This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Some of you will remember or have been involved in discussions to delete the "Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction" article a few months ago, and a similar article on 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (finasteride, etc.) a few months before that. The post SSRI article was deleted based on lack of MEDRS compliant citations and undue weight. The 5-alpha article was also deleted, but I don't know the full story on that.
Shortly after the post-SSRI article was deleted (at my nomination), David Healy contacted me by email (my personal email was present in an old and deleted version of my home page) and requested a phone conversation. In said call he harshly criticized the deletion of the post-SSRI article and brought my attention to several posts on his website highly critical of the decision and of several Wikipedia individual editors involved in the decision. The page is here but the criticism seems to have been deleted and there is a large white space in its place. http://wp.rxisk.org/post-ssri-sexual-dysfunction-pssd-wikipedia-stumbles/
Healy, a long term critic of SSRIs and psychopharmacology in general, has now published a review article of the very limited set of case reports in the literature of individuals who say they have experienced permanent sexual dysfunction as a result of exposure to these drugs. I cannot see the article as it is behind a paywall, but it is medline indexed and so I suppose this represents a MEDRS compliant source. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24902508
There is now a request in place to restore the post-SSRI article , and my guess is that there is a request filed somewhere to reinstate the post 5-alpha sexual dysfunction article too. /info/en/?search=User_talk:Sandstein#Proposed_restoration_of_.22Post-SSRI_Sexual_Dysfunction.22_page My guess is that the publication of the paper, the request for reinstatement of the articles, and the disappearance of the harsh criticism of specific Wikipedia editors from Healy's website were coordinated, but I have no evidence to support this (and its probably not relevant to the discussion).
I've posted my arguments on Sandstein's webpage regarding the SSRI article. Others who have an opinion are welcome (from my pov) to do so also, whether they agree with me or not. Formerly 98 ( talk) 16:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently working on Female genital mutilation to prepare it for peer review, and wondered if someone could send me copies of any or all of the following (in order of preference):
Many thanks in advance, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I fielded a question, as an OTRS agent from a reader, who noticed an inconsistency in Odontoma. I posed that question at Talk:Odontoma, where User:Axl has helpfully contributed. I don't have enough subject matter knowledge to edit the article, although Axl's edit suggests that a broad edit noting the variety of conclusions on the literature might help. Would someone be willing to make an edit to the article, so that future readers are not confronted with the apparent inconsistency? (Bluerasberry suggested that this would be the best place to ask for help).-- S Philbrick (Talk) 11:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Keilana: has requested a peer review of Endometrial cancer to prepare it for a GAN. Thought you guys might be interested. Review page can be found here. Zell Faze ( talk) 00:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Illness doesn't seem to be quite as commonly used any longer. This might be due to some people trying to separate the experience of a condition (do I experience any symptoms?) from the physical aspects (am I unhealthy, but asymptomatic?) Disease or medical condition might be more typical. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments are needed on the following matter: Talk:Male contraceptive#Removed content. A WP:Permalink is here. We have an IP who objects to the article stating that medical professionals do not regard the pull-out method as an effective method of contraception. For example, here the IP cites a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) source and states that the pull-out method is 96% effective. In this WP:Dummy edit edit, I've asked the IP to point to which part of the CDC source states that, since it's such a long source. Perhaps the phrasing that the IP objected to was worded a bit strongly, but there are many health professionals that recommend against the pull-out method or call it outright ineffective, and not just against sexually transmitted infections but with regard to preventing pregnancy as well. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
“No-Touch” surgical technique for penile prosthesis implantation should presumably be moved to No-touch surgical technique for penile prosthesis implantation (regardless of whether it gets merged, because the redirect would be kept). However, it's on the title blacklist, which means that moving it will require admin intervention. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
could some editor please comment on whether and how we could start a new article that relates to injuries at work. have been looking at the how to guides for the past few days but still have got nowhere Docsim ( talk) 06:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a how to guide for medically related articles? Docsim ( talk) 06:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Got about half a million page views yesterday. Could use a few more eyes. May need protection. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I considered making the requested edit to Inguinal hernia surgery identified here. However, a comment that the journal may be unreliable (possibly added by User:Chris Capoccia in this edit) left me concerned, and I'd like someone with more knowledge to help out.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 13:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Would appreciate input on the discussion on the talk page of SSRI discontinuation syndrome. Mainly sourcing issues. Thanks. Formerly 98 ( talk) 13:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
This user continues to try to adjust all autism related articles to fit his own world view of the condition. [1] I guess the question is what should we do about them? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel that this section of this talk page should be relabeled as "Sex differences in medicine", or "Wikipedian categories", or basically anything but "User:Muffinator". This discussion is NOT about User:Muffinator. It is about an particular article edit, and more recently, a misplaced requested move, both of which happen to have been executed by Muffinator. There is no attempt to identify a pattern, nor has Muffinator even been accused of violating a particular Wikipedia policy, and even if they were, the appropriate place to address the issue would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, not WikiProject Medicine. Muffinator has not shown a particular interest in medicine-related articles and is not a member of the project. To continue to label discussions of a user's edits as discussions about the user constitutes harassment. Muffinator ( talk) 12:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This user User:Nnayak83 appears to be copy and pasting from sources in this article Quinvaxem . Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A COI editor Geraldwgaines has expressed concern about this article. This editor feels that ketamine is a promising treatment for mental health conditions and the article is likely to receive a high number of views. I have formatted the references providing free links to everything I could. I have identified possible additions on the talk page of the article. The article could use some work. If there is/are an editor(s) who can give the article some attention it is probably worthwhile. A higher quality article could withstand efforts to promote The Truth™ and attempts to right a great wrong better. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 18:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I have begun these two articles which are on the fringes of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Draft:First Nations nutrition experiments still has a LONG way to go. I'd appreciate eyes, and advice on the name of the Draft: Stuartyeates ( talk) 10:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Wiki CRUK John What is this?
Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
[3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
For COI reasons, I am contributing towards an article on A2 milk via the talk page. The discussion is at the talk page and my proposed edit, because of its length, is currently at my sandbox. The proposed edit comprises two sections: one on the health concerns that led to the creation and commercialisation of a range of milk products free of the A1 beta-casein, and one on scientific reviews—the independent analyses of that science. I have included two major reviews by food safety authorities (2004, 2009) and two other reviews (2005, 2007). An editor has suggested that WP:MEDDATE would dictate that all but the 2009 review are outdated. He has suggested this source, a paper called "Milk A1 and A2 Peptides and Diabetes" included in a Nestle Nutrition Institute Workshop series pediatric program. All the papers at that workshop were edited by Roger A. Clemens (also the author of this paper) and were published by Karger and available through PubMed. Clemens' paper is nine pages long and cites and discusses 12 papers including some of the early New Zealand research and two of the reviews I propose using.
Two questions: (1) Given its method of publication, is this paper acceptable as a source for this purpose? (2) And because it focuses only on the possible links between milk and diabetes, does it in fact supplant those older reviews, which take a broader look at diabetes, coronary heart disease, atherosclerosis, schizophrenia and autism and their possible links to milk proteins? BlackCab ( TALK) 03:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello again medical experts! One more old AfC submission in danger of being deleted. Is there anything here that should be kept? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
A behavior of some malignant tumors... where is the best page to link this term to explain it please? 188.30.204.87 ( talk) 23:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Eyes and assistance are needed at the Domestic violence article from WP:MED editors. The preponderance WP:Reliable sources on the topic indicate that females are affected by domestic violence far more than males are. I stated at the article's talk page that per the WP:Due weight policy, we go by what the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources state; in other words, we give far more weight to what the majority of sources state than we do to what the minority of sources state. We also adhere to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) on medical topics -- what high-quality sources state. If men's rights editors (MRAs) are editing that article, that also needs attention, per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation.
See Talk:Domestic violence#The gendered nature of DV (and editors who seek to change this in the article) and Talk:Domestic violence#Neutrality Issue in Gender Aspects of Abuse Section for discussions on this matter. Below the latter discussion, an editor also created a "Gender Symmetry and IPV" discussion. WP:Permalinks are here and here. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to cut and paste rewrite from Talk:Autism Research Institute/draft into blanked article. I think needed changes can be made after the cut and paste and that the draft is acceptable improvement of existing article. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 18:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
While patrolling the speedy deletion queue this morning, I came across a draft article on advance care planning that had basically been ignored by the articles for creation process. It looks reasonable to my eyes as a non-medical person, so I decided to salvage it and put it into mainspace: Advance care planning.
Could some WPMED people take a look at it and if it isn't reasonable either PROD it or nominate it for deletion? It just seemed a bit unfair that someone had gone to some effort to work on this article and then it was just going to be summarily deleted without anyone even looking at it. — Tom Morris ( talk) 07:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that WP:MEDRS applies to High functioning autism, however, an editor disagrees. Any help would be appreciated. [ [4]]. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 00:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I have a question I would like to open to the community here about something I've noticed on alternative medicine pages. I have noticed several pages such as herbalism, ayurvedic, homeopathy, naturopathy, and applied kinesiology have a certain order but others such as acupuncture and chiropractic (more the former than the latter article) serve as examples of contrast and do not put the history section in the beginning (though the chiropractic article does have conceptual basis in the beginning and it could be argued that is at least somewhat related to the history section). So, is there a page that guides us on this or a policy about how to order sections in alternative medicine (system) articles? If so, can someone direct me to this page please? If not, perhaps we should discuss this issue since there seems to be a lack of uniformity in the articles. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 06:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Further to discussions with some of you at Wikimania, may I encourage all those of you who contribute to medical articles - particularly, but not only, if you also contribute to academic literature - to register for an ORCID identifier, and to display it on your user page, using the {{ Authority control}} template?
If you write a biography of a researcher, or other person with an ORCID, please include it in the article, or, better, in Wikidata.
Further details are on the project page at WP:ORCID. Thanks,
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Tons of poor quality sources are being added. Would appreciate further input from medical editors. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I added content this morning on treatments that the FDA is allowing to actually be used under Expanded access on the basis of the Animal Efficacy Rule and phase I data. I think this is important to help people understand that drugs are being tried in people experimentally and that it is not "wild west"-y but rather carefully regulated. Jytdog ( talk) 16:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
For those of you who are familiar with me, you know that I generally work on health and science related topics, and strongly uphold use of secondary, independent sources to determine what mainstream science/medicine has to say. I have been reflecting a lot on application of WP:FRINGE in alt med topics. I am coming to a conclusion that there are specific applications of specific alt med modalities, specifically as complementary medicine, that have become mainstream. For example, acupuncture as a field is (in my view) pseudoscience, since its notions of the body are pre-scientific. However, some applications of acupuncture have been more or less empirically validated enough that they have become widely accepted and are used in major medical centers as adjuncts for treating conditions like pain, some side effects of chemo, and some psychosomatic-like disorders... and are discussed in major medical textbooks. That is ~about~ as mainstream as it gets. So... my questions are, how do we discuss and source mainstream applications of alt med? I very much don't want to open the door to a) pro-acu folks rushing in to say things like "see, acupuncture (as in "all applications of acupuncture and the foundations of acupuncture") is not pseudoscience so stop treating it all under WP:FRINGE!" and b) more broadly, all altmed folks banging open the barndoors and pouring crap content into WP. It is hard to have a nuanced discussion about this, as POV-pushers from both sides render it more bitter & extreme than it needs to be, but I thought I would try to see if we can find the messy middle on this, which surely not satisfy purists on either side. Again, my questions are 1) how do we discuss and source the narrow applications of acupuncture that are relatively mainstream (using acu as a complementrary approach for pain, some side effects of chemo, and some psychosomatic-like conditions), and separate them from the FRINGEy stuff (like using acu to actually treat cancer)? 2) How do we do that, with the fierceness of POV on either wing? Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 20:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
1) how do we discuss and source the narrow applications of acupuncture that are relatively mainstream (using acu as a complementrary approach for pain, some side effects of chemo, and some psychosomatic-like conditions), and separate them from the FRINGEy stuff (like using acu to actually treat cancer)?
It's simple - Just accept only review articles from high impact factor journals or authoritative medical textbooks and nationwide health organizations. Everything else has to be removed.
1)2) How do we do that, with the fierceness of POV on either wing?
We do that by removing all health claims and opinions that aren't sourced from a high impact factor journal or an authoritative medical textbook or nationwide health organization. - A1candidate ( talk) 14:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- A1candidate ( talk) 02:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
A doctor contacted WMF (OTRS) and provided a scanned copy of a hand colored copper plate image of a brain, showing the limbic system. This came from a book in his collection, which he has packed for a move, so I do not know the title for sure, but my guess is that it is the book: Traité d'Anatomie et de Physiologie by Félix Vicq-d'Azyr published in 1786.
The doctor suggested it would be useful in Limbic system. In addition, I think it should be in the article about the author.
I'm reaching out here for two reasons, first, on occasion, we get something that isn't what it purports to be, so I'd like someone with expertise to take a look at it.
Second, I don't think I should just drop the photo into either article by itself, so I hope to find someone who can add some relevant text.
I've uploaded the image here (probably need to improve the title)
(Originally posted to Doc James, but he seems to be on vacation)-- S Philbrick (Talk) 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Clarify, why would we need to go review the book so that it is what it is? I have no problem believing this is pre 1923 and PD, which means it doesn't even need to be attributed properly. Any other assumptions are WP:Bad faith -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 12:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Here's another of those old AfC submissions. Is this a notable medical person? Should the article be edited to NPOV instead of being deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey All. I think linking to authors has the potential to 1) increase our transparency to our readership 2) make clear to potential editors that they CAN edit Wikipedia and thus possibly increase editor numbers. I have created an example of how this would look here on the heart failure article. To make this change widely of course would require a massive discussion / RfC. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
My personal preference is a tab, but I think this is an excellent idea, and will back it fully. For readers to see that articles are often the work of a collaboration of a few editors will hopefully get more people to understand how to start contributing. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 07:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Parabolooidal recently removed this project's banner from Talk:Dan Olmsted. As neither that user nor myself are members of this project, I thought the issue should be brought to the project's attention: Is Dan Olmsted within the scope of this project, or should the banner stay removed? Muffinator ( talk) 20:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Environmental toxicology needs some attention. This edit added some "sources" that are just plain numbers. The article has been blanked and reverted a couple of times (copyvios?) in the past, so these sources might be recoverable in the article history, but it needs someone to sit down and sort through what happened. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Medicine,
There is currently a bit of a pickle about a template I nominated: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_10#Template:Autism_cure_movement. There's also proposal to rename the template to Template: Medical model of autism. However, the article Medical model of autism was originally called Autism cure movement. The editor who proposed the rename has done a good job in removing some of the sociological "movement" aspects of that article, but, as I wrote at the TFD: "I'm still concerned about it being misrepresented in terms of how much it is 'promoted' in the cultural sense. From the limited research I did on Google Books, it seems to be more of a scientific topic, not an advocacy one. Autism awareness/research/treatment 'movements' certainly exist, in the same way there is a 'movement' to cure breast cancer, but I think that they use the medical model as a basis, rather than the two terms being synonymous. Perhaps some folks who do regular work on medical articles and are familiar with the Medical model of disability can weigh in as well?"
Any input would be appreciated. -- Holdek ( talk) 05:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Is repeatedly removing high quality content at vitamin D without consensus. Has not joined the discussion on the talk page. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason why Overagainst is wrong is that while on the one hand vitamin D is a controversial topic within the medical community, Overagainst will prefer to have a Wiki article that not only takes one particular position but which would pretend as if there is a large scientific consensus in favor it. The IoM had the difficult task to make decisions regarding the RDA and the UL, and they must take the most conservative approach here based on accepting any hints of harm while demanding very rigorous proof of benefits. Wikipedia can use the IoM report as a tertiary review, but we must be careful when taking IoM recommendations at face value; not only are we not in the business of giving medical advice, but the scientific arguments for the IoM's recommendations are not based on an evaluation principle that is suitable for a pure scientific review (because of the wide safety margins).
See also this Nature News article: "A vociferous debate about vitamin-D supplementation reveals the difficulty of distilling strong advice from weak evidence." Count Iblis ( talk) 18:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
==Effects== A paragraph or so about what it does in the body ===Deficiency=== ===Excess consumption=== ===Supplementation=== (the rest of the article)
or perhaps more like this:
==Effects== A paragraph or so about what it does in the body ===Deficiency=== ===Excess consumption=== (middle of the article goes here) ==Recommendations== ===Supplementation===
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Human gonad#Requested move 13 August 2014. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Skeletal deformities is a redlink. Does anyone have a suggestion? I'm copyediting Four Big Pollution Diseases of Japan. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Wording on articles about suicide in line with recommended best practice based on research. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, judging by the discussion there, more opinions probably are not needed. But opinions from WP:Med editors can perhaps add a different perspective to the discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obesophobia Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The tool is up and running in beta form for only medical articles. The results are here Wikipedia:MED/Copyright. Will likely need a bit of adjusting. I will look at things in detail in a week or two when I make it home. If you are interested please take a look and provide feedback on the talk page / fix copyright issues found. It is still in a rough stage so I imagine there will be a lot of false positive. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This is an advocacy group, which has apparently been causing problems with fluoroquinolone antibiotic articles, according to departed editor User:Alfred Bertheim. [7]
There are several links to their website still present in articles. [8] It would be great if a medical author could check these out.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 04:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC).
There is a call here for health information in Swahili. -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 21:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation is hiring two experienced Wikipedia editors for part-time (20 hours/week) positions: Wikipedia Content Expert, Sciences and Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities. The focus of these positions is to help student editors do better work, through everything from advice and cleanup on individual articles, to helping instructors find appropriate topics for the students to work on, to tracking the overall quality of work from student editors and finding ways to improve it. We're looking for clueful, friendly editors who like to focus on article content, but also have a strong working knowledge of policies and guidelines, and who have experience with DYK, GAN, and other quality processes. (Experience with medical topics is a definite plus!)-- Sage (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 16:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Please could someone take a look at the uncited, allergy-related claim made in Penicillium camemberti? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
A pair of wonderful editors, Nettrom and Aaron Halfaker, have done us a favor and analyzed all 9,000+ plus of our stubs to see which ones probably need to be re-assessed. The list has been posted at m:Research:Ideas/Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality/Prediction table. About 750 of them are, according to their formula, probably not stubs.
I tried doing this manually a couple of years ago, and getting this narrowed down to a list of only 750 articles is an enormous improvement. Obviously, we need to do some re-assessing. The first in the list is B-class, not a stub. I think what would be helpful here is to re-assess everything, but if you run across something (especially with a high percentage) that is still a stub, please flag it either here or on the list's talk page.
Finally, if you want to do more than just a couple, then I suggest installing User:Kephir/gadgets/rater. It lets you rate an article without first clicking through to the talk page.
Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Great resource. Do they plan on periodically updating it? -- WS ( talk) 20:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm having a tough time determining if these structures are currently defined as different substructures within the medulla oblongata. There appears to be contradictory information on both of these pages (e.g., on chemoreceptor trigger zone, this ref on the area postrema - PMID 11749934 - is used to state that the CTZ is adjacent to the nucleus tractus solitarius; the ref says the area postrema is adjacent). I've read several refs that indicate that these structures are the same thing (e.g., PMID 7895890) while I've seen other refs which indicate they're different (all of these are out of WP:MEDDATE). This current ref makes no mention of the CTZ in vomiting: PMID 23886386.
All that said, can anyone find a current reference or diagram which clearly indicates that these two structures are not the same thing? If not, I'm just going to merge these two articles. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This is relevant to medicine since the D2 receptors on this (these?) structures are the biomolecular targets of antiemetic drugs like domperidone and metoclopramide. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Medical experts, is Draft:Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd. notable? -- Cerebellum ( talk) 18:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
There exists a clinic in Toronto, Canada, named the Medcan Clinic. Please provide your opinion in a content dispute regarding our "Medcan Clinic" article. There is a short summary of the dispute at Talk:Medcan_Clinic § Discussion, part 3. Please do not reply here. Instead, please reply only on that talk page. Thank you. — Unforgettableid ( talk) 08:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It's been in the news recently that Robin Williams was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease before his suicide, although he wasn't showing easily recognizeable symptoms. As might be expected, a number of editors have rushed to add that information to the Parkinson's disease article. That violates our longstanding rule that only celebrities who have played a major role in supporting PD research or public understanding belong there. I have, after explaining why on the talk page, removed the new material. I expect that somebody will shortly come along and re-add it, though. Since I have a personal policy against multi-reverting, I probably won't do anything more, so I am bringing the matter up here in case anybody else is interested in keeping an eye on it. Looie496 ( talk) 12:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
As I have a COI with what is in some sense a "competitor" I thought I'd better bring here my comment on his talk to User:Mapnah, whose edit history since 2012 shows only edits related to www.oncolex.org, a cancer site related to the University of Oslo hospital. See the post - this is one of the images he is adding. Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 16:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a disagreement as to the relevance and MEDRS compatibility of a source. this source is being held up as a MEDRS compliant source and is being discussed in a "Theoretical causes" section. I tried moving it to a "Society and culture" section as more of a religious text than medical but was reverted. Comments welcome. Yobol ( talk) 21:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
One might make the argument that if significant numbers of people are seeking health information on Wikipedia then Wikipedia would be a good place to put health information for people to find. It is my opinion that this is an idea that some WikiProject Medicine members have, but that few people outside the Wikimedia community consider.
I am writing to give news about an opportunity to get a little more information from the Wikimedia Foundation analytics team about readership numbers for health articles on Wikipedia. In summary, I do not think that members of WikiProject Medicine should do anything differently now even if they use readership statistics, but it would be good to be aware of options for the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not easy to describe the size of the audience seeking health information on Wikipedia. Some background information may be at Health information on the Internet and at Health information on Wikipedia. Members of WikiProject Medicine may use WP:MED500 to see some stats formatted for Wikipedian use. Right now, this page is configured to record monthly reports which is based on tags of the "WikiProject Medicine" template on article talk pages. The tool which provides this information is at WMF Labs. I understand that Mr.Z-man made this tool, and that this user is a volunteer who was very gracious to design and continue to develop the tool. It is my opinion that the data provided by this tool is good enough to establish that Wikipedia is a popular source of health information, as I believe that the number of pageviews is indicative of a large number of unique visitors who want specific health information.
Here are the previous discussions I could find about traffic to health information on Wikipedia in WikiProject Medicine forums.
I am sharing this information to give background on what already exists. I was not planning to start a conversation about this, but if someone has more background information then share if you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation employees some statisticians whose job it is to support the community with statistics and analysis. If we expressed a need for readership statistics and there were a reasonable way for this team to provide them, then they might provide data and interpretation. Here is some information about this group.
I am sharing this information to give background on what already exists. I was not planning to start a conversation about this, but if someone has more background information then share if you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Medicine could request some kind of report about readership to health articles from the Wikimedia Foundation analytics team. This might be generated monthly. It is not certain to me if this would be better than our existing report, but it could be made in a different way. In my opinion, the opportunity here is more flexible than the current WikiProject-based reader tracking system being used, but it also would include more articles which should not be included.
The idea is that the WMF analytics team get from us some list of articles, then in response they generate a monthly report of traffic to those articles. Here is an example of how this could work:
For July 2014, this report generated by the analytics team has identified 96,623 "medicine articles" which have combined pageviews of 265,651,646. The system used based on WikiProject Medicine tagging found 27,132 articles with combined pageviews of 151,744,982. It is my opinion that most people currently spending time at WikiProject Medicine are interested in articles which are governed by WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS, and this project is less concerned with social or humanities-based discussion of medicine. Consequently, I would expect people here to be more interested in pageview statistics which are for health articles, and not for concepts in the humanities. Is my expectation that the WikiProject Medicine tagging contains a higher percentage of articles which are about medicine and not humanities, but that the category measurement includes articles which are missed by WikiProject Medicine's tagging system.
I am not sure how to get the best measurement of the readership of health information on Wikipedia, but I think it would not be unreasonable to say that the pageviews for this content are somewhere between the values reported by these two statistics systems.
If anyone has any ideas for requesting a more nuanced report from the WMF Analytics team, then they would run the report for us based on any list of articles we provided to them. What I mean to say is that there are about 96k possible "medicine" articles, and WikiProject Medicine already has a sort of curated list which is 27k of those 96, but probably more of the 96k could be included, and some of the 27k probably ought not be included. In the end and after a few years, probably we will need to develop some plan to tag all kinds of articles in Wikidata and request multiple reports for all kinds of medicine concepts. When we have curated lists we would be able to remix them in different ways, such as by language and medical specialty, which is something difficult to do now.
At Wikimania in London earlier this month I talked a bit with Erik in analytics about what they can provide, and he made the above report for WikiProject Medicine and said that if we have ideas for other reports, then those are possible. Ultimately I want these reports to be able to answer questions about Wikipedia's audience, because I make the argument that Wikipedia matters because of its audience size. If anyone can think of any clever ways to ask questions of the analytics team, then please share.
My initial thought is that the information we have is already very good, and that perhaps it would not be worthwhile to spend too much time trying to work out a new system with the analytics team, however, if our need grows and we want more nuanced information then we might need to move from the WikiProject system and into the category system of measurement because our subcategorization with the WikiProject task force system probably is not used often enough to be sufficiently accurate for any needs and would not at all work for languages other than English without WikiProject software development. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
We discussed this at CRUK. Have started discussion here. [9] It could affect up to 8000 articles. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
A research would like to add their unpublished opinion about wood ash to the articles on Ebola. Further comments here User_talk:Jmh649#Ebola_virus_disease appreciated. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Just got a few dental X-Rays donated by my dentist to Wikimedia Commons. If we have any dentists in this project that wouldn't mind helping me find a few articles to be homes for some of them, I'd appreciate it. :D You can find the list here. Among them is two photos of a partially completed root canal, which I think might be unique on Commons so far.
Some highlights:
Zell Faze ( talk) 13:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The 4th one (ZELLFAZE MN01 MP16 005.JPG) is a good example of the kind of decay impacted wisdom teeth can potentially cause if left in situ. 94.196.105.113 ( talk) 17:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Since LT910001 is on a wikibreak and there's a backlog of GAN's ( Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Biology and medicine), I figured I'd ask here if anyone feels comfortable taking on the nominator role in LT's place. I'll take on the review if someone steps up; otherwise, I'll likely just remove the nomination within a week.
Regards, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Mmersenne need to have their edits reviewed. Paraphrasing appears to be too close. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This came up before and was taken to AfD by Biosthmors who withdrew the nomination after stubbing the article into WP:MEDRS compliance; it has since re-expanded but the sourcing is no stronger than it was originally. This is an odd drug limited it seems to Latvia and used to promote tourism. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 15:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm no expert about the condition, but I spotted a case-fatality rate that didn't jibe with a review I had found, and was unsourced, by an IP ... can someone look over Cryptococcosis, in particular the edits I linked to in the last section ("Survival rate...") at Talk:Cryptococcosis? Thanks. Wnt ( talk) 19:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Someone might wish to add
James Heilman (
User:Jmh649) to
Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
17:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable medical researcher? Should the page be kept and improved? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
A suggestion has been put for us to consider project coordinators at WPMED similar to military history.
This would be a group of active respected medical editors who people who are having issues could turn to for guidance. They would be elected by those of us here. Peoples thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting me about this, James. For transparency, this was something I proposed informally a couple of months ago, and I hope that the community gives this idea some thought. I think having coordinators is useful, because they act as a central contact point for new users, users who want to become more involved and want to know what's going on, cross-project, cross-wiki and professional collaborations, and media/signpost enquiries. I think it also recognizes the efforts of some of the long-term users here, and perhaps will empower them to think about the project more generally. It's also useful to have some people as contact points who are aware of the full extend of WPMED's activities, and most likely have external contacts they are liasing with. I think that having coordinators listed more-or-less recognises the existing situation anyway. @ Johnbod, if we had as many as 16 long-term, active and regular users to become coordinators, I think that'd be wonderful. As per the MILHIST example, a coordinator doesn't actually have any authority, and my ideal approach (this is just an idea) would be that a few coordinators would be elected yearly by affirmative vote (ie most 'yesses', representing someone who has the respect and approval of the local community). I wish you all well and can confirm I'll be returning at some point. Kind regards, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 11:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Some changes recently have been made in the "Adverse reactions" section, and I think some subject-matter experts need to review the article. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Now 8 months and counting:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive4
Need reviewers!
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
22:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I nominated two technical diagrams (
the signaling cascade involved in psychostimulant addiction and
amphetamine pharmacodynamics in dopamine neurons) for featured picture.
I spent about 30 hours making the ΔFosB diagram alone, so I'd really appreciate it if anyone is willing to contribute an image review! These are both used in the amphetamine article.
Regards, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Read [10] and thought - "this is the type of thing to have a poorly sourced Wikipedia article". Couldn't believe how right I was.
It's 11:30 and I have work tomorrow, so throwing this out there if anyone wants to do some trimming - otherwise this is only a note for me to remember to do it. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 21:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Have done some more work on an example of this on the heart failure article. Wondering what people think for punctuation? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
the Hormone article could use some TLC from experts before people get misinformation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The statements that you tagged as "dubious":-
The first statement seems to be poorly worded rather than "dubious". The intended implication is that cells that express a hormone's receptor will respond to that hormone.
I believe that the second statement is correct (although the example chosen might be odd). Scavenger receptors are not activated by hormones, and they certainly do undergo a response. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
While it is still in draft form this document has dramatically improved my day. The copyright office has stated on page 300 "the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author" this includes "Medical imaging produced by x-rays, ultrasounds, magnetic resonance imaging, or other diagnostic equipment." [11] This means that if this passes we can gather X-rays to our hearts content. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Template:Autism cure movement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes ( talk) 22:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I just came across Post Acute Withdrawal Syndrome, and it could use some attention. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
A new Wikipedian, Alepfu, is a researcher who would like to make a database connecting information about drug interactions to Wikidata items for drugs. This would mean that for Wikidata items like (RS)-warfarin (Q407431), there would be a Wikidata property, drug action altered by, which makes a claim that some other drug interacts with Warfarin. This user also has a collection of sources to back those claims. For those who do not know, on Wikidata, (Item + Property Value = Claim), and (Claim + Source = Statement), which I think is a lot like English Wikipedia's policy of backing statements with sources. This process itself is interesting, and this user is seeking community feedback on their proposal to run a bot which will make these kinds of statements.
Also interesting is that when backing a claim with a source, it could be that this process creates a Wikidata item for every source, then uses that Wikidata item for the citation rather than having a freeform citation as has always been used before. High-priority drug–drug interactions for use in electronic health records (Q17505343) is one such source. Wikidata only has a few hundred academic papers stored in this way, but potentially, all academic papers cited in a Wikimedia project could be stored here and called from Wikidata as a central source. This citation project is not necessarily tied to the drug interaction project, but the original project could be a place to explore options for automating the import of citations and immediately using them in a practical way.
For those of you who have not met this person, I would like to introduce Tobias1984. He is the most active participant of WikiProject Medicine on Wikidata, which anyone can visit at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine. Anyone who would like to get pings for medical information assistance on Wikidata should put their name at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine/Participants, and then when someone seeks comment you would get notice.
Alepfu's project is still running test edits, but comments would be welcome now on the concept at d:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/AlepfuBot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi every one,
Letting everyone know of the plans for an editing campaign targeting Wikipedia medical articles that Students 4 Best Evidence is planning in September. Wikipedia:Students 4 Best Evidence September 2014 editing campaign is the initial page on site but we will shortly be transitioning to an Education Program course page for managing the campaign.
We hope to begin registering students at the end of next week, so they can create their user accounts and do some practice edits prior to the Edit-a-thon. Ammar (the main contact at Students 4 Best Evidence) has created several blogs promoting the event, and is creating more that offers guidance to the students. The main event currently scheduled in an edit-a-thon on Sept. 16 that will be hosted at Cochrane's UK Center with the assistance of some folks from the Wikimedia UK Chapter. There is plans to have a simultaneous google hang out event. Additionally, other groups have expressed an interest in joining from other locations.
As always, the event will be much more successful with the support of more experienced Wikipedia editors. So it will be great if some regulars at Wikiproject Medicine can help out. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 20:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation did a story on James-- it can be found here (Wikipedia's medical errors and one doctor's fight to correct them). It is always good to get the word out that physician-Wikipedians are welcome. Beyond that, I think it is important to explain the process-- I am amazed again and again how few people know that all the changes to an article are tracked and any version can be compared to any other version. Personally, I think this is one of the key elements of what makes WP work. In any case, great stuff James! Nephron T| C 04:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The statement is "some of the first medical content to ever exist in some languages" It is not controversial that their is little medical content in many languages. The content you give is religious content not medical and yes religious content exists in every language as lots of people work on that. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Soon, a version of the featured article, Dengue fever will be published in the Canadian journal, Open Medicine. When that's done, James will be putting a link to the Open Medicine version at the top of Dengue fever. James, can you please link me to the version of Dengue fever that Open Medicine will be publishing? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be refusing to use references or follow WP:MEDMOS. Article in question is Zinc deficiency. Peoples thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"Citation needed: pharma needs to make the most of Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia is an increasingly important source of knowledge for patients and information [which must be kept accurate and up to date"]. Nothing too exciting. I'll cross-post to Pharma project. Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 09:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
So, this has been a peeve of mine for a while now, and I've finally decided to do something about it. Instead of simply complain and get someone else to do the merge I've written up a massive expansion, primarily sourced from a quality CC-BY source. After having it almost eclipse other work I've been doing it is at a level where I can show it to others who might be interested in helping out. Basically the article is at around 160kb, and if it wasn't for the reliance on a single source I would push for it to reach FA within short.
What needs doing is the following:
So, if anyone is interested the article can be found here: User:CFCF/draft/Heart
-- -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 16:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Heart article needs an infobox, "see also" should be merged into the text if notable and deleted if not. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The article is now live at Heart! -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 11:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
We have recently had a video donated to Wikipedia. Am also in discussions with the Khan academy about their releasing their content under a license we can use. Wondering what peoples though are on the placement of these sorts of videos? This one is a little "how to" in nature. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
An earlier RFC on medical disclaimer failed, but I and a couple of others believe we have a strategy to start a new one that would help prevent a repeat of the same problems. That discussion is here: User talk:SandyGeorgia#Any new developments in the medical disclaimer initiative? The main proposals are summarized at the bottom of that discussion. We would welcome anyone in the Medicine WikiProject to weigh in before we start the drafting process. -- Holdek ( talk) 16:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information in this article. It may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including you!
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including you, without any prior fact-checking or verification that what you contribute reflects the current academic consensus
( ←) I think moving stuff to the top is not a good solution. I am willing to support a small disclaimer about medical articles, and I was wondering if {{ Infobox disease}} would be a good place. It would need to be specific about health information and issues on reliability, because reminding people that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone can be done in lots of other places. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Before this discussion gets out of hand again, I very strongly suggest that an RfC is held about whether a disclaimer should be more prominent in general. After the results of the RfC, then a more specific proposal can be put forward. I am neither for nor against the proposal, but one of the main reasons the previous RfC failed was because it got lost in technicalities and multiple proposals. I very strongly suggest first a general RfC is held, and then some specific proposals are discussed and tailored to the comments received in the initial RfC. Otherwise we will spend months meandering through tends to hundreds of suggested disclaimers without first clarifying if this is what the community wants; and when presented to the community, the community will be giving an opinion not on whether a disclaimer is needed, but on the wording of the specific disclaimer which is provided, neither of which would be desired. -- 129.94.102.201 ( talk) 00:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I am no for "warning about unreliability" and am yes for "explaining that anyone can edit". IMO they are more or less the same but the later has potentially greater positive benefits. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It appears that getting consensus for making this change to Wikipedia generally will be difficult. [14] It appears that most within WPMED are supportive. A suggestive has been put forth that we should only add this to medical articles. While a little more complicated technically would be happy with this.
Once more an example of what this could look like is on the article on heart failure. If there is support for this proposal the word "authors" or "contributor" and link to the list of authors would go after the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".
When a person clicks on the word author it takes you to X! tool here [15]. Preferably the heading "top editors" would be changed to "authors" and that section would be moved up to below "general statistics". I am not sure what punctuation should be used and am open to suggestions / variations. What are peoples thoughts to just do it for medical articles? A lack of transparency regarding who writes Wikipedia's medical content is a concern I frequently hear. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Does anyone know what Cheilodynie is? It redirects to Disease, and I'm guessing that's wrong. (I've been cleaning out inappropriate redirects by redirecting from "Disease" to more relevant pages; there are only a few more to go.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Cross-posting Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Anybody_reviewing_Medgirl131.27s_edits.3F FYA. Thanks. Samsara ( FA • FP) 10:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
A BLP of a fringe altmed practitioner at Ryke Geerd Hamer crosses several boundaries. Much of the sourcing is in German. The article contains many unpleasant statements about the subject person that are not as well cited as they should be to have a place on wp. Can someone please pitch in? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 31#Gender dysphoria. WP:Med has been involved with the gender identity disorder vs. gender dysphoria issue before, and this WP:Redirect for discussion is the next phase of this matter. A WP:Permalink is here. The two WikiProjects that have been alerted to this discussion are this one (WP:Med) and WP:LGBT, as seen here. The gender identity disorder topic is a sensitive topic, and sometimes the Gender identity disorder article can be subject to WP:Activism, so more eyes on that article from neutral editors can also help this issue. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Do we want to keep these as separate articles? I'd like to hear other opinions about this because these two articles appear to have a rather significant amount of overlap and I'm of the mind that we could merge these two articles. Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 05:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The article Diet and cancer starts with, "Almost all cancers (80–90%) are caused by environmental factors,[1] and of these, 30–40% of cancers are directly linked to the diet.[2] By far, the most significant dietary cause of cancer is overnutrition (eating too much).[3]" Ref 1 is 14 years old. Ref 2 is 5 years old and is to a general page not a specific source supporting the content. I am not sure this information is really correct or that such overarching statements are supported by current medical consensus. As there are a number of editors here with extensive knowledge I thought someone might take a look. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 11:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
2014 World Cancer Report has a section on diet. It states that excess weight is responsible for 4.2% of cancer in men and 14.3% of cancer in women in the USA. Among non smokers this is an even greater proportion. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The fact that a lot and maybe most cancer is "enviromental" (not inherited from one's parents) is excellent as that means that it can potentially be prevented. This means not smoking, improving chimneys, immunization against certain infections, improving ventilation in underground living spaces, covering ones skin from the sun, etc. All measure that are well in the means of most people globally.
If most cancer was "not environmental" (in other words inherited from one's parents) than gene therapy / after the fact treatment would be the only option. Something which is very expensive and out of the possible range of most people globally. The War Against Cancer concentrated mostly on treatment rather than prevention unfortunately for whatever reasons. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Leaving aside for a moment the broader considerations raised by WAID and others above, I feel this query illustrates the difficulties we almost inevitably come up against in communicating highly technical considerations effectively to our broad general readership. A somewhat analogous case is under discussion at Talk:Obesity#Genetics. The fact is that we endeavour to address a plethora of sensitive editorial tasks with a limited number of dedicated volunteers. We desperately need to multiply our human resources... But how? My own feeling is that we need more direct contributions from organizations whose aims overlap with our own (Cancer Research UK and Cochrane being just two prominent examples). For this sort of involvement to happen I think awareness needs to be raised across the scientific community (and general public) of the real-world role of Wikipedia's health-related content. 86.134.200.29 ( talk) 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I have formatted up the references and in doing so added links to free full text versions of quite a few of them. This may be useful in improving the article. I also added a possible ref I don't have access to on the talk page. I also added some material from 3 Cochrane reviews. I have Cochrane access if further information from those refs is desired. Thanks for the help and attention to this article. I think there are several sources already in the article that could be used to address some of the issues raised above. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 11:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The bot is up and running and returning helpful results. There is still a relatively high rate of false positives that we are working to reduce. These fixes should be fairly easy. False positives to true positives is about 1 to 3. It is definitely worthwhile as I have been able to provide feedback to a number of users. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)You just want everything the bot sends to Turnitin and everything returned from Turnitin to the bot published? Much of it is here [22] I am not sure if there is more but I am sure Eran can provide everything if you want. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It's on their main page today. Subscription only, but if you google the title "Cancer Research UK Working to Improve Info on Wikipedia" you should be able to access it. Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 13:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I am new to whole wikipedia medical editing experience. However, I am really excited to get involved. Any ideas for a relatively simply page that I can help to work on? I'm sorry if this exists elsewhere, a point in the right direction would be much appreciated. Pishoygouda ( talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I have been following the readership of our articles for a long time. Data here shows a recent decline in views. This data however does not reflect the rise in mobile ( which has gone from less than 1% of overall Wikipedia readership to more than 30% of readership). I have done a correction of our data basically assuming that the fraction of readers by mobile for English Wikipedia as a whole is the same as the fraction of readers for medical content. Readership is down slightly but not a great deal. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as the lede of articles is often copied onto the google infobox you'd think working on the ledes would become more important than ever? -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 10:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I recently created a table with the number of FA and GA articles found on different Wikipedia medical projects and gathered under a TOP 20. It helped me to have a global view regarding the development of the projects. As far as I'm concerned, some of the results were surprising in a negative way, like the fr.wikipedia with a total of only 31 reliable pages. You can check the full list here, if you're interested. The AC and AB are the equivalent of FA and GA. Regards, Wintereu (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC) P.S. Lists, templates and images were not included.
Just came across this article. Interesting topic, but article is full of primary, etc and needs ProjectMedicine love. [Mesoamerican nephropathy]]. Jytdog ( talk) 19:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 45 | ← | Archive 50 | Archive 51 | Archive 52 | Archive 53 | Archive 54 | Archive 55 |
Some of you will remember or have been involved in discussions to delete the "Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction" article a few months ago, and a similar article on 5-alpha reductase inhibitors (finasteride, etc.) a few months before that. The post SSRI article was deleted based on lack of MEDRS compliant citations and undue weight. The 5-alpha article was also deleted, but I don't know the full story on that.
Shortly after the post-SSRI article was deleted (at my nomination), David Healy contacted me by email (my personal email was present in an old and deleted version of my home page) and requested a phone conversation. In said call he harshly criticized the deletion of the post-SSRI article and brought my attention to several posts on his website highly critical of the decision and of several Wikipedia individual editors involved in the decision. The page is here but the criticism seems to have been deleted and there is a large white space in its place. http://wp.rxisk.org/post-ssri-sexual-dysfunction-pssd-wikipedia-stumbles/
Healy, a long term critic of SSRIs and psychopharmacology in general, has now published a review article of the very limited set of case reports in the literature of individuals who say they have experienced permanent sexual dysfunction as a result of exposure to these drugs. I cannot see the article as it is behind a paywall, but it is medline indexed and so I suppose this represents a MEDRS compliant source. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24902508
There is now a request in place to restore the post-SSRI article , and my guess is that there is a request filed somewhere to reinstate the post 5-alpha sexual dysfunction article too. /info/en/?search=User_talk:Sandstein#Proposed_restoration_of_.22Post-SSRI_Sexual_Dysfunction.22_page My guess is that the publication of the paper, the request for reinstatement of the articles, and the disappearance of the harsh criticism of specific Wikipedia editors from Healy's website were coordinated, but I have no evidence to support this (and its probably not relevant to the discussion).
I've posted my arguments on Sandstein's webpage regarding the SSRI article. Others who have an opinion are welcome (from my pov) to do so also, whether they agree with me or not. Formerly 98 ( talk) 16:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I'm currently working on Female genital mutilation to prepare it for peer review, and wondered if someone could send me copies of any or all of the following (in order of preference):
Many thanks in advance, SlimVirgin (talk) 19:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
I fielded a question, as an OTRS agent from a reader, who noticed an inconsistency in Odontoma. I posed that question at Talk:Odontoma, where User:Axl has helpfully contributed. I don't have enough subject matter knowledge to edit the article, although Axl's edit suggests that a broad edit noting the variety of conclusions on the literature might help. Would someone be willing to make an edit to the article, so that future readers are not confronted with the apparent inconsistency? (Bluerasberry suggested that this would be the best place to ask for help).-- S Philbrick (Talk) 11:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
@ Keilana: has requested a peer review of Endometrial cancer to prepare it for a GAN. Thought you guys might be interested. Review page can be found here. Zell Faze ( talk) 00:39, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Illness doesn't seem to be quite as commonly used any longer. This might be due to some people trying to separate the experience of a condition (do I experience any symptoms?) from the physical aspects (am I unhealthy, but asymptomatic?) Disease or medical condition might be more typical. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 19:36, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Comments are needed on the following matter: Talk:Male contraceptive#Removed content. A WP:Permalink is here. We have an IP who objects to the article stating that medical professionals do not regard the pull-out method as an effective method of contraception. For example, here the IP cites a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) source and states that the pull-out method is 96% effective. In this WP:Dummy edit edit, I've asked the IP to point to which part of the CDC source states that, since it's such a long source. Perhaps the phrasing that the IP objected to was worded a bit strongly, but there are many health professionals that recommend against the pull-out method or call it outright ineffective, and not just against sexually transmitted infections but with regard to preventing pregnancy as well. Flyer22 ( talk) 23:42, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
“No-Touch” surgical technique for penile prosthesis implantation should presumably be moved to No-touch surgical technique for penile prosthesis implantation (regardless of whether it gets merged, because the redirect would be kept). However, it's on the title blacklist, which means that moving it will require admin intervention. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
could some editor please comment on whether and how we could start a new article that relates to injuries at work. have been looking at the how to guides for the past few days but still have got nowhere Docsim ( talk) 06:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Is there a how to guide for medically related articles? Docsim ( talk) 06:15, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Got about half a million page views yesterday. Could use a few more eyes. May need protection. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I considered making the requested edit to Inguinal hernia surgery identified here. However, a comment that the journal may be unreliable (possibly added by User:Chris Capoccia in this edit) left me concerned, and I'd like someone with more knowledge to help out.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 13:48, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Would appreciate input on the discussion on the talk page of SSRI discontinuation syndrome. Mainly sourcing issues. Thanks. Formerly 98 ( talk) 13:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
This user continues to try to adjust all autism related articles to fit his own world view of the condition. [1] I guess the question is what should we do about them? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel that this section of this talk page should be relabeled as "Sex differences in medicine", or "Wikipedian categories", or basically anything but "User:Muffinator". This discussion is NOT about User:Muffinator. It is about an particular article edit, and more recently, a misplaced requested move, both of which happen to have been executed by Muffinator. There is no attempt to identify a pattern, nor has Muffinator even been accused of violating a particular Wikipedia policy, and even if they were, the appropriate place to address the issue would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, not WikiProject Medicine. Muffinator has not shown a particular interest in medicine-related articles and is not a member of the project. To continue to label discussions of a user's edits as discussions about the user constitutes harassment. Muffinator ( talk) 12:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
This user User:Nnayak83 appears to be copy and pasting from sources in this article Quinvaxem . Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
A COI editor Geraldwgaines has expressed concern about this article. This editor feels that ketamine is a promising treatment for mental health conditions and the article is likely to receive a high number of views. I have formatted the references providing free links to everything I could. I have identified possible additions on the talk page of the article. The article could use some work. If there is/are an editor(s) who can give the article some attention it is probably worthwhile. A higher quality article could withstand efforts to promote The Truth™ and attempts to right a great wrong better. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 18:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
I have begun these two articles which are on the fringes of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Draft:First Nations nutrition experiments still has a LONG way to go. I'd appreciate eyes, and advice on the name of the Draft: Stuartyeates ( talk) 10:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
Wiki CRUK John What is this?
Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
[3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
For COI reasons, I am contributing towards an article on A2 milk via the talk page. The discussion is at the talk page and my proposed edit, because of its length, is currently at my sandbox. The proposed edit comprises two sections: one on the health concerns that led to the creation and commercialisation of a range of milk products free of the A1 beta-casein, and one on scientific reviews—the independent analyses of that science. I have included two major reviews by food safety authorities (2004, 2009) and two other reviews (2005, 2007). An editor has suggested that WP:MEDDATE would dictate that all but the 2009 review are outdated. He has suggested this source, a paper called "Milk A1 and A2 Peptides and Diabetes" included in a Nestle Nutrition Institute Workshop series pediatric program. All the papers at that workshop were edited by Roger A. Clemens (also the author of this paper) and were published by Karger and available through PubMed. Clemens' paper is nine pages long and cites and discusses 12 papers including some of the early New Zealand research and two of the reviews I propose using.
Two questions: (1) Given its method of publication, is this paper acceptable as a source for this purpose? (2) And because it focuses only on the possible links between milk and diabetes, does it in fact supplant those older reviews, which take a broader look at diabetes, coronary heart disease, atherosclerosis, schizophrenia and autism and their possible links to milk proteins? BlackCab ( TALK) 03:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello again medical experts! One more old AfC submission in danger of being deleted. Is there anything here that should be kept? — Anne Delong ( talk) 00:31, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
A behavior of some malignant tumors... where is the best page to link this term to explain it please? 188.30.204.87 ( talk) 23:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Eyes and assistance are needed at the Domestic violence article from WP:MED editors. The preponderance WP:Reliable sources on the topic indicate that females are affected by domestic violence far more than males are. I stated at the article's talk page that per the WP:Due weight policy, we go by what the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources state; in other words, we give far more weight to what the majority of sources state than we do to what the minority of sources state. We also adhere to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) on medical topics -- what high-quality sources state. If men's rights editors (MRAs) are editing that article, that also needs attention, per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation.
See Talk:Domestic violence#The gendered nature of DV (and editors who seek to change this in the article) and Talk:Domestic violence#Neutrality Issue in Gender Aspects of Abuse Section for discussions on this matter. Below the latter discussion, an editor also created a "Gender Symmetry and IPV" discussion. WP:Permalinks are here and here. Flyer22 ( talk) 14:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Proposal to cut and paste rewrite from Talk:Autism Research Institute/draft into blanked article. I think needed changes can be made after the cut and paste and that the draft is acceptable improvement of existing article. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 18:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
While patrolling the speedy deletion queue this morning, I came across a draft article on advance care planning that had basically been ignored by the articles for creation process. It looks reasonable to my eyes as a non-medical person, so I decided to salvage it and put it into mainspace: Advance care planning.
Could some WPMED people take a look at it and if it isn't reasonable either PROD it or nominate it for deletion? It just seemed a bit unfair that someone had gone to some effort to work on this article and then it was just going to be summarily deleted without anyone even looking at it. — Tom Morris ( talk) 07:30, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
I am pretty sure that WP:MEDRS applies to High functioning autism, however, an editor disagrees. Any help would be appreciated. [ [4]]. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 00:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I have a question I would like to open to the community here about something I've noticed on alternative medicine pages. I have noticed several pages such as herbalism, ayurvedic, homeopathy, naturopathy, and applied kinesiology have a certain order but others such as acupuncture and chiropractic (more the former than the latter article) serve as examples of contrast and do not put the history section in the beginning (though the chiropractic article does have conceptual basis in the beginning and it could be argued that is at least somewhat related to the history section). So, is there a page that guides us on this or a policy about how to order sections in alternative medicine (system) articles? If so, can someone direct me to this page please? If not, perhaps we should discuss this issue since there seems to be a lack of uniformity in the articles. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 06:45, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Further to discussions with some of you at Wikimania, may I encourage all those of you who contribute to medical articles - particularly, but not only, if you also contribute to academic literature - to register for an ORCID identifier, and to display it on your user page, using the {{ Authority control}} template?
If you write a biography of a researcher, or other person with an ORCID, please include it in the article, or, better, in Wikidata.
Further details are on the project page at WP:ORCID. Thanks,
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Tons of poor quality sources are being added. Would appreciate further input from medical editors. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I added content this morning on treatments that the FDA is allowing to actually be used under Expanded access on the basis of the Animal Efficacy Rule and phase I data. I think this is important to help people understand that drugs are being tried in people experimentally and that it is not "wild west"-y but rather carefully regulated. Jytdog ( talk) 16:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
For those of you who are familiar with me, you know that I generally work on health and science related topics, and strongly uphold use of secondary, independent sources to determine what mainstream science/medicine has to say. I have been reflecting a lot on application of WP:FRINGE in alt med topics. I am coming to a conclusion that there are specific applications of specific alt med modalities, specifically as complementary medicine, that have become mainstream. For example, acupuncture as a field is (in my view) pseudoscience, since its notions of the body are pre-scientific. However, some applications of acupuncture have been more or less empirically validated enough that they have become widely accepted and are used in major medical centers as adjuncts for treating conditions like pain, some side effects of chemo, and some psychosomatic-like disorders... and are discussed in major medical textbooks. That is ~about~ as mainstream as it gets. So... my questions are, how do we discuss and source mainstream applications of alt med? I very much don't want to open the door to a) pro-acu folks rushing in to say things like "see, acupuncture (as in "all applications of acupuncture and the foundations of acupuncture") is not pseudoscience so stop treating it all under WP:FRINGE!" and b) more broadly, all altmed folks banging open the barndoors and pouring crap content into WP. It is hard to have a nuanced discussion about this, as POV-pushers from both sides render it more bitter & extreme than it needs to be, but I thought I would try to see if we can find the messy middle on this, which surely not satisfy purists on either side. Again, my questions are 1) how do we discuss and source the narrow applications of acupuncture that are relatively mainstream (using acu as a complementrary approach for pain, some side effects of chemo, and some psychosomatic-like conditions), and separate them from the FRINGEy stuff (like using acu to actually treat cancer)? 2) How do we do that, with the fierceness of POV on either wing? Thanks Jytdog ( talk) 20:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
1) how do we discuss and source the narrow applications of acupuncture that are relatively mainstream (using acu as a complementrary approach for pain, some side effects of chemo, and some psychosomatic-like conditions), and separate them from the FRINGEy stuff (like using acu to actually treat cancer)?
It's simple - Just accept only review articles from high impact factor journals or authoritative medical textbooks and nationwide health organizations. Everything else has to be removed.
1)2) How do we do that, with the fierceness of POV on either wing?
We do that by removing all health claims and opinions that aren't sourced from a high impact factor journal or an authoritative medical textbook or nationwide health organization. - A1candidate ( talk) 14:27, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
- A1candidate ( talk) 02:16, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
A doctor contacted WMF (OTRS) and provided a scanned copy of a hand colored copper plate image of a brain, showing the limbic system. This came from a book in his collection, which he has packed for a move, so I do not know the title for sure, but my guess is that it is the book: Traité d'Anatomie et de Physiologie by Félix Vicq-d'Azyr published in 1786.
The doctor suggested it would be useful in Limbic system. In addition, I think it should be in the article about the author.
I'm reaching out here for two reasons, first, on occasion, we get something that isn't what it purports to be, so I'd like someone with expertise to take a look at it.
Second, I don't think I should just drop the photo into either article by itself, so I hope to find someone who can add some relevant text.
I've uploaded the image here (probably need to improve the title)
(Originally posted to Doc James, but he seems to be on vacation)-- S Philbrick (Talk) 13:41, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Clarify, why would we need to go review the book so that it is what it is? I have no problem believing this is pre 1923 and PD, which means it doesn't even need to be attributed properly. Any other assumptions are WP:Bad faith -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 12:31, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Here's another of those old AfC submissions. Is this a notable medical person? Should the article be edited to NPOV instead of being deleted as a stale draft? — Anne Delong ( talk) 15:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey All. I think linking to authors has the potential to 1) increase our transparency to our readership 2) make clear to potential editors that they CAN edit Wikipedia and thus possibly increase editor numbers. I have created an example of how this would look here on the heart failure article. To make this change widely of course would require a massive discussion / RfC. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:57, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
My personal preference is a tab, but I think this is an excellent idea, and will back it fully. For readers to see that articles are often the work of a collaboration of a few editors will hopefully get more people to understand how to start contributing. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 07:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Parabolooidal recently removed this project's banner from Talk:Dan Olmsted. As neither that user nor myself are members of this project, I thought the issue should be brought to the project's attention: Is Dan Olmsted within the scope of this project, or should the banner stay removed? Muffinator ( talk) 20:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Environmental toxicology needs some attention. This edit added some "sources" that are just plain numbers. The article has been blanked and reverted a couple of times (copyvios?) in the past, so these sources might be recoverable in the article history, but it needs someone to sit down and sort through what happened. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:48, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject Medicine,
There is currently a bit of a pickle about a template I nominated: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_10#Template:Autism_cure_movement. There's also proposal to rename the template to Template: Medical model of autism. However, the article Medical model of autism was originally called Autism cure movement. The editor who proposed the rename has done a good job in removing some of the sociological "movement" aspects of that article, but, as I wrote at the TFD: "I'm still concerned about it being misrepresented in terms of how much it is 'promoted' in the cultural sense. From the limited research I did on Google Books, it seems to be more of a scientific topic, not an advocacy one. Autism awareness/research/treatment 'movements' certainly exist, in the same way there is a 'movement' to cure breast cancer, but I think that they use the medical model as a basis, rather than the two terms being synonymous. Perhaps some folks who do regular work on medical articles and are familiar with the Medical model of disability can weigh in as well?"
Any input would be appreciated. -- Holdek ( talk) 05:29, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Is repeatedly removing high quality content at vitamin D without consensus. Has not joined the discussion on the talk page. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:52, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The reason why Overagainst is wrong is that while on the one hand vitamin D is a controversial topic within the medical community, Overagainst will prefer to have a Wiki article that not only takes one particular position but which would pretend as if there is a large scientific consensus in favor it. The IoM had the difficult task to make decisions regarding the RDA and the UL, and they must take the most conservative approach here based on accepting any hints of harm while demanding very rigorous proof of benefits. Wikipedia can use the IoM report as a tertiary review, but we must be careful when taking IoM recommendations at face value; not only are we not in the business of giving medical advice, but the scientific arguments for the IoM's recommendations are not based on an evaluation principle that is suitable for a pure scientific review (because of the wide safety margins).
See also this Nature News article: "A vociferous debate about vitamin-D supplementation reveals the difficulty of distilling strong advice from weak evidence." Count Iblis ( talk) 18:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
==Effects== A paragraph or so about what it does in the body ===Deficiency=== ===Excess consumption=== ===Supplementation=== (the rest of the article)
or perhaps more like this:
==Effects== A paragraph or so about what it does in the body ===Deficiency=== ===Excess consumption=== (middle of the article goes here) ==Recommendations== ===Supplementation===
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Human gonad#Requested move 13 August 2014. A WP:Permalink is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 17:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Skeletal deformities is a redlink. Does anyone have a suggestion? I'm copyediting Four Big Pollution Diseases of Japan. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Wording on articles about suicide in line with recommended best practice based on research. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, judging by the discussion there, more opinions probably are not needed. But opinions from WP:Med editors can perhaps add a different perspective to the discussion. Flyer22 ( talk) 03:47, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obesophobia Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 12:21, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
The tool is up and running in beta form for only medical articles. The results are here Wikipedia:MED/Copyright. Will likely need a bit of adjusting. I will look at things in detail in a week or two when I make it home. If you are interested please take a look and provide feedback on the talk page / fix copyright issues found. It is still in a rough stage so I imagine there will be a lot of false positive. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
This is an advocacy group, which has apparently been causing problems with fluoroquinolone antibiotic articles, according to departed editor User:Alfred Bertheim. [7]
There are several links to their website still present in articles. [8] It would be great if a medical author could check these out.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough, 04:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC).
There is a call here for health information in Swahili. -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 21:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation is hiring two experienced Wikipedia editors for part-time (20 hours/week) positions: Wikipedia Content Expert, Sciences and Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities. The focus of these positions is to help student editors do better work, through everything from advice and cleanup on individual articles, to helping instructors find appropriate topics for the students to work on, to tracking the overall quality of work from student editors and finding ways to improve it. We're looking for clueful, friendly editors who like to focus on article content, but also have a strong working knowledge of policies and guidelines, and who have experience with DYK, GAN, and other quality processes. (Experience with medical topics is a definite plus!)-- Sage (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 16:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Please could someone take a look at the uncited, allergy-related claim made in Penicillium camemberti? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
A pair of wonderful editors, Nettrom and Aaron Halfaker, have done us a favor and analyzed all 9,000+ plus of our stubs to see which ones probably need to be re-assessed. The list has been posted at m:Research:Ideas/Screening WikiProject Medicine articles for quality/Prediction table. About 750 of them are, according to their formula, probably not stubs.
I tried doing this manually a couple of years ago, and getting this narrowed down to a list of only 750 articles is an enormous improvement. Obviously, we need to do some re-assessing. The first in the list is B-class, not a stub. I think what would be helpful here is to re-assess everything, but if you run across something (especially with a high percentage) that is still a stub, please flag it either here or on the list's talk page.
Finally, if you want to do more than just a couple, then I suggest installing User:Kephir/gadgets/rater. It lets you rate an article without first clicking through to the talk page.
Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 17:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Great resource. Do they plan on periodically updating it? -- WS ( talk) 20:34, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm having a tough time determining if these structures are currently defined as different substructures within the medulla oblongata. There appears to be contradictory information on both of these pages (e.g., on chemoreceptor trigger zone, this ref on the area postrema - PMID 11749934 - is used to state that the CTZ is adjacent to the nucleus tractus solitarius; the ref says the area postrema is adjacent). I've read several refs that indicate that these structures are the same thing (e.g., PMID 7895890) while I've seen other refs which indicate they're different (all of these are out of WP:MEDDATE). This current ref makes no mention of the CTZ in vomiting: PMID 23886386.
All that said, can anyone find a current reference or diagram which clearly indicates that these two structures are not the same thing? If not, I'm just going to merge these two articles. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
This is relevant to medicine since the D2 receptors on this (these?) structures are the biomolecular targets of antiemetic drugs like domperidone and metoclopramide. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
Medical experts, is Draft:Can-Fite BioPharma Ltd. notable? -- Cerebellum ( talk) 18:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
There exists a clinic in Toronto, Canada, named the Medcan Clinic. Please provide your opinion in a content dispute regarding our "Medcan Clinic" article. There is a short summary of the dispute at Talk:Medcan_Clinic § Discussion, part 3. Please do not reply here. Instead, please reply only on that talk page. Thank you. — Unforgettableid ( talk) 08:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It's been in the news recently that Robin Williams was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease before his suicide, although he wasn't showing easily recognizeable symptoms. As might be expected, a number of editors have rushed to add that information to the Parkinson's disease article. That violates our longstanding rule that only celebrities who have played a major role in supporting PD research or public understanding belong there. I have, after explaining why on the talk page, removed the new material. I expect that somebody will shortly come along and re-add it, though. Since I have a personal policy against multi-reverting, I probably won't do anything more, so I am bringing the matter up here in case anybody else is interested in keeping an eye on it. Looie496 ( talk) 12:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
As I have a COI with what is in some sense a "competitor" I thought I'd better bring here my comment on his talk to User:Mapnah, whose edit history since 2012 shows only edits related to www.oncolex.org, a cancer site related to the University of Oslo hospital. See the post - this is one of the images he is adding. Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 16:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a disagreement as to the relevance and MEDRS compatibility of a source. this source is being held up as a MEDRS compliant source and is being discussed in a "Theoretical causes" section. I tried moving it to a "Society and culture" section as more of a religious text than medical but was reverted. Comments welcome. Yobol ( talk) 21:57, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
One might make the argument that if significant numbers of people are seeking health information on Wikipedia then Wikipedia would be a good place to put health information for people to find. It is my opinion that this is an idea that some WikiProject Medicine members have, but that few people outside the Wikimedia community consider.
I am writing to give news about an opportunity to get a little more information from the Wikimedia Foundation analytics team about readership numbers for health articles on Wikipedia. In summary, I do not think that members of WikiProject Medicine should do anything differently now even if they use readership statistics, but it would be good to be aware of options for the future. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not easy to describe the size of the audience seeking health information on Wikipedia. Some background information may be at Health information on the Internet and at Health information on Wikipedia. Members of WikiProject Medicine may use WP:MED500 to see some stats formatted for Wikipedian use. Right now, this page is configured to record monthly reports which is based on tags of the "WikiProject Medicine" template on article talk pages. The tool which provides this information is at WMF Labs. I understand that Mr.Z-man made this tool, and that this user is a volunteer who was very gracious to design and continue to develop the tool. It is my opinion that the data provided by this tool is good enough to establish that Wikipedia is a popular source of health information, as I believe that the number of pageviews is indicative of a large number of unique visitors who want specific health information.
Here are the previous discussions I could find about traffic to health information on Wikipedia in WikiProject Medicine forums.
I am sharing this information to give background on what already exists. I was not planning to start a conversation about this, but if someone has more background information then share if you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation employees some statisticians whose job it is to support the community with statistics and analysis. If we expressed a need for readership statistics and there were a reasonable way for this team to provide them, then they might provide data and interpretation. Here is some information about this group.
I am sharing this information to give background on what already exists. I was not planning to start a conversation about this, but if someone has more background information then share if you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Medicine could request some kind of report about readership to health articles from the Wikimedia Foundation analytics team. This might be generated monthly. It is not certain to me if this would be better than our existing report, but it could be made in a different way. In my opinion, the opportunity here is more flexible than the current WikiProject-based reader tracking system being used, but it also would include more articles which should not be included.
The idea is that the WMF analytics team get from us some list of articles, then in response they generate a monthly report of traffic to those articles. Here is an example of how this could work:
For July 2014, this report generated by the analytics team has identified 96,623 "medicine articles" which have combined pageviews of 265,651,646. The system used based on WikiProject Medicine tagging found 27,132 articles with combined pageviews of 151,744,982. It is my opinion that most people currently spending time at WikiProject Medicine are interested in articles which are governed by WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS, and this project is less concerned with social or humanities-based discussion of medicine. Consequently, I would expect people here to be more interested in pageview statistics which are for health articles, and not for concepts in the humanities. Is my expectation that the WikiProject Medicine tagging contains a higher percentage of articles which are about medicine and not humanities, but that the category measurement includes articles which are missed by WikiProject Medicine's tagging system.
I am not sure how to get the best measurement of the readership of health information on Wikipedia, but I think it would not be unreasonable to say that the pageviews for this content are somewhere between the values reported by these two statistics systems.
If anyone has any ideas for requesting a more nuanced report from the WMF Analytics team, then they would run the report for us based on any list of articles we provided to them. What I mean to say is that there are about 96k possible "medicine" articles, and WikiProject Medicine already has a sort of curated list which is 27k of those 96, but probably more of the 96k could be included, and some of the 27k probably ought not be included. In the end and after a few years, probably we will need to develop some plan to tag all kinds of articles in Wikidata and request multiple reports for all kinds of medicine concepts. When we have curated lists we would be able to remix them in different ways, such as by language and medical specialty, which is something difficult to do now.
At Wikimania in London earlier this month I talked a bit with Erik in analytics about what they can provide, and he made the above report for WikiProject Medicine and said that if we have ideas for other reports, then those are possible. Ultimately I want these reports to be able to answer questions about Wikipedia's audience, because I make the argument that Wikipedia matters because of its audience size. If anyone can think of any clever ways to ask questions of the analytics team, then please share.
My initial thought is that the information we have is already very good, and that perhaps it would not be worthwhile to spend too much time trying to work out a new system with the analytics team, however, if our need grows and we want more nuanced information then we might need to move from the WikiProject system and into the category system of measurement because our subcategorization with the WikiProject task force system probably is not used often enough to be sufficiently accurate for any needs and would not at all work for languages other than English without WikiProject software development. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
We discussed this at CRUK. Have started discussion here. [9] It could affect up to 8000 articles. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:37, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
A research would like to add their unpublished opinion about wood ash to the articles on Ebola. Further comments here User_talk:Jmh649#Ebola_virus_disease appreciated. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Just got a few dental X-Rays donated by my dentist to Wikimedia Commons. If we have any dentists in this project that wouldn't mind helping me find a few articles to be homes for some of them, I'd appreciate it. :D You can find the list here. Among them is two photos of a partially completed root canal, which I think might be unique on Commons so far.
Some highlights:
Zell Faze ( talk) 13:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
The 4th one (ZELLFAZE MN01 MP16 005.JPG) is a good example of the kind of decay impacted wisdom teeth can potentially cause if left in situ. 94.196.105.113 ( talk) 17:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Since LT910001 is on a wikibreak and there's a backlog of GAN's ( Wikipedia:Good article nominations#Biology and medicine), I figured I'd ask here if anyone feels comfortable taking on the nominator role in LT's place. I'll take on the review if someone steps up; otherwise, I'll likely just remove the nomination within a week.
Regards, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
User:Mmersenne need to have their edits reviewed. Paraphrasing appears to be too close. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
This came up before and was taken to AfD by Biosthmors who withdrew the nomination after stubbing the article into WP:MEDRS compliance; it has since re-expanded but the sourcing is no stronger than it was originally. This is an odd drug limited it seems to Latvia and used to promote tourism. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 15:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm no expert about the condition, but I spotted a case-fatality rate that didn't jibe with a review I had found, and was unsourced, by an IP ... can someone look over Cryptococcosis, in particular the edits I linked to in the last section ("Survival rate...") at Talk:Cryptococcosis? Thanks. Wnt ( talk) 19:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Someone might wish to add
James Heilman (
User:Jmh649) to
Wikipedia:Wikipedians with articles.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
17:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable medical researcher? Should the page be kept and improved? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
A suggestion has been put for us to consider project coordinators at WPMED similar to military history.
This would be a group of active respected medical editors who people who are having issues could turn to for guidance. They would be elected by those of us here. Peoples thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for contacting me about this, James. For transparency, this was something I proposed informally a couple of months ago, and I hope that the community gives this idea some thought. I think having coordinators is useful, because they act as a central contact point for new users, users who want to become more involved and want to know what's going on, cross-project, cross-wiki and professional collaborations, and media/signpost enquiries. I think it also recognizes the efforts of some of the long-term users here, and perhaps will empower them to think about the project more generally. It's also useful to have some people as contact points who are aware of the full extend of WPMED's activities, and most likely have external contacts they are liasing with. I think that having coordinators listed more-or-less recognises the existing situation anyway. @ Johnbod, if we had as many as 16 long-term, active and regular users to become coordinators, I think that'd be wonderful. As per the MILHIST example, a coordinator doesn't actually have any authority, and my ideal approach (this is just an idea) would be that a few coordinators would be elected yearly by affirmative vote (ie most 'yesses', representing someone who has the respect and approval of the local community). I wish you all well and can confirm I'll be returning at some point. Kind regards, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 11:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Some changes recently have been made in the "Adverse reactions" section, and I think some subject-matter experts need to review the article. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Now 8 months and counting:
Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive4
Need reviewers!
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
22:18, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
I nominated two technical diagrams (
the signaling cascade involved in psychostimulant addiction and
amphetamine pharmacodynamics in dopamine neurons) for featured picture.
I spent about 30 hours making the ΔFosB diagram alone, so I'd really appreciate it if anyone is willing to contribute an image review! These are both used in the amphetamine article.
Regards, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:31, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Read [10] and thought - "this is the type of thing to have a poorly sourced Wikipedia article". Couldn't believe how right I was.
It's 11:30 and I have work tomorrow, so throwing this out there if anyone wants to do some trimming - otherwise this is only a note for me to remember to do it. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 21:26, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Have done some more work on an example of this on the heart failure article. Wondering what people think for punctuation? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
the Hormone article could use some TLC from experts before people get misinformation. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
The statements that you tagged as "dubious":-
The first statement seems to be poorly worded rather than "dubious". The intended implication is that cells that express a hormone's receptor will respond to that hormone.
I believe that the second statement is correct (although the example chosen might be odd). Scavenger receptors are not activated by hormones, and they certainly do undergo a response. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
While it is still in draft form this document has dramatically improved my day. The copyright office has stated on page 300 "the Office will not register works produced by a machine or mere mechanical process that operates randomly or automatically without any creative input or intervention from a human author" this includes "Medical imaging produced by x-rays, ultrasounds, magnetic resonance imaging, or other diagnostic equipment." [11] This means that if this passes we can gather X-rays to our hearts content. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Template:Autism cure movement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes ( talk) 22:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I just came across Post Acute Withdrawal Syndrome, and it could use some attention. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 14:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
A new Wikipedian, Alepfu, is a researcher who would like to make a database connecting information about drug interactions to Wikidata items for drugs. This would mean that for Wikidata items like (RS)-warfarin (Q407431), there would be a Wikidata property, drug action altered by, which makes a claim that some other drug interacts with Warfarin. This user also has a collection of sources to back those claims. For those who do not know, on Wikidata, (Item + Property Value = Claim), and (Claim + Source = Statement), which I think is a lot like English Wikipedia's policy of backing statements with sources. This process itself is interesting, and this user is seeking community feedback on their proposal to run a bot which will make these kinds of statements.
Also interesting is that when backing a claim with a source, it could be that this process creates a Wikidata item for every source, then uses that Wikidata item for the citation rather than having a freeform citation as has always been used before. High-priority drug–drug interactions for use in electronic health records (Q17505343) is one such source. Wikidata only has a few hundred academic papers stored in this way, but potentially, all academic papers cited in a Wikimedia project could be stored here and called from Wikidata as a central source. This citation project is not necessarily tied to the drug interaction project, but the original project could be a place to explore options for automating the import of citations and immediately using them in a practical way.
For those of you who have not met this person, I would like to introduce Tobias1984. He is the most active participant of WikiProject Medicine on Wikidata, which anyone can visit at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine. Anyone who would like to get pings for medical information assistance on Wikidata should put their name at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine/Participants, and then when someone seeks comment you would get notice.
Alepfu's project is still running test edits, but comments would be welcome now on the concept at d:Wikidata:Requests for permissions/Bot/AlepfuBot. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi every one,
Letting everyone know of the plans for an editing campaign targeting Wikipedia medical articles that Students 4 Best Evidence is planning in September. Wikipedia:Students 4 Best Evidence September 2014 editing campaign is the initial page on site but we will shortly be transitioning to an Education Program course page for managing the campaign.
We hope to begin registering students at the end of next week, so they can create their user accounts and do some practice edits prior to the Edit-a-thon. Ammar (the main contact at Students 4 Best Evidence) has created several blogs promoting the event, and is creating more that offers guidance to the students. The main event currently scheduled in an edit-a-thon on Sept. 16 that will be hosted at Cochrane's UK Center with the assistance of some folks from the Wikimedia UK Chapter. There is plans to have a simultaneous google hang out event. Additionally, other groups have expressed an interest in joining from other locations.
As always, the event will be much more successful with the support of more experienced Wikipedia editors. So it will be great if some regulars at Wikiproject Medicine can help out. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 20:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation did a story on James-- it can be found here (Wikipedia's medical errors and one doctor's fight to correct them). It is always good to get the word out that physician-Wikipedians are welcome. Beyond that, I think it is important to explain the process-- I am amazed again and again how few people know that all the changes to an article are tracked and any version can be compared to any other version. Personally, I think this is one of the key elements of what makes WP work. In any case, great stuff James! Nephron T| C 04:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The statement is "some of the first medical content to ever exist in some languages" It is not controversial that their is little medical content in many languages. The content you give is religious content not medical and yes religious content exists in every language as lots of people work on that. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:06, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Soon, a version of the featured article, Dengue fever will be published in the Canadian journal, Open Medicine. When that's done, James will be putting a link to the Open Medicine version at the top of Dengue fever. James, can you please link me to the version of Dengue fever that Open Medicine will be publishing? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Appears to be refusing to use references or follow WP:MEDMOS. Article in question is Zinc deficiency. Peoples thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"Citation needed: pharma needs to make the most of Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia is an increasingly important source of knowledge for patients and information [which must be kept accurate and up to date"]. Nothing too exciting. I'll cross-post to Pharma project. Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 09:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
So, this has been a peeve of mine for a while now, and I've finally decided to do something about it. Instead of simply complain and get someone else to do the merge I've written up a massive expansion, primarily sourced from a quality CC-BY source. After having it almost eclipse other work I've been doing it is at a level where I can show it to others who might be interested in helping out. Basically the article is at around 160kb, and if it wasn't for the reliance on a single source I would push for it to reach FA within short.
What needs doing is the following:
So, if anyone is interested the article can be found here: User:CFCF/draft/Heart
-- -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 16:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Heart article needs an infobox, "see also" should be merged into the text if notable and deleted if not. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The article is now live at Heart! -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 11:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
We have recently had a video donated to Wikipedia. Am also in discussions with the Khan academy about their releasing their content under a license we can use. Wondering what peoples though are on the placement of these sorts of videos? This one is a little "how to" in nature. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
An earlier RFC on medical disclaimer failed, but I and a couple of others believe we have a strategy to start a new one that would help prevent a repeat of the same problems. That discussion is here: User talk:SandyGeorgia#Any new developments in the medical disclaimer initiative? The main proposals are summarized at the bottom of that discussion. We would welcome anyone in the Medicine WikiProject to weigh in before we start the drafting process. -- Holdek ( talk) 16:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information in this article. It may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including you!
Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including you, without any prior fact-checking or verification that what you contribute reflects the current academic consensus
( ←) I think moving stuff to the top is not a good solution. I am willing to support a small disclaimer about medical articles, and I was wondering if {{ Infobox disease}} would be a good place. It would need to be specific about health information and issues on reliability, because reminding people that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone can be done in lots of other places. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Before this discussion gets out of hand again, I very strongly suggest that an RfC is held about whether a disclaimer should be more prominent in general. After the results of the RfC, then a more specific proposal can be put forward. I am neither for nor against the proposal, but one of the main reasons the previous RfC failed was because it got lost in technicalities and multiple proposals. I very strongly suggest first a general RfC is held, and then some specific proposals are discussed and tailored to the comments received in the initial RfC. Otherwise we will spend months meandering through tends to hundreds of suggested disclaimers without first clarifying if this is what the community wants; and when presented to the community, the community will be giving an opinion not on whether a disclaimer is needed, but on the wording of the specific disclaimer which is provided, neither of which would be desired. -- 129.94.102.201 ( talk) 00:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I am no for "warning about unreliability" and am yes for "explaining that anyone can edit". IMO they are more or less the same but the later has potentially greater positive benefits. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It appears that getting consensus for making this change to Wikipedia generally will be difficult. [14] It appears that most within WPMED are supportive. A suggestive has been put forth that we should only add this to medical articles. While a little more complicated technically would be happy with this.
Once more an example of what this could look like is on the article on heart failure. If there is support for this proposal the word "authors" or "contributor" and link to the list of authors would go after the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".
When a person clicks on the word author it takes you to X! tool here [15]. Preferably the heading "top editors" would be changed to "authors" and that section would be moved up to below "general statistics". I am not sure what punctuation should be used and am open to suggestions / variations. What are peoples thoughts to just do it for medical articles? A lack of transparency regarding who writes Wikipedia's medical content is a concern I frequently hear. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
18:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Does anyone know what Cheilodynie is? It redirects to Disease, and I'm guessing that's wrong. (I've been cleaning out inappropriate redirects by redirecting from "Disease" to more relevant pages; there are only a few more to go.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Cross-posting Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Anybody_reviewing_Medgirl131.27s_edits.3F FYA. Thanks. Samsara ( FA • FP) 10:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
A BLP of a fringe altmed practitioner at Ryke Geerd Hamer crosses several boundaries. Much of the sourcing is in German. The article contains many unpleasant statements about the subject person that are not as well cited as they should be to have a place on wp. Can someone please pitch in? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 31#Gender dysphoria. WP:Med has been involved with the gender identity disorder vs. gender dysphoria issue before, and this WP:Redirect for discussion is the next phase of this matter. A WP:Permalink is here. The two WikiProjects that have been alerted to this discussion are this one (WP:Med) and WP:LGBT, as seen here. The gender identity disorder topic is a sensitive topic, and sometimes the Gender identity disorder article can be subject to WP:Activism, so more eyes on that article from neutral editors can also help this issue. Flyer22 ( talk) 04:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Do we want to keep these as separate articles? I'd like to hear other opinions about this because these two articles appear to have a rather significant amount of overlap and I'm of the mind that we could merge these two articles. Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 05:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
The article Diet and cancer starts with, "Almost all cancers (80–90%) are caused by environmental factors,[1] and of these, 30–40% of cancers are directly linked to the diet.[2] By far, the most significant dietary cause of cancer is overnutrition (eating too much).[3]" Ref 1 is 14 years old. Ref 2 is 5 years old and is to a general page not a specific source supporting the content. I am not sure this information is really correct or that such overarching statements are supported by current medical consensus. As there are a number of editors here with extensive knowledge I thought someone might take a look. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 11:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
2014 World Cancer Report has a section on diet. It states that excess weight is responsible for 4.2% of cancer in men and 14.3% of cancer in women in the USA. Among non smokers this is an even greater proportion. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The fact that a lot and maybe most cancer is "enviromental" (not inherited from one's parents) is excellent as that means that it can potentially be prevented. This means not smoking, improving chimneys, immunization against certain infections, improving ventilation in underground living spaces, covering ones skin from the sun, etc. All measure that are well in the means of most people globally.
If most cancer was "not environmental" (in other words inherited from one's parents) than gene therapy / after the fact treatment would be the only option. Something which is very expensive and out of the possible range of most people globally. The War Against Cancer concentrated mostly on treatment rather than prevention unfortunately for whatever reasons. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Leaving aside for a moment the broader considerations raised by WAID and others above, I feel this query illustrates the difficulties we almost inevitably come up against in communicating highly technical considerations effectively to our broad general readership. A somewhat analogous case is under discussion at Talk:Obesity#Genetics. The fact is that we endeavour to address a plethora of sensitive editorial tasks with a limited number of dedicated volunteers. We desperately need to multiply our human resources... But how? My own feeling is that we need more direct contributions from organizations whose aims overlap with our own (Cancer Research UK and Cochrane being just two prominent examples). For this sort of involvement to happen I think awareness needs to be raised across the scientific community (and general public) of the real-world role of Wikipedia's health-related content. 86.134.200.29 ( talk) 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I have formatted up the references and in doing so added links to free full text versions of quite a few of them. This may be useful in improving the article. I also added a possible ref I don't have access to on the talk page. I also added some material from 3 Cochrane reviews. I have Cochrane access if further information from those refs is desired. Thanks for the help and attention to this article. I think there are several sources already in the article that could be used to address some of the issues raised above. - - MrBill3 ( talk) 11:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
The bot is up and running and returning helpful results. There is still a relatively high rate of false positives that we are working to reduce. These fixes should be fairly easy. False positives to true positives is about 1 to 3. It is definitely worthwhile as I have been able to provide feedback to a number of users. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)You just want everything the bot sends to Turnitin and everything returned from Turnitin to the bot published? Much of it is here [22] I am not sure if there is more but I am sure Eran can provide everything if you want. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
It's on their main page today. Subscription only, but if you google the title "Cancer Research UK Working to Improve Info on Wikipedia" you should be able to access it. Wiki CRUK John ( talk) 13:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I am new to whole wikipedia medical editing experience. However, I am really excited to get involved. Any ideas for a relatively simply page that I can help to work on? I'm sorry if this exists elsewhere, a point in the right direction would be much appreciated. Pishoygouda ( talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I have been following the readership of our articles for a long time. Data here shows a recent decline in views. This data however does not reflect the rise in mobile ( which has gone from less than 1% of overall Wikipedia readership to more than 30% of readership). I have done a correction of our data basically assuming that the fraction of readers by mobile for English Wikipedia as a whole is the same as the fraction of readers for medical content. Readership is down slightly but not a great deal. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as the lede of articles is often copied onto the google infobox you'd think working on the ledes would become more important than ever? -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 10:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I recently created a table with the number of FA and GA articles found on different Wikipedia medical projects and gathered under a TOP 20. It helped me to have a global view regarding the development of the projects. As far as I'm concerned, some of the results were surprising in a negative way, like the fr.wikipedia with a total of only 31 reliable pages. You can check the full list here, if you're interested. The AC and AB are the equivalent of FA and GA. Regards, Wintereu (talk) 21:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC) P.S. Lists, templates and images were not included.
Just came across this article. Interesting topic, but article is full of primary, etc and needs ProjectMedicine love. [Mesoamerican nephropathy]]. Jytdog ( talk) 19:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)