Wavelength (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully this does not promote the adding of barely related articles to overflowing see also sections. Just one concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the more usual outcome is that someone starts a broad list, like List of physicians, so that most articles can be "de-orphaned" without needing to find a meaningful way to WP:Build the web to some borderline-notable person. Pages about diseases and drugs rarely appear in orphan lists, because we have navboxes that systematically cover almost all of those pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I started the new page because of my past experience in de-orphaning medical articles. Please see User talk:Wavelength/Archive 5#See also sections (December 2012). Also, I have sometimes seen in CAT:O a consecutively listed series of closely related medical articles, for example, a series of articles about enzymes. I have revised Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Orphaned articles with a link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Standard appendices.

—Wavelength (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine merge

aka MDMA

I have virtually no interest in this article/topic, but given that it has very high traffic, has crappy references (e.g., lots of erowid-type refs), and I'm probably the most familiar medical editor with the article topic, I figured I'd un-crappify the article. That said, I plan to merge Effects of MDMA on the human body (or, probably delete most of it, since it also has very crappy references and is largely a duplicate of MDMA) with MDMA.

Does anyone have any objections before I go ahead with this merge?

I plan to use PMID 18973636 (a paywalled review that covers amph, meth, and mdma individually) and this HSDB-TOXNET MDMA entry to add/edit/source content to the adverse effects and overdose sections of MDMA following this merge. There's a lot of subsections in MDMA that I plan to prune or merge with other sections in order to reduce redundancy as well, so it will probably be about as long as it is now if I go through with merging the articles and copyediting the MDMA article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks.

Is there a barnstar for cleaning up messes that nobody else is willing to bother with? You'd deserve it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll probably complete it all within the next day or 2, as it's a pretty big page to merge. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

MDMA

Before (Oct 6th)	After (Oct 19th)
Diff

I think I'm done. Any thoughts/suggestions? I'm too lazy to copyedit the history/culture section, but it's nonmedical anyway. Also, wanted to say thanks to Formerly 98 for helping out. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 20:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Featured Article deterioration: student editing or general decline over time?

• Talk:Alzheimer's disease#Attention needed to avoid a Featured Article Review

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been meaning to put significant effort into this article but have yet to get around to it. Agree with you though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Student medical editing

Enjoy.

• Developmental Psych course.
• Genetics course.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The first course has just been using their sandboxes. I've been watching. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 17:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The second are so far writing up their high schools, World of Warcraft etc. Some bits added on genetics though. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Virginitiphobia article, and other phobia articles created by PlanetStar

I don't see that the Virginitiphobia article (created July 14, 2014) should exist at all. It certainly is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. It was recently proposed for deletion by Srleffler (and I thanked that editor for that proposal via WP:Echo), but PlanetStar removed the deletion tag by restoring the article to an earlier version. At Talk:Virginitiphobia I will start section about the need for this article to be deleted, including that it is a non-WP:Notable neologism; per WP:Neologism, neologism Wikipedia articles should usually be deleted (it also notes exceptions, which is why I stated "usually"). Flyer22 (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at PlanetStar's recent contributions, I see that he or she has created other phobia articles that are not WP:MEDRS-compliant and are also neologisms, including Lilapsophobia (created June 28, 2014), Amaxophobia (created July 13, 2014), Pupaphobia (created July 16, 2014) and Siderodromophobia (created July 19, 2014). So I have expanded the heading of this section. Flyer22 (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: Srleffler has nominated the Virginitiphobia article for deletion; therefore, I will not start a section about this WP:MEDRS/WP:Neologism matter at that article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've proposed Siderodromophobia for speedy deletion as a copyright violation - it is taken almost word-for-word from an About.com article. I've also prodded Cathisophobia - the source cited (Phobia source) isn't WP:RS, never mind WP:MEDRS-compliant: "If you happen to come across a phobia that we have not listed please contact us and we will be sure to include it." AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The Prod on Cathisophobia was removed, so I have listed the article for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathisophobia.--Srleffler (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Phobia articles created by PlanetStar, as listed on their user page:

Lilapsophobia (00:55, 28 June 2014)

Melophobia (fear) (16:55, 28 June 2014)

Chionophobia (20:58, 28 June 2014)

Bibliophobia (21:32, 1 July 2014)

Scolionophobia (02:38, 2 July 2014)

Sophophobia (14:03, 2 July 2014)

Papyrophobia (16:06, 2 July 2014)

Astrophobia (17:54, 3 July 2014)

Selenophobia (18:49, 3 July 2014)

Ombrophobia (02:25, 4 July 2014)

Antlophobia (18:31, 4 July 2014)

Nephophobia (15:36, 5 July 2014)

Chromophobia (fear) (01:23, 6 July 2014)

Fear of daylight (18:06, 6 July 2014)

Toxiphobia (17:08, 8 July 2014)

Mastigophobia (17:55, 8 July 2014)

Logophobia (23:38, 10 July 2014)

Fear of knowledge (00:20, 10 July 2014)

Metallophobia (23:06, 10 July 2014)

Nelophobia (23:43, 10 July 2014)

Vestiphobia (02:41, 11 July 2014)

Samhainophobia (02:04, 12 July 2014)

Botanophobia (02:24, 12 July 2014)

Mechanophobia (02:44, 12 July 2014)

Cathisophobia (19:00, 12 July 2014)

Stasiphobia (20:05, 12 July 2014)

Climacophobia (20:42, 12 July 2014)

Bathmophobia (21:02, 12 July 2014)

Kinetophobia (21:25, 12 July 2014)

Nostophobia (00:50, 14 July 2014)

Koinoniphobia (02:07, 14 July 2014)

Amathophobia (02:45, 14 July 2014)

Virginitiphobia (16:51, 14 July 2014)

Harpaxophobia (17:29, 14 July 2014)

Kleptophobia (17:57, 14 July 2014)

Nebulaphobia (18:29, 14 July 2014)

Scriptophobia (17:04, 15 July 2014)

Ecclesiophobia (17:24, 15 July 2014)

Demonophobia (18:47, 15 July 2014)

Mnemophobia (22:03, 15 July 2014)

Oneirophobia (22:36, 15 July 2014)

Methyphobia (00:36, 16 July 2014)

Pupaphobia (01:21, 16 July 2014)

Coimetrophobia (02:49, 16 July 2014)

Sciophobia (19:14, 16 July 2014)

Kosmikophobia (19:33, 16 July 2014)

Siderophobia (01:31, 17 July 2014)

Prosophobia (22:54, 17 July 2014)

Tachophobia (00:08, 18 July 2014)

Siderodromophobia (21:42, 18 July 2014)

AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Whoa, Andy, thank you for looking into that. Without even looking at all those articles, I know that, going by PlanetStar's phobia article work, they all need to be deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just made the mistake of looking at Harpaxophobia ('fear of being robbed'). This crock of shite tells us that Harpaxophobia "is often caused by a traumatic experience in the past, specifically getting robbed...". You don't say... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've added the actual about.com source (bottom of the page, as always) "American Psychiatric Association. (1994).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author." to the speedy at Siderodromophobia. Since most of about.com is a WP mirror, this should be done to save people having to check. Have the various psycho- wiki-projects been told? I know they are semi-dormant/overwhelmed, but really these are their ugly babies. Obviously, though an old edition, this source has a bearing on notability. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The phrasing "these are their ugly babies" gave me such a giggle, Wiki CRUK John. Thanks for that. I saw no need to alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology (which is where WP:Psychology should probably redirect) to this matter, since this matter is also a WP:Med concern and WP:Med is far more active than Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology. Furthermore, some of them are also WP:Med members. I think all the active members of WP:Psychiatry, which is a generally inactive task force, are WP:Med members. But I did think about Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology when initially reporting here on this topic. Anyone is free to notify them, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a hideous list of extremely poorly cited articles, based largely on blogs that try to sell relevant remedies, and interesting only from an etymologic rather than a psychiatric point of view. One can't help wondering what great contributions could have been made to Wikipedia if their creator had spend their time in something more productive. In any case, there's a lot of deleting to do... NikosGouliaros (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Rather than starting a whole bunch of separate AfDs, it would be better to bundle them into a single one. That would waste a lot less editor time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The usual result is to WP:MERGE and redirect to List of phobias. Pages that are obviously not appropriate for standalone articles can be boldly merged. AFD and admins only need to be involved if there's such a high risk of edit warring that we need an admin to say "merge or I'll block you", and I never want to start from that position. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Stuartyeates has proposed some of the above articles for deletion. I just proposed deleting a bundle of these articles, for the exact same reasons: no bibliographic evidence that these are notable phobias. I 've included the following articles - I admit it is a tiring job, so this is by no means an exhaustive list: Melophobia, Scolionophobia, Papyrophobia, Selenophobia, Ombrophobia, Nephophobia, Mastigophobia, Logophobia, Fear of knowledge, Metallophobia, Nelophobia, Vestiphobia, Samhainophobia, Vestiphobia. However, WhatamIdoing's proposal might be more appealing - though I only read about it after I had proposed the bundle of deletions. NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

[ WP:Edit conflict; sort of]: What is the point of merging and redirecting if the terms are not WP:Notable and are highly dubious as to truly existing? That some of the articles were redirects seems to be what spurred PlanetStar on to turn them into Wikipedia articles. Srleffler has been cleaning up the List of phobias article. Proposed deletion can work well enough in these cases and also saves resources; Stuartyeates has proposed a few of them for deletion so far. Flyer22 (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Some articles mentioning the above phobias, e.g. Weathering the Storm. Revisiting Severe-Weather Phobia, cite the American Psychiatric Association 2013 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed). This may be a reason to at least mention them in a list, though it doesn't prove that they are notable and therefore article-worthy. (NB: I have no access to the above-mentioned manual). NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

And I brought up a couple of sources at WP:RSN#FearOfStuff.com and Phobosource.com reliable sources for phobias?. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Should all be merged to phobia if proper refs can be found. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Many of these are not even worth mentioning in a broader article on phobias. --Srleffler (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes refs will be required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Update I replaced some citations in samhainophobia with better ones, and bibliophobia was rewritten by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs). PlanetStar 22:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Influenza vaccine

Some recent article tagging by some recent IPs, with changes to lead. Some of the content changes may have merit to go in the body, but probably needs more eyes, especially now with influenza vaccine season coming into full swing. Yobol (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Barium meal, swallow, follow through

We have Barium follow-through, Barium meal and Barium swallow. The first is completely unsourced, the second very poorly sourced and the sources for the third are not exactly medrs either. In any case two articles too many for the same procedure imo. Ochiwar (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose to merge the articles if there are no objections. Ochiwar (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Seconded. What name should we go with for the final article? I'm in favor of Barium swallow. Cannolis (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking of merging the above named articles together with Barium enema and double contrast barium enema under the title Barium contrast imaging. Ochiwar (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC) I had started a draft along those line in my sandbox, hoping to present it here for approval when it stands on solid feet. Feel free to expand and edit. Ochiwar (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm perhaps. Although the swallow looks at the upper GI while the enema looks at the lower Cannolis (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that and the route of application of the contrast medium are the major differences between the enema and the swallow. Medical uses, indications, contraindications, adverse effects, mechanism, interpretation, accuracy and specificity are largely similar and in most cases identical for all. A sub-section on each under the heading "Types of Barium contrast imaging" should high light the differences. The terms Barium swallow, meal, and follow through are used somewhat ambiguously or interchangeably in the literature, but most authors use the term swallow for studies of the pharynx, larynx and esophagus,(and sometimes stomach) while the terms meal and follow through are most frequently used for examinations of the stomach and small intestine. Ochiwar (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Ochiwar These are different studies used for different indications. I am unsure if a merger is definitely the way to go. A "barium swallow" looks at the swallowing mechanism in real time and may identify problems with the oesophagus. A "barium meal" is a longer contrast investigation under fluoroscopy that has effectively been replaced by the upper GI endoscopy. A follow-through study is generally used to look for abnormalities in the small bowel and requires a number of fluoroscopic exposures to identify strictures and fistulae.

The "barium enema" studies examine the large bowel, and could be merged into one. JFW | T@lk 19:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Jfdwolff, I am also unsure if a merger is definitely the way to go, that is why I am mentioning it here for discussion. I am aware that swallow, meal, follow through and enema examine different areas of the anatomy. After having gone through the available literature it also appears that the terms are often used ambiguously (at least as far as the first 3 are concerned) which complicates the issue. When you say fluoroscopy has been largely replaced by endoscopy, you are certainly right if you are considering only the part of the world you live in but in many other parts of the world this may not apply yet. While I am not sure of the definitive way to go, I had hoped to be able to combine all these terms and terminologies, similarities and differences in one single well referenced article leaving redirects, because at the end of the day there are more similarities than differences between these procedures. And as you have pointed out, they are being replaced by more advanced technologies as we speak. I have started a draft along this line of thinking (I have not gone very far yet) in my sandox and would appreciate if you could take a brief look at it. Let me know please if you think a merger along these lines is useful to the encyclopedia or rather not. I would not want to be wasting my time. In any case I feel the present state of the named articles is not up to encyclopedia standard and updating each one individually would entail unnecessary duplication. I will put my draft on hold until I get some feedback and face other projects. Ochiwar (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Ochiwar I agree that I was exhibiting systemic bias by presuming that some barium studies are now almost obsolete. You are also correct that the terminology is confused - in the UK the studies called "barium swallow" and "barium meal" are typically combined, although "meal" is also used for small bowel follow-through. As such I am willing to support a merge of all the "proximal" studies, but I would leave the large bowel studies separate. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. In that case I would suggest "Upper Gastrointestinal Series" as the title for the new merged article of proximal procedures. Ochiwar (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

In addition we also have Upper gastrointestinal series, Small-bowel follow-through and Enteroclysis which I also hope to merge to the article on proximal procedures Ochiwar (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The draft is ready for peer review in my sandbox. Will be moving it to Upper gastrointestinal series in the next days. Ochiwar (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Simple English

The question of the type of English we should use in the lead has arisen again on the Ebola article.[39] My position is we should use simple English wikilinked to the technical term.

Other options are using the technical terms followed by the simple description but that can clutter the lead. Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

My preference is to always give the simplest commonly used terms with the medical jargon in parentheses - either then may be wikilinked. The point of showing the medical term is that it helps the reader familiarise themselves with the jargon, so that they understand if they encounter the term later in the article (and we often need to use the exact term in the subsections for reasons of accuracy). We should never rely on wikilinks to explain a word; it can be very disruptive to the reader if they have to follow a link then find their place again in the main article, just to make sense of that article. This is sometimes compounded by having to follow another link in the linked article because it doesn't explain its jargon either. --RexxS (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes I support doing that in the body of the text. It can however clutter up the lead to always have both technical and simple terminology.

Agree that the simple should always be there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with James here, and think we should avoid using terminology for terminology's sake. There is a whole lot of jargon out there that doesn't fill any purpose, and it needs to be a matter of judgement where to use medical terminology and where not to. The lede should try to avoid anything overly complicated and wikilinking lay descriptions is a good way to do it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ruscus aculeatus – unsupported claims

Could someone with more time than I have right now look at Ruscus aculeatus#Medicinal Uses? I suspect the whole section may need to be removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, the whole thing was horribly sourced. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael Greger

I would appreciate it if some additional editors looked at this article and chimed in on the state of the "Criticism" section. A dispute has arisen over the addition of text refuting criticism of Greger by Harriet Hall (see the talk page for the discussion.) Brianyoumans (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Medicine recent changes: lists updated

I have updated the lists behind the MED Recent Changes box (previous update: Feb 24, 2014). Number of pages has increased greatly (total: from 28.569 to 29388).

Lists sources are in Category:Medicine articles by importance. Lists were composed & formatted using WP:AWB (you can do too!; does not require an AWB licence, just install AWB & create lists ;-) ). The "top 1500" was changed into "top 1000"; that one is updated separately & more frequently. -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If deemed useful, I could add another Recent Changes option to the box, that follows these pages: all MED pages with quality Start and above, plus the Lists, plus their talkpages. That's ~16,000 × 2 pages. 32,000 pages listed is about the max we can handle (a 1 MB wikipage). That RC list would miss: stubs, redirects, pages, all non-mainspace (=non-article) pages such as WP-pages. Would anyone click on that RC link? -DePiep (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am happy with all medical pages. Doubt I would use talk pages added in. Do not know about others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Really all WP:MED pages are already there, click link: "in all Medicine pages (not talks)". That's 30.000. This addition would select quality articles only (Start to FA; 16.000 p) plus their talkpages (16.000 p). Personal opinion: I don't think we should add a link for these 16.000 articles only (no talks). Too confusing. -DePiep (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Amazing multilingual AIDS advertisements

Wellcome Trust is a UK-based charity which promotes health research. In February 2014 they were kind to host an editathon and over the past 1-2 years Fae has been working with them on their Wellcome Images project, which is an effort to make some health-related media archives more available. Wellcome wanted the media they collected to be available under Wikimedia-compatible licenses. There were some questions about that and I trust Fae when he tells me that Wellcome was more diligent than most in sorting their rights to share these images, and that their images are appropriate for sharing on Wikimedia Commons.

Wellcome shared about 300 GB of health images. Sharing this much content was complicated. These files should be sorted somehow, and perhaps someone in WikiProject Medicine would like to comment on what should become of this donation. I cannot say what should happen with them. Not all of this is uploaded to Commons yet.

All of the images from this donation are in Commons:Category:Files from Wellcome Images. Files which need categorization are in Commons:Category:Files from Wellcome Images (categorization needed). If anyone wants to help, browsing that category and adding more categories to interesting pictures would make it easier for others to find and use those pictures. I am interested in Commons:Category:AIDS posters, which is a collection of AIDS public health advertisements in many languages. Many of these posters have never been publicly available otherwise, so this is a unique opportunity to add images to Wikipedia articles on a popular health topic in many languages.

This collection of AIDS posters is probably going to be featured in a post on the WMF blog. Could someone please give a comment about their impression of the collection and how it could be used, so that WikiProject Medicine members can be quoted in accounts of this donation? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WPMEDF helped fund some of this effort. Great to have more images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to bulk-add categories to a list of files? There are hundreds that belong under commons:Category:Medical books, for example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the "Cat-a-Lot" tool is very good when you are used to its little ways (Commons preferences, gadgets I think). As so often with bulk uploads the categories now are a bit odd. I'd have made "Images from Wellcome" an open, not hidden category, & made it a sub of "History of medicine", for a start. The books category above should distinguish between printed and manuscript books, & a "Category:Illuminated medical manuscripts" would probably be a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed ICD10 template linking change

If anyone has any input, I proposed a change to {{ICD10}} at Template talk:ICD10#Parameter simplification. It concerns the parameters passed to the template and how the link is displayed. Please reply there. --Scott Alter (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Cystogastrostomy

I started cleaning this new article up, then began to realise that almost every sentence I was reviewing appeared to be a copyvio from the various sources it cites, some dating back to the 50's. In this situation does one continue to try and salvage the article (effectively rewriting it) or submit to AfD? Basie (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If it's a serious, unambiguous copyvio, then you get to choose between {{db-copyvio}} (which can be delivered by Twinkle's CSD item) or cleaning it up. You could also leave a friendly note to explain the situation, and seeing whether the new editor can help clean it up. It's a new editor, so s/he might just not know that it's a problem. In some parts of the world, what we call plagiarism is showing your faithfulness to and respect for the source, and the rules at the English Wikipedia are actually stricter than required by the law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It's more like the editor selected a few sources of variable quality, then lifted passages directly from them. I'll see what I can do. Basie (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Extracting PMIDs

Hi folks, relaying a question from a Stanford Medical researcher:

"Do you know if it is possible to extract [all] PubMed ID (PMID) or PMCIDs from Wiki references? Furthermore, could you dump those IDs out into a list for analysis?"

Thanks, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 03:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Does s/he actually want PMIDs and PMCIDs, or is the goal to find all the PubMed-cited sources (which will include thousands cited by URL instead of by magic word)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Andrew West has sort of done this for me for all medical articles. We will be publishing the results soon. Appears we need to get this paper in as others are also working on the topic :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am guessing, but I believe Jake wants the actual PMIDs since there are excellent programming tools for extracting bibliographic data including URLs from PubMed if one has a PMID or PMCID. I am also guessing Jake wants to calculate impact factors based on how many times a paper has been cited in Wikipedia. JL-Bot creates statistics for how many times each journal is cited as a Wikipedia source. Perhaps that bot could be extended to extract PMIDs so that a list of the most cited papers in addition to the most cited journals could be obtained. For efficiency, the bot works on a dump of Wikipedia rather than interactively parsing one article at a time which would take forever and puts a lot of strain on the wikipedia.org servers. Boghog (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Altmetrics say they might start doing this in the spring. Basically list how many times each article has been cited in Wikipedia as part of its impact. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As WhatamIdoing alluded to, PubMed indexed articles that are used as refs on WP but the PMID or PMCID is not given would be excluded. There are some bots running around adding those parameters, but in my experience, there are many refs to articles that are in PubMed that don't give the PMID or PMCID. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

True, but at least within the scope of WP:MED, there is a strong bias to use citations that include PMIDs. The advantage of using PMIDs is consistency and ease of obtaining related bibliographic information. For completeness, for citations that do not contain PMIDs, it would be good to extract DOIs. These in turn can be used to query PubMed for the PMID. Boghog (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, would it be possible to have a bot or semi bot go around and add PMIDs when they exist? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I might consider doing that. The low lying fruit would be to add missing PMIDs/PMCIDs to {{cite journal}} templates that have DOIs. It may be possible to locate other PMIDs with the PubMed citation matching tool, but this method is not fool proof. Boghog (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I would support/encourage Boghog adding PMID/PMCID's in {{cite journal}} templates with DOIs. Yeah!!! This would be a help in verification and useful in roughly evaluating the basic quality of sources for a particular article not to mention the more general questions hinted at above. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, please, Boghog!

I'd also like to see non-templated citations have PMIDs and DOIs added at the end, just in plain text. This would be easy to do for the ones that have the PubMed URL that already contains the PMID number. The batchcitmatch tool looks interesting, but the work looks like it would be tedious, and we could be talking about tens of thousands of these. If someone sets up a simple system for reviewing them (i.e., does this citation match what the tool thinks it matched?), I'd be willing to review a hundred of them. I don't think I can realistically commit to more than that in the near future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me first do some tests on citations with PMIDs to see how accurate the citation matcher is. I am far more concerned about false positives than false negatives. Also it will be trivial to flag citations where citation matcher returns more than one possible match. If the citation matcher looks fairly accurate, then the process can be full automated. Parsing of URLs for PMIDs and DOIs and adding them at the end as plain text should also be fairly easy. Boghog (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I have actually already written a little Python script to parse through ref cites, extract PMIDs and then do a lookup using them against PubMed to get the article type, etc and dump the output in a nice formatted table. I did a few of those last year but because the library I was using was buggy I didn't "productionize" it. But happy to send the code if desired. Zad68 06:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Electronic cigarettes

Is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports reliable for the content? User:LeadSongDog explained it at the Talk:Electronic cigarette page here. Other editors claim the CDC reports are unreliable.

• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (April 2014). "Notes from the field: calls to poison centers for exposures to electronic cigarettes--United States, September 2010-February 2014". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 63 (13): 292–3. PMID 24699766.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC) (6 September 2013). "Notes from the field: electronic cigarette use among middle and high school students – United States, 2011–2012". MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 62 (35): 729–30. PMID 24005229.

The two sources above were removed from the article. The relevant part of MEDRS is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Medical and scientific organizations. Read under: "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements..."

Can we go back to the version before the original research was reverted back into the article? Trying to remove original research from the article should be easy at the electronic cigarettes article if there were more collaborating.

"While some raised concern that e-cigarette use can be a cause of indoor air pollution,[2] the only clinical study currently published evaluating passive vaping found no adverse effects.[37]" Original research ans misleading text.

"A 2014 review found that at the very least, this limited research demonstrates it is transparent that e-cigarette emissions are not simply "harmless water vapor," as is commonly claimed, and can be a cause of indoor air pollution.[3] As of 2014, the only clinical study currently published evaluating the respiratory effects of passive vaping found no adverse effects were detected.[38] A 2014 review found it is safe to presume that their effects on bystanders are minimal in comparison to traditional cigarettes.[38]" Sourced text and neutrally written text (that was blindly reverted). See Electronic cigarette#Second-hand aerosol.

I removed the original research and replaced it with sourced text. I clearly explained it in my edit summary the problem with the article. I removed the POV selected quotes. I expanded the safety section a bit. I replaced original research with sourced text for the second-hand aerosol section. Then another editor recently blindly reverted back in original research and deleted sourced text. I think we should go back to here before the blind revert was made. I hope editors at WikiProject Medicine here will help remove the original research from the electronic cigarettes page and help restore the sourced text. Another editor blindly reverted back in the original research and other problems. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

First objection to QG's statement above: His statement

"back to the version before the original research was reverted back into the article"

Should more accurately be read as:

Please go back to my preferred version, with all the changes i've made to the article, that have been reverted.

The latter would have been the correct description, while the former is unsubtle canvassing. --Kim D. Petersen 20:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Second objection here: It seems like QuackGuru at the moment is cherry-picking every negative source that he can find, without actually putting them into context with real secondary review papers. The CDC material that he is quoting here, is handled within several review papers, that he chooses not to use. That would be a rather blatant breach of WP:MEDRS's don't use primary sources to contradict secondary sources. In my eyes QG is using this forum to win an edit-war to keep his own version of reality, instead of working with other editors to find material that actually would gain consensus, and be supported by the WP:WEIGHT of secondary sources. --Kim D. Petersen 20:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Final note: The claim that another editor "blindly" reverted is incorrect, since that editor has taken part in every thread where QG's changes to the article have been discussed. And the OR version that he claims, is the original version of the article, before QG's edits. --Kim D. Petersen 20:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The other discussion shows that there is WP:CON that the Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations including the CDC are generally reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Translated as "QuackGuru reads that discussion as a blanket OK to use all material on the CDC's website no matter what other sources say, or whether it is primary material (such as the weekly "Notes from the Field" is)" - i would read the consensus differently as: "Material that the CDC produces is generally of high-quality and can be used when the content and context is appropriate", which i agree with completely. I would be very surprised if any source is generally reliable for all material, and context. --Kim D. Petersen 20:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I would assert that any source that states:

The data in the weekly MMWR are provisional, based on weekly reports to CDC by state health departments.--Kim D. Petersen 21:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Is a primary source, and should be used with caution, and certainly not to contradict or expand on secondary review papers. --Kim D. Petersen 21:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me quote the authors guide[40] for the Weekly reports that QG wants to use:

D. Notes from the Field

Notes from the Field are abbreviated reports intended to advise MMWR readers of ongoing or recent events of concern to the public health community, without waiting for development of a Full Report. Events of concern include epidemics/outbreaks, unusual disease clusters, poisonings, exposures to disease or disease agents (including environmental and toxic), and notable public health-related case reports. These reports may contain early unconfirmed information, preliminary results, hypotheses regarding risk factors and exposures, and other similarly incomplete information. No definitive conclusions need be presented in Notes from the Field.

That to me reads almost the very definition of a primary source in WP:MEDRS. If this can be used without caution, then i'm not sure why other sources are being rejected. --Kim D. Petersen 21:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

As detailed above by Kim D. Petersen and extensively debated on the Talk Page, there is no evidence that the MMWR "notes" meet the reliability criteria for MEDRS. Even if they did, we cannot possibly consider they hold enough WP:WEIGHT to be used against multiple secondary sources.

Otherwise, User:QuackGuru has been engaged in a sustained pattern of disruptive editing on this article, as discussed on the talk page [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46]. I'm inclined to view his post here as an attempt to feign an interest in constructive discussion and reaching consensus. Mihaister (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course "Notes from the Field" is a primary source. It's a great primary source—for its intended audience, which isn't encyclopedia writers. Not only is it a primary source, with all the uncertainty that implies, it's also a WP:RECENTISM trap. You may use them, but only in highly limited, explicitly qualified ways. You should never use them to "prove" something biomedical. You can use them to make statements of the "Somebody said this" type. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing and Jmh649: But i've just been told that "Notes from the Field" is somewhere between a primary source and a position statement[47], and thus perfectly useable in articles for medical information... so it is apparent that this needs more input. --Kim D. Petersen 06:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

course dealing with amino acids maybe?

This morning there were some major changes to Asparagine‎ with some strangely named users. Turns out there is a bunch of them. Some class perhaps..., BQUB14-Asegui, BQUB14-Iabad, BQUB14-Agrabosky, BQUB14-Mnezcollado, BQUB14-Ccarmona, BQUB14-Lbusquets, BQUB14-Martigues. Not sure that is all. Primpol is an example of their work. Jytdog (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Some are active on the Spanish WP too - [48]. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Also editing protein articles (FERMT3‎, RAB6A‎) where they are adding a lot of content, but no sources. Boghog (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about the article construction for Primpol. The lead sentence ("Researchers from the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO) and researchers from the Severo Ochoa Molecular Biology Centre (CBM-CSIC) have recently discovered...") very much has the feel of a news article or press release – possibly translated from another language – and we should probably check for plagiarism and copyright violations before we get too far in to copyediting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

they just reached out to me, here they are medical students.Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS research

Is this article under the umbrella of you guys WP:MED? If not, should it be? A lot of it seems to relate to possible treatments and other research related to HIV, so it would seem helpful if it conforms to the usually strict sourcing and other guidelines required here.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

All "biomedical" information is covered by MEDRS, even if the article is not supported by WPMED. MEDRS belongs to the whole community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Bannered/Tagged it for MEDS. On a quick look, a mixed bag, short with lots of subsidiary articles, but I've seen worse. Needs tlc for sure. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

DDT

A little off the beaten track for the Medicine page, but would appreciate some eyes on DDT with regards to MEDRS sourcing and what I regard as some well-out-of-the-mainstream interpretations of the motivations for banning DDT in the U.S. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding this text "The hearings produced a 113-page decision, in which Hearing Examiner Edmund Sweeney wrote: “DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on fresh water fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for essential uses of DDT.” " ?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for looking. My impression was that this was added to introduce the fringe idea that DDT is completely innocuous, as it followed some discussion on the Talk page suggesting that the DDT ban was part of a conspiracy. Its possible I'm reacting to that more than to what was actually added to the article. If you think its fine, I'll drop it.Formerly 98 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not bee able to check the source have you?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I always hate it when people source potentially controversial statements to obscure books, but I guess its allowed. I guess I'm not sure what that particular passage is supposed to add to the article - I initially thought he was adding it to make the agency look silly, but it turned out he really believes that DDT is innocuous. IF this is being added as a health related claim or to imply one, it falls under MEDRS, but I'm not sure I can make that case. Thank you again for your help. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

20-30 years ago there was an American activist whose party trick at lectures & on tv was to eat it like breakfast cereal. I wonder if he's still with us? I think he was the Arizona prof mentioned (unrefed) in Mickey Slim. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's so obscure the book exists at only one place in the UK (at the British Library) [49], (checked in case it was anywhere near John, but it might be a stretch to get there). Sheer luck has it that there is actually a copy in Gothenburg at Chalmers Technical College (which I pass every morning). I could check the source if you wanted, but I feel this is thoroughly undue and obscure as it is, and should probably be deleted. The book is sufficiently old that it shouldn't bear much weight. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Actually I go through the tube station by the BL every day, and have a ticket, but all the books you ever want are in storage 200 miles away, & take time & faf to retrieve, so I'd rather save that for referencing emergencies. But I can do it if necessary. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Merging Traditional medicine and Folk medicine

There is a (so far limited and dated) discussion about merging Traditional medicine and Folk medicine at Talk:Folk medicine#Merge. I would like additional input from this Wikiproject, please. – Maky ^« talk » 03:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

New entry on ACTH for retinopathy of prematurity?

I'd like to write a new entry on ACTH as a treatment for retrolental fibroplasia, later known as retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). Experimentation and later trials on ACTH for ROP in the 1950s (described in the middle of this source) had a major impact on the development of neonatal evidence-based medicine. The associated RCT is sometimes described as the first RCT in neonatology. I think there is plenty of material to support its own entry. If this sounds like an okay idea, what would I title the article? ACTH for retrolental fibroplasia? ACTH for retinopathy of prematurity? ACTH retinopathy trial? Babies' Hospital ACTH trial? It seems that trials of this era didn't have the catchy names of some of today's trials and I haven't run across a particular name for the trial. Thanks! EricEnfermero ^HOWDY! 06:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Simplifying language

Tried to simplify some language here] at abortion. Wondering what peoples thoughts are? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I like it (although I see it got reverted), with one exception: I think 'termination' is useful in context because it's become part of the vernacular surrounding abortion. The phrase 'terminate the pregnancy' is in such common usage that the word seems fitting in the lead, and shouldn't present much of a barrier to the non-clinical reader. Basie (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Tuberculoma

What to say? Something of a record here. And the English needs sorting. Permalink to current state. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Whew, what a mess. One of the worst examples of citation overkill I've ever seen. Got it started but there's a lot more to do. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Gah! (It's ironic that someone has now put a "citation needed" tag for the pancreas.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

ZMapp - more eyes could help

What's going on here it seems that this article is being prepared for a DYK. To that end there seems to be a desire for it to say something "meaty" about Ebola treatment, and this requires some judgement calls on the use of sources. Experienced med editors could no doubt help ensure any such judgements are soundly made. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I read through the article. Overall, it looks okay. It has a non-promotional tone to it and seems to be suitably referenced, although I have not checked the references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's in Template:Did_you_know/Queue. If you/we aren't happy, get it pulled at DYK talk now, or it will run shortly. They are usually responsive there, but need to be told. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's okay right now, but from recent editing activity worry that could change fast. Could probably just benefit from being watched - particularly if it's about to enjoy a big traffic spike as a result of a DYK. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

John, it is ready. But there are lots of people with strong feelings who don't understand drug development/medicine and we can expect some turmoil when the DYK goes live. i went to the brink of 3RR with such a person yesterday. Am grateful to Alexbrn for posting here to get more eyes on it! thx for that! Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

It's up. The hook text makes imperfect sense: "[DYK] that the experimental Ebola drug candidate ZMapp is manufactured in the tobacco plant Nicotiana benthamiana in a bioproduction process known as 'pharming'". Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 12:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone have PMID 23949286 available? Needed to clean up a bunch of old primary sources there. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

LeadSongDog I've found it in a collection. How do I get it to you? Basie (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

i've got it to - will respond on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog, I'll leave it in your paws :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

COI concerns at Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine

WP:COI concerns at Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine and another associated article raised by nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine (2nd nomination).

Perhaps WP:WikiProject Medicine members would be best suited to look into this.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Changing women to "people with ovaries"

What do people think of this [50]? The person has been edit warring this back into place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little mixed on this. Where "women" can be swapped with "people" without injury to the text ("people with PCOS") I see no harm. However, "people with ovaries" seems rather awkward, yet the proposed changes still haven't dealt with other text like "daughters" and "female" in the genetics section, which are then inconsistent. Rather than going back and forth I think it may be preferable to take the bull by the horn and say, early on, that "women" refers to biological sex rather than gender. Except... it's possible that this isn't always true; for example, it's possible that in an older general health survey the distinction between gender and sex wouldn't be considered. Ratios like "5-10% of women" may not even technically be valid if the number of people diagnosed with PCOS is divided by the number of "women" listed by a national census, though of course with a range that approximate the error is insignificant. Using a term taken from a source is never really wrong, but it might be improved on with an accurate explanation. Ultimately my feeling is that changing the summary of that many sources all at once based on a global find-and-replace is hazardous, and the flow of the article is adversely affected. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The IP has actually been changing the titles of the references. While the first reference is Terms and thresholds for the ultrasound evaluation of the ovaries in women with hyperandrogenic anovulation, it has been changed to Terms and thresholds for the ultrasound evaluation of the ovaries in people with hyperandrogenic anovulation by the IP. I think we should stick to what the sources say. Ochiwar (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm against changing "women" to "people with ovaries", and have recently commented similarly (being against wording like that) at the Tanner scale article: With Grayfell commenting along the same lines, I relayed the following there: Anatomy does need to be gendered, or, more precisely, be clear on what is a male or a female body and the pubertal process involved in that when it comes to talking about puberty. Male and female bodies biologically exist. This page is about biology, not about gender identity. The sex and gender distinction exists for a reason, though not everyone subscribes to it. And like I recently stated here at the Same-sex marriage talk page, "biology is more complicated than just, for example, 'You have a Y chromosome, so you're a male.' But there's also the fact that, like I stated near the end of this section at the Transsexualism talk page, 'Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter.' The same applies to transgender people (at least when you exclude genderqueer people from the category of transgender); they usually identify as male or female and/or as a man or a woman. 'I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article).'" For how we are generally supposed to treat anatomy and medical topics on Wikipedia when it comes sex/gender, see Talk:Phimosis/Archive 2#Definition.

As seen in that Phimosis discussion, I brought up the recent occasional push of people of giving WP:Undue weight to intersex and transgender matters at anatomy and other medical topics. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 37#Phimosis article again and gender identity, including gender identity at other articles; the discussion did not flourish. Flyer22 (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

We should use the language of the sources. We could switch to male and female rather than men and women if that would make a difference. People with ovaries is silly.

Explaining this matters on every page in which we mention these terms is very much undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Are there MEDRS references covering it in non-women? If not, could be OR to do this. Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

It should be easy to find both "women" and "females" in sources.

This comes up regularly. Flyer's probably right in assuming that this is a question of intersex and transgender issues. There's also the question of whether "females" or "women" would be better writing style or easier for English-language learners to understand. This is something that MEDMOS should address directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I see these issues come up only occasionally, but definitely more frequently as time goes on. And all of these aforementioned cases, including the ones noted in the previous WP:Med discussion, concern presenting inclusive wording for intersex, transgender and genderqueer people. This is despite the fact that, like I've stated above, the vast majority of intersex and transgender people (excluding the genderqueer categories) identify as male/man or as female/woman. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

fwiw, i looked at the edits and it is clearly about female to male transgender. the other edit brought sources (not very good ones) but one of them was an interview with a doc at Mt Sinai in NYC who said he is gathering data for a study he intends to publish showing that fTm transgender have higher prevalence of the condition, probably due to testosterone treatments. which is plausible/interesting but that is like a pre-primary source. i searched pubmed and there are no secondary sources on the increased risk nor any primaries yet. if there were i would be 100% in favor of figuring out better language. as it stands, b/c we don't have good sources for the transgender issues for this condition, it is trickier - it is all about what editors prefer. i would be in favor of language that is more inclusive. "people with ovaries" is sure clunky but it does the job. "XX males" is more compact but I think it is jargon. and btw, flyer22, for somebody who is going through or has gone through sex reassignment treatment - the gender identity would be clear, but to me, the sex would not be clear at all... Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I'm not sure what you mean by "for somebody who is going through or has gone through sex reassignment treatment - the gender identity would be clear, but to me, the sex would not be clear at all." The chromosomal makeup will not change, and the person is either going to pass as that gender, not pass, or not pass well. As for wording, "people with ovaries" is jargon, in my opinion. My issue regarding these topics is what I have stated above -- we should be sicking to what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. In the aforementioned WP:Med discussion above, for example, I pointed to Talk:Human penis/Archive 1#"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth"; that was a WP:Due weight issue. I worked out a compromise wording for the lead in the case of that article, as seen in that discussion. But as for the rest of the Human penis article, we should not be stating "people with penises" throughout the article and avoiding the word "man" and/or "male." If we are talking about anatomical sex, then it stands that a trans woman who has not undergone reconstructive surgery to change her genitalia has a penis; this does not mean that she is a man. What it does mean is that her genitalia is male...at least going by the vast majority of definitions for male and female sex organs. Stating that the penis is a male sex organ is not negating her gender identity. And in the case of trans men, they usually know (once they become well-informed on the topic of transgender issues) that not having a penis does not mean that they are any less of a man. Transgender people often distinguish anatomical sex from gender identity, and often state that their bodies do not align with their gender identity. For many trans women, the penis, as a male sex organ, is a body part that is somewhat foreign to them and is not something they want to own. And, generally, anatomy and other medical topics should distinguish anatomical sex from gender identity in cases such as the ones noted above; by that, I mean, for example, Wikipedia editors should not edit with a WP:Undue weight approach regarding intersex, transgender and genderqueer people simply because they assume that "because we are calling this a male sex organ, it means that we are calling that individual male or are stating that all men have a penis." or that "this condition being exclusive to anatomical females means we are stating that this person is therefore a female/girl/woman, plain and simple." Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

On a side note: WhatamIdoing has started a discussion about this topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#People, women, and females. A WP:Permalink to that discussion here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Acute flaccid myelitis

I've been trying to scrape together the available news about acute flaccid myelitis. I say "news" because in this breaking story there's certainly nothing like the sources people here usually favor, but given that I've expressed the tentative nature of the data, I think it is very worthwhile to collect what's been reported by what really is a pretty impressive group of doctors, released via the CDC and professional societies. Since I started the article today I still have a few days to mull over how to DYK it; since it's an issue of public interest I think that is appropriate to do. I'd welcome hook suggestions. Wnt (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I've now started the DYK. Wnt (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

To be checked

Jonathan Mcrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has edited numerous medical articles to introduce sources (sometimes not needed or helpful) all from the same author (Robert Mendoza), but on diverse medical conditions. I don't have time to check them all; the first I checked wasn't helpful or needed. COI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Renaming the Male reproductive system article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Male reproductive system#Requested move. A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

British Society for Ecological Medicine

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Society for Ecological Medicine. — Cirt (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Electronic cigs

Wondering if more people could comment at Talk:Electronic_cigarette. A couple of accounts are trying to edit war changes into the article without consensus or discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, as opposed to this, this right here, could be construed as canvassing. --Kim D. Petersen 17:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

actually kim if you take the time to read WP:CANVASS you will see that posting to relevant Projects is "appropriate notification" Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Not, if the issue at hand is that you just lost an edit-war by running out of reverts, and without any real attempt at solving it at the talk-page of the article. --Kim D. Petersen 18:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

kim you are still not reading. i have not been involved in that edit war. if this is how you are conducting Talk at the e-cig article it is bad news indeed. You should calm down a bit. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually i was referring to Doc James there, and not you. When someone is in an edit war, then calling on "friendlies" is canvassing. --Kim D. Petersen 22:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Doc James on this one. Much need for external input. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I think that a much wider viewpoint is needed on the e-cigarette article on its categorization, wider than this catagory. IMHO it appears that a medical agenda is in charge of what is a consumer device and is dictating exactly what point of view should be thrust into the face of visitors. This is sad because for the most part little is known from a medical point of view. The article imho and the medical category need to be separated. The health effects section would still be governed by WP:MEDRS regardless of what category its in. But the involvement in the structure of the article, which is now a medical style for a consumer device that does not require a prescription, and is not sold as a medical device is just just wrong. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

i am staying the hell away from that. it is as bad as most alt-med topics. joyless wikipedia hell where editors have completely lost track of the mission and key principles, like that we actually try to work toward consensus. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Except of course that this isn't an alt-med topic, and that some classify it as such, might explain rather a lot. No one is claiming that this has alt-medical effects, and nothing in the article is sourced to alt-med sources. In fact all medical/chemical/etc. material except some negative material (from the CDC "Notes from the Field") is sourced from respected secondary review articles by WP:MEDRS. --Kim D. Petersen 22:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

for fuck's sake, kim i said "it is as bad as alt-med" - editing alt-med articles is unproductive and ugly because people who work on them don't listen or try to reach consensus and often don't understand or apply policies and guidelines well. and you are a case in point kim. you are now 0 for 3 on this board with regard to dealing with what i've actually said and your understanding of policies and guidelines, yet you are adamant as hell. which is par for the course for what i am talking about. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have known that when you say "as bad as alt-med" that you aren't including this topic - you are just going for hyperbole then. Ok. I take your word for it. But i'm a newbie who has never edited controversial subjects, and never read our policies and guidelines, so i obviously don't understand them. (last part was sarcasm btw). --Kim D. Petersen 22:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with AlbinoFerret. The article on the devices should be separated from the medicalized section on health effects, which is currently largely based on hypothetical or imaginary risks put forward by a single "review". Mihaister (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

@ Jytdog I will agree that the article has become "joyless wikipedia hell where editors have completely lost track of the mission and key principles, like that we actually try to work toward consensus.". Consensus isnt being used as a principle, but like a weapon.

By the specific way the article is presented you would think the title isnt Electronic Cigarette, but Health effects of Electronic Cigarettes. I have had to remove health effects claims that are repeated from the health effects section from almost every other section including Components. The NPOV was long gone before I started editing last night. The article read like a jumbled up number of claims with no direction and no focus other than to be negative.

Another editor Levelledout on the talk page had commented that the way the topics on the page were setup added to the NPOV problem. I changed the order to match the lede of the article and avoid the problem because it made sense to me. Only to have that changed in an edit war. Now we have editors removing NPOV tags and banners when there is a RFC on them only days old with no consensus either way. The prominence of the Health effects section is a NPOV problem. Not its existence, not the reliable sources. To Doc James credit he left a lot of the changes to the page alone and only changed the order of the sections back.

I dislike editors posting to other pages when it looks like they are the lone party to disagree and bring in people who dont really edit the page, but revert. So ya, its hell. I dont like when editors use warnings on other users talk page to stop them from acting, and then do exactly what they warned others about. I dont like others using a guideline clearly designed for something completely different (medical devices on a consumer product) to force changes that lead to NPOV problems. Ok I think I have said enough. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

you can like what you like or not, but posting to a relevant message board is 100% OK in Wikipedia. Getting mad about people doing what is OK, is unproductive - it is being part of the problem. You can choose to be part of the problem or not. On the health thing -- I think that the #1 reason anybody thinks about using an e-cigarette is health. The #1 controversy over them is health. I don't see how you can get around having the most WP:WEIGHT (if you have never read that, please do - it is an essential part of the policy, WP:NPOV) in the article be devoted to health. That's my perspective, anyway. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that the number one focus of most people with E-cigarettes is a health issue. There is a large and growing community of users that doesnt revolve around health related information. I said I didnt like things, that doesnt indicate anger. But it does point out what I would probably not do. That it seems to be the only way forward, I may have to use all those tools even though I would rather not. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

try to stay cool.. and Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures are (to me) good and wise. Try to work in good in faith (really try!) on the Talk page, and if you cannot come to consensus, move smoothly into the pathways offered there. DocJames did that by opening the RfC. There are other ways to (but generally one way at a time, per issue!) but the goal is never to win - it is to reach consensus. those are different things (Wikipedia is weird that way) Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been trying, but the new RFC on the page is a problem, Its like asking the mice if they want to keep the cheese. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I also disagree that the section needs to be at the top. It only adds to the problem, and I have long ago read those links. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Addiction is health. These things contain nicotine generally thus it is a health thing. Editors which try to say that it is not health is part of the issue we are dealing with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I never said some of the sections were not a health topic. What I said is the page is about a consumer device, not a medical one. That it contains nicotine does not prove it is a medical topic. Name one other consumer product article that contains nicotine that is categorized as in the medical catagory. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Hell, the asbestos and even the cigarette article's sections do not follow that kind of order that Doc tries to force on the e-cigs article's layout. When it reaches a point where common sense ends and personal POV agenda takes over it's time to intervene, not to embrace.TMCk (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the simplest way to look at this issue is to follow the WP:NPOV advice of looking at how it is being treated in reliable sources. Try the following Google searches:

• NYTimes e-cigarette
• WSJ e-cigarette
• Newseek e-cigarette
• Time Magazine e-cigarette
• CBS News e-cigarette

There are few or no media stories leading off with a discussion of what sort of fashion statement e-cigarettes are making, how they are constructed, what the latest e-juice cocktail is, where they are made, etc. 90% of what you will see in the media is stories debating the health effects. And leaving aside Pubmed, searching Google scholar for "e-cigarette" will bring up no article on the first page of hits that are not health related.

The argument that this is not primarily a health-related article flies in the face of what strongly dominates the result of every search you can perform on the internet. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you double post here I should post my reply to you here as well:
:Strawman. By that measure almost every article [if not all wiki content] is health-related; And health-related is the point: It's related only so it warrants a health section just as in "asbestos" and "cigarettes" but it's not a straight and plain med-article!TMCk (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I have never denied that it has health effects sources and notability. But it is still a consumer device. Forcing a WP:MEDMOS style to the page as you did here is just wrong. Its using a guideline as a weapon. I also know that for over 4 years it was not categorized as medical and was placed there by an editor that only edited medical articles without any discussion. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Have started a RfC here [51] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The pool of editors is to small for a consumer product. Only informing medical editors is like asking the mice if they want to keep some cheese. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Only the "rats" will show up I guess :)) TMCk (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Well on the topic of who "shows up", this may not be the place to raise it, but there is something odd about a couple of accounts that have just showed up at the RfC. Newish with only a few (token?) edits in other areas before majoring on the e-cig article. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes this is a billion dollar product. It is in somes best interest to not have a neutral article. Thus agree all the new accounts are could be a concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If I'm reading that right, Doc seems to be insinuating all new wiki editors are industry shills. How many Wiki policies does that go against? wp:agf, wp:bite, not to mention a bunch of etiquette guidelines. I must say this is very disappointing. I expected some professionalism from an established editor with his standing in the community. Mihaister (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

It's well established and common sense, Mihaister, that WP:SPAs (as yours is) suggest something problematic might be happening, maybe a WP:COI. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

You must have a different understanding of "common sense" than I do. The way I see it is most new editors start editing with a small number of articles, just like you did too [52].Mihaister (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)