![]() | 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 85 | ← | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | → | Archive 95 |
This is pretty much a term for ordinary medicine used by homeopaths. The article doesn't present anything really new, I think it were best if we merged it — and then purged the terms: "allopathic", "allopathy", etc. from WP. Thoughts? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Sunrise makes a very good point. Does anyone know if there is research into how google defines synonyms of things? For example searching for "complementary medicine" doesn't give our article on alternative medicine — which is odd because they are the exact same thing. I'm unsure how to proceed, but I do think we should remove any undue uses of allopathy in the rest of the encyclopedia. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, by rewriting the definition of complementary medicine along the lines of what WP:LEDE suggests, and linking Complementary medicine to the subsection Alternative medicine#Complementary medicine I moved it up ~10 spots in the Google ranking… This makes me think that we could redirect allopathic medicine to a subsection of Alternative medicine#Allopathic medicine with a clear definition and some etymology and we'd still be on the top of the Google results: [2]. Thoughts? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Having glanced at this conversation, my two cents are that the merge with alternative medicine is sensible and nuanced, and covers pretty much everything we need to say about 'allopathy'. The encyclopedicness of the topic is how the term is used, and it's pretty much only used by horseshit peddling quacks. If it's used in mainstream Indian sources for conventional medicine, then we can (and should) document that too, but a note/mention in the relevant section of the alternative medicine article is all that's needed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The University of Warwick is running a course on ‘Human Sexuality’ for third year BSc Psychology students, which involves editing Wikipedia articles. This is just a heads-up that most of their editing will be taking place now, so please try to be patient with the new editors. On behalf of WMUK, I've volunteered to answer questions that the students may have about Wikipedia editing.
I've created a page at User:RexxS/Warwick for students to ask questions and get guidance; obviously, anybody interested in helping out is welcome to contribute there. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to WikiProject Medicine's own @ Doc James and AminMDMA: for speaking with the journalists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
train wreck. oy. Jytdog ( talk) 23:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey folks! The two oldest requested edits remaining are both to articles about stents: Coronary stent and Drug-eluting stent. Both requests were made by the same user who declared COI as from a marketing agency representing a stent-maker. Any chance someone who knows something about stents (i.e. not me) could take a quick look? If they're not helpful edits, feel free to close the requests as denied. I assume the requester is no longer waiting with bated breath. Thanks! Ajpolino ( talk) 00:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Could use some input here. thx Jytdog ( talk) 13:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I supported an event for Imperial College medical students on 2016/11/12, focusing on cardiology articles. The students (with supervision from their tutors, a general practitioner and support from librarians) expanded and created the below articles.
Would appreciate any feedback, they would like to start a student society for editing so guidance would be helpful. Thanks Stuart Prior (WMUK) ( talk) 10:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 09:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
more opinions(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
11:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
An IP has expressed concern that our article about Neonatal conjunctivitis mentions the use of chloramphenicol for treatment, given the risk of gray baby syndrome when this antibiotic is given to infants. I'm guessing this would only be a risk for systemic administration of chloramphenicol, whereas conjuntivitis would be treated topically. But I didn't want to revert the IP without confirmation from someone with more medical knowledge than me. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 08:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi I'm new to editing on wikipedia and wanted to get some feedback on a recent edit on this Sarcopenia article under the classification section. Thanks Danagg12 ( talk) 14:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
See https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/996984/p114505_otc_homeopathic_drug_enforcement_policy_statement.pdf I wonder if this will have an effect on articles here. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Regulars on this board saw the September 2016 post about the " Why Medical Schools Should Embrace Wikipedia" paper. The update is that Wikipedians made this poster to summarize and present that paper at the November 2016 Association of American Medical Colleges annual conference.
This poster is designed to be timeless so if anyone needs anything official looking to demonstrate the opportunity of using Wikipedia in a medical school in the next few years, then please remember that this poster exists to help anyone make the case for Wikipedia in classrooms.
The documentation for this classroom outreach project and this research are at WP:UCSF. Authors of this poster are
and again, the authors of the broader paper are those plus Bresler, David MD, MA; Leon, Armando MD; Maggio, Lauren PhD; Whitaker, Evans MD, MLIS; Orlowitz, Jake; Swisher, Valerie; Trotter, Fred; Ross, Will. We all need each other here! I <3 WikiProject Medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Can I request a second (third, fourth) opinion on Ratio of fatty acids in different foods. To me, not only is this an obvious indiscriminate collection of information, and a huge violation of WP:MEDRS, but it's packed with weaselly-worded dubious health claims. (The lead manages the impressive feat of only consisting of two sentences, each of which completely contradicts the other.) However, it's survived in this form for a few years now, so possibly other editors don't see an issue with it. ‑ Iridescent 12:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
A user, User: Mxdlvn, has been adding ELs to articles, and using as a ref, sites within mdcalc.com.
Examples:
They have been doing this off and on for several years now.
They seem to be pretty savvy about diagnosis, per edits like this (badly reffed but well intentioned), and same here.
Generally their pattern is add some content, then the EL to mdcalc.
If you review their talk page you will see that various folks have reached out to them, and they are not responsive; they have used a talk page twice, ever.
Bottom line, is mdcalc.com a useful EL or should we delete the ELs and refs to it? Should we add it to the spam blacklist?
-- Jytdog ( talk) 00:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I’m new to Wikipedia and still trying to figure out my way through the wiki world . I have a special interest in ageing. I have been adding some information to the Falls in older adults article, and really appreciate the feedback you have given me so far(on the definition section). Could you please give me some more feedback on my recent edits? English is not my first language, so I’m aware that my writing could be smoother. Thank you very much! -- MonWiki ( talk) 20:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I posted a comment to /info/en/?search=Talk:Influenza_vaccine. I want to make sure that I am interpreting the results of the systematic review properly as I propose a change to the current version of the wiki article. If you have a chance, please let me know your opinion. Thanks very much. JenOttawa ( talk) 13:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
16:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Is this stubby draft good enough for mainspace? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I realized that the US has modified their recommendations re Nasal Mist for 2016-17 flu season. I think that the wiki article should be updated accordingly, unless I am missing it. Last I heard, Canada is still supplying the nasal mist for children in 2016-2017, but also offers the injection. I am not sure about other parts of the world. Does anyone in the community want to try to tackle this in the wiki article? It comes up in a couple different sections Influenza Vaccine. It has already been addressed in the Live Attenuated Virus wiki article, and there is a link from the Influenza article, but I think that it is important to update it on the influenza vaccine page as well.
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0622-laiv-flu.html
JenOttawa ( talk) 17:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Will editors here have a look at this by Prinsgezinde ( talk · contribs), which I reverted? I reverted because it's not lead material; it's undue weight, and because it looks like POV-pushing to me. Should it be anywhere in the article? It states, "An article in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that 68% of DSM-V task-force members and 56% of panel members reported having ties to the pharmaceutical industry, such as holding stock in pharmaceutical companies, serving as consultants to industry, or serving on company boards." [1] Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
____
My sense is that most of the pages currently categorized under Category:Monoclonal antibodies really ought to be categorized under Category:Therapeutic antibodies. Populating Category:Monoclonal antibodies with recombinant antibodies used as drugs gives the sense that Monoclonal antibodies are chiefly relevant as drugs (which they're not). NickCT ( talk) 15:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the Genital modification and mutilation talk page about adding a Male genital mutilation section. See Talk:Genital modification and mutilation#Adding a Male Genital Mutilation Section. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
After the thing discussed above i put changes to wikidata on my watchlist. there was a change to the entry for parkinsons so I looked it over. all kinds of weird drugs were listed there as treatments, like Filgrastim. I removed a bunch. garbage in, garbage out... Jytdog ( talk) 11:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
{{#invoke:Sandbox/RexxS/WdRefs|seeRefs}}
into any section of an article and preview it; it will tabulate the Wikidata claims related to the article and the corresponding Wikidata references (if any). I always find it disappointing how many items are unreferenced or "imported from xyz Wikipedia", but you can understand why that is. I suppose it will only be when regular Wikipedia editors decide to curate the Wikidata entries corresponding the articles they care about that the situation will improve. --
RexxS (
talk)
21:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)I wish to confirm all the criticism stated above about Wikidata by Jytdog, RexxS, Ozzie10aaaa, and Alexbrn. Wikidata's current practice of permitted uncited content is a major problem. In the long term, lack of sourcing is intolerable. In the short term, I understand that projects need time to develop, but I think anyone would be right to worry about how long poor quality information can be tolerated and how much that poor quality information influences Wikipedia and Wikimedia content readers.
Although I have trouble imagining how to reconcile the good and bad with Wikidata, the power of the good things which I see amaze me. I also am continually surprised by the pace of development of Wikidata tools and applications, which I feel come quickly and often and with a complexity of possibility that I feel is monumental even if I do not understand them. I cannot articulate the significance of this, for example, but perhaps someone would look at this with me -
These are SPARQL queries at https://query.wikidata.org. I think that many WP:MED supporters would be interested to know that query.wikidata.org exists, and might like to check what it can do. I suggest starting with the "famous cats" query. That one is easy to understand, because it asks for all the Wikidata items that are "instance of" (which is property 31) "cat" (which is item 146). The other queries are more complicated, like "show me the breakdown of causes of death for every royal person in history", "show me the gestation time of every animal in the graphical format that I choose", or something like "map all the ABC which are not XYZ".
About the sourcing - quality control is coming. Wikidata has about 300,000 items for references. When the time comes that meta:WikiCite allows more, then I expect all 60 million of PubMed entries will be among the first to be imported, but with Wikidata currently only being 25 million entries, it would overwhelm the community there to have so many citations now. Part of the reason why Wikidata is not currently using more citations is because they do not want to manually manage a few hundred thousand like English Wikipedia - the project is anticipating grabbing PubMed, the Chinese ones, the German ones, and then the table of contents for every book and magazine in the world. I just have no idea of when this will happen, but if anyone wants to see how it will look, check out the symptoms section of gout for example d:Q133087 then follow the reference. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
We presently have three pages for scleroderma, CREST syndrome (aka limited scleroderma) and systemic scleroderma. Should we continue to do so? I would propose that we have a single page for scleroderma that includes both limited scleroderma and systemic scleroderma. Would others be okay with that? Is someone more familiar with fibrosing disorders than I am and willing to spearhead the merger? I hadn't heard about this disease until earlier today so I probably am not the best person to lead this. Best, NW ( Talk) 01:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Relative Optical Density Image Analysis and Rodia, Medical Diagnostics should be merged. 36.81.14.214 ( talk) 00:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
This article seems kind of fringy. It mainly cites the work of one researcher on a proposed psychological treatment to rebalance the brain's hemispheres after traumatic experiences apparently cause one half to become dominate. The sources look to be primary, are mostly from a single author, and half are from the nineties. It has been tagged as needing expert review for over six years. Sizeofint ( talk) 09:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Colleagues may be interested in an article I've just written, about the Monument to the X-ray and Radium Martyrs of All Nations, in Hamburg, Germany. I'd be grateful for full PDFs of the two British Journal of Radiology papers I've cited (from online previews), if anyone has access, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Seeking to confirm my layman's guess about the meaning of "spinal caries", which we mention in at least two articles, and find out what causes it, I came upon Talk:Caries, which justifies making caries into a redirect to Dental caries based on the usage of caries for an osteolytic bone lesion being antiquated. It seems we don't have any article dealing with osteolytic lesions of bone to which I can redirect the now inappropriate links going from "spinal caries" and the like to the "caries" redirect. But I note we're also using that term in one or other of those forms in at least two articles. Is there indeed some link target I've failed to find? Otherwise, I think we do need an article on caries/osteolytic bone lesions in general, similar to the scope of the pre-redirect caries article and reflecting currently used terminology. Since that was a wholly or entirely unreferenced article and I very obviously don't have the necessary educational background, I can't do this myself. Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Why so many citations for one part of one clause of one sentence?
Isn't that too many citations???
Sagecandor ( talk) 19:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Several articles have been nominated for Good article status.
If anyone's interested, then please be bold. It's not usually difficult: look at the specific criteria, and see whether it meets those. (You can ignore all other considerations.) If you'd like to give it a try but you're not feeling too bold, then I'd be happy to help you get started. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind if I ask a basic question here - I can't find a policy for what articles would fall in the scope of this Wikiproject. An editor who is not a member of the project has just added a {{ WikiProject Medicine}} tag to the article Loretta Marron, and I am not sure whether it is appropriate. This is a biographical article about Marron who is not a doctor, but she is a campaigner for evidence-based health care. Can somebody pleawse advise whether this article is appropriate for this WikiProject?-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 00:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes}}
. Add WPMED only if the person is notable for substantial contributions to medicine, set | importance=Low
, and add society=yes |society-imp=Mid
".The body mass index article gives too much weight to arguments like published here without mentioning the prevailing scientific opinion about the origins of the "obesity paradox". It was suspected for a long time that unhealthy lifestyles can also lead to low BMI e.g. smoking, but you can also have people who don't eat well due to all sorts of health reasons like depression, drugs abuse, etc. On needs to do very sophisticated statistical analysis to correct for all the relevant effects before you can reliably extract what the expected health effects to some individual would be if that person were to lose or gain weight. In this recent article the results of a rigorous analysis based on the data from the Nurses' Health Study has been published, the results are not at all surprising to me at least:
"Conclusion Although people with a higher BMI can have lower risk of premature mortality if they also have at least one low risk lifestyle factor, the lowest risk of premature mortality is in people in the 18.5-22.4 BMI range with high score on the alternate healthy eating index, high level of physical activity, moderate alcohol drinking, and who do not smoke. It is important to consider diet and lifestyle factors in the evaluation of the association between BMI and mortality."
"Discussion After adjustment for the effect of high levels of physical activity, healthy diet (AHEI scores), moderate alcohol drinking, and never smoking, men and women with a BMI in the range 18.5-22.4 have a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and total mortality. In contrast, men and women with a BMI <22.4 and unhealthy lifestyles had a significantly higher risk of mortality than overweight individuals. Our findings suggest that the U shaped relation between BMI and mortality detected in previous epidemiological studies could result from an over-representation of people in our industrialized societies who are, or most likely became, lean because of the chronic accumulation of metabolic, inflammatory, and pathological conditions caused by long term exposure to smoking, a sedentary lifestyle, and unhealthy diets. Interestingly, our data indicate that even in overweight and obese individuals, the exposure to one or more low risk lifestyle behaviors significantly reduced their risk of mortality.".
Count Iblis ( talk) 04:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Pertaining to chronic fatigue syndrome Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
That RfC is a train wreck. More eyes needed. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
In San Francisco today 28 November around 8:23am NPR aired a 5-minute conversation with James Heilman, Doc James, about medical content on Wikipedia.
I do not know how to link to their programs, but they seem to archive them at http://www.kqed.org/radio/. I see no way to listen to what they played around 8:20 this morning, and am not sure if this was part of any more broad show.
I thought I would share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I work as the Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Edinburgh and my colleague, Dr Chris Harlow ( ChrisH2015) has been running Wikipedia assignments for 4th year Honours undergraduates in the Reproductive Biology course this year & last year, whereby the students research a reproductive medicine term not represented on Wikipedia and then co-create the new article. Last year, they helped research & create the Wikipedia article on Neuroangiogenesis. Recently, while the latest iteration of the assignment was going on with approx 40 students creating 8 new articles on reproductive medicine, Chris worked to improve the Neuroangiogenesis article by citing some research findings published in reliable journals. These were flagged as WP:Primary and the edits reverted. Chris has been arguing, not unconvincingly, that the research these articles indicate should be allowed on Wikipedia as the quality of review articles can often be inferior in comparison. As a layman when it comes to writing medical articles, I realise that WP:Primary is an important issue for medical articles but I wondered if Chris had a legitimate point. Would you be able to clarify the stance on the use of such articles as sources for medical pages? Or be able to point me in the direction where such discussions should be taken? Chris would obviously be able to articulate his concern better than I so could discuss on his Talk page or here on the WikiProject Medicine Talk page perhaps? Let me know what you think anyway. Best regards, Stinglehammer ( talk) 18:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes this is a review article [20] The journal it is published in has an impact factor of 4.2 [21] Hum I have therefore restored some of the content [22] User:Stinglehammer. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
need opinions on whether to move this article to main or not?..thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone, this important page still needs experienced FAC reviewers to help give the article its final push to FA. For convenience, here is the link to the review page [27]. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 05:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
We have 11 candidates. Both myself HERE and User:Tryptofish HERE have put together our opinions on the candidates. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, please don't forget to vote in the
m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey. I have it on excellent authority that this dev team would be very pleased if you find the best proposals and advertise their existence to anyone who would benefit. There are no "canvassing" rules at Meta, and the devs explicitly say on the voting pages that a reasonable amount of "canvassing" is desirable and helpful. There are too many proposals for 99% of editors to read, so please do spread the word about the proposals that you think will be most helpful.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
01:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Paine u/ c 01:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi I am part of the Wikipedia:Cochrane online classes October 2016 and new to Wikipedia. I have made some edits on the Fibromyalgia page in the medication section with an updated Cochrane review from 2016. Please let me know your thoughts! Wikilens ( talk) 04:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Discussion here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I tried to find the Article assessment dept here to post this message, but was unsuccessful. Just wanted to let them know I changed the assessment of Pharma Medica. Ottawahitech ( talk) 11:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I posted a comment on /info/en/?search=Talk:Pain regarding removing a sentence from the wiki article, results from a single study (primary research). If you have a chance, I would like some feedback and advice on this. Thanks. JenOttawa ( talk) 14:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Female ejaculation#Image restored about whether or not to use a real-life image depicting female ejaculation. I have concerns because the existence of female ejaculation is heavily debated among scholars and people have been known to photoshop photographs to look like female ejaculation, especially in the pornography media. Some pornography actresses have faked female ejaculation onscreen. As this 2013 Cosmopolitan source states, "Porn has encouraged men to believe that when they've truly rocked a woman's body, it starts doing an impression of the Bellagio Fountain in the second-to-last scene of Ocean's Eleven." In that same source, sex therapist Ian Kerner states, "Involuntary squirting is the Loch Ness Monster of sex. In other words, an unverifiable legend." The literature commonly attributes the type of "gushing" seen in the debated photograph to the bladder (meaning urine or mostly urine, or closer to urine to than to female ejaculate). Even Kerner, in the Cosmopolitan source, categorizes gushing as "closer to pee than it is to female ejaculate." And a pornography actress in the source states that "the extreme version of squirting — is often smoke and mirrors." She believes "squirting" is real, but thinks that it's rare and difficult to achieve. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this article? Is the copypaste even relevant to the article? Natureium ( talk) 17:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Are articles about medical journals within the scope of this project? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Wondering what peoples thoughts on this as a lead image? Talk:Urinary_incontinence#Image Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
We have several threads open at Talk:Wheat:
In summary, an editor, RAMRashan, wants to remove the term "toxic" referred to wheat gluten for people with celiac disease [31] (which is used worldwide in this context for years -see [32] [33] [34] [35]), because he does not like it and against Wikipedia policies (such as WP:NPOV , WP:MEDRS, etc.).
Perhaps we are facing a WP:SPA or a WP:COI. Here are the top articles from RAMRashan's edit count:
Please, more opinions. Thanks.
Best regards. --
BallenaBlanca
(Talk)
20:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, what you say makes sense. I agree. The issue of toxicity is a matter of adapting the language for the lay readers, you're right. One observation: the percentage of sources that mention it is not relevant, it depends on the concret topic on which they focus, not always talk about pathophysiology. The fact is that it has been used for more than 40 years among specialists.
In summary, we have removed the term toxic, and two paragraphs about gluten-related disorders "is not too much in an article this size and is far from undue weight" [45], especially taking into account the format of other similar Wikipedia pages [46] and the criteria that have been followed by the editors in them [47].
Best regards. --
BallenaBlanca
(Talk)
23:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
i am exploring the safety & efficacy of using used cat litter as fertilizer. it is certainly full of nitrogen? & toxoplasmosis & ? thousands of pounds are purchased & discarded every day. how can this resource be safely reused. Can & should the new litter be modified? Most litter seems to have a clay base. Lets make some money & improve the environment by getting this stuff out of the garbage truck & landfill. Please advise - if u can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markl sparkol ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello WP Medicine members! I noticed that you make extensive use of RecentChangesLinked to produce change patrols under "Recent changes". Here's a couple Wishlist Survey proposals related to making these pages more productive:
Please consider and vote on these by December 12. Thank you for your time! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Medicine/Archive 90 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see above
For myself, I wish for " Support Wikipedia Education Program courses on Programs & Events Dashboard". I want Wikipedia in more medical schools and development of this tool would make this easier in many ways.
If anyone else wants attention, please share. The rules say, " A reasonable amount of canvassing is acceptable. You've got an opportunity to sell your idea to as many people as you can reach. Feel free to reach out to other people in your project, WikiProject or user group." Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I haven't read the lists myself, but Wikivoyage seems interested in these two:
The first is interesting to WPMED, since it would let us fix problems with Wikidata descriptions (seen in some search results) and other things easily. I haven't read up on KML files, so I'm not sure if this would be useful to us (e.g., to make maps of disease prevalence). If anyone's aware of other lists, please feel free to share links with me. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
eyes would be useful, thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 03:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that the Diagnosis section in Draft:Cerebral Folate Deficiency related to Folate Receptor Autoantibodies in Autism may be an indicator of why this subject is important to its author. I've commented on the talk page there. -- RexxS ( talk) 14:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Argh. That draft was moved to main space. I looked at the sourcing carefully. Several articles by E.V. Quadros and J.M. Sequeira were cited (most of them not MEDRS). The papers disclose that the two of them are inventors of methods to diagnose various things by detecting folate receptor autoantibodies. This appears to be PROMO or advocacy. Oy. I have redirected to Folate deficiency and put one sentence in a new Research section. Jytdog ( talk) 22:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see Structured Triage System, the sources are all in Spanish so proficiency in the language would be useful. The topic seems clearly notable but the devil's in the detail, in some areas the referencing seems a bit thin. It could also do with more wikilinks. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure who organized this. The event was hosted at Imperial College London. They tweeted updates, which show that apparently they had t-shirts and hoodies made especially for this event. Battleofalma, you tweeted about this event. Do you know who managed this or how it came to happen? Great event! Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello medical experts. The draft above has a lot of sources, but I don't see anything in them about "neural empowerment". Is this a neologism? If so, I will decline the draft.— Anne Delong ( talk) 00:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I have been working on the Transgender health care article and believe that it has improved past a Start-class designation. I would love to have people look at the article and give me any feedback that they might have! Brookeenglish ( talk) 22:15, 9 December 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 85 | ← | Archive 88 | Archive 89 | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | → | Archive 95 |
This is pretty much a term for ordinary medicine used by homeopaths. The article doesn't present anything really new, I think it were best if we merged it — and then purged the terms: "allopathic", "allopathy", etc. from WP. Thoughts? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Sunrise makes a very good point. Does anyone know if there is research into how google defines synonyms of things? For example searching for "complementary medicine" doesn't give our article on alternative medicine — which is odd because they are the exact same thing. I'm unsure how to proceed, but I do think we should remove any undue uses of allopathy in the rest of the encyclopedia. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Hmm, by rewriting the definition of complementary medicine along the lines of what WP:LEDE suggests, and linking Complementary medicine to the subsection Alternative medicine#Complementary medicine I moved it up ~10 spots in the Google ranking… This makes me think that we could redirect allopathic medicine to a subsection of Alternative medicine#Allopathic medicine with a clear definition and some etymology and we'd still be on the top of the Google results: [2]. Thoughts? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:01, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Having glanced at this conversation, my two cents are that the merge with alternative medicine is sensible and nuanced, and covers pretty much everything we need to say about 'allopathy'. The encyclopedicness of the topic is how the term is used, and it's pretty much only used by horseshit peddling quacks. If it's used in mainstream Indian sources for conventional medicine, then we can (and should) document that too, but a note/mention in the relevant section of the alternative medicine article is all that's needed. Headbomb { talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:44, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
The University of Warwick is running a course on ‘Human Sexuality’ for third year BSc Psychology students, which involves editing Wikipedia articles. This is just a heads-up that most of their editing will be taking place now, so please try to be patient with the new editors. On behalf of WMUK, I've volunteered to answer questions that the students may have about Wikipedia editing.
I've created a page at User:RexxS/Warwick for students to ask questions and get guidance; obviously, anybody interested in helping out is welcome to contribute there. -- RexxS ( talk) 22:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks to WikiProject Medicine's own @ Doc James and AminMDMA: for speaking with the journalists. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
train wreck. oy. Jytdog ( talk) 23:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Hey folks! The two oldest requested edits remaining are both to articles about stents: Coronary stent and Drug-eluting stent. Both requests were made by the same user who declared COI as from a marketing agency representing a stent-maker. Any chance someone who knows something about stents (i.e. not me) could take a quick look? If they're not helpful edits, feel free to close the requests as denied. I assume the requester is no longer waiting with bated breath. Thanks! Ajpolino ( talk) 00:30, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Could use some input here. thx Jytdog ( talk) 13:28, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I supported an event for Imperial College medical students on 2016/11/12, focusing on cardiology articles. The students (with supervision from their tutors, a general practitioner and support from librarians) expanded and created the below articles.
Would appreciate any feedback, they would like to start a student society for editing so guidance would be helpful. Thanks Stuart Prior (WMUK) ( talk) 10:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 09:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
more opinions(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
11:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
An IP has expressed concern that our article about Neonatal conjunctivitis mentions the use of chloramphenicol for treatment, given the risk of gray baby syndrome when this antibiotic is given to infants. I'm guessing this would only be a risk for systemic administration of chloramphenicol, whereas conjuntivitis would be treated topically. But I didn't want to revert the IP without confirmation from someone with more medical knowledge than me. Adrian J. Hunter( talk• contribs) 08:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi I'm new to editing on wikipedia and wanted to get some feedback on a recent edit on this Sarcopenia article under the classification section. Thanks Danagg12 ( talk) 14:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
See https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/996984/p114505_otc_homeopathic_drug_enforcement_policy_statement.pdf I wonder if this will have an effect on articles here. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:10, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Regulars on this board saw the September 2016 post about the " Why Medical Schools Should Embrace Wikipedia" paper. The update is that Wikipedians made this poster to summarize and present that paper at the November 2016 Association of American Medical Colleges annual conference.
This poster is designed to be timeless so if anyone needs anything official looking to demonstrate the opportunity of using Wikipedia in a medical school in the next few years, then please remember that this poster exists to help anyone make the case for Wikipedia in classrooms.
The documentation for this classroom outreach project and this research are at WP:UCSF. Authors of this poster are
and again, the authors of the broader paper are those plus Bresler, David MD, MA; Leon, Armando MD; Maggio, Lauren PhD; Whitaker, Evans MD, MLIS; Orlowitz, Jake; Swisher, Valerie; Trotter, Fred; Ross, Will. We all need each other here! I <3 WikiProject Medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Can I request a second (third, fourth) opinion on Ratio of fatty acids in different foods. To me, not only is this an obvious indiscriminate collection of information, and a huge violation of WP:MEDRS, but it's packed with weaselly-worded dubious health claims. (The lead manages the impressive feat of only consisting of two sentences, each of which completely contradicts the other.) However, it's survived in this form for a few years now, so possibly other editors don't see an issue with it. ‑ Iridescent 12:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
A user, User: Mxdlvn, has been adding ELs to articles, and using as a ref, sites within mdcalc.com.
Examples:
They have been doing this off and on for several years now.
They seem to be pretty savvy about diagnosis, per edits like this (badly reffed but well intentioned), and same here.
Generally their pattern is add some content, then the EL to mdcalc.
If you review their talk page you will see that various folks have reached out to them, and they are not responsive; they have used a talk page twice, ever.
Bottom line, is mdcalc.com a useful EL or should we delete the ELs and refs to it? Should we add it to the spam blacklist?
-- Jytdog ( talk) 00:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I’m new to Wikipedia and still trying to figure out my way through the wiki world . I have a special interest in ageing. I have been adding some information to the Falls in older adults article, and really appreciate the feedback you have given me so far(on the definition section). Could you please give me some more feedback on my recent edits? English is not my first language, so I’m aware that my writing could be smoother. Thank you very much! -- MonWiki ( talk) 20:38, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I posted a comment to /info/en/?search=Talk:Influenza_vaccine. I want to make sure that I am interpreting the results of the systematic review properly as I propose a change to the current version of the wiki article. If you have a chance, please let me know your opinion. Thanks very much. JenOttawa ( talk) 13:17, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)--
Ozzie10aaaa (
talk)
16:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Is this stubby draft good enough for mainspace? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 08:56, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I realized that the US has modified their recommendations re Nasal Mist for 2016-17 flu season. I think that the wiki article should be updated accordingly, unless I am missing it. Last I heard, Canada is still supplying the nasal mist for children in 2016-2017, but also offers the injection. I am not sure about other parts of the world. Does anyone in the community want to try to tackle this in the wiki article? It comes up in a couple different sections Influenza Vaccine. It has already been addressed in the Live Attenuated Virus wiki article, and there is a link from the Influenza article, but I think that it is important to update it on the influenza vaccine page as well.
http://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2016/s0622-laiv-flu.html
JenOttawa ( talk) 17:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Will editors here have a look at this by Prinsgezinde ( talk · contribs), which I reverted? I reverted because it's not lead material; it's undue weight, and because it looks like POV-pushing to me. Should it be anywhere in the article? It states, "An article in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that 68% of DSM-V task-force members and 56% of panel members reported having ties to the pharmaceutical industry, such as holding stock in pharmaceutical companies, serving as consultants to industry, or serving on company boards." [1] Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:02, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
____
My sense is that most of the pages currently categorized under Category:Monoclonal antibodies really ought to be categorized under Category:Therapeutic antibodies. Populating Category:Monoclonal antibodies with recombinant antibodies used as drugs gives the sense that Monoclonal antibodies are chiefly relevant as drugs (which they're not). NickCT ( talk) 15:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at the Genital modification and mutilation talk page about adding a Male genital mutilation section. See Talk:Genital modification and mutilation#Adding a Male Genital Mutilation Section. Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:34, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
After the thing discussed above i put changes to wikidata on my watchlist. there was a change to the entry for parkinsons so I looked it over. all kinds of weird drugs were listed there as treatments, like Filgrastim. I removed a bunch. garbage in, garbage out... Jytdog ( talk) 11:12, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
{{#invoke:Sandbox/RexxS/WdRefs|seeRefs}}
into any section of an article and preview it; it will tabulate the Wikidata claims related to the article and the corresponding Wikidata references (if any). I always find it disappointing how many items are unreferenced or "imported from xyz Wikipedia", but you can understand why that is. I suppose it will only be when regular Wikipedia editors decide to curate the Wikidata entries corresponding the articles they care about that the situation will improve. --
RexxS (
talk)
21:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)I wish to confirm all the criticism stated above about Wikidata by Jytdog, RexxS, Ozzie10aaaa, and Alexbrn. Wikidata's current practice of permitted uncited content is a major problem. In the long term, lack of sourcing is intolerable. In the short term, I understand that projects need time to develop, but I think anyone would be right to worry about how long poor quality information can be tolerated and how much that poor quality information influences Wikipedia and Wikimedia content readers.
Although I have trouble imagining how to reconcile the good and bad with Wikidata, the power of the good things which I see amaze me. I also am continually surprised by the pace of development of Wikidata tools and applications, which I feel come quickly and often and with a complexity of possibility that I feel is monumental even if I do not understand them. I cannot articulate the significance of this, for example, but perhaps someone would look at this with me -
These are SPARQL queries at https://query.wikidata.org. I think that many WP:MED supporters would be interested to know that query.wikidata.org exists, and might like to check what it can do. I suggest starting with the "famous cats" query. That one is easy to understand, because it asks for all the Wikidata items that are "instance of" (which is property 31) "cat" (which is item 146). The other queries are more complicated, like "show me the breakdown of causes of death for every royal person in history", "show me the gestation time of every animal in the graphical format that I choose", or something like "map all the ABC which are not XYZ".
About the sourcing - quality control is coming. Wikidata has about 300,000 items for references. When the time comes that meta:WikiCite allows more, then I expect all 60 million of PubMed entries will be among the first to be imported, but with Wikidata currently only being 25 million entries, it would overwhelm the community there to have so many citations now. Part of the reason why Wikidata is not currently using more citations is because they do not want to manually manage a few hundred thousand like English Wikipedia - the project is anticipating grabbing PubMed, the Chinese ones, the German ones, and then the table of contents for every book and magazine in the world. I just have no idea of when this will happen, but if anyone wants to see how it will look, check out the symptoms section of gout for example d:Q133087 then follow the reference. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
We presently have three pages for scleroderma, CREST syndrome (aka limited scleroderma) and systemic scleroderma. Should we continue to do so? I would propose that we have a single page for scleroderma that includes both limited scleroderma and systemic scleroderma. Would others be okay with that? Is someone more familiar with fibrosing disorders than I am and willing to spearhead the merger? I hadn't heard about this disease until earlier today so I probably am not the best person to lead this. Best, NW ( Talk) 01:47, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Relative Optical Density Image Analysis and Rodia, Medical Diagnostics should be merged. 36.81.14.214 ( talk) 00:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
This article seems kind of fringy. It mainly cites the work of one researcher on a proposed psychological treatment to rebalance the brain's hemispheres after traumatic experiences apparently cause one half to become dominate. The sources look to be primary, are mostly from a single author, and half are from the nineties. It has been tagged as needing expert review for over six years. Sizeofint ( talk) 09:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Colleagues may be interested in an article I've just written, about the Monument to the X-ray and Radium Martyrs of All Nations, in Hamburg, Germany. I'd be grateful for full PDFs of the two British Journal of Radiology papers I've cited (from online previews), if anyone has access, please. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Seeking to confirm my layman's guess about the meaning of "spinal caries", which we mention in at least two articles, and find out what causes it, I came upon Talk:Caries, which justifies making caries into a redirect to Dental caries based on the usage of caries for an osteolytic bone lesion being antiquated. It seems we don't have any article dealing with osteolytic lesions of bone to which I can redirect the now inappropriate links going from "spinal caries" and the like to the "caries" redirect. But I note we're also using that term in one or other of those forms in at least two articles. Is there indeed some link target I've failed to find? Otherwise, I think we do need an article on caries/osteolytic bone lesions in general, similar to the scope of the pre-redirect caries article and reflecting currently used terminology. Since that was a wholly or entirely unreferenced article and I very obviously don't have the necessary educational background, I can't do this myself. Yngvadottir ( talk) 21:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Why so many citations for one part of one clause of one sentence?
Isn't that too many citations???
Sagecandor ( talk) 19:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Several articles have been nominated for Good article status.
If anyone's interested, then please be bold. It's not usually difficult: look at the specific criteria, and see whether it meets those. (You can ignore all other considerations.) If you'd like to give it a try but you're not feeling too bold, then I'd be happy to help you get started. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind if I ask a basic question here - I can't find a policy for what articles would fall in the scope of this Wikiproject. An editor who is not a member of the project has just added a {{ WikiProject Medicine}} tag to the article Loretta Marron, and I am not sure whether it is appropriate. This is a biographical article about Marron who is not a doctor, but she is a campaigner for evidence-based health care. Can somebody pleawse advise whether this article is appropriate for this WikiProject?-- Gronk Oz ( talk) 00:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
WikiProject Biography|s&a-work-group=yes}}
. Add WPMED only if the person is notable for substantial contributions to medicine, set | importance=Low
, and add society=yes |society-imp=Mid
".The body mass index article gives too much weight to arguments like published here without mentioning the prevailing scientific opinion about the origins of the "obesity paradox". It was suspected for a long time that unhealthy lifestyles can also lead to low BMI e.g. smoking, but you can also have people who don't eat well due to all sorts of health reasons like depression, drugs abuse, etc. On needs to do very sophisticated statistical analysis to correct for all the relevant effects before you can reliably extract what the expected health effects to some individual would be if that person were to lose or gain weight. In this recent article the results of a rigorous analysis based on the data from the Nurses' Health Study has been published, the results are not at all surprising to me at least:
"Conclusion Although people with a higher BMI can have lower risk of premature mortality if they also have at least one low risk lifestyle factor, the lowest risk of premature mortality is in people in the 18.5-22.4 BMI range with high score on the alternate healthy eating index, high level of physical activity, moderate alcohol drinking, and who do not smoke. It is important to consider diet and lifestyle factors in the evaluation of the association between BMI and mortality."
"Discussion After adjustment for the effect of high levels of physical activity, healthy diet (AHEI scores), moderate alcohol drinking, and never smoking, men and women with a BMI in the range 18.5-22.4 have a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and total mortality. In contrast, men and women with a BMI <22.4 and unhealthy lifestyles had a significantly higher risk of mortality than overweight individuals. Our findings suggest that the U shaped relation between BMI and mortality detected in previous epidemiological studies could result from an over-representation of people in our industrialized societies who are, or most likely became, lean because of the chronic accumulation of metabolic, inflammatory, and pathological conditions caused by long term exposure to smoking, a sedentary lifestyle, and unhealthy diets. Interestingly, our data indicate that even in overweight and obese individuals, the exposure to one or more low risk lifestyle behaviors significantly reduced their risk of mortality.".
Count Iblis ( talk) 04:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Pertaining to chronic fatigue syndrome Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
That RfC is a train wreck. More eyes needed. -- RexxS ( talk) 23:46, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
In San Francisco today 28 November around 8:23am NPR aired a 5-minute conversation with James Heilman, Doc James, about medical content on Wikipedia.
I do not know how to link to their programs, but they seem to archive them at http://www.kqed.org/radio/. I see no way to listen to what they played around 8:20 this morning, and am not sure if this was part of any more broad show.
I thought I would share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I work as the Wikimedian in Residence at the University of Edinburgh and my colleague, Dr Chris Harlow ( ChrisH2015) has been running Wikipedia assignments for 4th year Honours undergraduates in the Reproductive Biology course this year & last year, whereby the students research a reproductive medicine term not represented on Wikipedia and then co-create the new article. Last year, they helped research & create the Wikipedia article on Neuroangiogenesis. Recently, while the latest iteration of the assignment was going on with approx 40 students creating 8 new articles on reproductive medicine, Chris worked to improve the Neuroangiogenesis article by citing some research findings published in reliable journals. These were flagged as WP:Primary and the edits reverted. Chris has been arguing, not unconvincingly, that the research these articles indicate should be allowed on Wikipedia as the quality of review articles can often be inferior in comparison. As a layman when it comes to writing medical articles, I realise that WP:Primary is an important issue for medical articles but I wondered if Chris had a legitimate point. Would you be able to clarify the stance on the use of such articles as sources for medical pages? Or be able to point me in the direction where such discussions should be taken? Chris would obviously be able to articulate his concern better than I so could discuss on his Talk page or here on the WikiProject Medicine Talk page perhaps? Let me know what you think anyway. Best regards, Stinglehammer ( talk) 18:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes this is a review article [20] The journal it is published in has an impact factor of 4.2 [21] Hum I have therefore restored some of the content [22] User:Stinglehammer. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
need opinions on whether to move this article to main or not?..thank you-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 18:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello everyone, this important page still needs experienced FAC reviewers to help give the article its final push to FA. For convenience, here is the link to the review page [27]. TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 05:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
We have 11 candidates. Both myself HERE and User:Tryptofish HERE have put together our opinions on the candidates. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 08:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, please don't forget to vote in the
m:2016 Community Wishlist Survey. I have it on excellent authority that this dev team would be very pleased if you find the best proposals and advertise their existence to anyone who would benefit. There are no "canvassing" rules at Meta, and the devs explicitly say on the voting pages that a reasonable amount of "canvassing" is desirable and helpful. There are too many proposals for 99% of editors to read, so please do spread the word about the proposals that you think will be most helpful.
WhatamIdoing (
talk)
01:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Carl Jung#Requested move 14 November 2016, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Paine u/ c 01:34, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
give opinion(gave mine)-- Ozzie10aaaa ( talk) 10:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi I am part of the Wikipedia:Cochrane online classes October 2016 and new to Wikipedia. I have made some edits on the Fibromyalgia page in the medication section with an updated Cochrane review from 2016. Please let me know your thoughts! Wikilens ( talk) 04:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Discussion here. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I tried to find the Article assessment dept here to post this message, but was unsuccessful. Just wanted to let them know I changed the assessment of Pharma Medica. Ottawahitech ( talk) 11:14, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I posted a comment on /info/en/?search=Talk:Pain regarding removing a sentence from the wiki article, results from a single study (primary research). If you have a chance, I would like some feedback and advice on this. Thanks. JenOttawa ( talk) 14:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Female ejaculation#Image restored about whether or not to use a real-life image depicting female ejaculation. I have concerns because the existence of female ejaculation is heavily debated among scholars and people have been known to photoshop photographs to look like female ejaculation, especially in the pornography media. Some pornography actresses have faked female ejaculation onscreen. As this 2013 Cosmopolitan source states, "Porn has encouraged men to believe that when they've truly rocked a woman's body, it starts doing an impression of the Bellagio Fountain in the second-to-last scene of Ocean's Eleven." In that same source, sex therapist Ian Kerner states, "Involuntary squirting is the Loch Ness Monster of sex. In other words, an unverifiable legend." The literature commonly attributes the type of "gushing" seen in the debated photograph to the bladder (meaning urine or mostly urine, or closer to urine to than to female ejaculate). Even Kerner, in the Cosmopolitan source, categorizes gushing as "closer to pee than it is to female ejaculate." And a pornography actress in the source states that "the extreme version of squirting — is often smoke and mirrors." She believes "squirting" is real, but thinks that it's rare and difficult to achieve. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 06:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Can someone take a look at this article? Is the copypaste even relevant to the article? Natureium ( talk) 17:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Are articles about medical journals within the scope of this project? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 09:22, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Wondering what peoples thoughts on this as a lead image? Talk:Urinary_incontinence#Image Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
We have several threads open at Talk:Wheat:
In summary, an editor, RAMRashan, wants to remove the term "toxic" referred to wheat gluten for people with celiac disease [31] (which is used worldwide in this context for years -see [32] [33] [34] [35]), because he does not like it and against Wikipedia policies (such as WP:NPOV , WP:MEDRS, etc.).
Perhaps we are facing a WP:SPA or a WP:COI. Here are the top articles from RAMRashan's edit count:
Please, more opinions. Thanks.
Best regards. --
BallenaBlanca
(Talk)
20:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing, what you say makes sense. I agree. The issue of toxicity is a matter of adapting the language for the lay readers, you're right. One observation: the percentage of sources that mention it is not relevant, it depends on the concret topic on which they focus, not always talk about pathophysiology. The fact is that it has been used for more than 40 years among specialists.
In summary, we have removed the term toxic, and two paragraphs about gluten-related disorders "is not too much in an article this size and is far from undue weight" [45], especially taking into account the format of other similar Wikipedia pages [46] and the criteria that have been followed by the editors in them [47].
Best regards. --
BallenaBlanca
(Talk)
23:30, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
i am exploring the safety & efficacy of using used cat litter as fertilizer. it is certainly full of nitrogen? & toxoplasmosis & ? thousands of pounds are purchased & discarded every day. how can this resource be safely reused. Can & should the new litter be modified? Most litter seems to have a clay base. Lets make some money & improve the environment by getting this stuff out of the garbage truck & landfill. Please advise - if u can? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markl sparkol ( talk • contribs) 00:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello WP Medicine members! I noticed that you make extensive use of RecentChangesLinked to produce change patrols under "Recent changes". Here's a couple Wishlist Survey proposals related to making these pages more productive:
Please consider and vote on these by December 12. Thank you for your time! Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 23:11, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Greetings WikiProject Medicine/Archive 90 Members!
This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:
If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.
Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.
Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.
Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see above
For myself, I wish for " Support Wikipedia Education Program courses on Programs & Events Dashboard". I want Wikipedia in more medical schools and development of this tool would make this easier in many ways.
If anyone else wants attention, please share. The rules say, " A reasonable amount of canvassing is acceptable. You've got an opportunity to sell your idea to as many people as you can reach. Feel free to reach out to other people in your project, WikiProject or user group." Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:59, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
I haven't read the lists myself, but Wikivoyage seems interested in these two:
The first is interesting to WPMED, since it would let us fix problems with Wikidata descriptions (seen in some search results) and other things easily. I haven't read up on KML files, so I'm not sure if this would be useful to us (e.g., to make maps of disease prevalence). If anyone's aware of other lists, please feel free to share links with me. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 01:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
eyes would be useful, thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 03:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that the Diagnosis section in Draft:Cerebral Folate Deficiency related to Folate Receptor Autoantibodies in Autism may be an indicator of why this subject is important to its author. I've commented on the talk page there. -- RexxS ( talk) 14:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Argh. That draft was moved to main space. I looked at the sourcing carefully. Several articles by E.V. Quadros and J.M. Sequeira were cited (most of them not MEDRS). The papers disclose that the two of them are inventors of methods to diagnose various things by detecting folate receptor autoantibodies. This appears to be PROMO or advocacy. Oy. I have redirected to Folate deficiency and put one sentence in a new Research section. Jytdog ( talk) 22:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Please see Structured Triage System, the sources are all in Spanish so proficiency in the language would be useful. The topic seems clearly notable but the devil's in the detail, in some areas the referencing seems a bit thin. It could also do with more wikilinks. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 07:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure who organized this. The event was hosted at Imperial College London. They tweeted updates, which show that apparently they had t-shirts and hoodies made especially for this event. Battleofalma, you tweeted about this event. Do you know who managed this or how it came to happen? Great event! Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:54, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello medical experts. The draft above has a lot of sources, but I don't see anything in them about "neural empowerment". Is this a neologism? If so, I will decline the draft.— Anne Delong ( talk) 00:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I have been working on the Transgender health care article and believe that it has improved past a Start-class designation. I would love to have people look at the article and give me any feedback that they might have! Brookeenglish ( talk) 22:15, 9 December 2016 (UTC)