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 75 | ← | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | → | Archive 85 |
I thought this has might have been discussed by this project before and maybe there's a precedent someone could point me to... Does repeating a claim that something, like CAM, is a placebo require MEDRS? I know that in general FRINGE does not, but there's a debate about using the word placebo without MEDRS at Talk:Deepak Chopra#Treatment of controversy in lead. Permstrump ( talk) 21:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
If "the best" is not a very good source, then the it's possible that a statement is WP:UNDUE or that a different description would better comply with NPOV-- Good point, WhatamIdoing. I don't know when or who added it, but the source was definitely an odd choice. It's a literary magazine called The Antioch Review published by Antioch College, neither of which mean anything to me. The author is a medical doctor and professor at University of Louisville Medical School though, FWIW. I haven't looked for an alternate, so I honestly have no idea if that's the only or best source. A few editors thought there was basically a blanket rule that FRINGE never requires MEDRS and others thought the reference to placebo made it a different story. But I think the bottom line is, like you said, if it's DUE there should be a couple of options for sources to choose from, which would apply regardless of MEDRS. Permstrump ( talk) 22:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Once again, Ronz: Citation needed. Seriously. There are some excellent definitions of altmed available in reliable sources, and I've never yet seen one that says "CAM is whatever's no better than placebo". I've seen quite a few skeptics say that CAM is a socially constructed category that ought to be ignored by scientists (i.e., "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works [e.g., Cansema, labeled "alternative" but scientifically proven to permanently cure some superficial skin cancers and possessed of a very plausible scientific rationale] and medicine that doesn't work [e.g., knee arthroscopy, "mainstream" but proven to be exactly "no better than placebo]"), but I've never yet seen one that says if it's "no better than placebo" is a complete, or even accurate, definition of CAM.
So here's the challenge: Quit simply repeating your personal POV as if it were The Truth™, and start providing reliable sources. Can you produce even one proper reliable source (not an opinion piece or a website) that defines CAM as "anything that's no better than placebo", with no further qualifiers? Can you find any expert who would seriously accept black salve as "modern, evidence-based medicine", and reject knee arthroscopy as "alternative"? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The claim is "His treatments rely on the placebo effect.[8]" There is no reviews for treatments Deepak Chopra uses that mention him. I don't think MEDRS covers BLP issues about claims referring to people. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Commenters above Ronz, WhatamIdoing, LeadSongDog, BlueStove, Littleolive oil, Jytdog, Permstrump, Alexbrn -- Late to the party but I think this is important: The simple fact is that there is no single accepted definition of alternative medicine, nor one that clearly outweighs the others. See the article's well-referenced first sentence. There are multiple definitions from excellent MEDRS -- Harrison's, IOM, NSF, Angell in NEJM, WebMD, NCCIH at NIH -- some of which overlap, and a couple of which are mutually exclusive (Harrison's rebuts NSF's & Angell's). While some weigh more than others (IOM's the biggest), choosing just one of them would violate NPOV, VER and OR all at the same time. Since there is no single accepted definition, perhaps best to wikilink to the article and where necessary quote or summarize its first sentence. -- Middle 8 ( t • c | privacy • COI) 06:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
There are several claims being thrown around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire needle acupuncture with regard to WP:MEDRS's application to that article. Regardless of the fate of the article, the sourcing for the article would probably benefit from some clarification from WPM folks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:N applies to whether an article should exist or not, the issues here fall under our need for neutrality when writing the article. WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE are the on-point PAGs. To quote from the former:
Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. [my bold]
If the only sources that exist are "in-universe" ones it would be impossible to present fringe ideas within "proper context with respect to established scholarship", so we omit it. We need mainstream sources for that. That is policy and not negotiable. Otherwise we'd be having to use ufologist texts for describing what might have happened at Roswell, TCM texts for altmed woo, psychic texts for outlining psychic abilities and so on. If some particular aspect of TCM is really weighty, it should be possible to find some decent text which has commented on it. That's certainly possible for homeopathy. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Is hospital computer security an important topic for Wikipedia?
My Web search for "hospital computer security" reported thousands of search results.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
23:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This is ostensibly a fashion article, but it has medical implications (or does it?). Indeed the long history of the article appears to include a small number of pro- and anit- editors, which means we cannot really judge from the article.
I would appreciate medical, or just common-sense, revision of this article, which seems to me just a little too enthusiastic about the practice.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
22:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC).
More eyes here would be helpful. This is a new article that appears to be a neologism; the sources appear to be basically copied from a google book search for the phrase "mucoid cap" strung together, from old sources or from sources that don't even use the phrase. None of the individual sources appear to suggest this is a distinct structure that would deserve its own article. Is AFD the right place for this? The editor seems to have moved mucoid plaque to mucoid plaque (alternative medicine) to make room for a disambig page for this. Yobol ( talk) 23:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
We now have a disambiguation page with two items, both of which direct to the same alt med article. JFW | T@lk 08:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
11:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)I received this through the European Association of Science Editors. Might be useful. juanTamad ( talk) 08:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It's for this book:
I'm looking for the Nelson, Sass, and Parnas article on page 158 so I can update the self-disorder article.-- Beneficii ( talk) 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I found myself reading
ADHD controversies earlier today. It's a mess and I've been trying to clean it up, but I'm getting a little stuck on what statements require MEDRS since it's a "controversy" article, for example, this statement: "Some believe that many of the traits of those diagnosed with ADHD are personality traits and are not indicative of a disorder. These traits may be undesirable in modern society, leading to difficulty functioning in society, and thus have been labeled as a disorder.
"
[2] Is this a medical claim? The author is disagreeing the medical establishment's view of ADHD. Almost the whole article would be deleted if I removed every instance of non-MEDRS sources disagreeing with the medical establishment and that doesn't feel quite "right." There probably is notable controversy that exists, but I don't know that it's supported by MEDRS. According to this
source, the debate is mainly coming from parents and educators. So how should I address non-medical professionals notably shooting from the hip and criticizing medical recommendations? It doesn't seem right to only include times doctors disagree with other doctors.
PermStrump
(talk)
04:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Hello everyone,
I created a new Individual Engagement grant to try and fix a problem. m:Grants:IdeaLab/Effective Engagement with Health Topic Experts using Guided Checklists
From my work with Cochrane as a Wikipedian in Residence and my observations of other attempts to engage health topic experts in editing, I've come to the conclusion that the quality of the contributions of new health topic expert recruits does not match their level of expertise and effort the we as Wikipedians put into training new medical editors. So, I decided to create a new project to develop a Guided Checklist that would assist a health topic expert in assessing the quality of a health articles on Wikipedia, and then guide their contributions toward making edits to correct the lack of quality.
My individual engagement grant would involve interviewing health topic experts and active medical editors, as well as a community consultation on Wikipedia English WikiProject Med. Please add yourself as a volunteer if you would like to participate. Or leave suggestions on the talk page. Or endorse if you support the idea. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 00:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
A new article has shown up, with a move request to overwrite Peripheral nervous system, for the discussion see talk:To new title:Peripheral nervous system -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 03:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Here Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
hat tip to User:Bradv who pointed out a new article Parkinson's Disease Biomarkers at the Talk page of the PD article. I userified it to the subject location. Is by a student. Maybe should exist; not clear. Jytdog ( talk) 23:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I came across the topiramate article while going through the cluster fuck that is Addiction#Medication (still working on it - haven't committed my edits) and noticed the article claimed it was an effective treatment for methamphetamine addiction. For context, as of right now, there is no effective treatment for a psychostimulant addiction - the relapse rate following conventional behavioral therapy is around 90% for an addiction to methamphetamine. So when I saw this and looked at the ref - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3736141/pdf/nihms483167.pdf - I was a bit disturbed to find that not only is topiramate NOT effective, it EXACERBATES methamphetamine addiction by enhancing the drug's rewarding effects. The same is true with nicotine per the same review, but the article still said it was used as an "effective treatment" for smoking cessation, citing a clinical trial.
The entire Topiramate#Medical uses section needs to be combed through to remove the primary studies and ensure the cited reviews actually support the claim being made. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I found Fungal sinusitis, a brief article that looks like it could do with some help from a topic specialist. I cleaned up the referencing but the subject is way outside my comfort zone. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"it is most classically associated with aerospace manufacturing, microwave semiconductor electronics, beryllium mining or manufacturing of fluorescent light bulbs (which once contained beryllium compounds in their internal phosphor coating).[4][5][6][7][unreliable medical source?]" See Berylliosis#Classification. There appears to be MEDRS violations. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
We need to use high quality secondary sources. For example, sources that are over 50 years old are too old. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This article needs help with repetitive text anyway, but there is a significant discrepancy between the mortality figure reported in the lead and that reported later on. Mangoe ( talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Being discussed here in a RfC Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Discuss/!vote here, at talk. -- Middle 8 ( t • c | privacy • COI) 23:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC) sp., wl 12:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
There is a currently a proposal to make the move above, which has not had a large number of responses so far. Please go to Talk:Anterior cochlear nucleus if you have any opinion on this matter. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 14:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
need opinions(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
16:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Article about the italian stem cell scam from a couple years ago. Which seems mostly over. Not sure this article should exist but it appears to have been written by a native Italian speaker and could use copyeding and some more English sources. such a story. Jytdog ( talk) 12:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
In my view User:BallenaBlanca is steadily pushing content about gluten into articles across the medical space. There is a lot of faddishness around gluten these days, and I am concerned that BallenaBlanca's gluten-related editing is skewing our articles.
Here are the top articles from BallenaBlanca's edit count:
There are also gluten-related edits to the following that would appear to be reasonably possibly related..
That is what it is and I am not going to wade into those for fear of what I will find. What is bringing me here is BallenaBlanca's editing in other articles, where this editor is consistently making claims that gluten sensitivity may be co-occurring or "may be" causative and so a gluten-elimination diet may be helpful in all kinds of other conditions.
Some of it is kind of digestive/metabolic which one can kind of see how a digestive disorder like celiac could be related maybe... like :
or clear immmune reaction like
but a whole bunch of tooth stuff (?)
But there is a whole slew of stuff that is really pushing it, in my view, like
fertility stuff:
These are the ones that are really bothering me, however:
To me this last set is really reaching into advocacy and POV pushing.
There is other stuff BallenaBlanca does like all these on Varicocele which are great and fighting off crazy people like this reversion of content that claimed that circumcision causes autism (lord knows those people never stop pushing).
But the whole "may or may not be co-morbid and a gluten-free diet may treat it" stuff should stop already, in my view. Maybe folks here find the above to be just fine. If so I will back off. Jytdog ( talk) 00:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
ESPGHAN guidelines for the diagnosis of CD were last published in 1990 (1) and at that time represented a significant improvement in both the diagnosis and management of CD. Since 1990, the understanding of the pathological processes of CD has increased enormously, leading to a change in the clinical paradigm of CD from a chronic, gluten-dependent enteropathy of childhood to a systemic disease with chronic immune features affecting different organ systems.
Extraintestinal: Failure-to-thrive, stunted growth, delayed puberty, chronic anaemia, decreased bone mineralisation (osteopenia/osteoporosis), dental enamel defects, irritability, chronic fatigue, neuropathy, arthritis/arthralgia,amenorrhea, increased levels of liver enzymes
Atypical presentation is the most common form of celiac disease (CD). (atypical --> non-classical symptoms)
CD is a common disorder in children as well as in adults. The spectrum of clinical presentations is wide, and currently extraintestinal manifestations (eg, anemia or short stature) are more common than the classic malabsorption symptoms. A high degree of awareness among health care professionals and a liberal use of serologic CD tests can help to identify many of the nonclassic cases. (..) Associated Conditions. An increasing number of studies have shown that many CD-associated problems, which originally were described mostly in adults, can indeed be observed in children or adolescents. [1]
Associated autoimmune diseases. The abnormal immunological response elicited by gluten-derived proteins can lead to the production of several different autoantibodies, which affect different systems. The most prominent autoantibodies target members of the TG family, notably IgA-class antibodies against TG2 in coeliac disease,29 TG2 and TG3 in dermatitis herpetiformis and TG6 in gluten ataxia.29–31 The levels of these antibodies are influenced by the gluten intake of patients with coeliac disease.32,33 Antibodies against coagulation factor XIII, another member of the TG family, have also been described.34 Whether this finding implicates an underlying autoimmune aspect of bleeding disorders is unclear. Antibodies to a range of other autoantigens have been reported, particularly actin, calreticulin, gangliosides, collagens, synapsin, zonulin, cardiolipin, ATP synthase subunit β and enolase.35 Interestingly, autoantibodies typically seen in general autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematous are rarely seen in coeliac disease.35 A number of organ-specific autoimmune disorders and conditions are influenced by and associated with coeliac disease (Figure 1), but only a selection is discussed in this Review.3,36,37 Moreover, accurate, unbiased population-based data on disease prevalence are generally lacking and the published results are mainly derived from studies performed on patients who have been referred to secondary or tertiary care.
More and more diseases are proven to be associated with CD. In these conditions, screening is strongly recommended.
As understanding of CD has advanced, new disease associations have been regularly found and populations tested for CD have changed in response.(...) This review was based on PubMed literature searches and expert meetings. We aimed to define key concepts relevant to CD and related disorders. The character of the current paper implies that we did not pool any data or use any statistical tools. Instead, we assembled an international team of recognised experts in CD research, discussed definitions and tried to reach a consensus. This approach is similar to that of previous papers on definitions of CD.2e4 As opposed to previous studies,2e4 however, we did not limit ourselves to ‘CD only’ but defined a large number of concepts. In addition, we provide guidance to the scientific and clinical community as to which terms should be used and which should be abandoned. Overall, we evaluated more than 300 papers in detail and all authors participated in the discussion leading to consensus definitions. (...) Our research team was multidisciplinary and was composed of specialists from gastroenterology, pathology, paediatrics, neurology and dermatology. (...) Gluten-related disorders. Gluten-related disorders is a term used to describe all conditions related to gluten. We recommend that this term is used to describe all conditions related to gluten. This may include disorders such as gluten ataxia, DH, non-coeliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) and CD (...) Non-coeliac gluten sensitivity. The term NCGS relates to one or more of a variety of immunological, morphological or symptomatic manifestations that are precipitated by the ingestion of gluten in people in whom CD has been excluded. NCGS is a condition in which gluten ingestion leads to morphological or symptomatic manifestations despite the absence of CD.172e176 As opposed to CD, NCGS may show signs of an activated innate immune response but without the enteropathy, elevations in tTG, EMA or DGP antibodies, and increased mucosal permeability characteristic of CD.173 Recently, in a double-blind randomised trial, Biesiekierski et al showed that patients with NCGS truly develop symptoms when eating gluten.156 It is unclear at this time what components of grains trigger symptoms in people with NCGS and whether some populations of patients with NCGS have subtle small intestinal morphological changes. While there is currently no standard diagnostic approach to NCGS, systematic evaluation should be conducted, including exclusion of CD and other inflammatory disorders.
References
I have helped edit details on coeliac disease and some of the other gluten-related issues. I may be considered an expert on this in real life so I am careful not to push my POV. Coeliac disease is still 70-80% unrecognised (the "iceberg") because symptoms often are mild. BallenaBlanca has brought a new enthusiasm to update these pages and should be congratulated for her efforts. NCGS (and other related problems) is clearly recognised condition by experts as BB in her characteristic style points out yet again above. However, like IBS or fibromyalgia, there are many other factors contributing to this picture and it is crucial to have WP:balance and to adhere to WP:MEDRS and not have WP:UNDUE weight. BB needs to be more careful how she expresses this balance (I guess English may not be her first language). I think only excellent sources such as Systematic review and Guidelines in high impact journals should be cited and that we need to be careful not to pull out isolated quotations from parts of the text that have some balance elsewhere and to overload the article with multiple citations. This is particularly important in the articles that are more remote from the core issues of gluten-sensitivity and a gluten-free diet such as epilepsy, schizophrenia, anorexia nervosa, ADHD etc which UK NICE did not include (mostly) in their recent 2015 review [9]. This should be the standard of "accepted knowledge" at present. Some sharp and incisive editing, as jytdog is so expert at, will help! Jrfw51 ( talk)
Zad
68
12:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Pathophysiology | |
---|---|
Anaemia | Nutritional deficiencies: iron most frequently followed by folate and vitamin B12. Chronic inflammation |
Reduced bone density | Nutritional, inflammatory, autoimmune |
Arthritis | Inflammatory and/or autoinmune |
Peripheral neuropathy | Autoimmune, inflammatory |
Short stature | Nutritional, hormonal, Inflammatory |
Hepatitis | Inflammatory, autoimmune |
Dermatitis herpetiformis | Autoimmune: crossreaction of TG2 antibodies with TG3 in skin |
Eczema or psoriasis | Inflammatory |
Gluten ataxia | Autoimmmune |
Autism | Unknown |
Schizophrenia | Unknown |
Delayed puberty | Nutritional, hormonal, Inflammatory |
Hepatitis | Inflammatory, autoimmune |
Cardiovascular manifestations | Nutritional, inflammatory |
Splenic manifestations | Autoimmune, inflammatory, haemodynamic |
Pulmonary manifestations | Autoimmune |
Renal manifestations | Autoimmune |
Pancreatic manifestations | Obstructive, inflammatory |
Reproductive manifestations including impaired fertility | Nutritional, inflammatory, autoimmune |
Dental | Nutritional, inflammatory |
I cited this above but again see this edit and edit note which really encapsulates what I see as your intent here BB; you are abusing WP as a vehicle for raising awareness of gluten. Is the fact that people with celiac can eat Torta caprese really so important that it is the 2nd sentence in the article? And the content at Schizophrenia is not good: "Some evidence links epilepsy and coeliac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity, while other evidence does not." We only end up with that kind of bad content in an article where we have some POV-pusher demanding that there be some discussion of something where there is really nothing meaningful to say about it. We all get it that this is the focus of your work in the RW; that you see medicine through lens of gluten. Please take off your gluten-glasses when you edit WP and follow the heart of the literature and please do not keep emphasizing gluten everywhere, no matter how marginal it is to the topic. Jytdog ( talk) 20:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I've been watching BallenaBlanca's for awhile now without saying much, but that coupled with the comments above show textbook
WP:ADVOCACY on the subject of gluten. At quick glance, it looks like we're dealing with an
WP:SPA in that regard too as everything comes back to controversial topics on gluten or wheat. I think the writing has been on the wall for awhile that a topic-ban would likely be needed. The comments here seem to be indicate a lack of recognition of why their behavior (even if it's civil POV-pushing) is problematic and violating policy.
Editors at other venues typically don't have the background needed for ferreting out advocacy within subject matter. Probably best for this community to establish we've got an advocacy problem on this board first before ANI or considering how admin discretionary sanctions may apply. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 18:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
References
ImperfectlyInformed's comment made me reflect. I think I've had most of guilt of this situation with Jytdog. I'm afraid that I was on the defensive and I had a bad reaction, and he has reacted with hostility. [15] I apologize. I would leave this in the past and start again. I think that control in Wikipedia is very necessary, but truly I say that I am not, and I will not be, a problem.
I have no problem listening to other users. I have done so far and my intention is continuing to do. Really, I feel more comfortable if I can count on the advice and collaboration of other colleagues. One of the first things I did on Wikipedia was to contact for advice and help, after work with Doc James to block a user.
I ask you, please, read this conversations and reflect whether this is the position of a person who wants to impose his point of view or, conversely, want to find the balance and advice, in collaboration. I have no trouble recognizing my mistakes and correct them. As I said to Doc James, "I do not want any misunderstanding."
Talking with Doc James: Epilepsy (22 October 2015 to 24 October 2015 Coeliac disease 27 October 2015 to 30 October 2015 Schizophrenia 2 November 2015
Talking with Jfdwolff: Revision as of 23:14, 31 October 2015 (→Coeliac disease) (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) Revision as of 12:56, 4 November 2015 BallenaBlanca (→Coeliac disease: Very thanks and one proposition.) (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) Revision as of 19:48, 9 March 2016 BallenaBlanca (→Coeliac disease review: Ok!) (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
In addition, other users have thanked me my job, as CFCF Revision as of 15:50, 11 January 2016 CFCF and Flyer22 Reborn Revision as of 23:32, 26 February 2016 Flyer22 Reborn (→Welcome: Fine editor.)
Jytdog believes that advocates my own point of view. Well, let's take a look. I will specify the list of diseases provided by Jytdog, whom says that their relationship with celiac is my point of view. I will use some references, among the many that are [without colors or bold or underlined ;-) ] All I ask is neutral and objective judgment, without preconceived ideas nor aggressiveness towards me.
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 21:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I tried to trim this article down and was reverted. The "clinical studies" section is particularly relevant. KateWishing ( talk) 20:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Can someone with a bit more time than I ever seem to have check out the spam-creep at
Influenza_vaccine#Universal_flu_vaccines? This is an important article (approaches 200,000 page views a year) and this research section has been acquiring "breakthrough! (almost)" announcements sourced to company-published or otherwise connected sources. This could use a good cleanup and tightening down to just a paragraph or two sourced to indepenent authorities.
DGG had declined a recent draft of a newly-added company by a self-declared COI editor, but they're still adding stuff.
Jytdog this seems like right up your alley? Any help appreciated.
Zad
68
13:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Further comments appreciated here Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome#study_on_use_of_fans Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
10:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
mw:Design Research is looking for experienced editors (hundreds or thousands of edits, probably more than a year old) who haven't used WP:VisualEditor before (or at least not much/not recently). The usual setup is a scheduled video chat via Google Hangout on Air (or maybe Skype?) for 30 to 60 minutes, in English. To run the visual editor, you'll need to have a reasonably modern web browser (>95% of you already do) and to have Javascript turned on.
I think that they're hoping to find about a dozen editors for this. The responses from editors in small studies like these have a significant effect on the product direction. If anyone's interested, please let me know. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 17:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
What should be done with this new article? Aside from the obvious problems of unencyclopedic tone, etc., it seems to overlap in content with sonodynamic therapy and photodynamic therapy. Is there anything worth keeping and/or merging into one of those articles? Deli nk ( talk) 14:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I made this request at Talk:Artificial respiration#Requested move 15 April 2016. Previously discussed here. Please have a look. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 18:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Urinary tract infection Jytdog ( talk) 18:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
19:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Please evaluate this draft for acceptability. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 06:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see this showing up in the alerts but there's a proposal to merge Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs with Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 15. It's been relisted twice with no comments so it would be helpful to know if this separation is wanted or not in use or whatever. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Mass MEDRS violations Primary sources and studies are not even RS. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
19:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
"Because of lack of evidence of efficacy,[not in citation given][unreliable medical source?] KST is considered experimental by insurers who cover other chiropractic techniques.[4][3][5]"
The part "Because of lack of evidence of efficacy,[unreliable medical source?] requires a MEDRS source. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The possible MEDRS violations and possible unreliable sources have been restored. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday this radio talk was presented through an NPR affiliate.
{{
cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter |call-sign=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |program=
ignored (
help)Listen if you like. If anyone wishes, share the link. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi folks, there's an RFC at
Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome#Should_the_wiki_article_cover_the_fact_that_one_limited_study_found_a_beneficial_effect_from_fan_use.3F, opinions and comments welcome.
Zad
68
21:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
more opinions(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
10:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
See here. Hattip to User:TeeVeeed who posted at the relevant Talk page. Jytdog ( talk) 00:17, 18 April 2016 (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 75 | ← | Archive 77 | Archive 78 | Archive 79 | Archive 80 | Archive 81 | → | Archive 85 |
I thought this has might have been discussed by this project before and maybe there's a precedent someone could point me to... Does repeating a claim that something, like CAM, is a placebo require MEDRS? I know that in general FRINGE does not, but there's a debate about using the word placebo without MEDRS at Talk:Deepak Chopra#Treatment of controversy in lead. Permstrump ( talk) 21:15, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
If "the best" is not a very good source, then the it's possible that a statement is WP:UNDUE or that a different description would better comply with NPOV-- Good point, WhatamIdoing. I don't know when or who added it, but the source was definitely an odd choice. It's a literary magazine called The Antioch Review published by Antioch College, neither of which mean anything to me. The author is a medical doctor and professor at University of Louisville Medical School though, FWIW. I haven't looked for an alternate, so I honestly have no idea if that's the only or best source. A few editors thought there was basically a blanket rule that FRINGE never requires MEDRS and others thought the reference to placebo made it a different story. But I think the bottom line is, like you said, if it's DUE there should be a couple of options for sources to choose from, which would apply regardless of MEDRS. Permstrump ( talk) 22:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Once again, Ronz: Citation needed. Seriously. There are some excellent definitions of altmed available in reliable sources, and I've never yet seen one that says "CAM is whatever's no better than placebo". I've seen quite a few skeptics say that CAM is a socially constructed category that ought to be ignored by scientists (i.e., "There is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works [e.g., Cansema, labeled "alternative" but scientifically proven to permanently cure some superficial skin cancers and possessed of a very plausible scientific rationale] and medicine that doesn't work [e.g., knee arthroscopy, "mainstream" but proven to be exactly "no better than placebo]"), but I've never yet seen one that says if it's "no better than placebo" is a complete, or even accurate, definition of CAM.
So here's the challenge: Quit simply repeating your personal POV as if it were The Truth™, and start providing reliable sources. Can you produce even one proper reliable source (not an opinion piece or a website) that defines CAM as "anything that's no better than placebo", with no further qualifiers? Can you find any expert who would seriously accept black salve as "modern, evidence-based medicine", and reject knee arthroscopy as "alternative"? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 03:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The claim is "His treatments rely on the placebo effect.[8]" There is no reviews for treatments Deepak Chopra uses that mention him. I don't think MEDRS covers BLP issues about claims referring to people. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:32, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Commenters above Ronz, WhatamIdoing, LeadSongDog, BlueStove, Littleolive oil, Jytdog, Permstrump, Alexbrn -- Late to the party but I think this is important: The simple fact is that there is no single accepted definition of alternative medicine, nor one that clearly outweighs the others. See the article's well-referenced first sentence. There are multiple definitions from excellent MEDRS -- Harrison's, IOM, NSF, Angell in NEJM, WebMD, NCCIH at NIH -- some of which overlap, and a couple of which are mutually exclusive (Harrison's rebuts NSF's & Angell's). While some weigh more than others (IOM's the biggest), choosing just one of them would violate NPOV, VER and OR all at the same time. Since there is no single accepted definition, perhaps best to wikilink to the article and where necessary quote or summarize its first sentence. -- Middle 8 ( t • c | privacy • COI) 06:01, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
There are several claims being thrown around Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fire needle acupuncture with regard to WP:MEDRS's application to that article. Regardless of the fate of the article, the sourcing for the article would probably benefit from some clarification from WPM folks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:34, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
WP:N applies to whether an article should exist or not, the issues here fall under our need for neutrality when writing the article. WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE are the on-point PAGs. To quote from the former:
Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise include and describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world. [my bold]
If the only sources that exist are "in-universe" ones it would be impossible to present fringe ideas within "proper context with respect to established scholarship", so we omit it. We need mainstream sources for that. That is policy and not negotiable. Otherwise we'd be having to use ufologist texts for describing what might have happened at Roswell, TCM texts for altmed woo, psychic texts for outlining psychic abilities and so on. If some particular aspect of TCM is really weighty, it should be possible to find some decent text which has commented on it. That's certainly possible for homeopathy. Alexbrn ( talk) 13:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Is hospital computer security an important topic for Wikipedia?
My Web search for "hospital computer security" reported thousands of search results.
—
Wavelength (
talk)
23:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This is ostensibly a fashion article, but it has medical implications (or does it?). Indeed the long history of the article appears to include a small number of pro- and anit- editors, which means we cannot really judge from the article.
I would appreciate medical, or just common-sense, revision of this article, which seems to me just a little too enthusiastic about the practice.
All the best:
Rich
Farmbrough,
22:43, 5 April 2016 (UTC).
More eyes here would be helpful. This is a new article that appears to be a neologism; the sources appear to be basically copied from a google book search for the phrase "mucoid cap" strung together, from old sources or from sources that don't even use the phrase. None of the individual sources appear to suggest this is a distinct structure that would deserve its own article. Is AFD the right place for this? The editor seems to have moved mucoid plaque to mucoid plaque (alternative medicine) to make room for a disambig page for this. Yobol ( talk) 23:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
We now have a disambiguation page with two items, both of which direct to the same alt med article. JFW | T@lk 08:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:55, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
11:58, 7 April 2016 (UTC)I received this through the European Association of Science Editors. Might be useful. juanTamad ( talk) 08:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
It's for this book:
I'm looking for the Nelson, Sass, and Parnas article on page 158 so I can update the self-disorder article.-- Beneficii ( talk) 00:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I found myself reading
ADHD controversies earlier today. It's a mess and I've been trying to clean it up, but I'm getting a little stuck on what statements require MEDRS since it's a "controversy" article, for example, this statement: "Some believe that many of the traits of those diagnosed with ADHD are personality traits and are not indicative of a disorder. These traits may be undesirable in modern society, leading to difficulty functioning in society, and thus have been labeled as a disorder.
"
[2] Is this a medical claim? The author is disagreeing the medical establishment's view of ADHD. Almost the whole article would be deleted if I removed every instance of non-MEDRS sources disagreeing with the medical establishment and that doesn't feel quite "right." There probably is notable controversy that exists, but I don't know that it's supported by MEDRS. According to this
source, the debate is mainly coming from parents and educators. So how should I address non-medical professionals notably shooting from the hip and criticizing medical recommendations? It doesn't seem right to only include times doctors disagree with other doctors.
PermStrump
(talk)
04:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Zad
68
13:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)Hello everyone,
I created a new Individual Engagement grant to try and fix a problem. m:Grants:IdeaLab/Effective Engagement with Health Topic Experts using Guided Checklists
From my work with Cochrane as a Wikipedian in Residence and my observations of other attempts to engage health topic experts in editing, I've come to the conclusion that the quality of the contributions of new health topic expert recruits does not match their level of expertise and effort the we as Wikipedians put into training new medical editors. So, I decided to create a new project to develop a Guided Checklist that would assist a health topic expert in assessing the quality of a health articles on Wikipedia, and then guide their contributions toward making edits to correct the lack of quality.
My individual engagement grant would involve interviewing health topic experts and active medical editors, as well as a community consultation on Wikipedia English WikiProject Med. Please add yourself as a volunteer if you would like to participate. Or leave suggestions on the talk page. Or endorse if you support the idea. Sydney Poore/ FloNight ♥♥♥♥ 00:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
A new article has shown up, with a move request to overwrite Peripheral nervous system, for the discussion see talk:To new title:Peripheral nervous system -- 70.51.45.100 ( talk) 03:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Here Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
hat tip to User:Bradv who pointed out a new article Parkinson's Disease Biomarkers at the Talk page of the PD article. I userified it to the subject location. Is by a student. Maybe should exist; not clear. Jytdog ( talk) 23:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I came across the topiramate article while going through the cluster fuck that is Addiction#Medication (still working on it - haven't committed my edits) and noticed the article claimed it was an effective treatment for methamphetamine addiction. For context, as of right now, there is no effective treatment for a psychostimulant addiction - the relapse rate following conventional behavioral therapy is around 90% for an addiction to methamphetamine. So when I saw this and looked at the ref - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3736141/pdf/nihms483167.pdf - I was a bit disturbed to find that not only is topiramate NOT effective, it EXACERBATES methamphetamine addiction by enhancing the drug's rewarding effects. The same is true with nicotine per the same review, but the article still said it was used as an "effective treatment" for smoking cessation, citing a clinical trial.
The entire Topiramate#Medical uses section needs to be combed through to remove the primary studies and ensure the cited reviews actually support the claim being made. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 19:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I found Fungal sinusitis, a brief article that looks like it could do with some help from a topic specialist. I cleaned up the referencing but the subject is way outside my comfort zone. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
"it is most classically associated with aerospace manufacturing, microwave semiconductor electronics, beryllium mining or manufacturing of fluorescent light bulbs (which once contained beryllium compounds in their internal phosphor coating).[4][5][6][7][unreliable medical source?]" See Berylliosis#Classification. There appears to be MEDRS violations. QuackGuru ( talk) 23:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
We need to use high quality secondary sources. For example, sources that are over 50 years old are too old. QuackGuru ( talk) 01:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This article needs help with repetitive text anyway, but there is a significant discrepancy between the mortality figure reported in the lead and that reported later on. Mangoe ( talk) 15:48, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Being discussed here in a RfC Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Discuss/!vote here, at talk. -- Middle 8 ( t • c | privacy • COI) 23:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC) sp., wl 12:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi all
There is a currently a proposal to make the move above, which has not had a large number of responses so far. Please go to Talk:Anterior cochlear nucleus if you have any opinion on this matter. Thanks — Amakuru ( talk) 14:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
need opinions(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
16:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Article about the italian stem cell scam from a couple years ago. Which seems mostly over. Not sure this article should exist but it appears to have been written by a native Italian speaker and could use copyeding and some more English sources. such a story. Jytdog ( talk) 12:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
In my view User:BallenaBlanca is steadily pushing content about gluten into articles across the medical space. There is a lot of faddishness around gluten these days, and I am concerned that BallenaBlanca's gluten-related editing is skewing our articles.
Here are the top articles from BallenaBlanca's edit count:
There are also gluten-related edits to the following that would appear to be reasonably possibly related..
That is what it is and I am not going to wade into those for fear of what I will find. What is bringing me here is BallenaBlanca's editing in other articles, where this editor is consistently making claims that gluten sensitivity may be co-occurring or "may be" causative and so a gluten-elimination diet may be helpful in all kinds of other conditions.
Some of it is kind of digestive/metabolic which one can kind of see how a digestive disorder like celiac could be related maybe... like :
or clear immmune reaction like
but a whole bunch of tooth stuff (?)
But there is a whole slew of stuff that is really pushing it, in my view, like
fertility stuff:
These are the ones that are really bothering me, however:
To me this last set is really reaching into advocacy and POV pushing.
There is other stuff BallenaBlanca does like all these on Varicocele which are great and fighting off crazy people like this reversion of content that claimed that circumcision causes autism (lord knows those people never stop pushing).
But the whole "may or may not be co-morbid and a gluten-free diet may treat it" stuff should stop already, in my view. Maybe folks here find the above to be just fine. If so I will back off. Jytdog ( talk) 00:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
ESPGHAN guidelines for the diagnosis of CD were last published in 1990 (1) and at that time represented a significant improvement in both the diagnosis and management of CD. Since 1990, the understanding of the pathological processes of CD has increased enormously, leading to a change in the clinical paradigm of CD from a chronic, gluten-dependent enteropathy of childhood to a systemic disease with chronic immune features affecting different organ systems.
Extraintestinal: Failure-to-thrive, stunted growth, delayed puberty, chronic anaemia, decreased bone mineralisation (osteopenia/osteoporosis), dental enamel defects, irritability, chronic fatigue, neuropathy, arthritis/arthralgia,amenorrhea, increased levels of liver enzymes
Atypical presentation is the most common form of celiac disease (CD). (atypical --> non-classical symptoms)
CD is a common disorder in children as well as in adults. The spectrum of clinical presentations is wide, and currently extraintestinal manifestations (eg, anemia or short stature) are more common than the classic malabsorption symptoms. A high degree of awareness among health care professionals and a liberal use of serologic CD tests can help to identify many of the nonclassic cases. (..) Associated Conditions. An increasing number of studies have shown that many CD-associated problems, which originally were described mostly in adults, can indeed be observed in children or adolescents. [1]
Associated autoimmune diseases. The abnormal immunological response elicited by gluten-derived proteins can lead to the production of several different autoantibodies, which affect different systems. The most prominent autoantibodies target members of the TG family, notably IgA-class antibodies against TG2 in coeliac disease,29 TG2 and TG3 in dermatitis herpetiformis and TG6 in gluten ataxia.29–31 The levels of these antibodies are influenced by the gluten intake of patients with coeliac disease.32,33 Antibodies against coagulation factor XIII, another member of the TG family, have also been described.34 Whether this finding implicates an underlying autoimmune aspect of bleeding disorders is unclear. Antibodies to a range of other autoantigens have been reported, particularly actin, calreticulin, gangliosides, collagens, synapsin, zonulin, cardiolipin, ATP synthase subunit β and enolase.35 Interestingly, autoantibodies typically seen in general autoimmune diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematous are rarely seen in coeliac disease.35 A number of organ-specific autoimmune disorders and conditions are influenced by and associated with coeliac disease (Figure 1), but only a selection is discussed in this Review.3,36,37 Moreover, accurate, unbiased population-based data on disease prevalence are generally lacking and the published results are mainly derived from studies performed on patients who have been referred to secondary or tertiary care.
More and more diseases are proven to be associated with CD. In these conditions, screening is strongly recommended.
As understanding of CD has advanced, new disease associations have been regularly found and populations tested for CD have changed in response.(...) This review was based on PubMed literature searches and expert meetings. We aimed to define key concepts relevant to CD and related disorders. The character of the current paper implies that we did not pool any data or use any statistical tools. Instead, we assembled an international team of recognised experts in CD research, discussed definitions and tried to reach a consensus. This approach is similar to that of previous papers on definitions of CD.2e4 As opposed to previous studies,2e4 however, we did not limit ourselves to ‘CD only’ but defined a large number of concepts. In addition, we provide guidance to the scientific and clinical community as to which terms should be used and which should be abandoned. Overall, we evaluated more than 300 papers in detail and all authors participated in the discussion leading to consensus definitions. (...) Our research team was multidisciplinary and was composed of specialists from gastroenterology, pathology, paediatrics, neurology and dermatology. (...) Gluten-related disorders. Gluten-related disorders is a term used to describe all conditions related to gluten. We recommend that this term is used to describe all conditions related to gluten. This may include disorders such as gluten ataxia, DH, non-coeliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) and CD (...) Non-coeliac gluten sensitivity. The term NCGS relates to one or more of a variety of immunological, morphological or symptomatic manifestations that are precipitated by the ingestion of gluten in people in whom CD has been excluded. NCGS is a condition in which gluten ingestion leads to morphological or symptomatic manifestations despite the absence of CD.172e176 As opposed to CD, NCGS may show signs of an activated innate immune response but without the enteropathy, elevations in tTG, EMA or DGP antibodies, and increased mucosal permeability characteristic of CD.173 Recently, in a double-blind randomised trial, Biesiekierski et al showed that patients with NCGS truly develop symptoms when eating gluten.156 It is unclear at this time what components of grains trigger symptoms in people with NCGS and whether some populations of patients with NCGS have subtle small intestinal morphological changes. While there is currently no standard diagnostic approach to NCGS, systematic evaluation should be conducted, including exclusion of CD and other inflammatory disorders.
References
I have helped edit details on coeliac disease and some of the other gluten-related issues. I may be considered an expert on this in real life so I am careful not to push my POV. Coeliac disease is still 70-80% unrecognised (the "iceberg") because symptoms often are mild. BallenaBlanca has brought a new enthusiasm to update these pages and should be congratulated for her efforts. NCGS (and other related problems) is clearly recognised condition by experts as BB in her characteristic style points out yet again above. However, like IBS or fibromyalgia, there are many other factors contributing to this picture and it is crucial to have WP:balance and to adhere to WP:MEDRS and not have WP:UNDUE weight. BB needs to be more careful how she expresses this balance (I guess English may not be her first language). I think only excellent sources such as Systematic review and Guidelines in high impact journals should be cited and that we need to be careful not to pull out isolated quotations from parts of the text that have some balance elsewhere and to overload the article with multiple citations. This is particularly important in the articles that are more remote from the core issues of gluten-sensitivity and a gluten-free diet such as epilepsy, schizophrenia, anorexia nervosa, ADHD etc which UK NICE did not include (mostly) in their recent 2015 review [9]. This should be the standard of "accepted knowledge" at present. Some sharp and incisive editing, as jytdog is so expert at, will help! Jrfw51 ( talk)
Zad
68
12:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)Pathophysiology | |
---|---|
Anaemia | Nutritional deficiencies: iron most frequently followed by folate and vitamin B12. Chronic inflammation |
Reduced bone density | Nutritional, inflammatory, autoimmune |
Arthritis | Inflammatory and/or autoinmune |
Peripheral neuropathy | Autoimmune, inflammatory |
Short stature | Nutritional, hormonal, Inflammatory |
Hepatitis | Inflammatory, autoimmune |
Dermatitis herpetiformis | Autoimmune: crossreaction of TG2 antibodies with TG3 in skin |
Eczema or psoriasis | Inflammatory |
Gluten ataxia | Autoimmmune |
Autism | Unknown |
Schizophrenia | Unknown |
Delayed puberty | Nutritional, hormonal, Inflammatory |
Hepatitis | Inflammatory, autoimmune |
Cardiovascular manifestations | Nutritional, inflammatory |
Splenic manifestations | Autoimmune, inflammatory, haemodynamic |
Pulmonary manifestations | Autoimmune |
Renal manifestations | Autoimmune |
Pancreatic manifestations | Obstructive, inflammatory |
Reproductive manifestations including impaired fertility | Nutritional, inflammatory, autoimmune |
Dental | Nutritional, inflammatory |
I cited this above but again see this edit and edit note which really encapsulates what I see as your intent here BB; you are abusing WP as a vehicle for raising awareness of gluten. Is the fact that people with celiac can eat Torta caprese really so important that it is the 2nd sentence in the article? And the content at Schizophrenia is not good: "Some evidence links epilepsy and coeliac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity, while other evidence does not." We only end up with that kind of bad content in an article where we have some POV-pusher demanding that there be some discussion of something where there is really nothing meaningful to say about it. We all get it that this is the focus of your work in the RW; that you see medicine through lens of gluten. Please take off your gluten-glasses when you edit WP and follow the heart of the literature and please do not keep emphasizing gluten everywhere, no matter how marginal it is to the topic. Jytdog ( talk) 20:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
I've been watching BallenaBlanca's for awhile now without saying much, but that coupled with the comments above show textbook
WP:ADVOCACY on the subject of gluten. At quick glance, it looks like we're dealing with an
WP:SPA in that regard too as everything comes back to controversial topics on gluten or wheat. I think the writing has been on the wall for awhile that a topic-ban would likely be needed. The comments here seem to be indicate a lack of recognition of why their behavior (even if it's civil POV-pushing) is problematic and violating policy.
Editors at other venues typically don't have the background needed for ferreting out advocacy within subject matter. Probably best for this community to establish we've got an advocacy problem on this board first before ANI or considering how admin discretionary sanctions may apply. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 18:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
References
ImperfectlyInformed's comment made me reflect. I think I've had most of guilt of this situation with Jytdog. I'm afraid that I was on the defensive and I had a bad reaction, and he has reacted with hostility. [15] I apologize. I would leave this in the past and start again. I think that control in Wikipedia is very necessary, but truly I say that I am not, and I will not be, a problem.
I have no problem listening to other users. I have done so far and my intention is continuing to do. Really, I feel more comfortable if I can count on the advice and collaboration of other colleagues. One of the first things I did on Wikipedia was to contact for advice and help, after work with Doc James to block a user.
I ask you, please, read this conversations and reflect whether this is the position of a person who wants to impose his point of view or, conversely, want to find the balance and advice, in collaboration. I have no trouble recognizing my mistakes and correct them. As I said to Doc James, "I do not want any misunderstanding."
Talking with Doc James: Epilepsy (22 October 2015 to 24 October 2015 Coeliac disease 27 October 2015 to 30 October 2015 Schizophrenia 2 November 2015
Talking with Jfdwolff: Revision as of 23:14, 31 October 2015 (→Coeliac disease) (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) Revision as of 12:56, 4 November 2015 BallenaBlanca (→Coeliac disease: Very thanks and one proposition.) (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) Revision as of 19:48, 9 March 2016 BallenaBlanca (→Coeliac disease review: Ok!) (3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
In addition, other users have thanked me my job, as CFCF Revision as of 15:50, 11 January 2016 CFCF and Flyer22 Reborn Revision as of 23:32, 26 February 2016 Flyer22 Reborn (→Welcome: Fine editor.)
Jytdog believes that advocates my own point of view. Well, let's take a look. I will specify the list of diseases provided by Jytdog, whom says that their relationship with celiac is my point of view. I will use some references, among the many that are [without colors or bold or underlined ;-) ] All I ask is neutral and objective judgment, without preconceived ideas nor aggressiveness towards me.
Best regards. -- BallenaBlanca ( talk) 21:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I tried to trim this article down and was reverted. The "clinical studies" section is particularly relevant. KateWishing ( talk) 20:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Can someone with a bit more time than I ever seem to have check out the spam-creep at
Influenza_vaccine#Universal_flu_vaccines? This is an important article (approaches 200,000 page views a year) and this research section has been acquiring "breakthrough! (almost)" announcements sourced to company-published or otherwise connected sources. This could use a good cleanup and tightening down to just a paragraph or two sourced to indepenent authorities.
DGG had declined a recent draft of a newly-added company by a self-declared COI editor, but they're still adding stuff.
Jytdog this seems like right up your alley? Any help appreciated.
Zad
68
13:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Further comments appreciated here Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome#study_on_use_of_fans Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
10:31, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
mw:Design Research is looking for experienced editors (hundreds or thousands of edits, probably more than a year old) who haven't used WP:VisualEditor before (or at least not much/not recently). The usual setup is a scheduled video chat via Google Hangout on Air (or maybe Skype?) for 30 to 60 minutes, in English. To run the visual editor, you'll need to have a reasonably modern web browser (>95% of you already do) and to have Javascript turned on.
I think that they're hoping to find about a dozen editors for this. The responses from editors in small studies like these have a significant effect on the product direction. If anyone's interested, please let me know. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 17:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
What should be done with this new article? Aside from the obvious problems of unencyclopedic tone, etc., it seems to overlap in content with sonodynamic therapy and photodynamic therapy. Is there anything worth keeping and/or merging into one of those articles? Deli nk ( talk) 14:43, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I made this request at Talk:Artificial respiration#Requested move 15 April 2016. Previously discussed here. Please have a look. Fountains of Bryn Mawr ( talk) 18:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Talk:Urinary tract infection Jytdog ( talk) 18:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
19:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Please evaluate this draft for acceptability. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 06:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see this showing up in the alerts but there's a proposal to merge Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs with Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2016 April 15. It's been relisted twice with no comments so it would be helpful to know if this separation is wanted or not in use or whatever. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Mass MEDRS violations Primary sources and studies are not even RS. QuackGuru ( talk) 19:05, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
19:06, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
"Because of lack of evidence of efficacy,[not in citation given][unreliable medical source?] KST is considered experimental by insurers who cover other chiropractic techniques.[4][3][5]"
The part "Because of lack of evidence of efficacy,[unreliable medical source?] requires a MEDRS source. QuackGuru ( talk) 17:11, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The possible MEDRS violations and possible unreliable sources have been restored. QuackGuru ( talk) 15:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday this radio talk was presented through an NPR affiliate.
{{
cite interview}}
: Unknown parameter |call-sign=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |program=
ignored (
help)Listen if you like. If anyone wishes, share the link. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:28, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi folks, there's an RFC at
Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome#Should_the_wiki_article_cover_the_fact_that_one_limited_study_found_a_beneficial_effect_from_fan_use.3F, opinions and comments welcome.
Zad
68
21:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
more opinions(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
10:05, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
See here. Hattip to User:TeeVeeed who posted at the relevant Talk page. Jytdog ( talk) 00:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)