![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 145 | ← | Archive 147 | Archive 148 | Archive 149 | Archive 150 | Archive 151 | → | Archive 155 |
Trivial I know, but yesterday I spent time trying to work out why inputting something like PMID ######### wouldn't generate the customary PubMed link on a talk page. Was it me getting my upper and lower cases confused or something? Or was it some recent change that had passed me by? After a while, I propended for the latter and, in one of those elusive aha moments, today I stumbled on this. Since I felt that a shiny new template might not be so convenient for rapid talk-page discussions, I went to what seemed to me the obvious forum ( WT:PMID) to question the apparent loss. But when I tried to start a new section there, up popped a message warning me,
If you're seeing this, you're probably in the wrong place.
This page is not for a Wikipedia article. If you want to request a change to a Wikipedia article, you need to go back to the specific article, and look for the "Talk" button at the top of the article. This page is also not a policy or guideline. If you want to request a change to a policy or guideline, then you need to go back to the specific policy or guideline and look for the "Talk" button at the top of that policy or guideline page.
If you stay here, you will end up on the talk page of a how-to or information page. How-to pages are meant to tell people how to edit Wikipedia according to the policies or guidelines, or to give instructions about other Wikipedia processes and practices.
...etc.
Gosh, methunked, so where now? Hence, this semiserious patter...
On a slightly more serious note perhaps, I can well remember how impenetrable "Wikipedia processes and practices" first seemed to me (and presumably to many other newcomers). Sometimes, that still feels the case... So I can't help wondering whether - as far as talk pages are concerned - this sort of obligation to use a template where none was needed before is really an advance. And I don't even know where to ask. Maybe I should ping... But perhaps I won't... Cheers, 86.186.155.179 ( talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's COVID-19 again, and yes it's the "lab leak hypothesis" again, but at
there is a proposal about WHO-sourced content that may have wider ramifications of interest to WPMED editors in general. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the talk page of our friend PainProf (last seen on this site in early September 2020 [?), I stumbled on a bot-generated section from mid-February warning that this work-in-progress risks being removed due to lack of recent activity. Since I believe that - however incomplete with respect to PainProf's intentions - the current content of the draft could be of real value, I'm boldly wondering whether it might conceivably be appropriate for somebody experienced to move a somewhat condensed version into mainspace. Also very much hoping PainProf is well. Best, 86.161.190.24 ( talk) 13:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if this may come off as a dumb question. But I have interacted with other Wikipedians and they have told them there is a consensus that Medscape is a reliable source.
I’m not entirely sure if this claim is true or not, so I’m just asking. CycoMa ( talk) 03:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I have a question do these sources qualify as MEDRS in the Circumcision article? These are both reliable, secondary sources one of them in PUBMED. [1]
I'm asking to get this put in as opposed to the current source used in the PTSD section where the authors of the study have a conflict of interest statement which violates Bias under MEDRS. Dashoopa ( talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi all, I think at some point in the not-so-distant past we discussed reviewing the protection of medicine-related pages, with an eye towards reducing or removing protections that are no longer needed. Cryptic was kind enough to provide a list of pages tagged with WP:MED and under some level of protection. You can see the full list here, but below I've pasted a trimmed version that doesn't include move protection (which I think is less of an issue), protected redirects, templates ( here if you're interested) or covid-related pages (since those protections were placed fairly recently). For folks interested, please take a look through the list. If there are any that you feel are candidates for reducing or removing protection, let me know and I'll happily look into it. Bonus points if you can commit to watchlisting the article for a few months so we can easily re-protect if needed. Also, the list is from November 2020, so if you come across any that are no longer protected just remove them from the list. Happy to hear folks' thoughts! Ajpolino ( talk) 14:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to annotate the "Comments" column for any you look into to avoid duplicating efforts.
Collapsed table of protected pages
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ah rats, just realized my initial list didn't include pages under pending changes protection. Generated a list with this PetScan query and pasted below. No expiration dates since it came through PetScan, but most pendingchanges protections I've seen are placed indefinitely (although there is an option to add an expiration date).
Thanks so much for getting after this, Ajpolino; we want more medical editors, and one way to get them is to actually let them edit!
I can suggest three to start with, but want to take this slow to see if issues recur. Does someone know how to “pin” this section meanwhile, so it won’t archive too fast as we work through these? On the three (I believe?) that we have unprotected since I first raised this concern about a year ago, there have been no problems. So I can handle three more as a start on my watchlist.
I can take on watching the following three, and suggest they do not benefit from semi-protection.
I will add more over time depending on how these go, so hope we can keep this list on the page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
None of these five show any more recent vandalizing by other editors. David notMD ( talk) 21:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Given that four of the five I listed were only autoconfirmed protected, they could easily be vandalized even if that protection was retained. If this exercise is "What auto-protections can be removed, I would err on the side of more rather than fewer. David notMD ( talk) 03:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Ajpolino will do due diligence, well yes of course that's why I'm posting here to garner more attention and opinions. But due diligence doesn't mean seeing the future. Some of these pages may return to being vandalism targets once we remove or reduce protection. If the vandalism is persistent, we will probably re-introduce semi-protection. That doesn't mean this whole experiment has failed, just that we were wrong in that particular case. With multiple sets of eyes on each article, hopefully we'll catch any "failed experiments" quickly. Your eyes could certainly help in that regard. Additionally if there are any pages in the table you look into and think "protection should definitely be retained here", that's helpful feedback as well. Ajpolino ( talk) 15:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Just a general comment from someone who's answered several hundred edit semi-protected requests – it's disappointingly common for such requests to languish in the queue for weeks, and for perfectly coherent requests to be dismissed for being misformatted or other trivial reasons. I can only imagine how off-putting this must be to potential contributors. Reducing the number of protected pages is well worth the effort, as is watchlisting or otherwise monitoring Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 13:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Ajpolino it is OK to remove pending changes from management of Tourette syndrome; I didn’t realize it was there. Of course I have that watched :). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has degenerated into whether to remove any articles from autoconfirmed protected, to what it started as, which was which to remove. In addition to the five I listed, many I looked at since then, I consider were over-reactions to one-time vandalism (by IP and autoconfirmed accounts!). If this exercise is to be useful, I suggest we persist at identifying articles to remove from autoprotected. Be BOLD. Many articles on the list already have watchers, so criteria does not have to be we add delisted to our own Watch lists (albeit a valid precaution). That said, I propose removing Calcium, Constipation, John Snow and Plant-based diet. The last has frequent reverts, but based on good-faith edits, not vandalism. Lastly, Kelli Ward is not a medicine article. David notMD ( talk) 16:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Ajpolino and Zefr: first failed experiment at Parkinson disease, probably needs re-protection, sorry my computer is in repair, iPad will not allow apostrophe in title, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I've had less time to dedicate to this of late, and I see discussion has petered out. If no one objects, I'll move the tables to User:Ajpolino/Med protection, and allow this to be archived. Folks interested in helping with this medium- to long-term project can watchlist that page and continue to suggest pages to trial de-protection of. We'll de-protect in small batches over time and see if we can slowly identify pages that can be safely unprotected. Any objections to that? Ajpolino ( talk) 18:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Over the last days a big part of my clinical work has been dealing with queries around the AZ vaccine, which has been administered to 17 million UK residents. The relevant article is up for merge. While this is a rare phenomenon, there is already a teeming mass of sources (not all of which classically MEDRS, as this is a novel phenomenon).
Please consider !voting here: Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine#Proposed merge of Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events into Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. JFW | T@lk 12:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
In Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, Allam (2020) (a chapter from a 2020 book published by Elsevier) is currently the source for the "December 1 with possibility of November" date of the index case. Is it MEDRS? Forich ( talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
the argument that he is an MBA comes as the main reason to discard his points← that's not true, or at least I hope it's not true. It might be true if by "main" you mean noisiest - but the real objection to any source is rooted in the WP:PAGs, not (what Wikipedia editors take to be) the expertise of the author. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Alerting WP:MED of Talk:Triple X syndrome#Requested move 10 April 2021 for courtesy purposes. Vaticidal prophet 06:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The artice came to my attention again when looking at my edit logs. It's still in the same questionable state with mostly outdated sources, one more recent one but that only links to those cultural depictions, then a possibly better source from the WHO but that is about labia stretching. Moreover, a 2019 suggestion on the talk page was to possibly merge it in the stretching article, which may be pertinent. I initially thought about posting this at FTN, but I suspect that WP:MED members may be more familiar with the related anatomic and medical literature, to evaluate what to do about this article. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 00:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
There's this set of articles
I'm not saying this is necessarily a problem, since the topic is well beyond me, but it seems weird to have so many articles on this. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed, that unlike with the good old PMID macro, the new mandatory {{pmid|xxxxxxx}} template generates a link where the "PMID" text is a separate hyperlink. So: PMID 31496128. The "PMID" is easily clicked and leads to PubMed#PubMed identifier. Surely in 99% of cases this will be a mis-click. One wonders if the developers of this site have any understanding at all of its users. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
[[pmid:31496138]]
produces
pmid:31496138, which should work like you expect it to.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
02:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I am wondering if we could add this cost-utility analysis about circumcision:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15534340/
It is a systematic review and meta-analysis as well that aggregates into a cost-utility analysis the risks, benefits, and costs of circumcision. The source is a little old (2004) but it is one of the most comprehensive reviews on the topic and published in a great journal with high-quality information.
Also, Alexbrn has been quite hostile, so generally try not to engage with him if he comes on. Dashoopa ( talk) 14:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Note for anyone of interest that I've made a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tetrasomy X/archive1 for a topic in this project's scope. Vaticidal prophet 07:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there anyone with knowledge of pulmonology who can help expand the career details of Martin J. Tobin? His research is way too complicated for me to do justice. His bio is a bit overwhelmed by the section on the Derek Chauvin trial. Thank you! —Мандичка YO 😜 13:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Neurodevelopmental disorder § Nonverbal learning disorder. A new editor and IP (clearly the same person) is edit warring
Nonverbal learning disorder into the article as a neurodevelopmental disorder despite the fact that NVLD has no official status with either ICD or DSM-5 and, in fact, has no well-established diagnostic criteria.
Sundayclose (
talk) 20:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Sundayclose (
talk)
20:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I happened to stumble upon this article. It previously and to some extent is a stealth article about the health benefits of smoking and did use (and probably still has) some very questionable sources that give undue prominence to some (but not all) claims. Could I have some help cleaning it up?
I am also highly concerned based on the selection of sources and time it would take to collate them, and the fact this seems to be that editor's first article, that there may be a COI editor involved. I note also the article was rejected at AfD and then moved to mainspace without consensus by the author. Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Since it is related to smoking, also linking Talk:Tobacco smoking § Merger proposal that may be interesting to this project, — Paleo Neonate – 00:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Since it is related, also linking Schizophrenia and tobacco smoking, a page about another claim (cf pmid:31135490) which may benefit from attention by an editor experienced in pruning. 86.186.168.248 ( talk) 08:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I've created a short article on Viral vector vaccine, a topic very important for COVID-19 vaccines. Please help expand it! If you contribute text in the next week, you will get DYK credit for it too. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) ( talk) 04:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Four months ago, we had a discussion about the List of vaccine ingredients article. We agreed that a prose article might be better than a list which was hard to maintain or be comprehensive, and which didn't offer any explanation as to why those ingredients were present. We debated ingredient vs excipient but I discovered most lay sources use "ingredient" and that word encompasses both active and inactive ingredients. So, after much gestation, I've moved my draft Vaccine ingredients to main space. @ Alexbrn: who objected to the original list and @ Graham Beards: for his expertise. Sources used include Plotkin's vaccines (Seventh ed.), the Electronic Medicines Compendium product information leaflets, and the excellent Vaccine ingredients from the Oxford Vaccine Group. The latter is, I have sadly to admit, so much better than my own efforts, and has been kept up-to-date with the latest information about the covid vaccines.
I wonder if people here could help with categories, templates and talk page stuff. -- Colin° Talk 18:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts lists several DYKs at the moment (I skip, as usual, the ones about people and organizations):
Colin, I'd bet that any of these editors could help you figure out the process. I believe this is Ray's first DYK, and Akrasia's second. It's good to get new people involved. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I've added A DYK nomination. WhatamIdoing, does it appear in that "article alerts" page automatically? -- Colin° Talk 18:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there a preferred way to cite DSM V? My attempt to convert the bare url reference 6 at Intellectual disability using the cite web tool just created a mess. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 16:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Thoughts here with Richard Lehman following the recent death of his beloved wife (see twitter). Richard, who is professor of the Shared Understanding of Medicine at the University of Birmingham, England (and a provocative columnist for the BMJ), is a close friend and supporter of Wikipedia Medicine, whom some of us have had the pleasure to spend time with at MED meet-ups and other WP events, where he generously shares his understanding, views, and analysis. All the best to you Richard - we need you here! 86.186.168.216 ( talk) 12:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
If you see no results, someone cleared them. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
There's a growing problem here with at least one editor wanting to stretch the well-reported associations between this vaccine and types of blood clotting into a certainty of cause and effect (which MEDRS sources seem careful to disclaim). More eyes could be helpful. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I proposed that this be selectively merged back into the AZ vaccine article as there's little independent notability and it's quite frankly WP:TOOSOON at this time, any opinions (either direction) or improvements that would assist in keeping this as a second article (MEDRS compliance is hard at this point given very little peer reviewed papers on this, so it's currently sourced to primary [government] sources and news articles). Thanks -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 18:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Could also use some oversight. There's a burgeoning problem with every speculative news story that appears instantly being crammed into the lede. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
This happens with a lot of things.. but would the general sanctions in place for COVID-19 articles help here? I'm not acquainted enough with them other than to know they give administrators leeway to topic ban editors who appear to be pushing a POV/etc, but would they also enable a stricter application of WP:CRYSTALBALL or perhaps even a restriction against adding attributed statements (i.e. one person's opinion or one primary source's opinion) prior to discussion on the talkpage? Perhaps a requirement that any editor who wants to add a statement that would require attribution (to a person, this wouldn't impact statements like "the EMA said" or similar) go to the talkpage first (and edits that don't comply could be reverted as a GS violation). I'm just trying to think of ways now that RexxS is gone and I haven't seen much admin activity on this or other articles that a GS could be implemented that provides a clear rule, easy determination as to if it's violated, and thus maybe more admins could step in and help as it would take less of their time. I think this would ideally be placed on any article related to COVID-19 vaccinations - but perhaps it should just be implemented on specific articles as the need arises? Or, I could be off base completely - comments appreciated -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 19:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello all. I have requested feedback on how to improve the article DVT, which I've updated as of late, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive4. Thank you. Biosthmors ( talk) 16:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
This was brought up on pl wiki recently as a possible hoax, but someone found sources (google scholar search results for this). I am surprised we don't have an entry on this, but given the high RS standards in MED, and the fact that I am not a medical expert, I am hesitant to stub this. Perhaps someone would like to try? Seems like a mildly amusing topic, may even make a decent DYK. PS. Pl wiki discussion with an iwiki link if needed for when someone stubs it is here: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:04:06:Kamień pępkowy. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
At the article True hermaphroditism I need help. I am the only person who edits that article and not many people Edit on their.
I have been doing research on this and I keep finding sources that contradict each other.
Like one reliable source would claim the there are individuals who are fertile as males and two sources that claim there are no documented cases of individuals fertile as males. CycoMa ( talk) 08:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I found this random site called GLOWN. I was wondering if y’all had any opinions about this site. CycoMa ( talk) 04:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Found this in the unsourced listing. Read as much as I could just to figure out what it is. I'm a little wary that it's not up to snuff if it's a MEDRS kind of thing. I made a talk and some notes, but if anyone's more familiar with psychology/sexuality articles, I'd appreciate an opinion or two. Cheers, Estheim ( talk) 02:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not in the mood to get in the middle of it, but I can see on my watchlist that there's an ongoing edit war at Brain size that could use some more eyes on it. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I recently came across Edward Tobinick, which is currently just a list of the author's patents. However, after digging a bit deeper, it seems to have survived AFD a couple of times, most recently deciding to keep this version, which was a very different article focusing on his (somewhat fringe) medical theories. It's in a bit of an odd situation - the AFD concluded there was some notability because of the contentious claims, but they're now gone completely. I don't know what the best approach here is - revert to the old version? relist for deletion in its new form? - but figured someone here would have thoughts. Andrew Gray ( talk) 13:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Biosthmors, Alexbrn, and WhatamIdoing: Thanks all. Redirecting seems a better bet than an independent page. I've removed the reference from Dejerine–Roussy syndrome and left the others, as they seem a bit more muted. I'll list the CSVS article for deletion. Andrew Gray ( talk) 19:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Gentlemen, as I said above, I am a scientist and very familiar with the science relevant to this discussion. I am very concerned with the actions you have already taken with regard to taking down an article about an individual, redirecting it, and listing other related articles for deletion. All done in what appears to be a concerted effort to largely erase mention of that individual's scientific contributions, all done in rather cavalier fashion. As a scientist, the way this group has done this smacks of bias. Andrew, you quickly chose to "list the CSVS article for deletion". To your credit, you then reconsidered, admitting that you "don't really know much about anatomy," and then came up with an excellent 2020 review, "Revisiting the Vertebral Venous Plexus - A Comprehensive Review of the Literature," by Carpenter, et. al, written by experts in the field, that you said "seems to treat the CSVS model as valid." Yes, you are correct - not only is the model valid, Tobinick's work in this area has been seminal - in fact, Tobinick's 2006 review, "The Cerebrospinal Venous System: Anatomy, Physiology, and Clinical Implications," has 123 citations in Google Scholar, and is cited in the Carpenter review that you reference (a fact that you failed to mention). Gentlemen, we are talking about human anatomy here - there are not many fields in science or medicine that are less open to interpretation - anatomy, in general, is one of the most concrete of all disciplines. Tobinick's work regarding the cerebrospinal venous system has been recognized by an international group of experts, including anatomists and neurosurgeons - not just by Carpenter, et. al, but also by Nathoo et. al ("History of the vertebral venous plexus and the significant contributions of Breschet and Batson"), Griessenauer et. al. ("Venous drainage of the spine and spinal cord: a comprehensive review of its history, embryology, anatomy, physiology, and pathology"), and many other academic experts from around the world .The Wikipedia page, "The Cerebrospinal Venous System," merits continued publication on Wikipedia. You are on the wrong track here, starting with your characterization of this thread as "Dubious article." As a scientist, I am shocked and dismayed about what you have done, as none of it is in the public interest or consistent with Wikipedia policies. I have much more to say, but first await your response to the above, and your confirmation that you will leave the Wikipedia page, "The Cerebrospinal Venous System," in place. 72.231.189.187 ( talk) 16:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
"cerebrospinal venous system"
, limited to
the last five years and to review articles, finds just three potential scientific sources. One of those was written by Tobinick and the other two weren't.Looking at this source: Clark IA (March 2020). "Randomized controlled trial validating the use of perispinal etanercept to reduce post-stroke disability has wide-ranging implications". Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics. 20 (3): 203–205. doi: 10.1080/14737175.2020.1727742. PMID 32028804. makes me think an article on Tobinick is deserved. It could be used as a secondary source. Biosthmors ( talk) 01:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Please could a medical editor review recent changes to the leads of Doctor of Medicine and Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery? Thanks, Certes ( talk) 11:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to be silly, but it's Friday and it's been a stressful week, and this made me laugh. Dr. Vogel ( talk) 15:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I am confused between Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Members. What's the right list? Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 03:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
When does the list for top medical editors of 2020 get released? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.76 ( talk) 19:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender euphoria. There is significant debate over the the meaning of WP:MEDRS and what kind of journal is reliable for gender euphoria and dysphoria material, in context of whether the content should be merged vs. be deleted. Crossroads -talk- 05:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I found this book called The Encyclopedia of Genetic Disorders and Birth Defects.
Do you think it’s a good source? CycoMa ( talk) 04:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Oops sorry about that. It was an accident. I don’t know what happened. CycoMa ( talk) 19:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Please ignore that earlier comment, I linked to the wrong source. I was meaning to link to this source.
Okay but anyway do y’all have any opinions on this? CycoMa ( talk) 23:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Recent ip find-and-replace edit-warring on Caesarean Section on when to use mother / birth parent / pregnant person etc. I've reverted the whole thing because refs and things were changed as a result and it was not done carefully.
I know we've had this discussion multiple times in the past; worth having again? Is there any official policy relating to this I can read up on? I've found one discussion here Talk:Polycystic_ovary_syndrome#People_with_ovaries but that is old. I know there are multiple other ones I'm having trouble finding. Generally the discussions seem to end in "no, because the sources use other language," but I think will increasingly change as using gender-neutral language when talking about sex is becoming more common in English language sources. For example, ACOG recently used "pregnant individuals" in this advisory (which is otherwise unrelated).
Mvolz ( talk) 09:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
A (human) female who has given birth to a baby, and some readers would read "pregnant mother" as "woman who already has child(ren) and is pregnant again". A term which avoids "mother" seems clearer to the layman, even if "woman" also has to be avoided. Certes ( talk) 00:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I note that:
Previous discussions:
-- Colin° Talk 10:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom#RfC_for_refactoring_of_"Timeline"_section about whether the timeline which is seen by some as being too long for the page should be moved to another article, cutdown or kept as it is. It needs a wider range of opinions to reach a consensus so feel free to add your view if you're interested. Llewee ( talk) 21:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
In Spanish (with English abstract): [24] Saw it and thought people would be interested. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Esta investigación presenta una hipótesis de partida: Wikipedia reacciona rápidamente como una forma de conocimiento de calidad, comunitario y libre ante la emergencia de la pandemia por la Covid-19, siendo creada y consultada masivamente, y generando un supuesto patrón de comportamiento entre los editores.: This investigation is of the hypothesis that: Wikipedia reacted with speed and quality as a free community in considering the COVID-19 pandemic, created and edited by large amounts of people, and with a particular behavior of editors.
La monitorización y los análisis reflejan que en las cuatro ediciones lingüísticas de Wikipedia estudiadas se crearon artículos sobre los dos conceptos de forma rápida y constante. Todos ellos se generaron el mismo día que la OMS nombró la Covid-19 (11 de febrero) y declaró la pandemia (11 de marzo). Solo en la edición inglesa se tardó un día en reconocer el último término por la comunidad.: Our monitoring and analyisis reflecting four Wikipedia languages examined shows that articles were created about the two concepts quickly and consistently. All articles were created the same day the WHO named the disease and declared it a pandemic. Only the English Wikipedia waited a day for the community to recognize the final term (pandemic).
Durante el mes de abril las cuatro versiones de este artículo tuvieron en su entradilla un aviso, a modo de alerta, recordando al lector que el contenido del artículo era referido a acontecimientos muy recientes. Es decir, la comunidad notificaba de la posibilidad de una sobredimensión de los datos de la actualidad. Esto se considera uno de los fallos de esta enciclopedia online, denominado recentismo: Through the month of April the four Wikipedias' articles had an advice banner or manner of alerting the reader that the content of the article referred to very recent events. This is to say, the communities notified the reader of the possibility of a over-representation of facts in reality. We consider this a fault of an online encyclopedia - termed "recentism".
Las cifras revelan una masiva participación de creación en inglés: se realizaron más de 7.000 ediciones en el término pandemia y este tuvo 1.644 editores.: The data reveals an immense participation in the English articles - more than 7000 edits for the "pandemic" term and 1,644 editors editing that term.
Si se consulta el porcentaje de vigilantes respecto editores (muchas veces el propio editor puede ser vigilante) vemos como este siempre es superior al 80% (salvo en el caso italiano) e, incluso, en portugués hay más vigilantes que editores.: If one looks at the percent of "vigilantes" (anti-vandalism only editors, from my understanding) compared to editors, many times the same editor can also be a vigilante, we see that this is always more than 80% except for in Italian. Also, in Portugues, there were more vigilantes than editors. (end translation) I think this is a very interesting fact.
Este control, más la ya comentada presencia de los vigilantes, evita en estas tres lenguas el vandalismo o los posibles errores de usuarios inexpertos.: This control, along with the already mentioned presence of vigilantes, avoids vandalism and errors from inexperienced editors in these three languages.
Es relevante señalar que parece existir una relación entre la no protección de estos artículos en la versión italiana y el mayor número de reversión en la misma: It's relevant to mention that there seems to be a relation between the lack of protection in the Italian Wikipedia and the larger number of reversions in the same. (end translation) This seems to indicate that they believe early protection was good in the English and other Wikipedias as it helped prevent errors.
Por todo ello, Wikipedia ha mostrado una célere y gran capacidad de trabajo colaborativo y de calidad en torno a los artículos sobre Covid-19 y la pandemia generada por dicha enfermedad.: From all of this, Wikipedia has demonstrated a great capability of collaborative work and of the quality of the work on articles about COVID-19 and the pandemic it caused. (end translation). Overall, for anyone who speaks Spanish, the article overall is a very interesting read comparing English Wikipedia to other languages and overall saying we did a good job. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 22:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 145 | ← | Archive 147 | Archive 148 | Archive 149 | Archive 150 | Archive 151 | → | Archive 155 |
Trivial I know, but yesterday I spent time trying to work out why inputting something like PMID ######### wouldn't generate the customary PubMed link on a talk page. Was it me getting my upper and lower cases confused or something? Or was it some recent change that had passed me by? After a while, I propended for the latter and, in one of those elusive aha moments, today I stumbled on this. Since I felt that a shiny new template might not be so convenient for rapid talk-page discussions, I went to what seemed to me the obvious forum ( WT:PMID) to question the apparent loss. But when I tried to start a new section there, up popped a message warning me,
If you're seeing this, you're probably in the wrong place.
This page is not for a Wikipedia article. If you want to request a change to a Wikipedia article, you need to go back to the specific article, and look for the "Talk" button at the top of the article. This page is also not a policy or guideline. If you want to request a change to a policy or guideline, then you need to go back to the specific policy or guideline and look for the "Talk" button at the top of that policy or guideline page.
If you stay here, you will end up on the talk page of a how-to or information page. How-to pages are meant to tell people how to edit Wikipedia according to the policies or guidelines, or to give instructions about other Wikipedia processes and practices.
...etc.
Gosh, methunked, so where now? Hence, this semiserious patter...
On a slightly more serious note perhaps, I can well remember how impenetrable "Wikipedia processes and practices" first seemed to me (and presumably to many other newcomers). Sometimes, that still feels the case... So I can't help wondering whether - as far as talk pages are concerned - this sort of obligation to use a template where none was needed before is really an advance. And I don't even know where to ask. Maybe I should ping... But perhaps I won't... Cheers, 86.186.155.179 ( talk) 14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's COVID-19 again, and yes it's the "lab leak hypothesis" again, but at
there is a proposal about WHO-sourced content that may have wider ramifications of interest to WPMED editors in general. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:22, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the talk page of our friend PainProf (last seen on this site in early September 2020 [?), I stumbled on a bot-generated section from mid-February warning that this work-in-progress risks being removed due to lack of recent activity. Since I believe that - however incomplete with respect to PainProf's intentions - the current content of the draft could be of real value, I'm boldly wondering whether it might conceivably be appropriate for somebody experienced to move a somewhat condensed version into mainspace. Also very much hoping PainProf is well. Best, 86.161.190.24 ( talk) 13:33, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry if this may come off as a dumb question. But I have interacted with other Wikipedians and they have told them there is a consensus that Medscape is a reliable source.
I’m not entirely sure if this claim is true or not, so I’m just asking. CycoMa ( talk) 03:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I have a question do these sources qualify as MEDRS in the Circumcision article? These are both reliable, secondary sources one of them in PUBMED. [1]
I'm asking to get this put in as opposed to the current source used in the PTSD section where the authors of the study have a conflict of interest statement which violates Bias under MEDRS. Dashoopa ( talk) 18:26, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
References
Hi all, I think at some point in the not-so-distant past we discussed reviewing the protection of medicine-related pages, with an eye towards reducing or removing protections that are no longer needed. Cryptic was kind enough to provide a list of pages tagged with WP:MED and under some level of protection. You can see the full list here, but below I've pasted a trimmed version that doesn't include move protection (which I think is less of an issue), protected redirects, templates ( here if you're interested) or covid-related pages (since those protections were placed fairly recently). For folks interested, please take a look through the list. If there are any that you feel are candidates for reducing or removing protection, let me know and I'll happily look into it. Bonus points if you can commit to watchlisting the article for a few months so we can easily re-protect if needed. Also, the list is from November 2020, so if you come across any that are no longer protected just remove them from the list. Happy to hear folks' thoughts! Ajpolino ( talk) 14:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
Feel free to annotate the "Comments" column for any you look into to avoid duplicating efforts.
Collapsed table of protected pages
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Ah rats, just realized my initial list didn't include pages under pending changes protection. Generated a list with this PetScan query and pasted below. No expiration dates since it came through PetScan, but most pendingchanges protections I've seen are placed indefinitely (although there is an option to add an expiration date).
Collapsed table
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Thanks so much for getting after this, Ajpolino; we want more medical editors, and one way to get them is to actually let them edit!
I can suggest three to start with, but want to take this slow to see if issues recur. Does someone know how to “pin” this section meanwhile, so it won’t archive too fast as we work through these? On the three (I believe?) that we have unprotected since I first raised this concern about a year ago, there have been no problems. So I can handle three more as a start on my watchlist.
I can take on watching the following three, and suggest they do not benefit from semi-protection.
I will add more over time depending on how these go, so hope we can keep this list on the page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:46, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
None of these five show any more recent vandalizing by other editors. David notMD ( talk) 21:44, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Given that four of the five I listed were only autoconfirmed protected, they could easily be vandalized even if that protection was retained. If this exercise is "What auto-protections can be removed, I would err on the side of more rather than fewer. David notMD ( talk) 03:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Ajpolino will do due diligence, well yes of course that's why I'm posting here to garner more attention and opinions. But due diligence doesn't mean seeing the future. Some of these pages may return to being vandalism targets once we remove or reduce protection. If the vandalism is persistent, we will probably re-introduce semi-protection. That doesn't mean this whole experiment has failed, just that we were wrong in that particular case. With multiple sets of eyes on each article, hopefully we'll catch any "failed experiments" quickly. Your eyes could certainly help in that regard. Additionally if there are any pages in the table you look into and think "protection should definitely be retained here", that's helpful feedback as well. Ajpolino ( talk) 15:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Just a general comment from someone who's answered several hundred edit semi-protected requests – it's disappointingly common for such requests to languish in the queue for weeks, and for perfectly coherent requests to be dismissed for being misformatted or other trivial reasons. I can only imagine how off-putting this must be to potential contributors. Reducing the number of protected pages is well worth the effort, as is watchlisting or otherwise monitoring Category:Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 13:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Ajpolino it is OK to remove pending changes from management of Tourette syndrome; I didn’t realize it was there. Of course I have that watched :). SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:31, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has degenerated into whether to remove any articles from autoconfirmed protected, to what it started as, which was which to remove. In addition to the five I listed, many I looked at since then, I consider were over-reactions to one-time vandalism (by IP and autoconfirmed accounts!). If this exercise is to be useful, I suggest we persist at identifying articles to remove from autoprotected. Be BOLD. Many articles on the list already have watchers, so criteria does not have to be we add delisted to our own Watch lists (albeit a valid precaution). That said, I propose removing Calcium, Constipation, John Snow and Plant-based diet. The last has frequent reverts, but based on good-faith edits, not vandalism. Lastly, Kelli Ward is not a medicine article. David notMD ( talk) 16:51, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@ Ajpolino and Zefr: first failed experiment at Parkinson disease, probably needs re-protection, sorry my computer is in repair, iPad will not allow apostrophe in title, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:06, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I've had less time to dedicate to this of late, and I see discussion has petered out. If no one objects, I'll move the tables to User:Ajpolino/Med protection, and allow this to be archived. Folks interested in helping with this medium- to long-term project can watchlist that page and continue to suggest pages to trial de-protection of. We'll de-protect in small batches over time and see if we can slowly identify pages that can be safely unprotected. Any objections to that? Ajpolino ( talk) 18:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Over the last days a big part of my clinical work has been dealing with queries around the AZ vaccine, which has been administered to 17 million UK residents. The relevant article is up for merge. While this is a rare phenomenon, there is already a teeming mass of sources (not all of which classically MEDRS, as this is a novel phenomenon).
Please consider !voting here: Talk:Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine#Proposed merge of Post-vaccination embolic and thrombotic events into Oxford–AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine. JFW | T@lk 12:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
In Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2, Allam (2020) (a chapter from a 2020 book published by Elsevier) is currently the source for the "December 1 with possibility of November" date of the index case. Is it MEDRS? Forich ( talk) 20:44, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
the argument that he is an MBA comes as the main reason to discard his points← that's not true, or at least I hope it's not true. It might be true if by "main" you mean noisiest - but the real objection to any source is rooted in the WP:PAGs, not (what Wikipedia editors take to be) the expertise of the author. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Alerting WP:MED of Talk:Triple X syndrome#Requested move 10 April 2021 for courtesy purposes. Vaticidal prophet 06:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
The artice came to my attention again when looking at my edit logs. It's still in the same questionable state with mostly outdated sources, one more recent one but that only links to those cultural depictions, then a possibly better source from the WHO but that is about labia stretching. Moreover, a 2019 suggestion on the talk page was to possibly merge it in the stretching article, which may be pertinent. I initially thought about posting this at FTN, but I suspect that WP:MED members may be more familiar with the related anatomic and medical literature, to evaluate what to do about this article. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 00:49, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
There's this set of articles
I'm not saying this is necessarily a problem, since the topic is well beyond me, but it seems weird to have so many articles on this. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Just noticed, that unlike with the good old PMID macro, the new mandatory {{pmid|xxxxxxx}} template generates a link where the "PMID" text is a separate hyperlink. So: PMID 31496128. The "PMID" is easily clicked and leads to PubMed#PubMed identifier. Surely in 99% of cases this will be a mis-click. One wonders if the developers of this site have any understanding at all of its users. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
[[pmid:31496138]]
produces
pmid:31496138, which should work like you expect it to.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
02:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I am wondering if we could add this cost-utility analysis about circumcision:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15534340/
It is a systematic review and meta-analysis as well that aggregates into a cost-utility analysis the risks, benefits, and costs of circumcision. The source is a little old (2004) but it is one of the most comprehensive reviews on the topic and published in a great journal with high-quality information.
Also, Alexbrn has been quite hostile, so generally try not to engage with him if he comes on. Dashoopa ( talk) 14:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Note for anyone of interest that I've made a PR at Wikipedia:Peer review/Tetrasomy X/archive1 for a topic in this project's scope. Vaticidal prophet 07:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there anyone with knowledge of pulmonology who can help expand the career details of Martin J. Tobin? His research is way too complicated for me to do justice. His bio is a bit overwhelmed by the section on the Derek Chauvin trial. Thank you! —Мандичка YO 😜 13:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Neurodevelopmental disorder § Nonverbal learning disorder. A new editor and IP (clearly the same person) is edit warring
Nonverbal learning disorder into the article as a neurodevelopmental disorder despite the fact that NVLD has no official status with either ICD or DSM-5 and, in fact, has no well-established diagnostic criteria.
Sundayclose (
talk) 20:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Sundayclose (
talk)
20:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, I happened to stumble upon this article. It previously and to some extent is a stealth article about the health benefits of smoking and did use (and probably still has) some very questionable sources that give undue prominence to some (but not all) claims. Could I have some help cleaning it up?
I am also highly concerned based on the selection of sources and time it would take to collate them, and the fact this seems to be that editor's first article, that there may be a COI editor involved. I note also the article was rejected at AfD and then moved to mainspace without consensus by the author. Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Since it is related to smoking, also linking Talk:Tobacco smoking § Merger proposal that may be interesting to this project, — Paleo Neonate – 00:43, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Since it is related, also linking Schizophrenia and tobacco smoking, a page about another claim (cf pmid:31135490) which may benefit from attention by an editor experienced in pruning. 86.186.168.248 ( talk) 08:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I've created a short article on Viral vector vaccine, a topic very important for COVID-19 vaccines. Please help expand it! If you contribute text in the next week, you will get DYK credit for it too. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) ( talk) 04:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Four months ago, we had a discussion about the List of vaccine ingredients article. We agreed that a prose article might be better than a list which was hard to maintain or be comprehensive, and which didn't offer any explanation as to why those ingredients were present. We debated ingredient vs excipient but I discovered most lay sources use "ingredient" and that word encompasses both active and inactive ingredients. So, after much gestation, I've moved my draft Vaccine ingredients to main space. @ Alexbrn: who objected to the original list and @ Graham Beards: for his expertise. Sources used include Plotkin's vaccines (Seventh ed.), the Electronic Medicines Compendium product information leaflets, and the excellent Vaccine ingredients from the Oxford Vaccine Group. The latter is, I have sadly to admit, so much better than my own efforts, and has been kept up-to-date with the latest information about the covid vaccines.
I wonder if people here could help with categories, templates and talk page stuff. -- Colin° Talk 18:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts lists several DYKs at the moment (I skip, as usual, the ones about people and organizations):
Colin, I'd bet that any of these editors could help you figure out the process. I believe this is Ray's first DYK, and Akrasia's second. It's good to get new people involved. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I've added A DYK nomination. WhatamIdoing, does it appear in that "article alerts" page automatically? -- Colin° Talk 18:05, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Is there a preferred way to cite DSM V? My attempt to convert the bare url reference 6 at Intellectual disability using the cite web tool just created a mess. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 16:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Thoughts here with Richard Lehman following the recent death of his beloved wife (see twitter). Richard, who is professor of the Shared Understanding of Medicine at the University of Birmingham, England (and a provocative columnist for the BMJ), is a close friend and supporter of Wikipedia Medicine, whom some of us have had the pleasure to spend time with at MED meet-ups and other WP events, where he generously shares his understanding, views, and analysis. All the best to you Richard - we need you here! 86.186.168.216 ( talk) 12:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
If you see no results, someone cleared them. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:01, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
There's a growing problem here with at least one editor wanting to stretch the well-reported associations between this vaccine and types of blood clotting into a certainty of cause and effect (which MEDRS sources seem careful to disclaim). More eyes could be helpful. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:01, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
I proposed that this be selectively merged back into the AZ vaccine article as there's little independent notability and it's quite frankly WP:TOOSOON at this time, any opinions (either direction) or improvements that would assist in keeping this as a second article (MEDRS compliance is hard at this point given very little peer reviewed papers on this, so it's currently sourced to primary [government] sources and news articles). Thanks -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 18:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Could also use some oversight. There's a burgeoning problem with every speculative news story that appears instantly being crammed into the lede. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
This happens with a lot of things.. but would the general sanctions in place for COVID-19 articles help here? I'm not acquainted enough with them other than to know they give administrators leeway to topic ban editors who appear to be pushing a POV/etc, but would they also enable a stricter application of WP:CRYSTALBALL or perhaps even a restriction against adding attributed statements (i.e. one person's opinion or one primary source's opinion) prior to discussion on the talkpage? Perhaps a requirement that any editor who wants to add a statement that would require attribution (to a person, this wouldn't impact statements like "the EMA said" or similar) go to the talkpage first (and edits that don't comply could be reverted as a GS violation). I'm just trying to think of ways now that RexxS is gone and I haven't seen much admin activity on this or other articles that a GS could be implemented that provides a clear rule, easy determination as to if it's violated, and thus maybe more admins could step in and help as it would take less of their time. I think this would ideally be placed on any article related to COVID-19 vaccinations - but perhaps it should just be implemented on specific articles as the need arises? Or, I could be off base completely - comments appreciated -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 19:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Hello all. I have requested feedback on how to improve the article DVT, which I've updated as of late, at Wikipedia:Peer review/Deep vein thrombosis/archive4. Thank you. Biosthmors ( talk) 16:22, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
This was brought up on pl wiki recently as a possible hoax, but someone found sources (google scholar search results for this). I am surprised we don't have an entry on this, but given the high RS standards in MED, and the fact that I am not a medical expert, I am hesitant to stub this. Perhaps someone would like to try? Seems like a mildly amusing topic, may even make a decent DYK. PS. Pl wiki discussion with an iwiki link if needed for when someone stubs it is here: pl:Wikipedia:Poczekalnia/artykuły/2021:04:06:Kamień pępkowy. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
At the article True hermaphroditism I need help. I am the only person who edits that article and not many people Edit on their.
I have been doing research on this and I keep finding sources that contradict each other.
Like one reliable source would claim the there are individuals who are fertile as males and two sources that claim there are no documented cases of individuals fertile as males. CycoMa ( talk) 08:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
I found this random site called GLOWN. I was wondering if y’all had any opinions about this site. CycoMa ( talk) 04:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Found this in the unsourced listing. Read as much as I could just to figure out what it is. I'm a little wary that it's not up to snuff if it's a MEDRS kind of thing. I made a talk and some notes, but if anyone's more familiar with psychology/sexuality articles, I'd appreciate an opinion or two. Cheers, Estheim ( talk) 02:58, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not in the mood to get in the middle of it, but I can see on my watchlist that there's an ongoing edit war at Brain size that could use some more eyes on it. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 20:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I recently came across Edward Tobinick, which is currently just a list of the author's patents. However, after digging a bit deeper, it seems to have survived AFD a couple of times, most recently deciding to keep this version, which was a very different article focusing on his (somewhat fringe) medical theories. It's in a bit of an odd situation - the AFD concluded there was some notability because of the contentious claims, but they're now gone completely. I don't know what the best approach here is - revert to the old version? relist for deletion in its new form? - but figured someone here would have thoughts. Andrew Gray ( talk) 13:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
@ Biosthmors, Alexbrn, and WhatamIdoing: Thanks all. Redirecting seems a better bet than an independent page. I've removed the reference from Dejerine–Roussy syndrome and left the others, as they seem a bit more muted. I'll list the CSVS article for deletion. Andrew Gray ( talk) 19:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
Gentlemen, as I said above, I am a scientist and very familiar with the science relevant to this discussion. I am very concerned with the actions you have already taken with regard to taking down an article about an individual, redirecting it, and listing other related articles for deletion. All done in what appears to be a concerted effort to largely erase mention of that individual's scientific contributions, all done in rather cavalier fashion. As a scientist, the way this group has done this smacks of bias. Andrew, you quickly chose to "list the CSVS article for deletion". To your credit, you then reconsidered, admitting that you "don't really know much about anatomy," and then came up with an excellent 2020 review, "Revisiting the Vertebral Venous Plexus - A Comprehensive Review of the Literature," by Carpenter, et. al, written by experts in the field, that you said "seems to treat the CSVS model as valid." Yes, you are correct - not only is the model valid, Tobinick's work in this area has been seminal - in fact, Tobinick's 2006 review, "The Cerebrospinal Venous System: Anatomy, Physiology, and Clinical Implications," has 123 citations in Google Scholar, and is cited in the Carpenter review that you reference (a fact that you failed to mention). Gentlemen, we are talking about human anatomy here - there are not many fields in science or medicine that are less open to interpretation - anatomy, in general, is one of the most concrete of all disciplines. Tobinick's work regarding the cerebrospinal venous system has been recognized by an international group of experts, including anatomists and neurosurgeons - not just by Carpenter, et. al, but also by Nathoo et. al ("History of the vertebral venous plexus and the significant contributions of Breschet and Batson"), Griessenauer et. al. ("Venous drainage of the spine and spinal cord: a comprehensive review of its history, embryology, anatomy, physiology, and pathology"), and many other academic experts from around the world .The Wikipedia page, "The Cerebrospinal Venous System," merits continued publication on Wikipedia. You are on the wrong track here, starting with your characterization of this thread as "Dubious article." As a scientist, I am shocked and dismayed about what you have done, as none of it is in the public interest or consistent with Wikipedia policies. I have much more to say, but first await your response to the above, and your confirmation that you will leave the Wikipedia page, "The Cerebrospinal Venous System," in place. 72.231.189.187 ( talk) 16:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
"cerebrospinal venous system"
, limited to
the last five years and to review articles, finds just three potential scientific sources. One of those was written by Tobinick and the other two weren't.Looking at this source: Clark IA (March 2020). "Randomized controlled trial validating the use of perispinal etanercept to reduce post-stroke disability has wide-ranging implications". Expert Review of Neurotherapeutics. 20 (3): 203–205. doi: 10.1080/14737175.2020.1727742. PMID 32028804. makes me think an article on Tobinick is deserved. It could be used as a secondary source. Biosthmors ( talk) 01:03, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
Please could a medical editor review recent changes to the leads of Doctor of Medicine and Bachelor of Medicine, Bachelor of Surgery? Thanks, Certes ( talk) 11:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to be silly, but it's Friday and it's been a stressful week, and this made me laugh. Dr. Vogel ( talk) 15:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
I am confused between Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Participants and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Members. What's the right list? Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 03:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
When does the list for top medical editors of 2020 get released? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.216.159.76 ( talk) 19:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Comments are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender euphoria. There is significant debate over the the meaning of WP:MEDRS and what kind of journal is reliable for gender euphoria and dysphoria material, in context of whether the content should be merged vs. be deleted. Crossroads -talk- 05:21, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I found this book called The Encyclopedia of Genetic Disorders and Birth Defects.
Do you think it’s a good source? CycoMa ( talk) 04:01, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Oops sorry about that. It was an accident. I don’t know what happened. CycoMa ( talk) 19:09, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Please ignore that earlier comment, I linked to the wrong source. I was meaning to link to this source.
Okay but anyway do y’all have any opinions on this? CycoMa ( talk) 23:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Recent ip find-and-replace edit-warring on Caesarean Section on when to use mother / birth parent / pregnant person etc. I've reverted the whole thing because refs and things were changed as a result and it was not done carefully.
I know we've had this discussion multiple times in the past; worth having again? Is there any official policy relating to this I can read up on? I've found one discussion here Talk:Polycystic_ovary_syndrome#People_with_ovaries but that is old. I know there are multiple other ones I'm having trouble finding. Generally the discussions seem to end in "no, because the sources use other language," but I think will increasingly change as using gender-neutral language when talking about sex is becoming more common in English language sources. For example, ACOG recently used "pregnant individuals" in this advisory (which is otherwise unrelated).
Mvolz ( talk) 09:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
A (human) female who has given birth to a baby, and some readers would read "pregnant mother" as "woman who already has child(ren) and is pregnant again". A term which avoids "mother" seems clearer to the layman, even if "woman" also has to be avoided. Certes ( talk) 00:04, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I note that:
Previous discussions:
-- Colin° Talk 10:49, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place at Talk:COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom#RfC_for_refactoring_of_"Timeline"_section about whether the timeline which is seen by some as being too long for the page should be moved to another article, cutdown or kept as it is. It needs a wider range of opinions to reach a consensus so feel free to add your view if you're interested. Llewee ( talk) 21:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
In Spanish (with English abstract): [24] Saw it and thought people would be interested. Bondegezou ( talk) 14:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Esta investigación presenta una hipótesis de partida: Wikipedia reacciona rápidamente como una forma de conocimiento de calidad, comunitario y libre ante la emergencia de la pandemia por la Covid-19, siendo creada y consultada masivamente, y generando un supuesto patrón de comportamiento entre los editores.: This investigation is of the hypothesis that: Wikipedia reacted with speed and quality as a free community in considering the COVID-19 pandemic, created and edited by large amounts of people, and with a particular behavior of editors.
La monitorización y los análisis reflejan que en las cuatro ediciones lingüísticas de Wikipedia estudiadas se crearon artículos sobre los dos conceptos de forma rápida y constante. Todos ellos se generaron el mismo día que la OMS nombró la Covid-19 (11 de febrero) y declaró la pandemia (11 de marzo). Solo en la edición inglesa se tardó un día en reconocer el último término por la comunidad.: Our monitoring and analyisis reflecting four Wikipedia languages examined shows that articles were created about the two concepts quickly and consistently. All articles were created the same day the WHO named the disease and declared it a pandemic. Only the English Wikipedia waited a day for the community to recognize the final term (pandemic).
Durante el mes de abril las cuatro versiones de este artículo tuvieron en su entradilla un aviso, a modo de alerta, recordando al lector que el contenido del artículo era referido a acontecimientos muy recientes. Es decir, la comunidad notificaba de la posibilidad de una sobredimensión de los datos de la actualidad. Esto se considera uno de los fallos de esta enciclopedia online, denominado recentismo: Through the month of April the four Wikipedias' articles had an advice banner or manner of alerting the reader that the content of the article referred to very recent events. This is to say, the communities notified the reader of the possibility of a over-representation of facts in reality. We consider this a fault of an online encyclopedia - termed "recentism".
Las cifras revelan una masiva participación de creación en inglés: se realizaron más de 7.000 ediciones en el término pandemia y este tuvo 1.644 editores.: The data reveals an immense participation in the English articles - more than 7000 edits for the "pandemic" term and 1,644 editors editing that term.
Si se consulta el porcentaje de vigilantes respecto editores (muchas veces el propio editor puede ser vigilante) vemos como este siempre es superior al 80% (salvo en el caso italiano) e, incluso, en portugués hay más vigilantes que editores.: If one looks at the percent of "vigilantes" (anti-vandalism only editors, from my understanding) compared to editors, many times the same editor can also be a vigilante, we see that this is always more than 80% except for in Italian. Also, in Portugues, there were more vigilantes than editors. (end translation) I think this is a very interesting fact.
Este control, más la ya comentada presencia de los vigilantes, evita en estas tres lenguas el vandalismo o los posibles errores de usuarios inexpertos.: This control, along with the already mentioned presence of vigilantes, avoids vandalism and errors from inexperienced editors in these three languages.
Es relevante señalar que parece existir una relación entre la no protección de estos artículos en la versión italiana y el mayor número de reversión en la misma: It's relevant to mention that there seems to be a relation between the lack of protection in the Italian Wikipedia and the larger number of reversions in the same. (end translation) This seems to indicate that they believe early protection was good in the English and other Wikipedias as it helped prevent errors.
Por todo ello, Wikipedia ha mostrado una célere y gran capacidad de trabajo colaborativo y de calidad en torno a los artículos sobre Covid-19 y la pandemia generada por dicha enfermedad.: From all of this, Wikipedia has demonstrated a great capability of collaborative work and of the quality of the work on articles about COVID-19 and the pandemic it caused. (end translation). Overall, for anyone who speaks Spanish, the article overall is a very interesting read comparing English Wikipedia to other languages and overall saying we did a good job. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez ( User/ say hi!) 22:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)