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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
The WMF has agreements with a number of cell phone companies to give free access (without data charges) to all of Wikipedia to 470 million people. If people however click on our references via their cellphone they will incur data charges.
Have been in discussions with Wiley regarding the release of the abstracts of Cochrane reviews under a CC-BY-SA license and hopefully the entire paper under this license one day. My hope is that it might be possible to place theses abstracts somewhere within Wikipedia and link them from the references thus allowing our readers via the cellphone partnerships to get free access. I have discussed this with Kul and he does not see it as a concern. What are peoples thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Do people think adding CC BY articles we use as refs to someplace on Wikipedia so that those who get free WP access via their cell phone can get free journal article access as well is a good idea? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
People might want to keep an eye on the topics that are being proposed for new articles at Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013). Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
A centralised point of discussion for this topic can be found here, on the WP:Neuroscience talk page. LT90001 ( talk) 11:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
University of California San Francisco's medical program is continuing to develop their Wikipedia collaboration. See their report. This is supported by some participants in meta:Wiki Project Med. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Recent changes are being made to this article by very new editor MissMargaretBlack ( talk · contribs). Eyes other than mine on these changes, or the article as a whole, seem as though they would be very useful. I have not yet examined all of MissMargaretBlack's changes, as I am busy with other matters on and off (especially off) Wikipedia at the moment. I'm reverting vandalism and other unconstructive edits intermittently, like I usually do these days. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I WP:PRODded Thomas G. Cangiano because as-written it does not clearly show that the person is notable. However, he is close, which means that if there is something I missed or something the author missed he very well might be actually notable.
Please read the article and clarify notability and de-prod the article if he is notable or if he is not, consider adding {{ prod2}}. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The article perineal dilator cites a handful of sources from one company about its product. The device is also mentioned at Episiotomy as if it were a common option. Searching PubMed gets just a few hits focusing on severe situations like vaginal agenesis. [1] I am leaning toward the notion of doing something drastic to the article - suggestions? Wnt ( talk) 22:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
[3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. I've wanted to help rework the project page for a while now. I've made quite a few edits, but I'd like to take it to the next level (with consensus of course, and an old idea I had along these lines was shared
here.) Given that this ambition has been on my to-do list for too long, I've decided to submit an Individual Engagement Grant to the tune of $300 (now reduced to $10) dollars to force me focus on the task. Your input at
m:Grants:IEG/A redesigned WikiProject Medicine page would be appreciated. Thanks.
Biosthmors (
talk) pls
notify me (i.e. {{
U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I feel strongly that the page must remain easy to edit. I do not mind it being improved but I want even newbies to be able to make changes to it. I would struggle to edit the military page. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Should we invite the "information dissemination decision-makers" from the WHO, the world's major medical education charities, and relevant government and specialist bodies to a conference, to discuss strategies and create opportunities to collaborate in the building of easily identified comprehensive and reliable free medical medical information online? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
There has been some edit-warring on this page over the inclusion of negative names for peyote. As I've been involved, I'm reluctant to do more, so I would be grateful if someone from this project would look at Peyote#Long-term psychoactive use, which seems to me not in accord with WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I think there should also a focus on the alternative medicine pages. I feel that these pages seem in many cases to give too much credence to practices that often seem to be lacking in evidence or only supported by poorly conducted trials. It seems, particularly in the case of Chiropractic that too much weight is given to trials that show little benefit, and their seems to be NPOV issues where people's livelihood is based on what scientifically is often regarded as pseudoscience. After all, it's just as important to show what 'medical' treatment has no effect (or is possibly dangerous) as to show what is effective Macgroover ( talk) 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello again, medical experts. The above submission at Afc may be of interest. — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
New thread so that we don't have an extremely long one thru next month. Consensus seems to be Digestive Diseases in the style of a barn raising (heh) LT90001 ( talk) 06:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
There once was a bot maintained by Rich Farmborough that fed recent changes to medical articles (articles with this project's template on their talk page) into page like a watchlist. Since Rich was blocked from bot work, it has fallen into disrepair. Is there an alternative page that displays recent changes to medical articles? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Got it. Peter James at WP:VPT pointed out Transcluded changes - template:WikiProject Medicine. Does anyone mind if I put this on the WP:MED front page? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Related to this seems to be what should be an important function, in my mind, so thanks for actively working on this global issue at mw:Mentorship_programs/Possible_projects#Ranking_articles_by_Pageviews_for_Wikiprojects_and_Task_Forces_in_Languages_other_than_English James—to make the vision a reality. So why can't we just have a WikiProject Medicine watchlist? Or any other WikiProject watchlist? Why can't we have a featured articles watchlist? Or a good articles watchlist? Or whatever kind of watchlist we want? Sorry that's more something for the WP:Village pumps but still. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia, My name is Jordan, I am an undergraduate at Rice University, and I am here to propose the writing of a new Wikipedia article on Diarrhea in Developing Regions. Diarrheal diseases are among the most prolific in the world, accounting for a significant fraction of all infections, as well as a massive number of child mortalities. Given that children with diarrhea are significantly more likely to die, most within the first two years of life, Diarrheal diseases are a serious threat to the livelihood of children globally. Clearly, diarrheal disease is a significant issue in developing regions, and I hope to use this Wikipedia entry to outline the impacts of diarrheal disease, elucidate the primary causes of the issue (usually linking back to poverty and limited access to vital resources and human capabilities) and finally discuss both potential solutions and those that have already been implemented in these at-risk regions. I will draw my information from a variety of academic sources, mainly from journal articles, but also from information and data made available by some of the major organizations interested in this topic such as the CDC, and WHO. Though a page already exists on the topic of Diarrhea, it approaches the topic from a highly scientific/medical perspective which is incompatible with my approach and proposed writing on this topic, which will take a point of view more oriented around the concepts of poverty, justice and human capabilities. Another related page, Diseases of poverty, already exists, however this article approaches a number of different diseases with depth; if I were to add to this page, my content would dramatically outweigh the content on any other disease. Instead of extending on these pages, I propose the development of a new page on the topic of Diarrhea in Developing Regions, which will focus on the topics I outlined above. In order to supplement the existing articles, I plan to add small sections to these pages with a brief summary of the information that will be present on the proposed page, and add links between these three pages. Any comments, questions, or suggestions that I can use to improve my work are greatly appreciated! -- Best, Jpoles1 ( talk) 20:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi All, I really appreciate all of the help being provided to support this small project. Though I recognize that articles on the subjects of both Diarrhea and Gastroenteritis exist, I hope to approach this topic from a non-medical perspective (I know, I'm probably not in the most ideal wikigroup for such an endeavor, but I think it's a productive discussion all the same), but rather from a human capabilities point of view, which focuses more on the impacts on human development and quality of life. A more detailed proposal for my work, including many of my sources, can be found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e8yzk7dj1MxIRIfa6aqykydIlhybukAgITgp4QDW9DY/ Thanks Again, Jpoles1 ( talk) 01:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Anthonyhcole (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I would still like to do the study I described. IMO that is one of the best and simplest ways to compare Wikipedia to UpToDate or another source. Do we have people interested in doing this study? How would it be done? We have had groups do comparisons of specific topic areas like nephrology and psyc but not of medical content generally. If someone was keen to do this I would be happy to provide feedback. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
More eyes needed. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Anyone know if that was an improvement off the top of their head. I seem to remember AUG though without context. I'd have to look it up. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
So this article looks entirely promotional to me, written entirely by one person. It has been tagged as WP:MED by someone else. One of my issues is that all of the links to media establishing WP:N are actually hosted on the website of the article topic. This, to me, would seem to run afoul of WP:CITE where it says that external links, when they are duplicates of other media, should be in compliance with NPOV.
I removed these links individually, as well as some sources I believe to be non-RS, and made sure to tag them as such so that they could be reverted individually. I have started a discussion on the talk page.
I would appreciate other eyes here. If i'm in error, please let me know. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 22:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed a whole gallery of pre and post op images as seen here [4] twice now as I consider one to be enough. Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This condition may be commonly referred to as "bitch tits" or "moobs" ("male boobs").<ref>{{cite journal|last=Wassersug|first=Richard J.|coauthors=Oliffe, John L.|title=The Social Context for Psychological Distress from Iatrogenic Gynecomastia with Suggestions for Its Management|journal=Journal of Sexual Medicine|date=1 April 2009|volume=6|issue=4|pages=989–1000|doi=10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01053.x}}</ref>
.
Lesion (
talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I came across the Scarless wound healing article not too long ago today. Thoughts on it? Flyer22 ( talk) 22:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is something that participants in this project should be aware of. Executive summary: Science created a spoof medical paper with glaringly obvious flaws and submitted it to about 300 open-access journals that claimed to be peer-reviewed. 255 of them responded, and many of them rejected the paper, but 157 accepted it -- which basically means that no genuine peer review could have occurred. See http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.summary for more info, if you have online access to Science. The message for us is to emphasize that the mere fact that a paper appears in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed does not guarantee validity. Looie496 ( talk) 15:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The message for us is to emphasize that the mere fact that a paper appears in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed does not guarantee validity.- This is not exactly news, and the Science study is also flawed in singling out open access journals. Even papers that pass peer review with flying colours may well be wrong: after all, theoretically perfect studies with a statistical significance threshold of 0.99 will find false results 1% of the time. What does it mean for us is complicated: mostly it means what we always do, that is we should prefer, as sources, reviews summing up the state of the art instead of individual studies, especially for controversial claims. -- cyclopia speak! 15:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Are mnemnoics encylopedic? There seem to be quite a lot under Wikimed. I believe some are (eg. SOAP), due to their development alongside organisational efforts at reducing medical error. However, a lot seem to be shorthand memory aids for students or doctors. Is this encyclopedic? Here are some examples I have somewhat arbitrarily grouped them into ones I think are just memory aids, and ones that I would say are encyclopedic by virtue of being the target of publicity campaigns, or representing an underlying effort at organisational reform, ie have some notability or relationship to the practice of medicine, or society etc.
Encyclopedic mnemonics:
Any others that anyone else has found? Opinions? LT90001 ( talk) 02:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: Hs and Ts is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hs and Ts. -- Mark viking ( talk) 19:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The way rather lengthy quotations are presented on this protected page may, imo, be somewhat confusing to lay readers. Anyone rapidly skimming the text could I think be forgiven for taking away the message that evidence exists that cheese does indeed increase the risk of heart disease. (The source [6] also actually concludes "There is a lack of research examining the effect of full-fat dairy foods on CVD outcomes...") 86.162.136.32 ( talk) 07:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I am finally starting on the DSM-5 changes to the entire suite of TS articles. I do not have a source for a good basic definition of motor disorder; could anyone fix the first line in that article? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
See eg: Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs and Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs
Arguments supporting merge between system signs + symptoms + eponymous signs + symptoms templates:
I think it would be best to merge these templates and retain eponymimity in a categorisation system rather than through these templates. Opinions?
Why does the auto-fill by DOI function in the Journal citation window hardly ever manage to fill out the fields? Does anyone else find this? Lesion ( talk) 11:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Students are starting to post at WT:ANAT, FYI. I've asked a theoretical about the situation at WP:ENB. It's currently unknown what kind of supervision and guidance they are getting, but it's nice they're posting at a WikiProject at least. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
We are having a discussion on how to describe bipolar in the lead of the article here [7]. Wondering if others would like to comment? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've recently encountered an editor, user:Nikpapag, on the methylphenidate article that has been adding unsourced content to that article in spite of clearly stating that this is an issue. Moreover, after checking his edit history, I noticed that he doesn't seem to add any sources when making deletions or additions to articles (you can more or less eyeball this just by noting the consistently small number of characters changed between revisions), and some of those changes, like "bupropion is a dopamine reuptake inhibitor only," are just completely wrong - (see pharmacodynamics) http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2001/20358s19lbl.pdf
Based upon his history with edit warring and lack of response to other editors - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Nikpapag&oldid=553041732 - (note that he constantly blanks his talk page), I think it would be prudent to watch the edits this user makes on articles requiring wp:medrs, as he's been ignoring that policy. That said, I'm out of WP:3RR reverts, so I can't do anything more to fix the uncited additions I expect he'll re-add on the methylphenidate page. Seppi333 ( talk) 22:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Seppi333 ( talk) 01:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Pharmacodynamics: The neurochemical mechanism of the antidepressant effect of bupropion is not known. Bupropion is a relatively weak inhibitor of the neuronal uptake of norepinephrine and dopamine, and does not inhibit monoamine oxidase or the re-uptake of serotonin.
— US FDA
Just reverted another edit on Methylphenidate which was referenced with 2 unreliable sources and a textbook which did not support the content. Talk:Methylphenidate#Nikpapag_edit. Lesion ( talk) 10:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Michaelmodaf. I'm out of 3RR reverts. Seppi333 ( talk) 22:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Can another editor take a look at
adderall and decide if it's worthy of a B rating? I'd do it myself, but that would be a bit biased, as I've just made a lot of edits to it. If there's any issues preventing it from obtaining that rating, just note them here so I can address them in the future.
Thanks,
Seppi333 (
talk) 03:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month for October 2013 is Gastrointestinal Cancer. The previous collaboration was Pneumothorax. We welcome your help! |
Gastrointestinal cancer, one of 14 high-importance articles listed as stubs in the project. And it looks horrible! Any interest? Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Please feel free to deprecate or propose alternate sources in the list above.
I am sorry to sound discouraging, but I don't think that the article should be expanded in this way. "Gastrointestinal cancer" is a collection of disparate diseases—different pathological processes, different treatments, different prognoses. The article should be no more than a simple list or a disambiguation page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
From the great work of Lesion/Axl, I would say we're way past presenting something embarrassing, which was my main concern, so maybe we should pick something else? I think getting things from embarrassing to acceptable is a better result overall than focusing on the good to make it fantastic. Does anyone else want to find an embarrassing article that might not be too hard to cleanup? Awesome. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright. If Gastrointestinal cancer is still this month's collaboration, let's get some more focus so we can try and elevate this to at least a B class article, ideally GA, seeing as we have 4+ interested editors. LT90001 ( talk) 06:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
What's the latest reliable findings on this, please? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Have you seen this? Should we respond? Should I Be Getting Health Information From Wikipedia? NCurse work 07:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
NCurse, of course we should respond in some way. Biosthmors, yes, Wikipedians should have a central place to coordinate other Wikipedians who want guidance in doing PR on behalf of the movement. Lots of people already do this anyway so it seems worth regulating if people can be asked to voluntarily agree. Axl, these media mentions are becoming more numerous and I think that a proper response is a Wikipedia article documenting them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
A lot of people ask me if health information on Wikipedia matters and I do not know what to tell them. I need help. In my mind, if Wikipedia articles are getting significant amounts of traffic then these articles are important. If they are not getting much traffic then they are less important, and if they get a lot of traffic, then they are more important. How do other people here feel about that rationale? Some content is more important than other content, but generally, traffic is a reasonable measure of importance, right?
I have trouble explaining to people that Wikipedia articles get significant amounts of traffic because the data behind this belief is not robust. I made a page on meta - meta:Wiki Project Med/traffic - which I am about to send to the Wikimedia analytics mailing list and maybe some other places and to Wikimedia Foundation people. In this page I say that I want data and WMF backing to support my making the following statement - "Health information on Wikipedia gets significant amounts of traffic." If I am empowered with evidence to make that assertion, then I would feel a lot more able to say, "Because significant numbers of people are using this health information, anyone who has a stake in providing health information ought to consider the Wikipedia articles which themselves are significant sources for this information." Thoughts from anyone? I might like comments on the meta page. To what extent does this sound like a reasonable request?
Also... I have been asked by a certain journal to write something about Wikipedia and medical information. I would like to be able to say something about traffic to health content on Wikipedia, if anything could be said that the Wikimedia Foundation could back me on. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I support this 100%. Without rigorous data, we're flying blind. I've asked Sarah, who is part of the community liaison team, for input. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
We can make comments such as WP medical content gets about 200 million hits. I say that it is one of the most used medical resources in the world and likely the most used resource. Doubt the WMF would be in an any stronger position to comment on this than we are. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
There is also this story on Daily Dot website that urges doctors to edit Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello medical experts....the above article will soon be deleted. Is there anything worth improving here, or should we let it go? — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I think one of our goals should be to be helpful to each other. This might sound silly, but I notice that at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cancer and nausea/archive1 there are no "regulars" who have commented. I think we should make an explicit goal on our front page to help each other when we submit articles for peer review. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm a professor who teaches using Wikipedia regularly on courses relating to poverty, economic development and justice. Many of my students are interested in contributing to Wikipedia on the social and policy aspects of public health issues. (User JPoles is one my students.) It appears that most of the health and disease topics represented on Wikipedia focus on diseases and treatments at an individual or even at a pathological level. Although epidemiological aspects are often included, such information generally does not reflect the broader literatures that look at economic and social interactions and policies relating to health and well-being. Public health and social aspects are generally badly represented in Wikipedia so far as I can tell ~ even the page on Public Health is only a C class article. I do not see a clear organization for raising the social and public health aspects of specific diseases beyond an epidemiological tag on. An extensive public health and economic development literature shows that poverty and lack of access to clean water, general health care, etc. contribute to the likelihood of getting sick in the case of many such illness, often through the related adverse impact on immune systems. There are important feedbacks from such public health issues into various other non medical social issues. Public health is an important area in its own right so adding this material to articles that emphasize prevention and treatment at the individual level doesn't seem to me to be the best plan. I would suggest that the whole area of public health and related social and policy topics should become a priority for further development; perhaps another project group is a better place for this discussion, but wanted to raise it here first and would welcome everyone's thoughts on this topic. DStrassmann ( talk) 01:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I might be useful to get the students to read an article that is already at "good article" or "featured article" status to get an idea of how we typically format stuff before they start. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Manhattan plot Gene C9Orf72.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.129.3 ( talk) 02:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Once again there is an article at the Afc that could use some expert attention. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have lost our google juices as our readership is down by half these last three months Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages. I noticed that there is a new health box on google which features the NLM. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I experimented by typing in several different medical conditions into google. Not sure if this is unique to google.co.uk ... but Wikipedia's place at the first google hit has dropped to four or fifth for medical conditions. NHS choices and patient.co.uk results are now usually appearing first. I understand that google does not actually rank the search results in order of most visited, but rather they adjust the order of search results for reasons of their own. Apparently wikipedia has been demoted. I think the main reason for this is that Wikipedia articles are thought of as being too hard to understand compared with sites that are offering a simple and brief summary that is directed specifically at patients. Since patients are not supposed to be our specific target audience, I suppose we do not really have the right to complain about this. Other websites are just more user-friendly for patients perhaps? Or maybe the order of search results has not really changed and it is my imagination. Didn't wikipedia usually come up first for pretty much any medical topic?
Would be interesting to get some kind of statement from them about this, but I tried for about 10 minutes to find a way to contact google and failed. Lesion ( talk) 13:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
These two pages should be marked as historical:
Their function is duplicated in the 'cleanup listing', which is also more comprehensive and up-to-date. Also this would help clean up the nav bar.
Opinions? If so, I'm not quite sure how to go about marking a page in a Wikiproject as historical, so would value some help. LT90001 ( talk) 08:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
As our project page has been getting more hits lately, I figure now is as good of a time as any to say this. There was a recent person who signed up on our list as a member. I noticed they hadn't ever received a talk page message. They should receive a personalized one, in my opinion. We should make that a priority. And we should codify that on our front page. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
==Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject!==
Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED).
We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. I noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:
Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages!
==Welcome==
Hello, example user, and welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine. Thank you for your contributions. If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to sign up to the WikiProject here or say hello here. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Please sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, try
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask on the
project talk page, or type your question on your talk page and then type {{
helpme}}
before the question.
I plan on providing an extensive edit of Human Nutrition, mostly comprised of adding content rather than deleting content. This contribution will be part of a class assignment. My contribution will present information on the health consequences for malnutrition not yet mentioned in the page including dysentery, susceptibility to infectious disease, obesity, and long-term non-infectious disease complications. This contribution will be set within the context of the social aspect of understanding malnutrition amongst human populations This will entail providing not only operational definitions of malnutrition and under-nutrition, but also providing the context that produces poor nutrition, including environmental factors and social determinants. My article will also discuss nutrition programs in the United States and programming aimed at rectifying disparities in access to nutritious meals and other social determinants that cause inequalities. This contribution aims to rigorously analyze all the different perspectives of malnutrition and inaccessibility of foods by including sections pertaining to: nutrition education, obesity, poverty and food insecurity, minority populations, rural populations, special needs populations, and the lifetime benefits of these provisions. I will draw from academic sources including academic journals accessible through my Rice University access, as well as government and NGO reports. I hope my contribution will improve the article by providing a different context for information about human nutrition and malnutrition. Also, I will be including primarily secondary and tertiary sources, as opposed to the primary sources over-represented in the article, helping it gain better status in the WP:Medicine. Please provide any feedback you would like or ask any questions about my more specific approach to editing and restructuring the article either here, on my userpage, or on the talk page of Human Nutrition. I am interested in helping this article reach better class status, as well as help differentiate it from the Nutrition article. Lbockhorn ( talk) 04:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I think these two titles say enough. Should the latter should be part of the former? Request comments here, on the Toxoplasmosis talk page LT90001 ( talk) 10:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hyperthermia is the morbid elevation of body temperature. Hyperthermia is also the artificial elevation of body temperature for medical purposes, among others for boosting the immune system and as a complementary anticancer treatment modality [1]. In this context, hyperthermia is subdivided to: Whole body hyperthermia, loco-regional hyperthermia, intra-operative hyperthermia. Loco-regional hyperthermia is further subdivided to superficial and deep hyperthermia. Whole body hyperthermia is subdivided to mild, moderate and extreme hyperthermia. Modern WBH (whole body hyperthermia) is generally based in heating the body externally, while at the same time preventing the heat from escaping to the environment. Heating is generally achieved by water-filtered infra-red light; other, more conventional means are also applicable [2]. The biological result is equivalent to monitored, artificial fever. The technology needed is rather simple, but the medical aspects are rather complicated. Loco-regional hyperthermia on the other hand is technologically more involved, but medically very simple. The only technologically tricky point is to measure the temperature within the target tissue. Modern loco-regional hyperthermia is achieved by emission of a radio-frequency of 13.56 Mhz between two electrodes. The elevation of temperature within malignant tumors is achieved by condensation of the electromagnetic field, due to altered electrochemical properties of tumorous tissues. For this reason, this particular technology is referred to by use of the term oncothermia, instead of hypethermia [3]. Aias-Theodoros Papastavrou, MD, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.113.2 ( talk) 18:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
References
I would like to add a “society and culture” section to the existing Cholera article for a class. This section will include information about the role governments play on the prevention and spread of cholera, and other socio-economic factors that influence its spread. I think it is important to make these connections because if cholera spreads, there are serious economic and social political repercussions for the country. Governments also play an important role in preventing/ helping cholera spread, an important connection that is not always made. As the current Wikipedia article on “Cholera” notes, the disease is pretty much under control in developed nations. However, it is still a huge issue in developing countries. This is a highly relevant topic, since cholera prevention in developed countries shows it can be stopped, but recent outbreaks in poorer countries show that it is still occurring, when it does not need to be. The amounts of cholera outbreaks have actually risen in some countries-like Haiti- over the past few years. This makes exploring its spread a highly relevant topic. Does anyone have thoughts about creating a “society and culture” section? In this section, I will summarize a lot of existing Wikipedia articles related to cholera, like “Cholera Outbreaks and Epidemics,” “Cholera Vaccine,” “Zimbabwean Cholera Outbreak,” and “2010-13 Haiti Cholera Outbreak.” What other topics do you think should be covered in a “society and culture” section on Wikipedia? Are there specific vaccines or treatments that have been particularly effective at preventing Cholera? Are there some vaccines that are still being used, but are actually not very effective?
Kimmyfromtexas ( talk) 21:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
(copied from talk:Participants) LT90001 ( talk) 22:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I'm requesting a second opinion of my content citations from Amphetamine#Performance-enhancing in a thread on the RS noticeboard. Since it requires WP:MEDRS, I figured it'd be a good idea to mention the request thread here to get some input from wp:med.
For context, concerns about material in a section like this on a similar page were raised a few months ago.
Regards, Seppi333 ( talk) 22:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, in the event anyone is interested, there's a WP:peer review open for comments on the article, located here. Any feedback for improvements there would be appreciated. Seppi333 ( talk) 02:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be very helpful if someone with some (any) hospital experience could go over to Hospital gown and remove garbage. At the moment, it's long on sexual side effects and the only style of hospital gown in existence is the style favored for comedy shows. I don't want to speak for the whole world, but I'm pretty sure that my local hospital doesn't require patients to lie in bed with no underwear and open gowns, and I'm even pretty sure that they've discovered this invention called "pants". But I don't know just how much of it is junk, so I'd rather let someone else have a go at it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking to add information for the society and culture section of Female infertility. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, contact me on my talk page. AllyBremer ( talk) 02:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Restated. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
See the recent one directed towards me (Brian) from User:AlexLee90 at the bottom of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Neuroscience#Need_a_topic.3F_Unsure_about_one.3F_Think_you.27re_sure.2C_but_you_want_to_double_check.3F_Ask_below. Does anyone want to take it? I'm about done for the day, and I'll be travelling tomorrow. I will also be meeting with the professor on Thursday, his TA's, and a librarian to work on the course design so that students get clearer instruction in 2014. So it's not that I'm lazy. =) Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Some people here might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zad68. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
You mean this edit [10]? We have secondary sources dealing with the question of safety. No need to use a primary case controlled study. This design does not prove that the risks are "identical". There are simply to many confounders in the study [11]. Just because other primary sources are within an article is not justification to add more. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I mean Cassidy. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding edit summaries, things like "secondary sources are required" or "all we do is summarize secondary sources" aren't technically correct, as WP:MEDRS does allow for the use of primary sources in certain situations. In the future, where needed I will change my edit summaries to something like "secondary sources should be used if available" or "please use secondary sources".
Regarding primary sources added in a situation like the addition of Cassidy 2008 to
Spinal manipulation, I see your point: if the article section is already poor and has orphaned primary sources in it, what's the harm in letting another one get added to avoid having a new editor feel bitten? Personally, I see this situation as the right time to introduce a new editor to the importance of secondary sources. In this particular case, after the Bold edit and
Doc's Revert, there was a really great Discussion
here between yourself, Doc James and the editor, and the editor was very welcoming of the pointer to
WP:MEDRS, the explanation of the importance of secondary sources, and the help and advice they were receiving--all with the edit removed from the article (before it was restored). I think that's exactly the way it should work. The existence of poorly-used primary sources isn't justification for allowing the addition of more. Our article content shouldn't be allowed to get worse because we're welcoming or teaching new editors, and the discussion pointed to above shows that we don't have to. Doing so would be putting editors ahead of our content and readers, and I don't agree with that ordering of priorities.
Zad
68
15:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this calls attention to the importance of the issue that was just fixed with gastrointestinal cancer. The fewer embarrassments we have floating around the website the more likely we are to be the default choice of google (if that has influenced our page-view stats). We currently have over 19,000 issues identified in our ~28,000 articles. We should make it an explicit goal to reduce this count every month. How about we make a time in the future at which we hope to have these issues down by? How about by 1 Jan 2015 we shoot to have only 8,000 issues identified, for example? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Are species pages about venoumous spiders, such as the black widow spider and the redback spider, within the scope of WP Medicine. If so, I will add WP banners to the talk pages. Snowman ( talk) 08:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
They don't have to get through the process by the end of the month, but given Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/UCSF Elective 2013, I think we have a good shot. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
There are numerous articles with citations to the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. While it is pubmed indexed, it seems (to me, at least) to be largely dedicated to CAM methodologies. Views on its reliability would be welcome. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I have moved the 'classes editing' to our 'departments' page for prominence. Might I suggest:
Example:
Wikiproject medicine acknowledges the valuable contributions that can be provided by our student editors. We respect the autonomy of these editors to make edits as any other users. We recognise that these editors may not be familiar with guidelines and may only have a temporary presence on Wikipedia, and thus encourage existing users to be positive, clear and concise in their feedback to this group of new users. We encourage these users to make bold, but well thought-out and well-sourced edits, and recognise that students have the potential to make lasting, high-quality edits.
This would have the additional benefit of standardising and clarifying our current stance. Kind regards, LT90001 ( talk) 09:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello all, I am planning to create the article Medicine in 2013 as a list article that refers in chronological order to significant events in Medicine in the year 2013. I think this list should include: significant changes in international guidelines; significant retractions; significant prizes awarded; significant deaths; outbreaks; first uses of experimental technology; acquisitions of medicine-related companies > $1 billion; NGO work, and so on. I think it is useful and would be very interesting to have this almanac. I would value feedback and any suggestions for significant medical events this year. So far this would include:
I would love to hear suggestions from other users as to significant medical events this year so I can start working on a draft. If possible I would like to use the principle of WP:Affirmative voting, and request submissions rather than criticism of existing submissions.
Kind regards, LT90001 ( talk) 09:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
2012 (I may also create this list... also there may be some confusion as to 2013/12 so I'll put this here) LT90001 ( talk) 09:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Update: I have created the article Medicine in the 2010s and would value any feedback about significant events missed. LT90001 ( talk) 08:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
[16] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I have made some edits to the article on disseminated intravascular coagulopathy. But, as I don't really know what I'm talking about, please review my edits and revert them if necessary. 74.96.75.230 ( talk) 04:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Tab navigation for WPMED was suggested by Biosthmors, and I think it's a great idea to improve navigation between major project pages, so I made an illustrative mock up of what these tabs could be like (see top of page). I added the tabs pretty randomly and I am sure it is not the best selection. Please see template:WikiProject Medicine Tabs if you wish to make any changes to the number or selection of tabs (it's a really easy template to work with), or leave a message below if you prefer. Importantly, what project pages do people use most often, and what would be convenient to have in the tabs?
I am also working on changing the look of template:MedTalkheader (here is a work in progress: template:MedTalkheader#Mock up- need to add archiving). There is no real reason to change the template other than to make it fit with the new right hand WPMED nav template and tabs. Lesion ( talk) 11:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I think our overall look is much crisper on the project page. Thank you Lesion. Although, I strongly oppose all the tabs at the top. I think the current seven tabs could very well harm our WikiProject by directing traffic to the wrong places. I strongly believe there is no reason we should want to throw people out to the medicine portal, COTM (WT:MED is where that discussion is focused, lately), the member list, and to featured content as first options. I want us to have an efficient page that channels productive energy, not one which disperses it as a first matter of order. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Many open-access journals were stung by a fake cancer study by John Bohannon.
— Wavelength ( talk) 17:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to find info about dentistry urgent care but the article urgent care does not mention the topic. I wanted to ask on Talk: urgent care about it, but seems that page is hardly used. Where can I locate info on wikipedia about this important topic? Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 18:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
With help, I've brought Molecular diagnostics up to (I think) Wikipedia:GA level. So I've nominated it.
I've got a PhD in Bioinformatics, so I'm confident of the molecular biology side of the article. But if anyone with specialist knowledge would take a look at it from the medical testing side, just to check I haven't missed out anything important, that'd be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Ian McDonald ( talk) 22:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone, over the past few months, and especially this past month, I made countless (
or apparently ~200+) edits to the amphetamine article, such as removing numerous primary sources and replacing them with reviews and fleshing out several sections. Consequently, I was wondering if someone familiar with the FA review process would be willing to take a look at that article and tell me if it seems ready for an FA review or if it's worthwhile to going through the GA process first. I'm at a point where I really can't think of additional ways to make substantive content improvements.
Thanks,
Seppi333 (
talk) 02:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Just trying to look through clinical topics that may be relevant in a developing setting (specific to Southern Africa in my case) and edit those pages. Has anyone else already started this kind of process? Would anyone be interested in helping? Pek1987 ( talk) 13:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the responses. I will be surveying some hcws in the rural parts of Botswana. Once we get a more comprehensive idea of what kinds of clinical topics interest them, I can upload a list. Would you guys be interested in helping edit those specific pages to make it additionally relevant in a resource limited setting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pek1987 ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yet another submission. We get several of these a week. Is anyone interested in joining? Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's another Afc submission. — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I please have a second opinion on the current edit war at History of HIV/AIDS? page history -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 09:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The salt is part of WP:Medicine. The article is approaching GA status. It included a section of the health effects of salt. I have tidied it up, and I would be grateful for further opinions on this section. Some of the sources seem to be too old for a WP:Medicine article. Please reply over there. Snowman ( talk) 11:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
DRUGDEX, DrugPoint, Medscape, UpToDate are excellent resources that quote reliable sources and while I realise they're updated regularly (which is not a horrible thing seeing how we're in a hopefully rapidly-evolving field) and this makes verifiability sometime tricky I still believe that while they may not be considered first-line or preferred sources, they should be deemed acceptable. A good example of their utility comes with side effects, their incidence (which gives the reader some context) and pharmacokinetic data — to quote all their (these resources) sources instead of these sources themselves would be, to say the least, tedious and a waste of time that could be better used on other parts of drug pages. Fuse809 ( talk) 11:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Could someone from this project take a quick look at this edit [17] to our acne vulgaris article? Is the sourcing legitimate per WP:MEDRS, and/or is it overly promotional? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that editors familiar with WP:MEDRS have a look at the article Eurycoma longifolia. The Biological Effects section seems to be a collection of in vitro and animal studies referenced mostly to primary sources. I know enough to think that this probably violates WP:MEDRS and is likely to give the typical reader the wrong impression about the validity and relevance of these biological effects, but I'm not sure how to deal with the content. Any help from more experienced editors would be appreciated. 173.62.242.128 ( talk) 12:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
There is currently an open RfC at Foreign Accent Syndrome, looking for comments about what to do about the growing list of cases that has been included in the article. If there are any interested editors, we would like to invite your comments and suggestions on this matter. 0x0077BE ( talk) 20:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there a guideline on Wikipedia that relates to how people should be described? Am reading a fair few articles that state names as "Dr. XYZ, PhD" and so forth, and not quite sure if there is a standardised way we should handle this or not. LT910001 ( talk) 11:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I wandered across Lunasin after being referred there by a friend. Either, this is one of the greatest things ever, or it is a bit of a puff-piece, but I'm not expert enough to know if the journals are trustworthy or not. I would appreciate someone with more knowledge than me giving it a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjeff ([[U-- LT910001 ( talk) 07:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)ser talk:Mrjeff|talk]] • contribs) 17:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
We have a bit of a dilemma at redback spider which is at FAC at present. The issue is the last paragraph of the treatment section which mentions some historical treatments, mostly now so discounted they aren't even mentioned in any peer-reviewed review article I can find (apart from magnesium). Question is - is it better to list and discount them or just delete the paragraph altogether? Am a bit torn as I can see arguments both ways and wondered if anyone else did, though I suspect most folks will recommend removing (?). Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the short section in question uses the following sources for the historical aspects of the medical treatment of spider bites in Australia: Snowman ( talk) 11:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Hello,
This article is rated as a "mid-importance" article on medicine, but it needs help. I tried to clean it up but I couldn't find any references, other than sales sites and patent applications. I think all the emphasis on children and teen age boys worrying about underwear shouldn't be the main focus of the article. It's also a "fashion" article, due to Diane von Fürstenberg having been commissioned to design hospital gowns for a clinic in Cleveland.
There's a good reference about the proper disposal of paper hospital gowns to prevent the spread of infections, and I think from personal experience that the point of hospital gowns for both patients and staff is to prevent infection, and (for patients) to allow access during surgery or other procedures to the relevant patient body parts by surgeons and medical technicians, etc.
This article pops up as first in all search engines I've tried because there doesn't seem to be any other info on the subject that I can find. Thanks, Soranoch ( talk) 02:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Importance and quality are two different scales on article assessment on Wikipedia; downgrading an article's importance because the article needs work is wrong. This information may be dated (from 2008), but it explains the difference: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-23/Dispatches.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Just putting in a request (already did on the assessment page without a response) for someone to reassess the article since I've worked on it a bit. Thanks in advance! TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 15:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
This is Ally, I've recently made some edits to the society and culture page the female infertility article. I hope that the additions made will help contribute to an overall more balanced article. The edits I have made involve the world approach to female infertility, a growing global concern. I will continue to edit this page for my class, and hope that they will help to increase the rating and traffic to this site. I am open to suggestions and advice if you are willing to help and contribute. If you have questions, concerns, or comments, please let me know on my talk page. AllyBremer ( talk) 22:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned in the Signpost ( Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-16/News_and_notes), there is this. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
... in Wikipedia:Articles for Creation, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zinc lozenges and the common cold, and wondered if this is concerning. The author of the AfC submission seems to share a name with the author of some of the cited sources. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 11:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I have been editing this article recently, and there are some differences of opinion on how/whether certain information about safety and clinical effectiveness should be mentioned; more eyes would be helpful. (Also posted to WP:FT/N some days ago, but the topics at hand are now more pertinent to this project). Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 14:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Over at DVT there was recently that edit. I suspect there is an issue with the external link added in the caption, but thanks for the image, User:BruceBlaus. We need more medical images. See WP:MEDPIC and m:Grants:IdeaLab/Medi-Graphics, please. Also a ping to User:Ocaasi. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
We do not give attribution within the articles for authors of the text, why would we give attribution within the articles for those who have taken the pictures or created the pictures? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing any reason why we shouldn't cite the creator of an image in its caption and link to their article if they have one - as we do frequently throughout this encyclopedia. Is there a policy-based reason for opposing this? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
There is an active dispute at Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) regarding what to include from – or whether to mention – a recent imaging study in The Lancet on CCSVI: [20]. The article was accompanied in The Lancet by a third-party comment discussing some of the context, past work in the area, and implications of the study: [21]. More eyes would be very much welcome on the talk page: Talk:Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency#Lancet trial. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
This question is related to sexual desire of males. In the article SEXUAL DESIRE i could not find a very well known fact. It is generally seen that in sexually active active males, the time gap between the ejaculations affects their sexual desire. For example, if a man masturbates or ejaculates regularly(say once a day or once every two days or twice a day) and suddenly stops it, his sexual desire(or what we call libido) increases..It is also observed that the orgasm after a period of abstinence are also intense and getting and erection in a short term abstinence period is quicker..Why does this happen..? And why does wikipedia not mention i under the factors affecting sexual desire ..? I know that males are made to release their sperms once in a while. But why could i not find a reason or mention of it on wikipedia...many thanks Ed beerman ( talk) 05:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
We have a new user who's created the article Zinc and the common cold. This user is a new user and I feel they would benefit from a warm-hearted mentor willing to explain about this project, our goals, and some of our standards (eg use of reliable sources). That user is User:Hhemila. LT910001 ( talk) 08:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Because we want to do/are doing outreach to medical students/nursing students, etc., I think we should do a favor for them. That way they will be more willing to continue working with us, in my opinion. At least that's how I view it. I notice WP:MED has 0 featured lists. I think we should make the goal of having
list of medical mnemonics become our first a featured list. That way we'll have 5 goals, and I think we should stop there. Right now we have 4, so I think there is room for one more.
Biosthmors (
talk) pls
notify me (i.e. {{
U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh I only did three of the ten medical featured lists and that was a long time ago. And I haven't reviewed at FL for years. But actually now you mention it, doing a list might be quite a good thing for a newbie or students. Lots of editors at WP cut their teeth on featured lists before progressing to full articles. You are much less likely to end up with an essay, or something controversial, or repeat work done elsewhere. I'm not sure about the medical mnemonics -- unlikely to be of interest to anyone other than medical students. Colin° Talk 14:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, because this reminded me, and it was before Biosthmor's time: I remember good student work going into Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Osteochondritis dissecans and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phagocyte, but those two editors had 1:1 wiki mentors who were very experienced with FAs. These students were from a high school biology class, and a project which ran in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The classes primarily edited natural science articles; only 8 articles were WP:MED related. Out of a total of approximately 50 students, a few were arguably retained for a short period, but none is still editing except the teacher. Maralia ( talk) 14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I have concern about how a sentence in MEDDATE may be giving the wrong impression from the rest of the guideline on WP:MEDRS. Discussion here WT:MEDRS#Suggested reword to MEDDATE section.
Also, is the archiving bot still not working? Did this occur because of the cosmetic changes to the templates recently or is it a wider issue? Lesion ( talk) 13:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I have just done a major re-write of this article. It seems to me one of those cases where a fringe altmed topic is piggy-backing onto something more legitimate: that while "leaky gut" is a real phenomenon, the world-view in which it causes most things (e.g. autism, diabetes, etc.), and in which those can be "treated" with diets and supplements, is full-blown quackery. We were wondering in Talk how to deal with this. In particular I am wondering whether the legitimate "leaky gut" bits can be moved into legitimate articles, leaving this as a clearly-categorizable article on "leaky gut syndrome". Any gut experts in the house? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 14:58, 24 October 2013 (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 35 | ← | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | → | Archive 45 |
The WMF has agreements with a number of cell phone companies to give free access (without data charges) to all of Wikipedia to 470 million people. If people however click on our references via their cellphone they will incur data charges.
Have been in discussions with Wiley regarding the release of the abstracts of Cochrane reviews under a CC-BY-SA license and hopefully the entire paper under this license one day. My hope is that it might be possible to place theses abstracts somewhere within Wikipedia and link them from the references thus allowing our readers via the cellphone partnerships to get free access. I have discussed this with Kul and he does not see it as a concern. What are peoples thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Do people think adding CC BY articles we use as refs to someplace on Wikipedia so that those who get free WP access via their cell phone can get free journal article access as well is a good idea? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
People might want to keep an eye on the topics that are being proposed for new articles at Education Program:Georgia Institute of Technology/Introduction to Neuroscience (Fall 2013). Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
A centralised point of discussion for this topic can be found here, on the WP:Neuroscience talk page. LT90001 ( talk) 11:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
University of California San Francisco's medical program is continuing to develop their Wikipedia collaboration. See their report. This is supported by some participants in meta:Wiki Project Med. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
Recent changes are being made to this article by very new editor MissMargaretBlack ( talk · contribs). Eyes other than mine on these changes, or the article as a whole, seem as though they would be very useful. I have not yet examined all of MissMargaretBlack's changes, as I am busy with other matters on and off (especially off) Wikipedia at the moment. I'm reverting vandalism and other unconstructive edits intermittently, like I usually do these days. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:37, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I WP:PRODded Thomas G. Cangiano because as-written it does not clearly show that the person is notable. However, he is close, which means that if there is something I missed or something the author missed he very well might be actually notable.
Please read the article and clarify notability and de-prod the article if he is notable or if he is not, consider adding {{ prod2}}. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 02:11, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
The article perineal dilator cites a handful of sources from one company about its product. The device is also mentioned at Episiotomy as if it were a common option. Searching PubMed gets just a few hits focusing on severe situations like vaginal agenesis. [1] I am leaning toward the notion of doing something drastic to the article - suggestions? Wnt ( talk) 22:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
[3] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:58, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. I've wanted to help rework the project page for a while now. I've made quite a few edits, but I'd like to take it to the next level (with consensus of course, and an old idea I had along these lines was shared
here.) Given that this ambition has been on my to-do list for too long, I've decided to submit an Individual Engagement Grant to the tune of $300 (now reduced to $10) dollars to force me focus on the task. Your input at
m:Grants:IEG/A redesigned WikiProject Medicine page would be appreciated. Thanks.
Biosthmors (
talk) pls
notify me (i.e. {{
U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:46, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
I feel strongly that the page must remain easy to edit. I do not mind it being improved but I want even newbies to be able to make changes to it. I would struggle to edit the military page. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Should we invite the "information dissemination decision-makers" from the WHO, the world's major medical education charities, and relevant government and specialist bodies to a conference, to discuss strategies and create opportunities to collaborate in the building of easily identified comprehensive and reliable free medical medical information online? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 01:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
There has been some edit-warring on this page over the inclusion of negative names for peyote. As I've been involved, I'm reluctant to do more, so I would be grateful if someone from this project would look at Peyote#Long-term psychoactive use, which seems to me not in accord with WP:MEDRS. Peter coxhead ( talk) 10:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I think there should also a focus on the alternative medicine pages. I feel that these pages seem in many cases to give too much credence to practices that often seem to be lacking in evidence or only supported by poorly conducted trials. It seems, particularly in the case of Chiropractic that too much weight is given to trials that show little benefit, and their seems to be NPOV issues where people's livelihood is based on what scientifically is often regarded as pseudoscience. After all, it's just as important to show what 'medical' treatment has no effect (or is possibly dangerous) as to show what is effective Macgroover ( talk) 17:43, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello again, medical experts. The above submission at Afc may be of interest. — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
New thread so that we don't have an extremely long one thru next month. Consensus seems to be Digestive Diseases in the style of a barn raising (heh) LT90001 ( talk) 06:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
There once was a bot maintained by Rich Farmborough that fed recent changes to medical articles (articles with this project's template on their talk page) into page like a watchlist. Since Rich was blocked from bot work, it has fallen into disrepair. Is there an alternative page that displays recent changes to medical articles? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Got it. Peter James at WP:VPT pointed out Transcluded changes - template:WikiProject Medicine. Does anyone mind if I put this on the WP:MED front page? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Related to this seems to be what should be an important function, in my mind, so thanks for actively working on this global issue at mw:Mentorship_programs/Possible_projects#Ranking_articles_by_Pageviews_for_Wikiprojects_and_Task_Forces_in_Languages_other_than_English James—to make the vision a reality. So why can't we just have a WikiProject Medicine watchlist? Or any other WikiProject watchlist? Why can't we have a featured articles watchlist? Or a good articles watchlist? Or whatever kind of watchlist we want? Sorry that's more something for the WP:Village pumps but still. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello Wikipedia, My name is Jordan, I am an undergraduate at Rice University, and I am here to propose the writing of a new Wikipedia article on Diarrhea in Developing Regions. Diarrheal diseases are among the most prolific in the world, accounting for a significant fraction of all infections, as well as a massive number of child mortalities. Given that children with diarrhea are significantly more likely to die, most within the first two years of life, Diarrheal diseases are a serious threat to the livelihood of children globally. Clearly, diarrheal disease is a significant issue in developing regions, and I hope to use this Wikipedia entry to outline the impacts of diarrheal disease, elucidate the primary causes of the issue (usually linking back to poverty and limited access to vital resources and human capabilities) and finally discuss both potential solutions and those that have already been implemented in these at-risk regions. I will draw my information from a variety of academic sources, mainly from journal articles, but also from information and data made available by some of the major organizations interested in this topic such as the CDC, and WHO. Though a page already exists on the topic of Diarrhea, it approaches the topic from a highly scientific/medical perspective which is incompatible with my approach and proposed writing on this topic, which will take a point of view more oriented around the concepts of poverty, justice and human capabilities. Another related page, Diseases of poverty, already exists, however this article approaches a number of different diseases with depth; if I were to add to this page, my content would dramatically outweigh the content on any other disease. Instead of extending on these pages, I propose the development of a new page on the topic of Diarrhea in Developing Regions, which will focus on the topics I outlined above. In order to supplement the existing articles, I plan to add small sections to these pages with a brief summary of the information that will be present on the proposed page, and add links between these three pages. Any comments, questions, or suggestions that I can use to improve my work are greatly appreciated! -- Best, Jpoles1 ( talk) 20:48, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
Hi All, I really appreciate all of the help being provided to support this small project. Though I recognize that articles on the subjects of both Diarrhea and Gastroenteritis exist, I hope to approach this topic from a non-medical perspective (I know, I'm probably not in the most ideal wikigroup for such an endeavor, but I think it's a productive discussion all the same), but rather from a human capabilities point of view, which focuses more on the impacts on human development and quality of life. A more detailed proposal for my work, including many of my sources, can be found at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1e8yzk7dj1MxIRIfa6aqykydIlhybukAgITgp4QDW9DY/ Thanks Again, Jpoles1 ( talk) 01:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Anthonyhcole (
talk ·
contribs ·
email) 01:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
I would still like to do the study I described. IMO that is one of the best and simplest ways to compare Wikipedia to UpToDate or another source. Do we have people interested in doing this study? How would it be done? We have had groups do comparisons of specific topic areas like nephrology and psyc but not of medical content generally. If someone was keen to do this I would be happy to provide feedback. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
More eyes needed. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Anyone know if that was an improvement off the top of their head. I seem to remember AUG though without context. I'd have to look it up. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
So this article looks entirely promotional to me, written entirely by one person. It has been tagged as WP:MED by someone else. One of my issues is that all of the links to media establishing WP:N are actually hosted on the website of the article topic. This, to me, would seem to run afoul of WP:CITE where it says that external links, when they are duplicates of other media, should be in compliance with NPOV.
I removed these links individually, as well as some sources I believe to be non-RS, and made sure to tag them as such so that they could be reverted individually. I have started a discussion on the talk page.
I would appreciate other eyes here. If i'm in error, please let me know. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 22:01, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed a whole gallery of pre and post op images as seen here [4] twice now as I consider one to be enough. Thoughts? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:32, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
This condition may be commonly referred to as "bitch tits" or "moobs" ("male boobs").<ref>{{cite journal|last=Wassersug|first=Richard J.|coauthors=Oliffe, John L.|title=The Social Context for Psychological Distress from Iatrogenic Gynecomastia with Suggestions for Its Management|journal=Journal of Sexual Medicine|date=1 April 2009|volume=6|issue=4|pages=989–1000|doi=10.1111/j.1743-6109.2008.01053.x}}</ref>
.
Lesion (
talk) 13:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I came across the Scarless wound healing article not too long ago today. Thoughts on it? Flyer22 ( talk) 22:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Here is something that participants in this project should be aware of. Executive summary: Science created a spoof medical paper with glaringly obvious flaws and submitted it to about 300 open-access journals that claimed to be peer-reviewed. 255 of them responded, and many of them rejected the paper, but 157 accepted it -- which basically means that no genuine peer review could have occurred. See http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.summary for more info, if you have online access to Science. The message for us is to emphasize that the mere fact that a paper appears in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed does not guarantee validity. Looie496 ( talk) 15:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
The message for us is to emphasize that the mere fact that a paper appears in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed does not guarantee validity.- This is not exactly news, and the Science study is also flawed in singling out open access journals. Even papers that pass peer review with flying colours may well be wrong: after all, theoretically perfect studies with a statistical significance threshold of 0.99 will find false results 1% of the time. What does it mean for us is complicated: mostly it means what we always do, that is we should prefer, as sources, reviews summing up the state of the art instead of individual studies, especially for controversial claims. -- cyclopia speak! 15:41, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Are mnemnoics encylopedic? There seem to be quite a lot under Wikimed. I believe some are (eg. SOAP), due to their development alongside organisational efforts at reducing medical error. However, a lot seem to be shorthand memory aids for students or doctors. Is this encyclopedic? Here are some examples I have somewhat arbitrarily grouped them into ones I think are just memory aids, and ones that I would say are encyclopedic by virtue of being the target of publicity campaigns, or representing an underlying effort at organisational reform, ie have some notability or relationship to the practice of medicine, or society etc.
Encyclopedic mnemonics:
Any others that anyone else has found? Opinions? LT90001 ( talk) 02:24, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Note: Hs and Ts is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hs and Ts. -- Mark viking ( talk) 19:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
The way rather lengthy quotations are presented on this protected page may, imo, be somewhat confusing to lay readers. Anyone rapidly skimming the text could I think be forgiven for taking away the message that evidence exists that cheese does indeed increase the risk of heart disease. (The source [6] also actually concludes "There is a lack of research examining the effect of full-fat dairy foods on CVD outcomes...") 86.162.136.32 ( talk) 07:05, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
I am finally starting on the DSM-5 changes to the entire suite of TS articles. I do not have a source for a good basic definition of motor disorder; could anyone fix the first line in that article? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
See eg: Template:Digestive system and abdomen symptoms and signs and Template:Eponymous medical signs for digestive system and general abdominal signs
Arguments supporting merge between system signs + symptoms + eponymous signs + symptoms templates:
I think it would be best to merge these templates and retain eponymimity in a categorisation system rather than through these templates. Opinions?
Why does the auto-fill by DOI function in the Journal citation window hardly ever manage to fill out the fields? Does anyone else find this? Lesion ( talk) 11:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Students are starting to post at WT:ANAT, FYI. I've asked a theoretical about the situation at WP:ENB. It's currently unknown what kind of supervision and guidance they are getting, but it's nice they're posting at a WikiProject at least. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
We are having a discussion on how to describe bipolar in the lead of the article here [7]. Wondering if others would like to comment? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I've recently encountered an editor, user:Nikpapag, on the methylphenidate article that has been adding unsourced content to that article in spite of clearly stating that this is an issue. Moreover, after checking his edit history, I noticed that he doesn't seem to add any sources when making deletions or additions to articles (you can more or less eyeball this just by noting the consistently small number of characters changed between revisions), and some of those changes, like "bupropion is a dopamine reuptake inhibitor only," are just completely wrong - (see pharmacodynamics) http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2001/20358s19lbl.pdf
Based upon his history with edit warring and lack of response to other editors - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User_talk:Nikpapag&oldid=553041732 - (note that he constantly blanks his talk page), I think it would be prudent to watch the edits this user makes on articles requiring wp:medrs, as he's been ignoring that policy. That said, I'm out of WP:3RR reverts, so I can't do anything more to fix the uncited additions I expect he'll re-add on the methylphenidate page. Seppi333 ( talk) 22:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Seppi333 ( talk) 01:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)Pharmacodynamics: The neurochemical mechanism of the antidepressant effect of bupropion is not known. Bupropion is a relatively weak inhibitor of the neuronal uptake of norepinephrine and dopamine, and does not inhibit monoamine oxidase or the re-uptake of serotonin.
— US FDA
Just reverted another edit on Methylphenidate which was referenced with 2 unreliable sources and a textbook which did not support the content. Talk:Methylphenidate#Nikpapag_edit. Lesion ( talk) 10:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/Michaelmodaf. I'm out of 3RR reverts. Seppi333 ( talk) 22:55, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Can another editor take a look at
adderall and decide if it's worthy of a B rating? I'd do it myself, but that would be a bit biased, as I've just made a lot of edits to it. If there's any issues preventing it from obtaining that rating, just note them here so I can address them in the future.
Thanks,
Seppi333 (
talk) 03:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month for October 2013 is Gastrointestinal Cancer. The previous collaboration was Pneumothorax. We welcome your help! |
Gastrointestinal cancer, one of 14 high-importance articles listed as stubs in the project. And it looks horrible! Any interest? Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:43, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
Please feel free to deprecate or propose alternate sources in the list above.
I am sorry to sound discouraging, but I don't think that the article should be expanded in this way. "Gastrointestinal cancer" is a collection of disparate diseases—different pathological processes, different treatments, different prognoses. The article should be no more than a simple list or a disambiguation page. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
From the great work of Lesion/Axl, I would say we're way past presenting something embarrassing, which was my main concern, so maybe we should pick something else? I think getting things from embarrassing to acceptable is a better result overall than focusing on the good to make it fantastic. Does anyone else want to find an embarrassing article that might not be too hard to cleanup? Awesome. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 10:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
Alright. If Gastrointestinal cancer is still this month's collaboration, let's get some more focus so we can try and elevate this to at least a B class article, ideally GA, seeing as we have 4+ interested editors. LT90001 ( talk) 06:14, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
What's the latest reliable findings on this, please? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
Have you seen this? Should we respond? Should I Be Getting Health Information From Wikipedia? NCurse work 07:35, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
NCurse, of course we should respond in some way. Biosthmors, yes, Wikipedians should have a central place to coordinate other Wikipedians who want guidance in doing PR on behalf of the movement. Lots of people already do this anyway so it seems worth regulating if people can be asked to voluntarily agree. Axl, these media mentions are becoming more numerous and I think that a proper response is a Wikipedia article documenting them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
A lot of people ask me if health information on Wikipedia matters and I do not know what to tell them. I need help. In my mind, if Wikipedia articles are getting significant amounts of traffic then these articles are important. If they are not getting much traffic then they are less important, and if they get a lot of traffic, then they are more important. How do other people here feel about that rationale? Some content is more important than other content, but generally, traffic is a reasonable measure of importance, right?
I have trouble explaining to people that Wikipedia articles get significant amounts of traffic because the data behind this belief is not robust. I made a page on meta - meta:Wiki Project Med/traffic - which I am about to send to the Wikimedia analytics mailing list and maybe some other places and to Wikimedia Foundation people. In this page I say that I want data and WMF backing to support my making the following statement - "Health information on Wikipedia gets significant amounts of traffic." If I am empowered with evidence to make that assertion, then I would feel a lot more able to say, "Because significant numbers of people are using this health information, anyone who has a stake in providing health information ought to consider the Wikipedia articles which themselves are significant sources for this information." Thoughts from anyone? I might like comments on the meta page. To what extent does this sound like a reasonable request?
Also... I have been asked by a certain journal to write something about Wikipedia and medical information. I would like to be able to say something about traffic to health content on Wikipedia, if anything could be said that the Wikimedia Foundation could back me on. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:02, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I support this 100%. Without rigorous data, we're flying blind. I've asked Sarah, who is part of the community liaison team, for input. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
We can make comments such as WP medical content gets about 200 million hits. I say that it is one of the most used medical resources in the world and likely the most used resource. Doubt the WMF would be in an any stronger position to comment on this than we are. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
There is also this story on Daily Dot website that urges doctors to edit Wikipedia. Liz Read! Talk! 18:37, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello medical experts....the above article will soon be deleted. Is there anything worth improving here, or should we let it go? — Anne Delong ( talk) 22:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
I think one of our goals should be to be helpful to each other. This might sound silly, but I notice that at Wikipedia:Peer review/Cancer and nausea/archive1 there are no "regulars" who have commented. I think we should make an explicit goal on our front page to help each other when we submit articles for peer review. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:36, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm a professor who teaches using Wikipedia regularly on courses relating to poverty, economic development and justice. Many of my students are interested in contributing to Wikipedia on the social and policy aspects of public health issues. (User JPoles is one my students.) It appears that most of the health and disease topics represented on Wikipedia focus on diseases and treatments at an individual or even at a pathological level. Although epidemiological aspects are often included, such information generally does not reflect the broader literatures that look at economic and social interactions and policies relating to health and well-being. Public health and social aspects are generally badly represented in Wikipedia so far as I can tell ~ even the page on Public Health is only a C class article. I do not see a clear organization for raising the social and public health aspects of specific diseases beyond an epidemiological tag on. An extensive public health and economic development literature shows that poverty and lack of access to clean water, general health care, etc. contribute to the likelihood of getting sick in the case of many such illness, often through the related adverse impact on immune systems. There are important feedbacks from such public health issues into various other non medical social issues. Public health is an important area in its own right so adding this material to articles that emphasize prevention and treatment at the individual level doesn't seem to me to be the best plan. I would suggest that the whole area of public health and related social and policy topics should become a priority for further development; perhaps another project group is a better place for this discussion, but wanted to raise it here first and would welcome everyone's thoughts on this topic. DStrassmann ( talk) 01:33, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I might be useful to get the students to read an article that is already at "good article" or "featured article" status to get an idea of how we typically format stuff before they start. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:05, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
File:Manhattan plot Gene C9Orf72.png has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.129.3 ( talk) 02:11, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Once again there is an article at the Afc that could use some expert attention. — Anne Delong ( talk) 03:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
We seem to have lost our google juices as our readership is down by half these last three months Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages. I noticed that there is a new health box on google which features the NLM. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I experimented by typing in several different medical conditions into google. Not sure if this is unique to google.co.uk ... but Wikipedia's place at the first google hit has dropped to four or fifth for medical conditions. NHS choices and patient.co.uk results are now usually appearing first. I understand that google does not actually rank the search results in order of most visited, but rather they adjust the order of search results for reasons of their own. Apparently wikipedia has been demoted. I think the main reason for this is that Wikipedia articles are thought of as being too hard to understand compared with sites that are offering a simple and brief summary that is directed specifically at patients. Since patients are not supposed to be our specific target audience, I suppose we do not really have the right to complain about this. Other websites are just more user-friendly for patients perhaps? Or maybe the order of search results has not really changed and it is my imagination. Didn't wikipedia usually come up first for pretty much any medical topic?
Would be interesting to get some kind of statement from them about this, but I tried for about 10 minutes to find a way to contact google and failed. Lesion ( talk) 13:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
These two pages should be marked as historical:
Their function is duplicated in the 'cleanup listing', which is also more comprehensive and up-to-date. Also this would help clean up the nav bar.
Opinions? If so, I'm not quite sure how to go about marking a page in a Wikiproject as historical, so would value some help. LT90001 ( talk) 08:19, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
As our project page has been getting more hits lately, I figure now is as good of a time as any to say this. There was a recent person who signed up on our list as a member. I noticed they hadn't ever received a talk page message. They should receive a personalized one, in my opinion. We should make that a priority. And we should codify that on our front page. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 14:23, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
==Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject!==
Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED).
We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. I noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:
Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any questions. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages!
==Welcome==
Hello, example user, and welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine. Thank you for your contributions. If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to sign up to the WikiProject here or say hello here. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian. Please sign your messages on
discussion pages using four
tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, try
Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask on the
project talk page, or type your question on your talk page and then type {{
helpme}}
before the question.
I plan on providing an extensive edit of Human Nutrition, mostly comprised of adding content rather than deleting content. This contribution will be part of a class assignment. My contribution will present information on the health consequences for malnutrition not yet mentioned in the page including dysentery, susceptibility to infectious disease, obesity, and long-term non-infectious disease complications. This contribution will be set within the context of the social aspect of understanding malnutrition amongst human populations This will entail providing not only operational definitions of malnutrition and under-nutrition, but also providing the context that produces poor nutrition, including environmental factors and social determinants. My article will also discuss nutrition programs in the United States and programming aimed at rectifying disparities in access to nutritious meals and other social determinants that cause inequalities. This contribution aims to rigorously analyze all the different perspectives of malnutrition and inaccessibility of foods by including sections pertaining to: nutrition education, obesity, poverty and food insecurity, minority populations, rural populations, special needs populations, and the lifetime benefits of these provisions. I will draw from academic sources including academic journals accessible through my Rice University access, as well as government and NGO reports. I hope my contribution will improve the article by providing a different context for information about human nutrition and malnutrition. Also, I will be including primarily secondary and tertiary sources, as opposed to the primary sources over-represented in the article, helping it gain better status in the WP:Medicine. Please provide any feedback you would like or ask any questions about my more specific approach to editing and restructuring the article either here, on my userpage, or on the talk page of Human Nutrition. I am interested in helping this article reach better class status, as well as help differentiate it from the Nutrition article. Lbockhorn ( talk) 04:36, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I think these two titles say enough. Should the latter should be part of the former? Request comments here, on the Toxoplasmosis talk page LT90001 ( talk) 10:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hyperthermia is the morbid elevation of body temperature. Hyperthermia is also the artificial elevation of body temperature for medical purposes, among others for boosting the immune system and as a complementary anticancer treatment modality [1]. In this context, hyperthermia is subdivided to: Whole body hyperthermia, loco-regional hyperthermia, intra-operative hyperthermia. Loco-regional hyperthermia is further subdivided to superficial and deep hyperthermia. Whole body hyperthermia is subdivided to mild, moderate and extreme hyperthermia. Modern WBH (whole body hyperthermia) is generally based in heating the body externally, while at the same time preventing the heat from escaping to the environment. Heating is generally achieved by water-filtered infra-red light; other, more conventional means are also applicable [2]. The biological result is equivalent to monitored, artificial fever. The technology needed is rather simple, but the medical aspects are rather complicated. Loco-regional hyperthermia on the other hand is technologically more involved, but medically very simple. The only technologically tricky point is to measure the temperature within the target tissue. Modern loco-regional hyperthermia is achieved by emission of a radio-frequency of 13.56 Mhz between two electrodes. The elevation of temperature within malignant tumors is achieved by condensation of the electromagnetic field, due to altered electrochemical properties of tumorous tissues. For this reason, this particular technology is referred to by use of the term oncothermia, instead of hypethermia [3]. Aias-Theodoros Papastavrou, MD, PhD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.113.2 ( talk) 18:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
References
I would like to add a “society and culture” section to the existing Cholera article for a class. This section will include information about the role governments play on the prevention and spread of cholera, and other socio-economic factors that influence its spread. I think it is important to make these connections because if cholera spreads, there are serious economic and social political repercussions for the country. Governments also play an important role in preventing/ helping cholera spread, an important connection that is not always made. As the current Wikipedia article on “Cholera” notes, the disease is pretty much under control in developed nations. However, it is still a huge issue in developing countries. This is a highly relevant topic, since cholera prevention in developed countries shows it can be stopped, but recent outbreaks in poorer countries show that it is still occurring, when it does not need to be. The amounts of cholera outbreaks have actually risen in some countries-like Haiti- over the past few years. This makes exploring its spread a highly relevant topic. Does anyone have thoughts about creating a “society and culture” section? In this section, I will summarize a lot of existing Wikipedia articles related to cholera, like “Cholera Outbreaks and Epidemics,” “Cholera Vaccine,” “Zimbabwean Cholera Outbreak,” and “2010-13 Haiti Cholera Outbreak.” What other topics do you think should be covered in a “society and culture” section on Wikipedia? Are there specific vaccines or treatments that have been particularly effective at preventing Cholera? Are there some vaccines that are still being used, but are actually not very effective?
Kimmyfromtexas ( talk) 21:47, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
(copied from talk:Participants) LT90001 ( talk) 22:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I'm requesting a second opinion of my content citations from Amphetamine#Performance-enhancing in a thread on the RS noticeboard. Since it requires WP:MEDRS, I figured it'd be a good idea to mention the request thread here to get some input from wp:med.
For context, concerns about material in a section like this on a similar page were raised a few months ago.
Regards, Seppi333 ( talk) 22:56, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Also, in the event anyone is interested, there's a WP:peer review open for comments on the article, located here. Any feedback for improvements there would be appreciated. Seppi333 ( talk) 02:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
It would be very helpful if someone with some (any) hospital experience could go over to Hospital gown and remove garbage. At the moment, it's long on sexual side effects and the only style of hospital gown in existence is the style favored for comedy shows. I don't want to speak for the whole world, but I'm pretty sure that my local hospital doesn't require patients to lie in bed with no underwear and open gowns, and I'm even pretty sure that they've discovered this invention called "pants". But I don't know just how much of it is junk, so I'd rather let someone else have a go at it. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm looking to add information for the society and culture section of Female infertility. If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, contact me on my talk page. AllyBremer ( talk) 02:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Restated. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:19, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
See the recent one directed towards me (Brian) from User:AlexLee90 at the bottom of Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Neuroscience#Need_a_topic.3F_Unsure_about_one.3F_Think_you.27re_sure.2C_but_you_want_to_double_check.3F_Ask_below. Does anyone want to take it? I'm about done for the day, and I'll be travelling tomorrow. I will also be meeting with the professor on Thursday, his TA's, and a librarian to work on the course design so that students get clearer instruction in 2014. So it's not that I'm lazy. =) Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Some people here might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Zad68. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 21:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
You mean this edit [10]? We have secondary sources dealing with the question of safety. No need to use a primary case controlled study. This design does not prove that the risks are "identical". There are simply to many confounders in the study [11]. Just because other primary sources are within an article is not justification to add more. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
I mean Cassidy. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
Regarding edit summaries, things like "secondary sources are required" or "all we do is summarize secondary sources" aren't technically correct, as WP:MEDRS does allow for the use of primary sources in certain situations. In the future, where needed I will change my edit summaries to something like "secondary sources should be used if available" or "please use secondary sources".
Regarding primary sources added in a situation like the addition of Cassidy 2008 to
Spinal manipulation, I see your point: if the article section is already poor and has orphaned primary sources in it, what's the harm in letting another one get added to avoid having a new editor feel bitten? Personally, I see this situation as the right time to introduce a new editor to the importance of secondary sources. In this particular case, after the Bold edit and
Doc's Revert, there was a really great Discussion
here between yourself, Doc James and the editor, and the editor was very welcoming of the pointer to
WP:MEDRS, the explanation of the importance of secondary sources, and the help and advice they were receiving--all with the edit removed from the article (before it was restored). I think that's exactly the way it should work. The existence of poorly-used primary sources isn't justification for allowing the addition of more. Our article content shouldn't be allowed to get worse because we're welcoming or teaching new editors, and the discussion pointed to above shows that we don't have to. Doing so would be putting editors ahead of our content and readers, and I don't agree with that ordering of priorities.
Zad
68
15:17, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I think this calls attention to the importance of the issue that was just fixed with gastrointestinal cancer. The fewer embarrassments we have floating around the website the more likely we are to be the default choice of google (if that has influenced our page-view stats). We currently have over 19,000 issues identified in our ~28,000 articles. We should make it an explicit goal to reduce this count every month. How about we make a time in the future at which we hope to have these issues down by? How about by 1 Jan 2015 we shoot to have only 8,000 issues identified, for example? Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Are species pages about venoumous spiders, such as the black widow spider and the redback spider, within the scope of WP Medicine. If so, I will add WP banners to the talk pages. Snowman ( talk) 08:59, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
They don't have to get through the process by the end of the month, but given Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/UCSF Elective 2013, I think we have a good shot. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:22, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
There are numerous articles with citations to the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies. While it is pubmed indexed, it seems (to me, at least) to be largely dedicated to CAM methodologies. Views on its reliability would be welcome. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I have moved the 'classes editing' to our 'departments' page for prominence. Might I suggest:
Example:
Wikiproject medicine acknowledges the valuable contributions that can be provided by our student editors. We respect the autonomy of these editors to make edits as any other users. We recognise that these editors may not be familiar with guidelines and may only have a temporary presence on Wikipedia, and thus encourage existing users to be positive, clear and concise in their feedback to this group of new users. We encourage these users to make bold, but well thought-out and well-sourced edits, and recognise that students have the potential to make lasting, high-quality edits.
This would have the additional benefit of standardising and clarifying our current stance. Kind regards, LT90001 ( talk) 09:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello all, I am planning to create the article Medicine in 2013 as a list article that refers in chronological order to significant events in Medicine in the year 2013. I think this list should include: significant changes in international guidelines; significant retractions; significant prizes awarded; significant deaths; outbreaks; first uses of experimental technology; acquisitions of medicine-related companies > $1 billion; NGO work, and so on. I think it is useful and would be very interesting to have this almanac. I would value feedback and any suggestions for significant medical events this year. So far this would include:
I would love to hear suggestions from other users as to significant medical events this year so I can start working on a draft. If possible I would like to use the principle of WP:Affirmative voting, and request submissions rather than criticism of existing submissions.
Kind regards, LT90001 ( talk) 09:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
2012 (I may also create this list... also there may be some confusion as to 2013/12 so I'll put this here) LT90001 ( talk) 09:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
Update: I have created the article Medicine in the 2010s and would value any feedback about significant events missed. LT90001 ( talk) 08:06, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
[16] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
I have made some edits to the article on disseminated intravascular coagulopathy. But, as I don't really know what I'm talking about, please review my edits and revert them if necessary. 74.96.75.230 ( talk) 04:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Tab navigation for WPMED was suggested by Biosthmors, and I think it's a great idea to improve navigation between major project pages, so I made an illustrative mock up of what these tabs could be like (see top of page). I added the tabs pretty randomly and I am sure it is not the best selection. Please see template:WikiProject Medicine Tabs if you wish to make any changes to the number or selection of tabs (it's a really easy template to work with), or leave a message below if you prefer. Importantly, what project pages do people use most often, and what would be convenient to have in the tabs?
I am also working on changing the look of template:MedTalkheader (here is a work in progress: template:MedTalkheader#Mock up- need to add archiving). There is no real reason to change the template other than to make it fit with the new right hand WPMED nav template and tabs. Lesion ( talk) 11:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I think our overall look is much crisper on the project page. Thank you Lesion. Although, I strongly oppose all the tabs at the top. I think the current seven tabs could very well harm our WikiProject by directing traffic to the wrong places. I strongly believe there is no reason we should want to throw people out to the medicine portal, COTM (WT:MED is where that discussion is focused, lately), the member list, and to featured content as first options. I want us to have an efficient page that channels productive energy, not one which disperses it as a first matter of order. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:23, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
Many open-access journals were stung by a fake cancer study by John Bohannon.
— Wavelength ( talk) 17:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I was trying to find info about dentistry urgent care but the article urgent care does not mention the topic. I wanted to ask on Talk: urgent care about it, but seems that page is hardly used. Where can I locate info on wikipedia about this important topic? Thanks in advance, X Ottawahitech ( talk) 18:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
With help, I've brought Molecular diagnostics up to (I think) Wikipedia:GA level. So I've nominated it.
I've got a PhD in Bioinformatics, so I'm confident of the molecular biology side of the article. But if anyone with specialist knowledge would take a look at it from the medical testing side, just to check I haven't missed out anything important, that'd be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Ian McDonald ( talk) 22:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone, over the past few months, and especially this past month, I made countless (
or apparently ~200+) edits to the amphetamine article, such as removing numerous primary sources and replacing them with reviews and fleshing out several sections. Consequently, I was wondering if someone familiar with the FA review process would be willing to take a look at that article and tell me if it seems ready for an FA review or if it's worthwhile to going through the GA process first. I'm at a point where I really can't think of additional ways to make substantive content improvements.
Thanks,
Seppi333 (
talk) 02:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:13, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
04:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Just trying to look through clinical topics that may be relevant in a developing setting (specific to Southern Africa in my case) and edit those pages. Has anyone else already started this kind of process? Would anyone be interested in helping? Pek1987 ( talk) 13:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much for the responses. I will be surveying some hcws in the rural parts of Botswana. Once we get a more comprehensive idea of what kinds of clinical topics interest them, I can upload a list. Would you guys be interested in helping edit those specific pages to make it additionally relevant in a resource limited setting? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pek1987 ( talk • contribs) 10:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Yet another submission. We get several of these a week. Is anyone interested in joining? Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Here's another Afc submission. — Anne Delong ( talk) 19:52, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Can I please have a second opinion on the current edit war at History of HIV/AIDS? page history -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 09:42, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
The salt is part of WP:Medicine. The article is approaching GA status. It included a section of the health effects of salt. I have tidied it up, and I would be grateful for further opinions on this section. Some of the sources seem to be too old for a WP:Medicine article. Please reply over there. Snowman ( talk) 11:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
DRUGDEX, DrugPoint, Medscape, UpToDate are excellent resources that quote reliable sources and while I realise they're updated regularly (which is not a horrible thing seeing how we're in a hopefully rapidly-evolving field) and this makes verifiability sometime tricky I still believe that while they may not be considered first-line or preferred sources, they should be deemed acceptable. A good example of their utility comes with side effects, their incidence (which gives the reader some context) and pharmacokinetic data — to quote all their (these resources) sources instead of these sources themselves would be, to say the least, tedious and a waste of time that could be better used on other parts of drug pages. Fuse809 ( talk) 11:50, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Could someone from this project take a quick look at this edit [17] to our acne vulgaris article? Is the sourcing legitimate per WP:MEDRS, and/or is it overly promotional? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:22, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that editors familiar with WP:MEDRS have a look at the article Eurycoma longifolia. The Biological Effects section seems to be a collection of in vitro and animal studies referenced mostly to primary sources. I know enough to think that this probably violates WP:MEDRS and is likely to give the typical reader the wrong impression about the validity and relevance of these biological effects, but I'm not sure how to deal with the content. Any help from more experienced editors would be appreciated. 173.62.242.128 ( talk) 12:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
There is currently an open RfC at Foreign Accent Syndrome, looking for comments about what to do about the growing list of cases that has been included in the article. If there are any interested editors, we would like to invite your comments and suggestions on this matter. 0x0077BE ( talk) 20:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Is there a guideline on Wikipedia that relates to how people should be described? Am reading a fair few articles that state names as "Dr. XYZ, PhD" and so forth, and not quite sure if there is a standardised way we should handle this or not. LT910001 ( talk) 11:51, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
I wandered across Lunasin after being referred there by a friend. Either, this is one of the greatest things ever, or it is a bit of a puff-piece, but I'm not expert enough to know if the journals are trustworthy or not. I would appreciate someone with more knowledge than me giving it a look. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjeff ([[U-- LT910001 ( talk) 07:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)ser talk:Mrjeff|talk]] • contribs) 17:05, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
We have a bit of a dilemma at redback spider which is at FAC at present. The issue is the last paragraph of the treatment section which mentions some historical treatments, mostly now so discounted they aren't even mentioned in any peer-reviewed review article I can find (apart from magnesium). Question is - is it better to list and discount them or just delete the paragraph altogether? Am a bit torn as I can see arguments both ways and wondered if anyone else did, though I suspect most folks will recommend removing (?). Cheers, Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Please note that the short section in question uses the following sources for the historical aspects of the medical treatment of spider bites in Australia: Snowman ( talk) 11:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link){{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help)Hello,
This article is rated as a "mid-importance" article on medicine, but it needs help. I tried to clean it up but I couldn't find any references, other than sales sites and patent applications. I think all the emphasis on children and teen age boys worrying about underwear shouldn't be the main focus of the article. It's also a "fashion" article, due to Diane von Fürstenberg having been commissioned to design hospital gowns for a clinic in Cleveland.
There's a good reference about the proper disposal of paper hospital gowns to prevent the spread of infections, and I think from personal experience that the point of hospital gowns for both patients and staff is to prevent infection, and (for patients) to allow access during surgery or other procedures to the relevant patient body parts by surgeons and medical technicians, etc.
This article pops up as first in all search engines I've tried because there doesn't seem to be any other info on the subject that I can find. Thanks, Soranoch ( talk) 02:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Importance and quality are two different scales on article assessment on Wikipedia; downgrading an article's importance because the article needs work is wrong. This information may be dated (from 2008), but it explains the difference: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-23/Dispatches.
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:32, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
Just putting in a request (already did on the assessment page without a response) for someone to reassess the article since I've worked on it a bit. Thanks in advance! TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 15:26, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
This is Ally, I've recently made some edits to the society and culture page the female infertility article. I hope that the additions made will help contribute to an overall more balanced article. The edits I have made involve the world approach to female infertility, a growing global concern. I will continue to edit this page for my class, and hope that they will help to increase the rating and traffic to this site. I am open to suggestions and advice if you are willing to help and contribute. If you have questions, concerns, or comments, please let me know on my talk page. AllyBremer ( talk) 22:56, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned in the Signpost ( Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-10-16/News_and_notes), there is this. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
... in Wikipedia:Articles for Creation, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zinc lozenges and the common cold, and wondered if this is concerning. The author of the AfC submission seems to share a name with the author of some of the cited sources. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 11:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
I have been editing this article recently, and there are some differences of opinion on how/whether certain information about safety and clinical effectiveness should be mentioned; more eyes would be helpful. (Also posted to WP:FT/N some days ago, but the topics at hand are now more pertinent to this project). Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 14:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Over at DVT there was recently that edit. I suspect there is an issue with the external link added in the caption, but thanks for the image, User:BruceBlaus. We need more medical images. See WP:MEDPIC and m:Grants:IdeaLab/Medi-Graphics, please. Also a ping to User:Ocaasi. Best. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 09:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
We do not give attribution within the articles for authors of the text, why would we give attribution within the articles for those who have taken the pictures or created the pictures? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:04, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing any reason why we shouldn't cite the creator of an image in its caption and link to their article if they have one - as we do frequently throughout this encyclopedia. Is there a policy-based reason for opposing this? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
There is an active dispute at Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) regarding what to include from – or whether to mention – a recent imaging study in The Lancet on CCSVI: [20]. The article was accompanied in The Lancet by a third-party comment discussing some of the context, past work in the area, and implications of the study: [21]. More eyes would be very much welcome on the talk page: Talk:Chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency#Lancet trial. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 15:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
This question is related to sexual desire of males. In the article SEXUAL DESIRE i could not find a very well known fact. It is generally seen that in sexually active active males, the time gap between the ejaculations affects their sexual desire. For example, if a man masturbates or ejaculates regularly(say once a day or once every two days or twice a day) and suddenly stops it, his sexual desire(or what we call libido) increases..It is also observed that the orgasm after a period of abstinence are also intense and getting and erection in a short term abstinence period is quicker..Why does this happen..? And why does wikipedia not mention i under the factors affecting sexual desire ..? I know that males are made to release their sperms once in a while. But why could i not find a reason or mention of it on wikipedia...many thanks Ed beerman ( talk) 05:52, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
We have a new user who's created the article Zinc and the common cold. This user is a new user and I feel they would benefit from a warm-hearted mentor willing to explain about this project, our goals, and some of our standards (eg use of reliable sources). That user is User:Hhemila. LT910001 ( talk) 08:59, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Because we want to do/are doing outreach to medical students/nursing students, etc., I think we should do a favor for them. That way they will be more willing to continue working with us, in my opinion. At least that's how I view it. I notice WP:MED has 0 featured lists. I think we should make the goal of having
list of medical mnemonics become our first a featured list. That way we'll have 5 goals, and I think we should stop there. Right now we have 4, so I think there is room for one more.
Biosthmors (
talk) pls
notify me (i.e. {{
U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:07, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:50, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
Oh I only did three of the ten medical featured lists and that was a long time ago. And I haven't reviewed at FL for years. But actually now you mention it, doing a list might be quite a good thing for a newbie or students. Lots of editors at WP cut their teeth on featured lists before progressing to full articles. You are much less likely to end up with an essay, or something controversial, or repeat work done elsewhere. I'm not sure about the medical mnemonics -- unlikely to be of interest to anyone other than medical students. Colin° Talk 14:23, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
FWIW, because this reminded me, and it was before Biosthmor's time: I remember good student work going into Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Osteochondritis dissecans and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Phagocyte, but those two editors had 1:1 wiki mentors who were very experienced with FAs. These students were from a high school biology class, and a project which ran in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011. The classes primarily edited natural science articles; only 8 articles were WP:MED related. Out of a total of approximately 50 students, a few were arguably retained for a short period, but none is still editing except the teacher. Maralia ( talk) 14:47, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I have concern about how a sentence in MEDDATE may be giving the wrong impression from the rest of the guideline on WP:MEDRS. Discussion here WT:MEDRS#Suggested reword to MEDDATE section.
Also, is the archiving bot still not working? Did this occur because of the cosmetic changes to the templates recently or is it a wider issue? Lesion ( talk) 13:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
I have just done a major re-write of this article. It seems to me one of those cases where a fringe altmed topic is piggy-backing onto something more legitimate: that while "leaky gut" is a real phenomenon, the world-view in which it causes most things (e.g. autism, diabetes, etc.), and in which those can be "treated" with diets and supplements, is full-blown quackery. We were wondering in Talk how to deal with this. In particular I am wondering whether the legitimate "leaky gut" bits can be moved into legitimate articles, leaving this as a clearly-categorizable article on "leaky gut syndrome". Any gut experts in the house? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 14:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)