![]() | This page 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. |
Hoping someone can look at the full text of this article for me: Urodynamic classification of patients with symptoms of overactive bladder. I'm trying to write up Overactive bladder and the abstract refers to a 1-4 classification scale. Can someone quickly check what that scale is, if it's OAB-specific, and the exact name of the scale (if reported) so I can do some better searches? 71.231.186.92 ( talk) 01:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Might just be my AFB tendencies, but I had a concerning experience with user 1210donna today. I have looked over the edit history, and the history of previous messages left by other editors for this user, and there seems to be a history of POV pushing across several articles. Main MO is removal of content which they disagree with, sometimes with misleading edit summaries, and addition of content which pushes a particular POV, sometimes unsourced, sometimes unreliably sourced. Today, they removed some content from burning mouth syndrome with an edit summary saying that the source did not support the content. I double checked the source for accuracy and then reverted the changes, only to see them removed again with a similarly bogus edit summary stating that it was an unsourced statement. Editor also doesn't appear to be aware of MEDRS, so I pointed that out User_talk:1210donna#Re_Burning_mouth_syndrome. Advice appreciated. Lesion ( talk) 03:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)There are sixteen high importance stub articles remaining for the project:
A few are "overview" articles where we may have detailed individual articles but the overall topic article is not developed. These appear to be correctly labeled as "high" and are simply waiting to be done, but there's a question of whether an overview is really that necessary on some:
Some of these are individual topics that are appropriately labeled high and are again awaiting work:
I've downgraded this to mid:
These to low:
I'm looking for input on the following:
Thanks for any input. Also, just as a general question, are there any of these that strike someone as more important? I'm sometimes bored and looking to do something productive here - it keeps me away from the idiocy that happens on some of the high-profile pages on the project. 71.231.186.92 ( talk) 05:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, I really appreciate the work that you're doing for Wikipedia. Keep it up. On that note, I was wondering if you'd be able to continue that good work on an article for me. I'm doing an assignment on infanticide at school, and I noticed that the top of the article requests an expert in medicine to assist in improving the article. I'm not so interested in getting this article fixed for my assignment, but as a regular contributor to a wide variety of Wikipedia articles, it's of my interest that this article is improved. I would love it if an expert in medicine, or someone quite knowledgeable (and possibly even qualified, to some extent) in infanticide at least. Thanks a lot, -- Rhain1999 ( talk) 06:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
We are hopefully just finishing up the bylaws for WikiProject Med Foundation. Welcome all here to come and review and comment. [3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
What information does Wikipedia have (or can it have) about
xenoestrogens affecting human
gender identity and human
sexual orientation?
—
Wavelength (
talk)
17:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Minutes ago, I reverted an editor (a newly registered account) adding text about vitiligo based on a source that is not WP:MEDRS-compliant; it is about how vitiligo can be cured, and it was added here to the Michael Jackson's health and appearance article (which is somewhat a mess now anyway) and here to the Vitiligo article. Notice that in the first instance, the editor made the claim that vitiligo can be cured, while he or she used "may have shown" in the second instance. The editor may add the material back, or more editors might pop up to add that report. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all,
I'm doing a little census of articles marked for merge, and orphaned med articles that have been tagged for 1+ years. A lot of these are drug names which are not especially notable (or drugs with short stubs). Would like some clarification:
Would value some input, LT90001 ( talk) 03:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I while ago I asked about template:Symptoms involving head and neck and why it was so weird, but didn't get any response. So I have taken the initiative and drafted a sample of what a new template for orofacial signs and symptoms could look like. I have not given a huge amount of thought to all the things that could go in, or how to organize it, but it is just to give an idea. Note that this template contains some entries from the above template, some from respiratory system, some from gastrointestinal system symptoms and signs etc, but also I believe contains some items unique to itself, and there is no-where else currently to put them. This is the main rationale for this template, and also to have a single template for signs and symptoms that an oral and maxillofacial surgeon/oral surgeon/oral physician would concern him/herself with. Comments appreciated. Lesion ( talk) 12:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recently I wrote an article on Minimal Clinically Important Difference. A subject not yet covered on Wiki. It got declined because of "inadequate supporting of reliable sources".
All the sources I used are published articles in various medical journals; abstract are freely available on Pubmed, some as well in full text, all are retrievable through a library. For the writing I acquired all articles and read them (as is common before using it as a reference, something that seemed to surpise the guys/girls at webchat).
Changing the sources to only fully publicly available literature is not an option, this would leave a lot of the statements unreferenced and would ruin the article.
Anyway, I need a reviewer to aprove this article; how do I get one?
Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Minimal_Clinically_Important_Difference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teun Teunis ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I know some of you are interested in organizing categories. It would be ideal if there were some level of coordination with Commons. commons:Category:Uploaded with Open Access Media Importer and needing category review is a bunch of basically orphaned cats there, and the main commons:Category:Health and commons:Category:Medicine cats always need some work. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
There are currently two article Dichotic listening and Dichotic listening tests which have very similar content and should refer to two different by highly related topics Dichotic listening and the tests used used during assessment, and may be there should only be a single article. These needs to be looked at by audiologists and relalted specialists who have an understanding of this complex area inter-related issues. dolfrog ( talk) 18:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor is attempting to recast Klinefelter syndrome as unknown etiology. Would some editors please look in. Novangelis ( talk) 19:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)I have started a page to document technical requests that would help our efforts at WPMED here. I invite others to contribute ideas. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The above links to a discussion about whether to merge the page chapped lips with cheilitis. Lesion ( talk) 11:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
"Chapped lips (cheilitis simplex,[1] or "common cheilitis"),[2] is one of the most common types of cheilitis.[1][3] The symptoms are cracking, fissuring and [...] "
I'd like to request editor involvement in the AFD discussion for Monkenge P. Malafa. The page has also been sorted into Medicine Related Deletion Discussions. Involvement from the WikiProject Medicine community would be appreciated. Jcmeberhard ( talk) 18:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about Medicine - Skysmith ( talk) 10:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
After the page Neuromuscular dentistry was deleted in late June ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuromuscular dentistry) user:Clayton Chan, DDS has created 2 similarly scoped articles called Neuromuscular Dentistry and " Gneuromuscular Dentistry" in Aug 2013. Other users have also raised concerns about this user's attitude to self promotion, advertising and quality of referencing.
I have proposed both pages for deletion, comments appreciated. Lesion ( talk) 11:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've just tagged with with a {{Medref}}; it is mainly built on primary research. Experts may want to take a look (though I recommend at least one cup of coffee before doing so). The problems are also in the main article ( Coffee) which references this, but if Health effects of coffee gets sorted-out that Coffee can be sync'd up to reflect it faithfully ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Drawing attention to a group of 3 IP editors on the page pathology. I'm fairly sure 2 are the same person since their edits focused at the same goal, and the 3rd only edited the talk page once for vandalism. The page is being extensively reworked
These changes have been reverted by 2 different editors, I wonder if they are against consensus or not? Appreciate more opinions about what is happening on that page, e.g. see the diff from 1 days ago compared to current [5] ... huge amounts of content being deleted.
Note the page was previously protected due to persistent sock vandalism, which expired early July. I wonder if the recent activity is related? Lesion ( talk) 21:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI to the project,
Autism therapies has been nominated for GA and is looking for a reviewer. As much as I'd like to, I do not have time at the moment to take it on. I did take a quick look at the sourcing and it gave me concerns. The editor,
Jinkinson, who nominated the article for GA, has not edited the article in the past year, which is unusual in a GA nomination.
Zad
68
03:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC) In addition, one of the sections has been tagged with {{
advert}} for a year, and the nominator him/herself added a {{
Copypaste}} tag to the article today... I'm puzzled.
Zad
68
03:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
About half of Principina's edits to these articles have inserted refs to recent (2013) papers by Bellieni. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 22:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Proposed policy: pictures included without explicit statement that these have patient consent should be removed from Wikipedia and deleted from WikiCommons
A removal of a picture due to lack of patient consent here prompts me to ask, is there a policy for patient consent to pictures being included on Wikipedia? and, if there is no consent found, what is the appropriate action for editors? If there is no explicit patient consent, this is not only a possible violation of a person's privacy and/or a derogation of the responsibilities of whoever took the photo, but also ethico-legal consequences for Wikipedia.
I would like to raise this as pretty serious problem, as it should be noted that that this photo's use is in perpetuity, and may be included in whatsoever format and location an editor deems fit. One possible solution would be to have a vetting or tagging process for pictures included in WikiMedia commons.
The aforementioned jaundice photo is now used in 17 other articles.
Not too sure if I should be proposing this here or on a more central forum for discussion.
Kind Regards, LT90001 ( talk) 05:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I think as Wikipedia matures that this is a natural and fruitful discussion to have 'prophylactically'. If you click on the images in that WikiCommons link, there's a little tag that states the photos are taken with consent. I think that's a great move, as obviously consent is assumed, but it's nice to have it explicitly stated, and certainly will prevent problems like this revert in the future. In this light, what would be the thoughts from changing MEDMOS Images#Identifiable to:
Identifiable people: Although the Wikimedia Foundation does not require any special protection for people whose images are being used in medicine-related contexts, editors are encouraged to be especially cautious about associating living people with diseases. In general, identifiable images of people should be provided with the person's consent, and preferably this noted on the image's description. (Where this is not documented, WP:GOODFAITH should be assumed). In choosing images of identifiable people with a medical condition, prefer images of people who are strongly associated with the condition (e.g., Terry Fox for osteosarcoma) or are engaged in a public activity associated with that disease (e.g., AIDS patients at an ACT UP event) when such images are available.
(italics are to show the proposed changes, but not part of the changes themselves).
I think for the protection of the subject of the photo and Wikipedia, consent should be a prerequisite for photos that identify the patient (ie show their face). [10] Written permission should be submitted to WP the same way that professional photographers are required to submit written permission for the use of their photos on WP. Using a photo on WP to assert that a person is an example of a medical condition is publishing medical information about that person [11] and we should exercise the same care and caution that doctor's and hospitals and insurance companies do in this regard. In such cases good faith should not be assumed but rather it should be clearly documented in writing and be a mandatory part of the photo acceptance process. There are legal and moral and BLP consequences here. A person posing for a photo only indicates they allowed the photo to be taken. It gives no indication of the person's understanding of how the photo is to be used and who will see it and for what purposes and under what circumstances. It certainly does not imply that the person has given permission for the photo to be published in perpetuity on the world wide web. Furthermore, I feel this issue should be discussed in a central forum, like Jimbo's page to get input from non-medical editors as it has significant repercussions for real people, not to mention legal and moral BLP issues for WP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
We have this template. [12] That should be sufficient. Now if we are going to assume bad faith and require that consent forms be sent in to functionaries how do we know that the uploader has not simple made up the consent forms and forged the signatures? Should we demand that they include the subjects drivers license, social security number and passport? But what if the drivers license is forged? Maybe we should also require that the forms be notarized and signed by two people with high standing in the community like with passports? But who is going to verify that they too are not imposters? Maybe what we need is a multi million dollar global verification system? We should require that people present in person in San Francisco with documents in hand to PROVE that they are who they say they are with notarized signed copies of all the documents in question. Also just to be sure the subject of the image and the uploader should both be their. To make this fair the movement should pick up the tab and pay for the subjects and photographers time.
Once we have this in place we should also apply it to editors. Allowing anonymous editing is a disaster. Look at the conflict of interest issues that have occurred on article like Transcendental Meditation because we allow anonymous editing (likely by at least some people associated with the subject in question). Our readers deserve to know that someone has verified not only the identify of the people who upload the images they look at and subject within said images but also the identify of the people who write the text they read. But wait a second this long term editor User:Will Beback was indefinitely banned for sending personal information regarding a Wikipedia editor to Wikimedia functionaries. Would not attempts to identify the uploaders of images and the subjects within them by Wikimedia functionaries also result in indefinite bans of all involved?
And if we raise the bar beyond that of Citezendium and ban everyone involved based on our draconian outing policy who is going to be left to contribute content? Maybe we should all simply give up and go back to our real jobs. Thankfully this is NOT how Wikipedia works because if it did Wikipedia would not exist. Additionally it is not how anywhere else in the world works either. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
One Q, above you seem to suggest that should someone in an image change their mind then the image would be withdrawn. I don't know the exact ins and outs of CC BY SA, but is it realistic to suggest that things published under this can be withdrawn? Example is, someone uses the image from wikipedia, giving correct attribution etc. Should the original source of the image (i.e. wikipedia) then withdraw the image, is there any onus on those who have reused the image in other publications from when it was available under CC BY SA, that they should also withdraw it? Lesion ( talk) 01:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Would appreciate some extra eyes on this article; I am having some to-and-fro with an editor who I think wants to include some poorly-sourced claims about this device. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 16:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Editors are hereby invited to discuss
gender identity disorder diagnosis as a prerequisite for pronoun reform. Please see
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Why exactly can't we require someone be diagnosed as transgender before a pronoun switch? (version of
22:13, 1 September 2013).
—
Wavelength (
talk)
22:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Review is here. The article is too long, almost 300kb. Author points out that consensus has been reached in previous discussions not to split article, which is fair enough, but IMO the article is too long, and without whinging too much, as well as (1) detracting from readability, this is (2) 3-6 times longer than the recommended length for an article (depending which guideline you use) and (3) very hard to review for GA status when the article is this long.
Would value some extra voices in the discussion, so as to not appear like I am shouting at the ocean. Apart from this, the article is choc-a-bloc full of content and well on its way to becoming a GA. LT90001 ( talk) 21:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 13:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor, who has a history stretching over years of POV editing on the page in an attempt to discredit the very existence of this medical speciality, is back at it again. Every time the page protection expires the IP returns with their same old tired unsourced attack edits. I believe stronger measures need to be taken to protect this page - either the IP needs to be permanently blocked or the article needs to be permanently protected - even a 6 month protection has not deterred the ip in the slightest. He/she seems to have an deep personal hatred of physiatry. Various attempts to engage the editor in rational discussion have proved fruitless. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Started a new article on Cancer and nausea. Still working on it, I expect to finish in the next few days. But its a complex topic with many aspects (some of which I may not have considered yet) and I would be grateful for input from interested editors. Ochiwar ( talk) 15:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I asked advise on FTN and was suggested posting here regarding the newly created article Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry, the closely connected, newly created bios Maria Luisa Figueira and Mario Di Fiorino, as well as edits made by the same four users in e.g. Davide Lazzeretti, Leonetto Amadei, Ganser syndrome, and Mind control. I reverted in Leonetto Amadei, [14] and left a note on the editor's page, [15] and subsequently tried to add info from the .it article Leonetto Amadei. (It appears that the Italian Leonette Amadei has had additions similar to the ones made to the English.) The English version has now had the same material re-added. [16] I restored an older version of Davide Lazzeretti. [17] Best, Sam Sailor Sing 11:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
There were three medical literature reviews erased from the gulf war syndrome article a year ago. Why? The MD who agreed to mediate the dispute in the talk page archives (@ Jmh649:) never did. Why? The Institute of Medicine update linked in that article's last talk page section indicates that the disputed questions are still wide open. Amopherion ( talk) 02:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reposted from Jimbo Wales' talk page archives. 192.81.0.147 ( talk) 22:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please look over this section Ovarian cyst#Functional cysts as it has recently been edited by someone with rather poor English. See HERE. An IP editor and I have tried to clean it up so it makes sense but this is not my area of expertise. Regards 220 of Borg 05:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
User:LT910001 has kindly offered to be the main reviewer for the
aphthous stomatitis GA nomination. The review is underway, and s/he has requested a 2nd opinion before closing the review. Done Here is the review page:
Talk:Aphthous stomatitis/GA1. Thanks,
Lesion (
talk)
11:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Promotion to GA: The article has been marked as a GA. Congratulations to Lesion! LT90001 ( talk) 03:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Should cannabis be included in the list of causes of pneumothorax? Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed this article, which seems to contain a lot of biomedical pronouncements sourced heavily (exclusively?) to primary medical sources. I am concerned that by creating a article specifically about a medical trial, no matter how large, it becomes a WP:COATRACK for information about the results that differ from those found in more reliable sources; in this case the article gives a strong impression of acupuncture's effectiveness which is a bit out-of- WP:SYNC with out main Acupuncture article. (Cross-posting to WP:FTN.) Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
I found the unsourced, two line stub " Immune-mediated disease" (via Psoriasis, via Battle of Midway) a few minutes ago, and figured that I'd mention it here. For people that are actually well versed in medicine (which I am not), getting it at least sourced and checked for accuracy shouldn't take more than five minutes. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 18:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I have prophylactically merged this with ' Immune disorder' (which although not perfect is the lead article for the immune disorders template). LT90001 ( talk) 07:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please add the external link and redirect at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Diagnosis_of_HIV/AIDS#Bulk_procurement_of_tests Please? 192.81.0.147 ( talk) 22:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi All
The Science Museum in London have released 50 images under an open license. I hope by showing reach they may agree to release much more (they have 1000s and 1000s). Here are the ones relating to medicine (there are quite a few), there's a full list here. If you would like any more information about any of the objects please let me know and I can ask the curators. -- Mrjohncummings ( talk) 11:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
At the moment, we have, among others:
In each article lead, they are characterized both by the total chromosome number and the word syndrome, although not necessarily together. (Note: I did not put Triple X syndrome on the list because I treated it as a name, not a count, but it should be fair game for discussion.) Is there any interest in standardizing article title format with regard to leading number or the use of the word "syndrome"? Novangelis ( talk) 19:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: This article has been sitting in the Afc for over two weeks. Would anyone like to review it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Public_relations_noticeboard.3F. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) 10:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Program for Appropriate Technology in Health#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Mdann52 ( talk) 12:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
There is an IP adding this poor source to the Median lethal dose article. He or she has already reverted me once. The article might need more eyes on it from this project. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a top importance article which is not at B class or above, one of WPMED's specific goals.
Looks like there are a sackful of one-sentence stub pages that could do with merging into this parent article. Some were already tagged, I tagged some others. Arguably more might benefit from a merge too. Comments appreciated here: Talk:candidiasis
"Candida" is a huge industry in complimentary and alternative medicine. This topic is very much in the public's mind, as evidenced by the huge number of hits on this article. It would be nice to present a cohesive series of articles with accurate coverage for this topic, to balance against all the utter nonsense that one is assailed with when typing "candida" into google. Lesion ( talk) 02:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This happens to be our most-viewed article this month, receiving more page views than Sexual intercourse. in fact, this article received 801,395 views over the period of about a week in late June-July. Does anybody know why? Confused, LT90001 ( talk) 12:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This article appears to be a cotract of asperger syndrome, Asperger syndrome and neuroscience. It appears to contains an exact copy of the DSM 4 criteria which we are not to do. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ShuntCheck for notability, sourcing, etc. In terms of structure it is an acceptable article but I'm not sure if it isn't perhaps a bit too advertorial in tone and I'm not at all sure if it is a notable subject in terms of this project's criteria. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Some of you might be interested in weighing in on the Distal#Redirect matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Just came across Nexvax2, "a potential vaccine for celiac disease created by ImmusanT". An unsourced mention was added in the FA coeliac disease a year ago, and promptly removed per WP:CRYSTAL. Per the manufacturer, "a second Phase Ib trial is now enrolling in the United States". This feels way premature, yes? Maralia ( talk) 02:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This addition of this source appears to be not pubmed indexed [20]. Wondering what peoples thoughts on it are? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
offtopic
|
---|
|
Looking at this paper in question it still raises concerns. The refs it uses are not particularly good. Another non pub med index review being used here Talk:Influenza#Natural_compound. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
From 10 to 7 days. So this will go a little more quickly to the archives if we keep it like this. With 38 threads on this page, it just seems unweildy. Biosthmors ( talk) 01:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)There seems to be consensus to merge the article baldness into alopecia ( discussion here). I have created a new section for discussion.
I would like to do the following:
I think this would represent the optimum solution, as compared with the current state. Comments? Kind Regards, LT90001 ( talk) 10:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
All the autofill PMID templates are broken today. This is the tool on Wikipedia that I use the most. This includes the one in the edit box (which has been down for weeks) and now diberri [21]. Anyway know of any other workarounds? Or how we can convince the WMF to take this on? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This one has started working again [23] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add another regular bug I encounter since VE which I forgot to mention: when clicking on the "named references" button does not bring up the "insert a named reference" pop up window. Lesion ( talk) 20:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello all, as part of a greater effort to clean up Wikiproject:med administratively, I have reclassed most Anatomy-related articles to WikiProject Anatomy. In total about 730 reclassifications were made. Although WP:Anatomy is not a very active project, at the current time anatomy-based articles are not covered under our scope. If this project were to be merged at a later date, it would be prescient to merge to an Anatomy taskforce to continue the grouping of these articles. As a reminder, WPMED policies on sources in para-medical articles still apply, even if these articles are not under the scope of WPMED. I've preserved any articles with pathology sections of significant length, articles covered under task forces, and articles that related to anatomical pathology (eg. renal artery stenosis).
For this process I used wikitools here and searched by keyword.
The final count of this reclassification effort is:
Every search result under B class I also had a look and reclassified stub->start->C->B as appropriate.
If there are any other large reclassification projects needed, I would be happy to have a look. Kind Regards, LT90001 ( talk) 05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
There are still a few more, this link will give a list of articles tagged with both projects, of which most probably belong to only one. -- WS ( talk) 13:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
These surely must fall under the purvue of WP:Universities. Not included as in/out on our WPMED scope guidelines. Agree/disagree? If consensus will change guidelines to reflect this. LT90001 ( talk) 07:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the article Paget's disease of the breast is in need of expert content editing. There are statements in different sections that contradict each other. See the talk page at Conflicting information.-- Gciriani ( talk) 23:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia can have these articles (with sortable wikitables) for expired health and beauty products, including prescription and non-prescription drugs, soaps and shampoos, and nutritional supplements.
— Wavelength ( talk) 00:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
My name is Maitri Shah, PharmD, and I work for GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals (GSK) as a Medical Information Scientist. My intent is to provide information to the editors of Wikipedia for their use in dutasteride related articles to help ensure that healthcare professionals receive accurate and balanced scientific information. I understand the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Principle and my edits will be restricted to the “Talk” pages in the “Discussion” area for dutasteride related articles. I will never directly edit any GlaxoSmithKline related article; instead I hope to enlist the help of fellow Wikipedians to assess my proposals for improved content.
I have proposed some edits and additional language in the Contraindications section of the dutasteride article. You can find this on the dutasteride "Talk" Page. Looking forward to your response. Thank you. Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK ( talk) 05:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not something is "off label" is a United States government thing. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. This is not true "If there were sufficient primary data, arguably the drug/therapeutic would be approved for that indication." The FDA gives approval for uses for which there is little / poor evidence and some uses have good evidence to support them but the manufacturer has not "applied" for the approval as their is no money in it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Mental retardation#Proposal where the creation of a Task Force shared between this Project and WikiProject Disability is proposed as a venue for discussing issues of interest to both projects. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikiversity school of medicine seems to have sparked into life: [27]
Posting here in case any wikipedia editors are interested in this kind of thing. I personally don't understand why there isn't more interest in Wikiversity. It potentially might even meet the needs of many editors I see wanting to add mnemonics and how-to content on medical pages. Wikiversity actively wants this kind of content, or so I understand. See for example the differences between the encyclopedia page on oral ulceration and the beginnings of the Wikiversity page on oral ulceration. They compliment each other. Lesion ( talk) 11:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Review is here Talk:Female_genital_mutilation/GA1
This is taking an inordinate amount of time and I am not willing to go point-for-point with the nominator, yet I feel the article relies heavily on primary sources, is quite ambiguous when paraphasing sources, and I feel has an undercurrent of bias and non-neutrality that I find it hard to point my finger at specifically. The majority of my proposed changes are meeting obstructive opposition and, although the reasoning for each point might be valid, without these changes I think the NPOV problems are more pronounced. I don't think this article should be passed without further changes. The counterarguments have been made in the review, but at the current stage I am unwilling to continue review.
I would value if somebody else would take over this review. LT90001 ( talk) 22:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey folks!
59 full Cochrane Library licenses were just today given out to editors. Could someone drop by the program citation examples page and make sure it's up to snuff:
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 23:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Online Health Research Eclipsing Patient-Doctor Conversations Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The Royal Society is seeking a part time Wikipedian in Residence. See their announcement. I think they would prefer someone in London. I talked with one of the people at the London Society who is creating the position, and depending on the interests of the hired candidate health outreach could be part of this position. Wikimedia UK already has a solid history of doing outreach to health organizations so this is something which could develop.
If anyone on this board can refer people to apply, then please do. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Mental retardation, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Intellectual disability. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 15:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
IP continues to try to refute secondary sources with their own personal experience. Further eyes requested. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The DID page has a new inexperienced editor making exactly the same arguments that were made last year (see here, it's a different account but the same issues), once again explicitly supporting only the traumagenic hypothesis and claiming the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation's position is the only reliable, expert position that should be cited. And that's despite articles like this one trickling out rather regularly. See here on the DID talk page.
Any support from the WT:MED would be greatly appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
moot text
|
---|
I've proposed a content split on the
amphetamine page with a
talk page section here. I'd appreciate comments on the merits of my proposal from the members of this wikiproject.
Seppi333 (
talk)
00:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm just going to make the split at the 24 hour mark (after initial proposal) if this split isn't interesting/contentious to merit a single favorable, unfavorable, or impartial comment in that timeframe. >.> Seppi333 ( talk) 21:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at the split I've made with amphetamine and Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture and give me some feedback on my edits, particularly in relation to MOS and (for the new page) lead content - assuming you don't go ahead and edit it yourself. :) It's not only my first split, but also my first new article.
Regards, Seppi333 ( talk) 00:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Amphetamine (article itself)
Heading 1
content
...
Heading 5
content
History, society and culture
Short summary paragraph or 2
I just made a large revert at American Academy of Pediatrics if anyone wants to take a look. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) please add [[User:Biosthmors]] to your signed reply 19:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I've made another, more complicated proposal to split or copy and merge the socio-cultural and historical components of the methamphetamine article to the recently split content from Amphetamine, which is now at Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture. The talk page discussion is at Talk:Methamphetamine#Split sections.
I need feedback on my tentative plan for which sections to move and which sections to copy to that article, which will also need to be renamed. Regards, Seppi333 ( talk) 05:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The article hangover is viewed by about 1200 people a day with surges on week ends and holidays ( page statistics) and was in bad shape. I have done some editing on the article in the past days mainly removing unsourced material, updating content and references and adding images. I am still unsatisfied with the general structure of the article. In particular the section on Potentially beneficial remedies is still full of primary studies and I am not comfortable with the title of that section. A brief review and copy edit of the article for accuracy, flow, consistency and suggestions on how to improve structure per MEDMOS would be appreciated if anyone can find the time. Ochiwar ( talk) 10:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I just thanked a good WPMED editor for cleaning up citations (a tedious, and too often thankless, task), and it reminded me that one of the great things about this group is that some of the people here are very good about going out of their way to say thanks for the positive things that we do, and that I haven't been doing very much of it recently.
So for our new people (you are fantastic!) and for those of us who have forgotten to keep up our efforts at positive reinforcement, I wanted to post a little "primer" on the couple of easy ways to do that:
If you have other ideas about how to show appreciation to each other, please post them. (Thanks!) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
See Special:Contributions/Coreyemotela, ping to Coreyemotela. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) when u sign ur reply, thx 09:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
There is discussion on commons of disallowing people to upload their own X-rays. [29] From my understanding X rays are technically not copyrightabe and even if they were we have no idea who would own the copyright. IMO we should not have requirements greater than those of other major publishers. This is also bizarre as I have had people request that I recommend that the patient themselves upload the image so that we can verify consent. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It would be very useful if we got input from editors here who have experience writing papers or other professional works which include x-rays, CT-scans and such. Did the publisher require you to get copyright clearance from your radiology department or similar? Have you used such images from a 3-rd party and did you need to get copyright sorted? Please respond on the Commons discussion above. Colin° Talk 19:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Rationale:
Additionally, the FMRS image has other images in its upload history -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 08:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear medical people: Here's a proposed article in the Afc that may need specialized attention. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Netha Hussain some time ago made a proposal in the Wikimedia Foundation's new Idea Lab that a project be funded to create a lot more graphics for health articles. The proposal is on meta at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Medi-Graphics. The emphasis is on graphics either without text and which can be used in many languages or with text. For articles with text, this user would like to collect many health diagrams and organize a lot of translation and image processing at once.
If anyone has not seen the new community funding scheme, this project is one for medicine and may be of interest to people on this board. I am sure that criticism and proposals for refinement would be very welcome for this project, and if anyone has ideas of their own then please propose them separately in the Idea Lab. Some of you may know that the WP:Cochrane subscriptions just given out are being managed by user:Ocaasi, who previously applied for support from this program. I have high hopes for increased access to Cochrane papers, I wish the best for Netha's submission, and I hope others keep medicine projects well-remembered among the people who review project submission ideas. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Triage tape image:Flagging tape.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 09:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Some people feel that all radiological images from Wikipedia should be deleted based on a combination of copyright and patient consent concerns. Some images have already been deleted. Have started drafting a RfC here [30] in an effort to stop this. Comments appreciated. There is discussion at wikimedia-l aswell [31] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear doctors: It is important that I find out if the above submission is a hoax (There is a video game with this name) so that I can delete it right away. What do you think? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
(Caution: pedantic response ahead)
It is almost certainly a hoax. the H and N in e.g. "H1N1" refer to specific proteins in the flu virus that modulate infectivity (hemagglutinin and neuraminidase). From our article on Influenza A virus:
The Influenza A virus genome is contained on eight single (non-paired) RNA strands that can code for up to 14 proteins (HA, NA, NP, M1, M2, M42, NS1, NEP, PA, PA-X, PB1, PB1-F2, PB1-N40, and PB2).
this jibes with what I remember from virology taken in the last few years, but without actually consulting a reference work
There is no E protein there. This E1M1 thing is someone making things up. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 01:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
File:OCT image with stent visualization.png has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 04:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
File:BKN 599 Assignment 4 fMRI.tif and File:BKN 599 Assignment TMS.tif has been nominated for deletion. This is related to File:BKN 599 Assignment 4.tif and the sandboxed article User:Bokkyu Kim/sandbox -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 06:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
An interesting systematic review has found naproxen to be the safest of the NSAIDs. When we mention an NSAID as an example maybe we should be mentioning this one. Coxib and traditional NSAID Trialists' (CNT), Collaboration (2013 Aug 31). "Vascular and upper gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: meta-analyses of individual participant data from randomised trials". Lancet. 382 (9894): 769–79.
PMID
23726390. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)
06:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I know nothing about this topic, but 2 bio articles about opponents for this technique are currently at AfD. To me, both those bio articles read like coatracks for what I would call "anti-LASIK" content. When visiting the LASIK page itself, it appears to be about 50% discussions of controversy, negative side effects, complications, etc etc. I wonder whether this is truly a balanced presentation of what sounds like a very widely used technique? Thoughts? Lesion ( talk) 03:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! This Afc submission has been waiting 20 days for a review. I'm not sure it this is the correct project to ask about it. If not, can you suggest another? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This dictionary of hieroglyphs contains hieroglyphs for many diseases and may make great pictures for our history sections. It is PD. [32] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
4th year medical students from the UCSF college of medicine will be beginning an official elective of four weeks duration revolving around editing Wikipedia soon. As far as I am aware this is the first time a medical school has engaged officially in contributing to Wikipedia and offered an elective with academic credit. Does anyone know of any previous official involvement with medical schools? The school is working on a press release and wish to make this statement. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I've reduced the archive time down to 5 days from 7. =) Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I saw that there was a dispute and a potential edit war brewing here based on a post at WP:RSN. The article could use more eyes, I think. I have already posted a response at RSN, a notification at WP:AN3, and started a talk page discussion, FWIW. Additional attention at any of these points would be welcome. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 10:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC
Any interested editors are invited to help clean up these two articles:
This is subsequent from my merge from baldness to alopecia (moving some sections to androgenic alopecia). The annual readership of these three articles combined is over 1.2 million, so any edits would not go to waste. Kind regards, LT90001 ( talk) 01:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Both Jake and I are currently at the Cochrane Colloquium in Quebec and they has been exceedingly welcoming and are very excited to work with us. We have been teaching them how to edit Wikipedia. Please welcome them and help guide them in how to edit. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The Doula article discusses the type of person solely in relation to childbirth whereas a reference used frequently and throughout the article relates to helping critically ill older patients with delirium. The post made at Talk:Doula#source number one is a SERIOUS issue. seems fully justified to me. I am posting this at the Nursing and Medicine WikiProjects since both claim involvement. Thincat ( talk) 20:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion at WikiProject Philippines would probably benefit from some people who know a thing or three about population genetics. It's about trying to document ethnicity in the Philippines. Apparently, the government census doesn't ask people how they identify, so people are trying to use sources of varying quality to make pretty seriously divergent claims. One claim/source in particular is being discussed there. I'm sure they would appreciate comments over there from anyone here who understands the (free at PubMed Central) paper. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Translation task force
assessment statistics
|
I just finished a good article review of low back pain and I see I see we have 8 C-class articles that are rated top-importance within the Translation Task Force. Is there a GA target in the C- or B-class rankings anyone is currently shooting for so we can add to WP:MEDGA2013? I'm confident malaria will be making it up to GA this year. Maybe I could help out if someone already has a target Wikipedia:Gan#Biology_and_medicine looks quiet at the moment. (Meanwhile I did make that edit to a Javanese article because I noticed the picture was gigantic.) Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
#All top-importance articles at B-class quality or above (78.2% complete) (with a priority on improving these 10 articles)
It would be very useful if the infobox disease had a section where alternate disease names could be placed; these tend to clutter up the articles and I think the infobox is a suitable place for this information to be recorded. Thoughts? LT90001 ( talk) 22:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The article makes some dubious claims and is poorly cited. Also it might be more suitably merged with motion sickness, but I would prefer to leave that recommendation to someone who has a better medical background. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
We had a 1-time poster who made a draft of this article two years ago, never edited since. The draft has been in limbo, and since this guy is apparently quite famous in the history of Harvard Med, and of typhoid research, we certainly should have an article about him. The article just needs a little cleanup and a few more footnotes, and there are plentiful mentions of him on GoogleBooks. Could some med person here take a shot at it just for a little, then hit "Resubmit" to so we can get it published? Thanks for any help, MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I am a big fan of clinical research. For years I have wanted access to an informed consent document, which is the paper that a participant in a clinical trial would sign to indicate their consent to participate in a trial.
There is very little coverage of clinical research on Wikipedia. I wish this were not so, because the pharmaceutical industry interfaces with the community through clinical research and I would like to help people be more empowered to understand what research means if they wish to do so.
I managed to find a CC-By informed consent document and research protocol document for a larger-than-average study by Eli Lilly and Company. I uploaded those to Commons, ported the ICD to Wikisource, and made a Wikipedia article to feature them and collect all the research literature about this study. What I made is at PARAMOUNT trial.
Something potentially controversial about this is that I cited ClinicalTrials.gov for some of the information. ClinicalTrials.gov is a United States government website and project for tracking clinical research which will be used to back the introduction and use of drugs in the United States. The site was made in response to consumer safety needs to get certain pieces of information to consumers and to raise accountability of researchers to give more information to the communities in which they conduct their research. It is controversial that I cite this because the information there is self-published and verified only by the pharma company, however it is on this government website because the information is attested and it is the information specifically requested by the government. I feel that since the author is compelled to report this information in a way not of their choosing that this site is not actually a self-publication. Thoughts on this? Most but not all of the information contained therein should be replicated in other papers, but some significant information for consumers - like the international listing of study sites - would be difficult to find from any other source.
I would like to replicate what I have done here with other clinical research in the future. This particular article is not so remarkable, except that it is one of just a few such articles covering clinical trials on Wikipedia and because as I said I think this might be the only trial in the world by a major industry player which has a freely-licensed protocol and ICD. I would appreciate any comments here or on that article's talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Mentioned in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-25/In the media. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
An X-ray was deleted as the uploader was "a medical STUDENT and he cannot own these radiographs." and "don't trust another wiki". [34] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
citation neededI am certainly not a lawyer, but I see no reason whatsoever that an X-ray would be any less subject to copyright than any other photograph. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have posted a RfC on WP:LAW, a more legal insight into this matter might help the discussion. LT90001 ( talk) 06:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
" In the case of a textbook or journal article, there's nobody who would plausibly have standing to claim copyright who wouldn't have given permission to use the images before publication. "
— TenOfAllTrades
I find it strange that some commons admins wish to push this issue. They are more or less pushing to have all radiological images deleted even though we have obtained the equivalent permission as publishers. They are exposing themselves and Wikipedia to no risk by leaving things as they are, while publishers might be exposed to some risk by continuing on as they have been. We really have better things to do than trying to create case law. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
RfC is open regarding this question at Commons [35] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
Hoping someone can look at the full text of this article for me: Urodynamic classification of patients with symptoms of overactive bladder. I'm trying to write up Overactive bladder and the abstract refers to a 1-4 classification scale. Can someone quickly check what that scale is, if it's OAB-specific, and the exact name of the scale (if reported) so I can do some better searches? 71.231.186.92 ( talk) 01:45, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Might just be my AFB tendencies, but I had a concerning experience with user 1210donna today. I have looked over the edit history, and the history of previous messages left by other editors for this user, and there seems to be a history of POV pushing across several articles. Main MO is removal of content which they disagree with, sometimes with misleading edit summaries, and addition of content which pushes a particular POV, sometimes unsourced, sometimes unreliably sourced. Today, they removed some content from burning mouth syndrome with an edit summary saying that the source did not support the content. I double checked the source for accuracy and then reverted the changes, only to see them removed again with a similarly bogus edit summary stating that it was an unsourced statement. Editor also doesn't appear to be aware of MEDRS, so I pointed that out User_talk:1210donna#Re_Burning_mouth_syndrome. Advice appreciated. Lesion ( talk) 03:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:47, 26 August 2013 (UTC)There are sixteen high importance stub articles remaining for the project:
A few are "overview" articles where we may have detailed individual articles but the overall topic article is not developed. These appear to be correctly labeled as "high" and are simply waiting to be done, but there's a question of whether an overview is really that necessary on some:
Some of these are individual topics that are appropriately labeled high and are again awaiting work:
I've downgraded this to mid:
These to low:
I'm looking for input on the following:
Thanks for any input. Also, just as a general question, are there any of these that strike someone as more important? I'm sometimes bored and looking to do something productive here - it keeps me away from the idiocy that happens on some of the high-profile pages on the project. 71.231.186.92 ( talk) 05:13, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hey guys, I really appreciate the work that you're doing for Wikipedia. Keep it up. On that note, I was wondering if you'd be able to continue that good work on an article for me. I'm doing an assignment on infanticide at school, and I noticed that the top of the article requests an expert in medicine to assist in improving the article. I'm not so interested in getting this article fixed for my assignment, but as a regular contributor to a wide variety of Wikipedia articles, it's of my interest that this article is improved. I would love it if an expert in medicine, or someone quite knowledgeable (and possibly even qualified, to some extent) in infanticide at least. Thanks a lot, -- Rhain1999 ( talk) 06:01, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
We are hopefully just finishing up the bylaws for WikiProject Med Foundation. Welcome all here to come and review and comment. [3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
What information does Wikipedia have (or can it have) about
xenoestrogens affecting human
gender identity and human
sexual orientation?
—
Wavelength (
talk)
17:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Minutes ago, I reverted an editor (a newly registered account) adding text about vitiligo based on a source that is not WP:MEDRS-compliant; it is about how vitiligo can be cured, and it was added here to the Michael Jackson's health and appearance article (which is somewhat a mess now anyway) and here to the Vitiligo article. Notice that in the first instance, the editor made the claim that vitiligo can be cured, while he or she used "may have shown" in the second instance. The editor may add the material back, or more editors might pop up to add that report. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:56, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello all,
I'm doing a little census of articles marked for merge, and orphaned med articles that have been tagged for 1+ years. A lot of these are drug names which are not especially notable (or drugs with short stubs). Would like some clarification:
Would value some input, LT90001 ( talk) 03:13, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I while ago I asked about template:Symptoms involving head and neck and why it was so weird, but didn't get any response. So I have taken the initiative and drafted a sample of what a new template for orofacial signs and symptoms could look like. I have not given a huge amount of thought to all the things that could go in, or how to organize it, but it is just to give an idea. Note that this template contains some entries from the above template, some from respiratory system, some from gastrointestinal system symptoms and signs etc, but also I believe contains some items unique to itself, and there is no-where else currently to put them. This is the main rationale for this template, and also to have a single template for signs and symptoms that an oral and maxillofacial surgeon/oral surgeon/oral physician would concern him/herself with. Comments appreciated. Lesion ( talk) 12:02, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Recently I wrote an article on Minimal Clinically Important Difference. A subject not yet covered on Wiki. It got declined because of "inadequate supporting of reliable sources".
All the sources I used are published articles in various medical journals; abstract are freely available on Pubmed, some as well in full text, all are retrievable through a library. For the writing I acquired all articles and read them (as is common before using it as a reference, something that seemed to surpise the guys/girls at webchat).
Changing the sources to only fully publicly available literature is not an option, this would leave a lot of the statements unreferenced and would ruin the article.
Anyway, I need a reviewer to aprove this article; how do I get one?
Link to article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Minimal_Clinically_Important_Difference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teun Teunis ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I know some of you are interested in organizing categories. It would be ideal if there were some level of coordination with Commons. commons:Category:Uploaded with Open Access Media Importer and needing category review is a bunch of basically orphaned cats there, and the main commons:Category:Health and commons:Category:Medicine cats always need some work. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
There are currently two article Dichotic listening and Dichotic listening tests which have very similar content and should refer to two different by highly related topics Dichotic listening and the tests used used during assessment, and may be there should only be a single article. These needs to be looked at by audiologists and relalted specialists who have an understanding of this complex area inter-related issues. dolfrog ( talk) 18:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor is attempting to recast Klinefelter syndrome as unknown etiology. Would some editors please look in. Novangelis ( talk) 19:50, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:04, 28 August 2013 (UTC)I have started a page to document technical requests that would help our efforts at WPMED here. I invite others to contribute ideas. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The above links to a discussion about whether to merge the page chapped lips with cheilitis. Lesion ( talk) 11:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
"Chapped lips (cheilitis simplex,[1] or "common cheilitis"),[2] is one of the most common types of cheilitis.[1][3] The symptoms are cracking, fissuring and [...] "
I'd like to request editor involvement in the AFD discussion for Monkenge P. Malafa. The page has also been sorted into Medicine Related Deletion Discussions. Involvement from the WikiProject Medicine community would be appreciated. Jcmeberhard ( talk) 18:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about Medicine - Skysmith ( talk) 10:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
After the page Neuromuscular dentistry was deleted in late June ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neuromuscular dentistry) user:Clayton Chan, DDS has created 2 similarly scoped articles called Neuromuscular Dentistry and " Gneuromuscular Dentistry" in Aug 2013. Other users have also raised concerns about this user's attitude to self promotion, advertising and quality of referencing.
I have proposed both pages for deletion, comments appreciated. Lesion ( talk) 11:10, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've just tagged with with a {{Medref}}; it is mainly built on primary research. Experts may want to take a look (though I recommend at least one cup of coffee before doing so). The problems are also in the main article ( Coffee) which references this, but if Health effects of coffee gets sorted-out that Coffee can be sync'd up to reflect it faithfully ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 13:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Drawing attention to a group of 3 IP editors on the page pathology. I'm fairly sure 2 are the same person since their edits focused at the same goal, and the 3rd only edited the talk page once for vandalism. The page is being extensively reworked
These changes have been reverted by 2 different editors, I wonder if they are against consensus or not? Appreciate more opinions about what is happening on that page, e.g. see the diff from 1 days ago compared to current [5] ... huge amounts of content being deleted.
Note the page was previously protected due to persistent sock vandalism, which expired early July. I wonder if the recent activity is related? Lesion ( talk) 21:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Just FYI to the project,
Autism therapies has been nominated for GA and is looking for a reviewer. As much as I'd like to, I do not have time at the moment to take it on. I did take a quick look at the sourcing and it gave me concerns. The editor,
Jinkinson, who nominated the article for GA, has not edited the article in the past year, which is unusual in a GA nomination.
Zad
68
03:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC) In addition, one of the sections has been tagged with {{
advert}} for a year, and the nominator him/herself added a {{
Copypaste}} tag to the article today... I'm puzzled.
Zad
68
03:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
About half of Principina's edits to these articles have inserted refs to recent (2013) papers by Bellieni. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 22:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Proposed policy: pictures included without explicit statement that these have patient consent should be removed from Wikipedia and deleted from WikiCommons
A removal of a picture due to lack of patient consent here prompts me to ask, is there a policy for patient consent to pictures being included on Wikipedia? and, if there is no consent found, what is the appropriate action for editors? If there is no explicit patient consent, this is not only a possible violation of a person's privacy and/or a derogation of the responsibilities of whoever took the photo, but also ethico-legal consequences for Wikipedia.
I would like to raise this as pretty serious problem, as it should be noted that that this photo's use is in perpetuity, and may be included in whatsoever format and location an editor deems fit. One possible solution would be to have a vetting or tagging process for pictures included in WikiMedia commons.
The aforementioned jaundice photo is now used in 17 other articles.
Not too sure if I should be proposing this here or on a more central forum for discussion.
Kind Regards, LT90001 ( talk) 05:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I think as Wikipedia matures that this is a natural and fruitful discussion to have 'prophylactically'. If you click on the images in that WikiCommons link, there's a little tag that states the photos are taken with consent. I think that's a great move, as obviously consent is assumed, but it's nice to have it explicitly stated, and certainly will prevent problems like this revert in the future. In this light, what would be the thoughts from changing MEDMOS Images#Identifiable to:
Identifiable people: Although the Wikimedia Foundation does not require any special protection for people whose images are being used in medicine-related contexts, editors are encouraged to be especially cautious about associating living people with diseases. In general, identifiable images of people should be provided with the person's consent, and preferably this noted on the image's description. (Where this is not documented, WP:GOODFAITH should be assumed). In choosing images of identifiable people with a medical condition, prefer images of people who are strongly associated with the condition (e.g., Terry Fox for osteosarcoma) or are engaged in a public activity associated with that disease (e.g., AIDS patients at an ACT UP event) when such images are available.
(italics are to show the proposed changes, but not part of the changes themselves).
I think for the protection of the subject of the photo and Wikipedia, consent should be a prerequisite for photos that identify the patient (ie show their face). [10] Written permission should be submitted to WP the same way that professional photographers are required to submit written permission for the use of their photos on WP. Using a photo on WP to assert that a person is an example of a medical condition is publishing medical information about that person [11] and we should exercise the same care and caution that doctor's and hospitals and insurance companies do in this regard. In such cases good faith should not be assumed but rather it should be clearly documented in writing and be a mandatory part of the photo acceptance process. There are legal and moral and BLP consequences here. A person posing for a photo only indicates they allowed the photo to be taken. It gives no indication of the person's understanding of how the photo is to be used and who will see it and for what purposes and under what circumstances. It certainly does not imply that the person has given permission for the photo to be published in perpetuity on the world wide web. Furthermore, I feel this issue should be discussed in a central forum, like Jimbo's page to get input from non-medical editors as it has significant repercussions for real people, not to mention legal and moral BLP issues for WP.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:14, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
We have this template. [12] That should be sufficient. Now if we are going to assume bad faith and require that consent forms be sent in to functionaries how do we know that the uploader has not simple made up the consent forms and forged the signatures? Should we demand that they include the subjects drivers license, social security number and passport? But what if the drivers license is forged? Maybe we should also require that the forms be notarized and signed by two people with high standing in the community like with passports? But who is going to verify that they too are not imposters? Maybe what we need is a multi million dollar global verification system? We should require that people present in person in San Francisco with documents in hand to PROVE that they are who they say they are with notarized signed copies of all the documents in question. Also just to be sure the subject of the image and the uploader should both be their. To make this fair the movement should pick up the tab and pay for the subjects and photographers time.
Once we have this in place we should also apply it to editors. Allowing anonymous editing is a disaster. Look at the conflict of interest issues that have occurred on article like Transcendental Meditation because we allow anonymous editing (likely by at least some people associated with the subject in question). Our readers deserve to know that someone has verified not only the identify of the people who upload the images they look at and subject within said images but also the identify of the people who write the text they read. But wait a second this long term editor User:Will Beback was indefinitely banned for sending personal information regarding a Wikipedia editor to Wikimedia functionaries. Would not attempts to identify the uploaders of images and the subjects within them by Wikimedia functionaries also result in indefinite bans of all involved?
And if we raise the bar beyond that of Citezendium and ban everyone involved based on our draconian outing policy who is going to be left to contribute content? Maybe we should all simply give up and go back to our real jobs. Thankfully this is NOT how Wikipedia works because if it did Wikipedia would not exist. Additionally it is not how anywhere else in the world works either. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
One Q, above you seem to suggest that should someone in an image change their mind then the image would be withdrawn. I don't know the exact ins and outs of CC BY SA, but is it realistic to suggest that things published under this can be withdrawn? Example is, someone uses the image from wikipedia, giving correct attribution etc. Should the original source of the image (i.e. wikipedia) then withdraw the image, is there any onus on those who have reused the image in other publications from when it was available under CC BY SA, that they should also withdraw it? Lesion ( talk) 01:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Would appreciate some extra eyes on this article; I am having some to-and-fro with an editor who I think wants to include some poorly-sourced claims about this device. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 16:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Editors are hereby invited to discuss
gender identity disorder diagnosis as a prerequisite for pronoun reform. Please see
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Why exactly can't we require someone be diagnosed as transgender before a pronoun switch? (version of
22:13, 1 September 2013).
—
Wavelength (
talk)
22:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Review is here. The article is too long, almost 300kb. Author points out that consensus has been reached in previous discussions not to split article, which is fair enough, but IMO the article is too long, and without whinging too much, as well as (1) detracting from readability, this is (2) 3-6 times longer than the recommended length for an article (depending which guideline you use) and (3) very hard to review for GA status when the article is this long.
Would value some extra voices in the discussion, so as to not appear like I am shouting at the ocean. Apart from this, the article is choc-a-bloc full of content and well on its way to becoming a GA. LT90001 ( talk) 21:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Sb101 ( talk| contribs) 13:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
An IP editor, who has a history stretching over years of POV editing on the page in an attempt to discredit the very existence of this medical speciality, is back at it again. Every time the page protection expires the IP returns with their same old tired unsourced attack edits. I believe stronger measures need to be taken to protect this page - either the IP needs to be permanently blocked or the article needs to be permanently protected - even a 6 month protection has not deterred the ip in the slightest. He/she seems to have an deep personal hatred of physiatry. Various attempts to engage the editor in rational discussion have proved fruitless. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:50, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Started a new article on Cancer and nausea. Still working on it, I expect to finish in the next few days. But its a complex topic with many aspects (some of which I may not have considered yet) and I would be grateful for input from interested editors. Ochiwar ( talk) 15:32, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I asked advise on FTN and was suggested posting here regarding the newly created article Bridging Eastern & Western Psychiatry, the closely connected, newly created bios Maria Luisa Figueira and Mario Di Fiorino, as well as edits made by the same four users in e.g. Davide Lazzeretti, Leonetto Amadei, Ganser syndrome, and Mind control. I reverted in Leonetto Amadei, [14] and left a note on the editor's page, [15] and subsequently tried to add info from the .it article Leonetto Amadei. (It appears that the Italian Leonette Amadei has had additions similar to the ones made to the English.) The English version has now had the same material re-added. [16] I restored an older version of Davide Lazzeretti. [17] Best, Sam Sailor Sing 11:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
There were three medical literature reviews erased from the gulf war syndrome article a year ago. Why? The MD who agreed to mediate the dispute in the talk page archives (@ Jmh649:) never did. Why? The Institute of Medicine update linked in that article's last talk page section indicates that the disputed questions are still wide open. Amopherion ( talk) 02:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC) reposted from Jimbo Wales' talk page archives. 192.81.0.147 ( talk) 22:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please look over this section Ovarian cyst#Functional cysts as it has recently been edited by someone with rather poor English. See HERE. An IP editor and I have tried to clean it up so it makes sense but this is not my area of expertise. Regards 220 of Borg 05:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
User:LT910001 has kindly offered to be the main reviewer for the
aphthous stomatitis GA nomination. The review is underway, and s/he has requested a 2nd opinion before closing the review. Done Here is the review page:
Talk:Aphthous stomatitis/GA1. Thanks,
Lesion (
talk)
11:51, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Promotion to GA: The article has been marked as a GA. Congratulations to Lesion! LT90001 ( talk) 03:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Should cannabis be included in the list of causes of pneumothorax? Please comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Just noticed this article, which seems to contain a lot of biomedical pronouncements sourced heavily (exclusively?) to primary medical sources. I am concerned that by creating a article specifically about a medical trial, no matter how large, it becomes a WP:COATRACK for information about the results that differ from those found in more reliable sources; in this case the article gives a strong impression of acupuncture's effectiveness which is a bit out-of- WP:SYNC with out main Acupuncture article. (Cross-posting to WP:FTN.) Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 10:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC) (UTC)
I found the unsourced, two line stub " Immune-mediated disease" (via Psoriasis, via Battle of Midway) a few minutes ago, and figured that I'd mention it here. For people that are actually well versed in medicine (which I am not), getting it at least sourced and checked for accuracy shouldn't take more than five minutes. Cheers, Sven Manguard Wha? 18:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I have prophylactically merged this with ' Immune disorder' (which although not perfect is the lead article for the immune disorders template). LT90001 ( talk) 07:01, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please add the external link and redirect at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Diagnosis_of_HIV/AIDS#Bulk_procurement_of_tests Please? 192.81.0.147 ( talk) 22:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi All
The Science Museum in London have released 50 images under an open license. I hope by showing reach they may agree to release much more (they have 1000s and 1000s). Here are the ones relating to medicine (there are quite a few), there's a full list here. If you would like any more information about any of the objects please let me know and I can ask the curators. -- Mrjohncummings ( talk) 11:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
At the moment, we have, among others:
In each article lead, they are characterized both by the total chromosome number and the word syndrome, although not necessarily together. (Note: I did not put Triple X syndrome on the list because I treated it as a name, not a count, but it should be fair game for discussion.) Is there any interest in standardizing article title format with regard to leading number or the use of the word "syndrome"? Novangelis ( talk) 19:37, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: This article has been sitting in the Afc for over two weeks. Would anyone like to review it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Public_relations_noticeboard.3F. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) 10:19, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Program for Appropriate Technology in Health#Requested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Mdann52 ( talk) 12:42, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
There is an IP adding this poor source to the Median lethal dose article. He or she has already reverted me once. The article might need more eyes on it from this project. Flyer22 ( talk) 21:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
This is a top importance article which is not at B class or above, one of WPMED's specific goals.
Looks like there are a sackful of one-sentence stub pages that could do with merging into this parent article. Some were already tagged, I tagged some others. Arguably more might benefit from a merge too. Comments appreciated here: Talk:candidiasis
"Candida" is a huge industry in complimentary and alternative medicine. This topic is very much in the public's mind, as evidenced by the huge number of hits on this article. It would be nice to present a cohesive series of articles with accurate coverage for this topic, to balance against all the utter nonsense that one is assailed with when typing "candida" into google. Lesion ( talk) 02:21, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This happens to be our most-viewed article this month, receiving more page views than Sexual intercourse. in fact, this article received 801,395 views over the period of about a week in late June-July. Does anybody know why? Confused, LT90001 ( talk) 12:47, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This article appears to be a cotract of asperger syndrome, Asperger syndrome and neuroscience. It appears to contains an exact copy of the DSM 4 criteria which we are not to do. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Please review Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ShuntCheck for notability, sourcing, etc. In terms of structure it is an acceptable article but I'm not sure if it isn't perhaps a bit too advertorial in tone and I'm not at all sure if it is a notable subject in terms of this project's criteria. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 19:43, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Some of you might be interested in weighing in on the Distal#Redirect matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
Just came across Nexvax2, "a potential vaccine for celiac disease created by ImmusanT". An unsourced mention was added in the FA coeliac disease a year ago, and promptly removed per WP:CRYSTAL. Per the manufacturer, "a second Phase Ib trial is now enrolling in the United States". This feels way premature, yes? Maralia ( talk) 02:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
This addition of this source appears to be not pubmed indexed [20]. Wondering what peoples thoughts on it are? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
offtopic
|
---|
|
Looking at this paper in question it still raises concerns. The refs it uses are not particularly good. Another non pub med index review being used here Talk:Influenza#Natural_compound. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
From 10 to 7 days. So this will go a little more quickly to the archives if we keep it like this. With 38 threads on this page, it just seems unweildy. Biosthmors ( talk) 01:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
01:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)There seems to be consensus to merge the article baldness into alopecia ( discussion here). I have created a new section for discussion.
I would like to do the following:
I think this would represent the optimum solution, as compared with the current state. Comments? Kind Regards, LT90001 ( talk) 10:58, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
All the autofill PMID templates are broken today. This is the tool on Wikipedia that I use the most. This includes the one in the edit box (which has been down for weeks) and now diberri [21]. Anyway know of any other workarounds? Or how we can convince the WMF to take this on? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
This one has started working again [23] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:26, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to add another regular bug I encounter since VE which I forgot to mention: when clicking on the "named references" button does not bring up the "insert a named reference" pop up window. Lesion ( talk) 20:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello all, as part of a greater effort to clean up Wikiproject:med administratively, I have reclassed most Anatomy-related articles to WikiProject Anatomy. In total about 730 reclassifications were made. Although WP:Anatomy is not a very active project, at the current time anatomy-based articles are not covered under our scope. If this project were to be merged at a later date, it would be prescient to merge to an Anatomy taskforce to continue the grouping of these articles. As a reminder, WPMED policies on sources in para-medical articles still apply, even if these articles are not under the scope of WPMED. I've preserved any articles with pathology sections of significant length, articles covered under task forces, and articles that related to anatomical pathology (eg. renal artery stenosis).
For this process I used wikitools here and searched by keyword.
The final count of this reclassification effort is:
Every search result under B class I also had a look and reclassified stub->start->C->B as appropriate.
If there are any other large reclassification projects needed, I would be happy to have a look. Kind Regards, LT90001 ( talk) 05:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
There are still a few more, this link will give a list of articles tagged with both projects, of which most probably belong to only one. -- WS ( talk) 13:45, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
These surely must fall under the purvue of WP:Universities. Not included as in/out on our WPMED scope guidelines. Agree/disagree? If consensus will change guidelines to reflect this. LT90001 ( talk) 07:14, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the article Paget's disease of the breast is in need of expert content editing. There are statements in different sections that contradict each other. See the talk page at Conflicting information.-- Gciriani ( talk) 23:40, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia can have these articles (with sortable wikitables) for expired health and beauty products, including prescription and non-prescription drugs, soaps and shampoos, and nutritional supplements.
— Wavelength ( talk) 00:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
My name is Maitri Shah, PharmD, and I work for GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals (GSK) as a Medical Information Scientist. My intent is to provide information to the editors of Wikipedia for their use in dutasteride related articles to help ensure that healthcare professionals receive accurate and balanced scientific information. I understand the Wikipedia Conflict of Interest Principle and my edits will be restricted to the “Talk” pages in the “Discussion” area for dutasteride related articles. I will never directly edit any GlaxoSmithKline related article; instead I hope to enlist the help of fellow Wikipedians to assess my proposals for improved content.
I have proposed some edits and additional language in the Contraindications section of the dutasteride article. You can find this on the dutasteride "Talk" Page. Looking forward to your response. Thank you. Maitri Shah, PharmD, GSK ( talk) 05:25, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Whether or not something is "off label" is a United States government thing. Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia. This is not true "If there were sufficient primary data, arguably the drug/therapeutic would be approved for that indication." The FDA gives approval for uses for which there is little / poor evidence and some uses have good evidence to support them but the manufacturer has not "applied" for the approval as their is no money in it. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:10, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Mental retardation#Proposal where the creation of a Task Force shared between this Project and WikiProject Disability is proposed as a venue for discussing issues of interest to both projects. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Wikiversity school of medicine seems to have sparked into life: [27]
Posting here in case any wikipedia editors are interested in this kind of thing. I personally don't understand why there isn't more interest in Wikiversity. It potentially might even meet the needs of many editors I see wanting to add mnemonics and how-to content on medical pages. Wikiversity actively wants this kind of content, or so I understand. See for example the differences between the encyclopedia page on oral ulceration and the beginnings of the Wikiversity page on oral ulceration. They compliment each other. Lesion ( talk) 11:06, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Review is here Talk:Female_genital_mutilation/GA1
This is taking an inordinate amount of time and I am not willing to go point-for-point with the nominator, yet I feel the article relies heavily on primary sources, is quite ambiguous when paraphasing sources, and I feel has an undercurrent of bias and non-neutrality that I find it hard to point my finger at specifically. The majority of my proposed changes are meeting obstructive opposition and, although the reasoning for each point might be valid, without these changes I think the NPOV problems are more pronounced. I don't think this article should be passed without further changes. The counterarguments have been made in the review, but at the current stage I am unwilling to continue review.
I would value if somebody else would take over this review. LT90001 ( talk) 22:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Hey folks!
59 full Cochrane Library licenses were just today given out to editors. Could someone drop by the program citation examples page and make sure it's up to snuff:
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 23:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Online Health Research Eclipsing Patient-Doctor Conversations Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The Royal Society is seeking a part time Wikipedian in Residence. See their announcement. I think they would prefer someone in London. I talked with one of the people at the London Society who is creating the position, and depending on the interests of the hired candidate health outreach could be part of this position. Wikimedia UK already has a solid history of doing outreach to health organizations so this is something which could develop.
If anyone on this board can refer people to apply, then please do. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Category:Mental retardation, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming to Category:Intellectual disability. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 15:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
IP continues to try to refute secondary sources with their own personal experience. Further eyes requested. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
The DID page has a new inexperienced editor making exactly the same arguments that were made last year (see here, it's a different account but the same issues), once again explicitly supporting only the traumagenic hypothesis and claiming the International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation's position is the only reliable, expert position that should be cited. And that's despite articles like this one trickling out rather regularly. See here on the DID talk page.
Any support from the WT:MED would be greatly appreciated. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:12, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
moot text
|
---|
I've proposed a content split on the
amphetamine page with a
talk page section here. I'd appreciate comments on the merits of my proposal from the members of this wikiproject.
Seppi333 (
talk)
00:16, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I'm just going to make the split at the 24 hour mark (after initial proposal) if this split isn't interesting/contentious to merit a single favorable, unfavorable, or impartial comment in that timeframe. >.> Seppi333 ( talk) 21:56, 15 September 2013 (UTC) |
I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at the split I've made with amphetamine and Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture and give me some feedback on my edits, particularly in relation to MOS and (for the new page) lead content - assuming you don't go ahead and edit it yourself. :) It's not only my first split, but also my first new article.
Regards, Seppi333 ( talk) 00:51, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Amphetamine (article itself)
Heading 1
content
...
Heading 5
content
History, society and culture
Short summary paragraph or 2
I just made a large revert at American Academy of Pediatrics if anyone wants to take a look. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) please add [[User:Biosthmors]] to your signed reply 19:26, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
I've made another, more complicated proposal to split or copy and merge the socio-cultural and historical components of the methamphetamine article to the recently split content from Amphetamine, which is now at Amphetamine: History, Society, and Culture. The talk page discussion is at Talk:Methamphetamine#Split sections.
I need feedback on my tentative plan for which sections to move and which sections to copy to that article, which will also need to be renamed. Regards, Seppi333 ( talk) 05:36, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
The article hangover is viewed by about 1200 people a day with surges on week ends and holidays ( page statistics) and was in bad shape. I have done some editing on the article in the past days mainly removing unsourced material, updating content and references and adding images. I am still unsatisfied with the general structure of the article. In particular the section on Potentially beneficial remedies is still full of primary studies and I am not comfortable with the title of that section. A brief review and copy edit of the article for accuracy, flow, consistency and suggestions on how to improve structure per MEDMOS would be appreciated if anyone can find the time. Ochiwar ( talk) 10:16, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
I just thanked a good WPMED editor for cleaning up citations (a tedious, and too often thankless, task), and it reminded me that one of the great things about this group is that some of the people here are very good about going out of their way to say thanks for the positive things that we do, and that I haven't been doing very much of it recently.
So for our new people (you are fantastic!) and for those of us who have forgotten to keep up our efforts at positive reinforcement, I wanted to post a little "primer" on the couple of easy ways to do that:
If you have other ideas about how to show appreciation to each other, please post them. (Thanks!) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:49, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
See Special:Contributions/Coreyemotela, ping to Coreyemotela. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) when u sign ur reply, thx 09:50, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
There is discussion on commons of disallowing people to upload their own X-rays. [29] From my understanding X rays are technically not copyrightabe and even if they were we have no idea who would own the copyright. IMO we should not have requirements greater than those of other major publishers. This is also bizarre as I have had people request that I recommend that the patient themselves upload the image so that we can verify consent. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:28, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
It would be very useful if we got input from editors here who have experience writing papers or other professional works which include x-rays, CT-scans and such. Did the publisher require you to get copyright clearance from your radiology department or similar? Have you used such images from a 3-rd party and did you need to get copyright sorted? Please respond on the Commons discussion above. Colin° Talk 19:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Rationale:
Additionally, the FMRS image has other images in its upload history -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 08:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear medical people: Here's a proposed article in the Afc that may need specialized attention. — Anne Delong ( talk) 17:17, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
User:Netha Hussain some time ago made a proposal in the Wikimedia Foundation's new Idea Lab that a project be funded to create a lot more graphics for health articles. The proposal is on meta at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Medi-Graphics. The emphasis is on graphics either without text and which can be used in many languages or with text. For articles with text, this user would like to collect many health diagrams and organize a lot of translation and image processing at once.
If anyone has not seen the new community funding scheme, this project is one for medicine and may be of interest to people on this board. I am sure that criticism and proposals for refinement would be very welcome for this project, and if anyone has ideas of their own then please propose them separately in the Idea Lab. Some of you may know that the WP:Cochrane subscriptions just given out are being managed by user:Ocaasi, who previously applied for support from this program. I have high hopes for increased access to Cochrane papers, I wish the best for Netha's submission, and I hope others keep medicine projects well-remembered among the people who review project submission ideas. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Triage tape image:Flagging tape.png has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 09:13, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
Some people feel that all radiological images from Wikipedia should be deleted based on a combination of copyright and patient consent concerns. Some images have already been deleted. Have started drafting a RfC here [30] in an effort to stop this. Comments appreciated. There is discussion at wikimedia-l aswell [31] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Dear doctors: It is important that I find out if the above submission is a hoax (There is a video game with this name) so that I can delete it right away. What do you think? — Anne Delong ( talk) 14:26, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:29, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
14:34, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:05, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
(Caution: pedantic response ahead)
It is almost certainly a hoax. the H and N in e.g. "H1N1" refer to specific proteins in the flu virus that modulate infectivity (hemagglutinin and neuraminidase). From our article on Influenza A virus:
The Influenza A virus genome is contained on eight single (non-paired) RNA strands that can code for up to 14 proteins (HA, NA, NP, M1, M2, M42, NS1, NEP, PA, PA-X, PB1, PB1-F2, PB1-N40, and PB2).
this jibes with what I remember from virology taken in the last few years, but without actually consulting a reference work
There is no E protein there. This E1M1 thing is someone making things up. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 01:53, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
File:OCT image with stent visualization.png has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 04:30, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
File:BKN 599 Assignment 4 fMRI.tif and File:BKN 599 Assignment TMS.tif has been nominated for deletion. This is related to File:BKN 599 Assignment 4.tif and the sandboxed article User:Bokkyu Kim/sandbox -- 70.24.249.39 ( talk) 06:06, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
An interesting systematic review has found naproxen to be the safest of the NSAIDs. When we mention an NSAID as an example maybe we should be mentioning this one. Coxib and traditional NSAID Trialists' (CNT), Collaboration (2013 Aug 31). "Vascular and upper gastrointestinal effects of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: meta-analyses of individual participant data from randomised trials". Lancet. 382 (9894): 769–79.
PMID
23726390. {{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)
Doc James (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)
06:01, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
I know nothing about this topic, but 2 bio articles about opponents for this technique are currently at AfD. To me, both those bio articles read like coatracks for what I would call "anti-LASIK" content. When visiting the LASIK page itself, it appears to be about 50% discussions of controversy, negative side effects, complications, etc etc. I wonder whether this is truly a balanced presentation of what sounds like a very widely used technique? Thoughts? Lesion ( talk) 03:22, 19 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello again! This Afc submission has been waiting 20 days for a review. I'm not sure it this is the correct project to ask about it. If not, can you suggest another? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
This dictionary of hieroglyphs contains hieroglyphs for many diseases and may make great pictures for our history sections. It is PD. [32] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:57, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
4th year medical students from the UCSF college of medicine will be beginning an official elective of four weeks duration revolving around editing Wikipedia soon. As far as I am aware this is the first time a medical school has engaged officially in contributing to Wikipedia and offered an elective with academic credit. Does anyone know of any previous official involvement with medical schools? The school is working on a press release and wish to make this statement. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:07, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I've reduced the archive time down to 5 days from 7. =) Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:35, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
I saw that there was a dispute and a potential edit war brewing here based on a post at WP:RSN. The article could use more eyes, I think. I have already posted a response at RSN, a notification at WP:AN3, and started a talk page discussion, FWIW. Additional attention at any of these points would be welcome. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 10:34, 11 August 2013 (UTC
Any interested editors are invited to help clean up these two articles:
This is subsequent from my merge from baldness to alopecia (moving some sections to androgenic alopecia). The annual readership of these three articles combined is over 1.2 million, so any edits would not go to waste. Kind regards, LT90001 ( talk) 01:28, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
Both Jake and I are currently at the Cochrane Colloquium in Quebec and they has been exceedingly welcoming and are very excited to work with us. We have been teaching them how to edit Wikipedia. Please welcome them and help guide them in how to edit. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:22, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The Doula article discusses the type of person solely in relation to childbirth whereas a reference used frequently and throughout the article relates to helping critically ill older patients with delirium. The post made at Talk:Doula#source number one is a SERIOUS issue. seems fully justified to me. I am posting this at the Nursing and Medicine WikiProjects since both claim involvement. Thincat ( talk) 20:40, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
This discussion at WikiProject Philippines would probably benefit from some people who know a thing or three about population genetics. It's about trying to document ethnicity in the Philippines. Apparently, the government census doesn't ask people how they identify, so people are trying to use sources of varying quality to make pretty seriously divergent claims. One claim/source in particular is being discussed there. I'm sure they would appreciate comments over there from anyone here who understands the (free at PubMed Central) paper. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Translation task force
assessment statistics
|
I just finished a good article review of low back pain and I see I see we have 8 C-class articles that are rated top-importance within the Translation Task Force. Is there a GA target in the C- or B-class rankings anyone is currently shooting for so we can add to WP:MEDGA2013? I'm confident malaria will be making it up to GA this year. Maybe I could help out if someone already has a target Wikipedia:Gan#Biology_and_medicine looks quiet at the moment. (Meanwhile I did make that edit to a Javanese article because I noticed the picture was gigantic.) Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
#All top-importance articles at B-class quality or above (78.2% complete) (with a priority on improving these 10 articles)
It would be very useful if the infobox disease had a section where alternate disease names could be placed; these tend to clutter up the articles and I think the infobox is a suitable place for this information to be recorded. Thoughts? LT90001 ( talk) 22:42, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
The article makes some dubious claims and is poorly cited. Also it might be more suitably merged with motion sickness, but I would prefer to leave that recommendation to someone who has a better medical background. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:07, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
We had a 1-time poster who made a draft of this article two years ago, never edited since. The draft has been in limbo, and since this guy is apparently quite famous in the history of Harvard Med, and of typhoid research, we certainly should have an article about him. The article just needs a little cleanup and a few more footnotes, and there are plentiful mentions of him on GoogleBooks. Could some med person here take a shot at it just for a little, then hit "Resubmit" to so we can get it published? Thanks for any help, MatthewVanitas ( talk) 20:55, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I am a big fan of clinical research. For years I have wanted access to an informed consent document, which is the paper that a participant in a clinical trial would sign to indicate their consent to participate in a trial.
There is very little coverage of clinical research on Wikipedia. I wish this were not so, because the pharmaceutical industry interfaces with the community through clinical research and I would like to help people be more empowered to understand what research means if they wish to do so.
I managed to find a CC-By informed consent document and research protocol document for a larger-than-average study by Eli Lilly and Company. I uploaded those to Commons, ported the ICD to Wikisource, and made a Wikipedia article to feature them and collect all the research literature about this study. What I made is at PARAMOUNT trial.
Something potentially controversial about this is that I cited ClinicalTrials.gov for some of the information. ClinicalTrials.gov is a United States government website and project for tracking clinical research which will be used to back the introduction and use of drugs in the United States. The site was made in response to consumer safety needs to get certain pieces of information to consumers and to raise accountability of researchers to give more information to the communities in which they conduct their research. It is controversial that I cite this because the information there is self-published and verified only by the pharma company, however it is on this government website because the information is attested and it is the information specifically requested by the government. I feel that since the author is compelled to report this information in a way not of their choosing that this site is not actually a self-publication. Thoughts on this? Most but not all of the information contained therein should be replicated in other papers, but some significant information for consumers - like the international listing of study sites - would be difficult to find from any other source.
I would like to replicate what I have done here with other clinical research in the future. This particular article is not so remarkable, except that it is one of just a few such articles covering clinical trials on Wikipedia and because as I said I think this might be the only trial in the world by a major industry player which has a freely-licensed protocol and ICD. I would appreciate any comments here or on that article's talk page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Mentioned in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-09-25/In the media. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:15, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
An X-ray was deleted as the uploader was "a medical STUDENT and he cannot own these radiographs." and "don't trust another wiki". [34] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:27, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
citation neededI am certainly not a lawyer, but I see no reason whatsoever that an X-ray would be any less subject to copyright than any other photograph. -- Orange Mike | Talk 18:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello, I have posted a RfC on WP:LAW, a more legal insight into this matter might help the discussion. LT90001 ( talk) 06:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
" In the case of a textbook or journal article, there's nobody who would plausibly have standing to claim copyright who wouldn't have given permission to use the images before publication. "
— TenOfAllTrades
I find it strange that some commons admins wish to push this issue. They are more or less pushing to have all radiological images deleted even though we have obtained the equivalent permission as publishers. They are exposing themselves and Wikipedia to no risk by leaving things as they are, while publishers might be exposed to some risk by continuing on as they have been. We really have better things to do than trying to create case law. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:56, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
RfC is open regarding this question at Commons [35] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:11, 27 September 2013 (UTC)