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 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
Please browse topics at
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
As university term-end approaches, these articles (and classes listed above) will need attention! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
We're currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Link to terminology undergoing discussion editing a few articles that may be of quite high relevance to you over here. The proposition we have been acting on is to combine articles to a shorter entry on human anatomical terms at Anatomical terminology. A draft for a new article is available at User:CFCF/sandbox/Anatomical terminology and is a slightly adapted text from [1] which is CC.
The reason I believe this article is relevant to you is that it sums up at least three articles (which also need to be expanded in the near future):
At least this last one is very much up your strasse, and I hope some form of cooperation because all these articles are in dire need of expansion. To help, please proofread User:CFCF/sandbox/Anatomical terminology and copyedit and expand (do not remove anything major as its better to discuss). Then there is the question of sources on that article, the entire text is pulled from a secondary source, how do you attribute this? Is it by referencing every line?? CFCF ( talk) 13:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Comments are needed on this matter: Talk:Body#Merge with disambiguation page. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
[2] Thoughts? Lesion ( talk) 14:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes the copyright office around Wikipedia/Commons is getting a little out of control. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
@ Benlisquare:, no, I don't think there is any evidence for this statement. See link posted above by LT. I think James was also working on a advisory document on these issues, which I can't find now. Lesion ( talk) 13:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
No one has any idea the copyright of X-rays or even if they are copyrightable. And than if they are copyrightable does the license go to the ordering physician, the radiologist reading it, the patient, the X-ray tech or the hospital? And does this vary depending on the country the image is taken in? Than are the images held to the copyright of were the images are hosted (the USA) or the country were the images are taken? It seems each edit on Commons makes up their own version of what they think the law is and than begins trying to delete X-ray images from there. It is a huge waste of time for those of us trying to build an encyclopedia having to deal with those who are trying to destroy one. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
To give the end to this tale: several of the images were now deleted. It is clear that the user is the copyright holder of the images and has even attempted to accommodate us by jumping through these arbitrary hoops [4]. Lesion ( talk) 10:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Reboot: inconsistent citation style due to change in long-standing URL v PMC parameters. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
At e-cigs here Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Problem_with_this_edit_.5B20.5D. Comments welcome. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to request that someone start an article on diffuse alveolar hemorrhaging, and I'm not sure if there's a specific place within this project to do that. It was recently announced that a voice actor from a game series I enjoy has the condition, and as someone without a medical background, I couldn't make heads or tails of any of the descriptions on other websites.
If there is a better place to request this, please feel free to move it there and then ping me.
Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 18:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This article has just been expanded by a student. I've fixed format & some copyedit. There's a lot of medical/technical stuff there which I can't evaluate. Would someone please look at it, and also change "start class" on the talk page. Thanks, Hordaland ( talk) 03:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not often use primary sources. But I have added one per Talk:Cardiac_arrest#Recent_RCT_questions_benefit_of_hypothermia. What do people think? This new RCT is twice as large as the previous meta analysis and was published in the NEJM. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Our pageviews have been down these last four months Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages. This however may be due to a recent changes in peoples usage of HTTP versus HTTPS rather than a true change in readership per Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-11-13/News_and_notes.
We also see this same drop for other groups of articles using [8]. Even though overall pageviews have increased significantly per [9]. Hopefully this will be fixed soon. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
An RFC on Template:Bullying is taking place at Template talk:Bullying#RfC: Template links. Input from project members would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 08:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm creating three new articles about aspects of the NIH:
Do we have a contact at the NIH - an NIH insider with a good grasp of their history and functions - who can review my work when I'm done and possibly offer structural, sourcing and other guidance as I go?
National Institutes of Health Clinical Research Training Program? (I know it's barely notable. It will probably end up in an overview article eventually.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
These edits [11] seemed to remove secondary sources and replace with one primary source; and change the tone of the section from saying there is no evidence. I don't have time to look in detail at this right now, but it looks like it might need reversing from a very superficial analysis. Lesion ( talk) 11:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a dispute about the proper application of WP:MEDRS, primary studies, and position statements by major medical associations on this article. Further input would be appreciated. Yobol ( talk) 13:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
We have a primary source being misinterpreted and given undue weight right now Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Primary_source Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
GOMER could use some work. I remember a book I read saying it was more applied to the lonely who had lost their "humanness" and just came to the ER for human attention. I forget what book it was, but it might have been the one by Robert Martensen (RIP). Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 06:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Comments are needed on this matter: Talk:Safe sex#Requested move. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
More comments would be welcome, but this talk has gotten four responses already. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I will be out today for a family friend funeral. There are a number of competency issues with a new medical editor, and from what I've seen, everything s/he has done may need to be reverted. There is also copyvio (see Talk:Psychosurgery). I don't have time to do anything today, can anyone help? [12] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The Intersex article could use help from this WikiProject. A class is currently working on that article and it's quickly become a dumping ground for all sorts of intersex material, with formatting issues and the like. I'll also alert WP:Anatomy to this matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 02:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Since it is increasingly unlikely we will get any help from the WMF, and increasingly likely we will see more and more of this, I suggest that we are going to need to develop our own templates for dealing with these situations, and perhaps our own watchlist page, subpage, or place where we can track all of the problems and courses. This talk page is being taken over by problems with student editing, to the point that it is becoming hard to get attention to other, more worthy articles and issues.
This course seems to be UC Irvine, Women's Studies, 60A Gender and Science. And there seem to be quite a few of them. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
did it myself because the nimwits at WP:ENB couldn't be bothered ... please, folks, watchlist this one so it will work for us, because everything we have tried to do via the ENB has been watered down to fluff and promote their project that is creating more messes than we can keep up with.
{{ subst:Welcome medical student}} SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Stefan2 per here Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_November_20#File:Hscbefore.jpg has put a diagnostic image up for deletion on Wikipedia. It is interesting as a very similar one uploaded by the same user was deemed to be fine here [13] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
If a reliable source appears to have "copy and pasted" from Wikipedia is it still a reliable source? Do we say that the Wikipedia content has undergone formal peer review and can we than use that ref to support our own content? Ref is this one [14] published in Dec of 2012. Here is the history section of our article back in 2010. [15].
Anyway to address User:SandyGeorgia's concern regarding a lack of medical warnings. We are writing many of the worlds textbook and journal articles unattributed. Not sure if that is a good thing. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
NO. Whomever is doing this, it needs to stop; if it doesn't, ANI is needed. See WP:ELNEVER. A number of ebooks scrape WikiContent and reproduce them. They do attribute the content to Wikipedia, so they are not copyvios (I don't know if that particular book does), but precisely because they are mirrors of Wikipedia, in addition to the copyvio issues, they are not reliable sources. They are scraped from a website (Wikipedia) which by definition (user contributed) is not reliable. Whomever is adding wiki mirrors or ELs that contain copyvio as sources needs to be stopped, and reverted. That is a basic contradiction to WP:V (not reliable), or in some case, copyvio if the attribution to Wikipedia is not given. At FAC, we once came across a copy of an FA in an ebook on Amazon. I ordered that book, and we discovered that they had scraped the entire FA, paired it with "Jock strap" (from Wikipedia), and marketed it. Since they attributed it correctly to Wikipedia, there is nothing we can do about that, but Wikipedia mirrors are NEVER reliable sources. See further description in FAC archives. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This is on the other hand a very different matter, where we are talking about a very reputable publishing house, and that on its own should be enough to except sufficient peer-review. The book does not carry a disclaimer that it doesn't give medical advice (although a different disclaimer is there). I don't think this is at all that simple, and it needs to be discussed at a larger forum than WP:MED, but first it may be good to summarize several of these cases in a list. WP:CIRCULAR is not clear concerning anything other than websites. -- CFCF ( talk) 13:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Got this nice write up a while ago :-) [16] Another example is mentioned here [17]. The issue is that the doc in question copied stuff from Wikipedia that was wrong. I corrected Wikipedia of course but unable to correct this book. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
Backwardscopy}}
atop the article's talkpage so that other editors will be alerted to the existence of the mirror.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 07:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)This journal article copied much more liberally from our Wikipedia article on COPD without attribution [18] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
What the heck is the difference between Distal spinal muscular atrophy type 2 and Congenital distal spinal muscular atrophy and why is there no link anywhere in that article to a main condition, and which would that be and why is Spinal muscular atrophies in the plural rather than singular? I am not a Dr. I don't know if this new student article belongs elsewhere, needs to be merged, duplicates an existing article, and this student article generally needs medical review. There's a mess in there. Why do we have Spinal muscular atrophies and spinal muscular atrophy and why does one of them mention "Autosomal recessive proximal spinal muscular atrophy", which also seems to be a redirect, and how is that different from the congenital type? A doc is needed to sort out all of this. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Would like to archive threads > 5 days per consensus previously reached. Talk page is getting unwieldy and slow to load. However will not do this if reverted. Is there still consensus on archiving threads > 5 days? -- LT910001 ( talk) 07:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Archiving here has been off. Five days is premature, and open topics are being archived. Install the one step archiver (see my contribs for how to find it), and use it to selectively prune the page of topics that are truly done, or where there is consensus to archive, and let open topics stay longer (say 10 days at least, particularly since the Project has gone moribund and we aren't getting responses on lots of things). The page is NOT that long, and stuff is getting missed. And, this business of no third-level headings is what is making the page a mess. Restore normal talk page headings. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
We have a user who is trying to add their own personal experience to the article on Social anxiety disorder Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Update: admin watch. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
ANI SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
A single user is constantly reverting edits here made by several editors from WP:MED, and is not following consensus on the talk-page. I have been forced to revert a number of times relying on WP:3RRNO, but I don't want to rely on it anymore. Please help by reverting or talking sense in to the editor. -- CFCF ( talk) 14:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see Epilepsy in females with intellectual disability. You won't have heard of this syndrome before, because it doesn't exist. It was invented by Wikipedians. Please comment on the naming dispute at the talk page. -- Colin° Talk 18:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Expert_review_project_again. Thanks for starting this user:Anthonyhcole. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare has undertaken a large scale drive to create a database of rare diseases and disorders that affect less than 100 people per 1,000,000.
The ultimate goal is to raise availability of information about these diseases and conditions. Additionally a drive has been undertaken to translate this material into English because it was seen that many who accessed the material were not from Sweden. It is a high quality source of medical knowledge, and could most likely expand many articles on Wikipedia. Available here: http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/rarediseases (Unfortunately the material is subject to copyright law, but that does not hinder it from being a reference material, or linking to it). CFCF ( talk) 11:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello. In Tourniquet test You can read "The test is positive if there are more than 10 to 20 petechiae per a circle 2.5 cm(1 inch) in diameter". In Dengue: "cut off being more than 10 to 20 per 2.5 cm2 (1 inch2).". Inch^2 isnn't equal to 2,5 cm^2 and, what is more, π(inch/2)^2. Which version is true? Mpn ( talk) 06:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Would whoever took the barnstars off of WP:MED put them back please? Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 07:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Not mainspace:
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total |
99 | 1,100 | 11,582 | 37,856 | 18,463 | 867 | 69,967 |
To install on a page: {{
WPMED related changes}}
.
Using like: {{WPMED related changes
|mylinks1=Leukemia
|mylinks2=Malaria|label2=My interest topic}}
- DePiep ( talk) 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) - DePiep ( talk) 00:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Dumber than I look ... do I put this in my own user space and link to the articles I follow? And why is the template called WPMED-- would it not work for any kind of article? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
{{WPMED related changes}}
|mylinks1=
. See link examples 5 and 6 (
Leukemia and
malaria): free to choose. Can be any wiki page (|mylinks3=Napoleon
), or a userpage: |mylinks4=User:SandyGeorgia/my hot pages
. This will act like a handmade watchlist. Note:
Related changes does not show that single page's edits, but the edits in all links on that page (e.g., edits of
white blood cells, via the leukemia page). -
DePiep (
talk) 21:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)This looks wondeful! As someone not so versed in the technical side of Wikipedia, would it be possible to appropriate this to WP:Anatomy as well? CFCF ( talk) 12:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
We discussed this issue here [22].
IMO it would be useful to our readers to have "open access" icons in our refs. This will let them know if they should bother hitting the link or not. A bot would take care of adding / updating this info as it changes. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I know that some of you have banner blindness, so here's a reminder that the ArbCom elections are underway, and a note about a problem that caused all early votes to be discarded:
Voting is now open to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. Voting will close on Monday, 9 December at 23:59 UTC. (Important note: Votes made prior to 00:01 26 November 2013 were discarded due to a technical error)
Pay attention to that "important note" if you think that you've already voted. You can see the list of successfully recorded voters at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Log. If you tried to vote, and your name isn't on the list, then you need to vote again. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
This book copy and pasted some of the images I have uploaded. They have even borrowed heavily from our text copying my strange writing style word for word. [23] Anyway we are getting some good reviews on Amazon [24]. I wondering if we are being used in any schools yet? I am looking into it. This could be a big break and maybe news worthy :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It is still listed as CC BY SA at the end. CC BY SA is copyrighted just it is an open copyright. They are putting some work into it. We do need to come out with our own textbook formatted work. I am not sure what prevents people from just buying one copy and then sharing it? You should be able to download a copy of each and start your own website selling them for 99 cents or nothing. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking at it more. This appears to be a potentially useful collaboration. It is freely available online such as here and does attribute us [28] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Boundless (company) is publishing these books. It seems that this is a startup commercial operation which raised about USD 10 million and is seeking to supplant the entirety of the USD 8 billion textbook industry by replacing all texts, especially introductory texts, with free equivalents. I am not sure what their funding model is. On Amazon they seem to give away their books, and then charge for supplemental learning guides.
I read that they have an ongoing lawsuit. The best summary I found on first glance is at insidehighered.com but the court complaint is accessible also. The accusation is that Boundless is starting with any given copyrighted textbook and paraphrasing it in entirety to create a free version. The plaintiffs allege that the paraphrasing is too close and constitutes copyright infringement.
I would not support infringing behavior, but I am in favor of replacing all popular textbooks with free equivalents. This is a goal of the open educational resources movement and WikiProject Open also promotes these ideas. It might be the case that with Boundless facing legal trouble for whatever method it was using to generate textbooks, the company might be favorable to a partnership with the Wikipedia community in getting advice on compiling future textbooks. I feel that a partnership with Boundless or any other such community could be in Wikipedian's favor, and starting with medical texts might not be a bad idea. I would be delighted if Boundless leveraged its resources to improve Wikipedia articles so that they would be more fit to insert into its textbooks, especially since its textbooks seem CC-By-SA and could be remixed and reused by anyone.
How would others feel about inviting Boundless people here to discuss putting a medical text on Wikipedia? If a textbook were dropped here, how should it be hosted? Wikisource? Wikibooks? Wikiversity? How do people here feel about commercial companies like Boundless packaging Wikipedia content and tapping volunteer contributions for resale? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this info reasonable in a section on society and culture in the cough medicine article? [29] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
As above. Review article is here [33] Pubmed of course has the best coverage for US stuff. Less from other parts of the world. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
This is from the Medical Products Agency - Sweden, translated by me (with great care not to influence the guidelines) [36]:
Hos vuxna är den akut påkomna hostan i samband med en infektion svår att påverka men lindras nog bäst med varm dryck. Olika läkemedels effekt på hosta är dåligt studerad och resultaten svårtolkade. Läkemedel mot hosta är därför inte rabattberättigade. Om torr rethosta föreligger, kan man pröva centralt hostdämpande farmaka, t ex noskapin, och är hostan mycket besvärande nattetid kan man med vederbörlig försiktighet skriva ut läkemedel innehållande etylmorfin, såsom Cocillana-Etyfin. Antibiotika påverkar inte förloppet.
In adults acute cough in conjunction with an infection is diffucult to influence, but is most likely helped best with warm beverages. The effect of different medication on cough is poorly studied, and the results difficult to interpret. Therefor pharmaceuticals against cough are not entitled to reduced rate[in Sweden]. If dry irritating cough is found it is possible to to try a centrally cough-reducing medicine, for example noskapin, och if the cough is very inconveniencing during the night one can with proper caution prescribe pharmaceuticals containing ethylmorphine such as Cocillana-Etyfin. Antibiotics do not effect the course of events.
Hos barn är det viktigt att först skapa sig en bild av den underliggande infektionen. Det gäller att behandla en eventuell obstruktivitet i första hand. Får man obstruktiviteten under kontroll avtar ofta också hostan. Att ge slemlösande medel är verkningslöst. Hostan kan ofta förklaras av att det tar tid för flimmerhåren att återbildas efter infektionen och den går över efter 1–2 månader utan behandling. Ett barn i 4–7-årsåldern kan efter en period av recidiverande nedre luftvägsinfektioner ha utvecklat postinfektiös hyperreaktivitet och hostreflexen har blivit mer lättutlöst. Sannolikt finns ett kroniskt inflammatoriskt tillstånd i slemhinnan. Vid långvarig hyperreaktivitet kan man pröva inhalationssteroid i lågdos 1–2 gånger/dag. Antibiotika påverkar inte förloppet.
In children it is important to form an image of the underlying infection. It is due to treat a possible obstructivity in first hand. If you get the obstructivity under controll the cough will often subside. To give exporants is without effect. The cough can often be explained by the time it takes to regain the cilia after an ifection and it will pass after 1-2 months without treatment. A child 4-7 years of age can after a period of recidivating lower airway-infection have developed a postinfectious hyperactivity and the cough-reflex has become easier to provoke. Most likelt there is a chronic inflammatory condition in the mucous membrane. During prolonged hyperreactivity one can try an inhalation-steroid in low dosage 1-2 times a day. Antibiotics do not effect the course of events.
CFCF ( talk) 11:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Another at WP:ENI#Postmenopausal confusion, Georgia IT SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Student editing cleanup needed, see Talk:Cholera. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Another at WP:ENI#University of Manchester, AD; regulars here might as well watchlist the education noticeboard incidents page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
(@ SandyGeorgia, Tryptofish, Jmh649, Biosthmors, and Colin: cross-posting here from the education noticeboard, since I know some of you folks are trying to keep that off your watchlists.)
I've gone ahead and taken a first stab at building a module of topic-specific advice for the educators training. (We can similarly add these to the student trainings as well.) Take a look at the trainings starting here: Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Topic-specific modules.
The content for the medical editing module lives here:
Please improve! We can add more pages if necessary, but I strongly recommend not letting any individual pages get much longer than these; the less information on each page, the more of what's there will sink in. -- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 19:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Collapse done SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1. Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Topic-specific modules
2. Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Medical topics 1
3. Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Medical topics 2
They don't get this ... heck, most established editors don't get it. I suggest changing it to ...
4. Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Medical topics 3
5. Missing: we need to somehow get them to add PMIDs. That could involve adding one more page explaining how to search pubmed for a PMID. Having a PMID in the citation significantly lessens our burden when we review the student's work. Can we add one more page on this?
Thanks for doing this! Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Sage Ross (WMF) Nice job of incorporating my concerns, Sage Ross-- thanks. There is only one thing that we might look further at:
In the interest of space and not overwhelming the students, sending them to the "cite pmid" template is the fastest and easiest. But most medical articles don't use that template, and it generates a horrid citation that we don't mostly use in medicine (we use the Diberri/BogHog citation filler template, which yields a more compact citation). And since most students use regular citation templates, the cite journal generated by BogHog would make sense to them. But I'm not sure you can work that citation filling template in with brevity. But I don't want to be recommending they use the cite pmid template, because in most medical articles, that will run them afoul of WP:CITEVAR-- don't change established citation style, which is usually Diberri/BogHog. I'm not sure how you can fix this ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Should this even be an article? Don't even know where to start ... student editing, perhaps someone should open an incident at WP:ENI. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, We've reached the stage with Flow where it's relatively stable, and we'd like to invite you to take some time to try it out and chase bugs. It currently lives on a staff-run test server, which means it isn't hooked up to Single User Login - you can either edit anonymously or, preferably, create a new account under your current username.
The software has a minimal set of features at the moment; normal discussions with wikitext and templates should work fine (although Quiddity has only imported a few hundred templates), but there are some known bugs (and features that we're working on this fortnight) with the software. We're not looking to deploy Flow to enwiki in its current form, nor asking you to give your seal of approval to that.
What we'd like is for you to use the software, test it out and let us know two things:
On the off chance that Flow is really, really broken for you, to the point where you can't post (maybe a browser issue?) you can of course use the enwiki talkpage for both purposes. If you have any questions about the test, you can post them there too :). We're going to be holding this testing open for a week to allow people to really hammer on the software, although we may not be around Thursday or Friday (it's Thanksgiving). If not, don't worry: we'll reply to you when we return.
Thanks! – Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 21:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The Human Immunodeficiency Virus(HIV) was discovered in 1981. In the thirty-one years that we have known about HIV substantial progress has been made in understanding and treating the virus. However, understanding of the virus as it pertains to children and adolescents is still a relatively new research area. In the late 1980s, researchers and health care professionals turned their attention toward adolescents as an at-risk population [1]. This population was cited as at-risk due to adolescents believing they are impervious to the virus as well as the risky sexual and drug experimentation that occurs during this period of development. In order to prevent high-risk behaviors that could result in the acquisition of HIV, the authors called for HIV/AIDS education in the schools.
Children who have been perinatally infected with HIV are now living longer and relatively healthy lives due mostly to antiretroviral therapy (ART) [2]. Researchers take the stance that HIV/AIDS should be viewed not as a death sentence as it once was, but as a chronic illness and calls for an integrative and multidisciplinary approach in caring for these individuals that takes into account many factors including psychological well-being. Children infected with HIV/AIDS as well as their families have many new challenges to face due to longer longevity. These challenges are affecting children with HIV/AIDS differently from other chronic or incurable diseases. For example, children may have had to watch family members become ill and die from HIV/AIDS. They face stigmatization, lack of resources, family disruption, and exposure to abuse. Not only do they have to deal with external sources of stress they are also dealing with thoughts of their own mortality and feelings of guilt, loss, anger, etc.
[2]states that mental health interventions must become incorporated into the standard of care for those children living with HIV/AIDS. However, health care systems often fail to provide this need. Researchers call for a multidimensional approach that would incorporate primary care physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, and families. Primary care nurses, school nurses, and general practitioners can learn to recognize the signs of mental illness and manage the most basic of mental illnesses or make an appropriate referral. Or, a clinical psychologist could be present at these children’s primary care facilities.
[3] states a particularly disturbing statistic that more HIV infections are attributable to adolescents and young adults between the ages of 13-29 years of age. Researchers state that “HIV is an epidemic primarily of young people.” Psychiatric disorders that have high prevalence rates among adolescents with HIV/AIDS which include but are not limited to: attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, anxiety, behavior problems, and oppositional defiant disorder.
|}-- S Philbrick (Talk) 12:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Please participate in the move discussion on Talk:Wegener's granulomatosis whether the eponym or the descriptive name should be the article title. JFW | T@lk 13:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
In the last several months a few different persons have added various "celebrity" figures, often unreferenced to this section of the above article. My gut feeling is that we should scrap the whole section. Or if you have any thoughts on who should stay and who should go, please comment here Talk:Trigeminal_neuralgia#Notable_cases_section. Thank you, Lesion ( talk) 17:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello again, medical experts! Is this a notable topic, and can the "essaylike" qualities be removed to make a good article? If not edited right away, it will be deleted as a stale draft. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Here's another old declined Afc submission that is about to be deleted. If there is any value in it, please someone make an edit to postpone deletion so that it can be improved. — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Not automatically deleted, but deleted per G13 because it was started in May 2012, and then abandoned.
Here's the content, if someone wants to work on it, let me know and I'll restore it
|
---|
I have been editing human nutrition as part of a class assignment in recent months, and am seeking feedback and advice on Human Nutrition. The article was previously exclusively made up of the same exact content as Nutrition, and as tagged as so. I am wondering if any of that content should remain there or not? How can I get the banner to be removed? I have been adding content to provide a social perspective to understanding access to nutrition, nutritional status of countries internationally, organizations involved with nutrition, and the prevalence and effects of malnutrition. Any feedback, edits, additions, or guidance would be appreciated. thank you! Lbockhorn ( talk) 00:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. However, I have been advised by our education coordinator not to remove any of the material in the article that originated from Nutrition. I found this to be a perfectly advisable strategy. I foresee that eventually someone may find it useful to provide more information about nutrition not pertaining to humans in the article Nutrition, therefore, I would not like to be responsible for removing human specific information from Human Nutrition. Thank you for your suggestion. Lbockhorn ( talk) 08:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I am in the process of editing Human Nutrition, and having trouble organizing the different challenges involved with malnutrition. There needs to be consideration not only for the individual effects that malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies can have on an individual, but also a consideration of the social affects of widespread malnutrition issues. The organizational structure of malnutrition needs some more work I believe. Does the following structure provide a better combination of the previous article and the new social information that needs to be incorporated?
Individual nutrition challenges
4.2.3.1 Illnesses caused by improper nutrient consumption
4.2.3.3 Mental agility
4.2.3.4 Mental disorders
4.2.3.5 Cancer
4.2.3.6 Metabolic syndrome and obesity
4.2.3.7 Hyponatremia
Global nutrition challenges
2.1 Malnutrition and causes of death and disability
2.2 Child malnutrition
2.3 Adult overweight and obesity
2.4 Vitamin and mineral malnutrition
2.4.1 Iron deficiency and anaemia
2.4.2 Vitamin A deficiency
2.4.3 Iodine deficiency
2.5 Infant and young child feeding
2.6 Undernourishment
Are there any comments on this structure? Thank you Lbockhorn ( talk) 15:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your detailed and thorough response. I agree that much work needs to be done on this page, and still needs to be done. I have implemented some of the structure suggestions I listed before, which turned out to help organize content I had already provided in a more accessible manner. However, I did not edit the structure of any of the material that was already provided from the creators of Nutrition, from where all the material has been copied from. I did not implement all of my structure changes. I have left some subsections blank in the hopes that other Wikipedians may have interest in further providing information for this article. You have been very helpful and I appreciate your comments. Lbockhorn ( talk) 08:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Diet and bone health Have returned it to their sandboc. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
...has all the hallmarks of a student creation, but nothing explicit to indicate that. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
<big>
to change the size of the text rather than the Wikipedia-specific method of doing this, which is ==Level 2== headers. You left a warning that says these "edits appear to constitute vandalism", which by definition means "these edits appear to constitute a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". If you still think that these accusations are "completely appropriate", then IMO you do not have enough experience and judgment to issue warnings of any kind whatsoever to anyone. The fact that the last half of the vandalism warning contains some useful advice does nothing at all to make up for your false accusations in the first half.Hello again medical experts! Here's another Afc submission that may be of interest. — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This article is in desperate need of some love. Recent papers are showing it to be a theraputic target in preventing oncogenesis for many types of cancers, but the article doesn't have any refs from the past decade! LeadSongDog come howl! 20:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to ask for your opinion on a draft text I've written, describing an elaborate clinical trial which is currently ongoing and funded by the European Commission (FP7 project). We simply wanted to increase our exposure in the scientific community before the results come in (expected in 2 years from now, study started 3 years ago). The intention is explicitly NOT to recruit patients or new sites through this page.
The 'general' Wiki team took a look at the text I wrote and recommended to ask for advice here. They indicated they rather see the description of a completed study, results, impact etc. They indicated that describing an ongoing clinical trial -even within any indication that we are still looking for new patients and/or participating sites- may not be appropriate. I certainly agree that it is much more interesting to report about new results, but I also think it is important to show what innovative research is currently being conducted.
Anybody willing to give some advice? Many thanks in advance, Inge Winter, PhD IngeWinter ( talk) 10:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback - however there seem to be various wikipages on other ongoing research within the same funding institution (framework 7 program from the European Commission), don't think it's reasonable to allow some and not others? IngeWinter ( talk) 12:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI: A somewhat similar discussion to this one occurred in 2011-2012 about articles about EU research projects. It is generally more friendly to the idea of such articles in Wikipedia than the current one is. It's a long page and it's here. Hordaland ( talk) 03:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everybody for your comments! Unfortunately, we cannot comply to the requirements regarding citations just yet, but as soon as the first publications appear I will definitely re-visit this plan! IngeWinter ( talk) 19:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, everyone, I've been reading university textbooks on human genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. I am not a medical doctor by training, but I still enjoy this kind of recreational reading. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us who collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for improving articles on human genetic history and related articles. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.
As you know, the guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."
Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.
The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."
On the topic of human population genetics and variation within and among human populations, a widely cited primary research article is a 1972 article by Richard Lewontin, which I have seen cited in many of the review articles, monographs, and textbooks I have read over the years.
Quite a few Wikipedia articles specifically disagree with Lewontin's overall conclusion (which has been updated in a source listed below) but don't always rely on medically reliable sources to do so. As Wikipedians, we can evaluate where the findings in Lewontin's article fit in the current understanding of the topic of human genetic variation by reading current reliable secondary sources in medicine.
Some Wikipedia articles give weighty emphasis to a commentary essay published years after Lewontin published his primary research article on human diversity, when his primary research results had been replicated in many other studies and his bottom line conclusion that "about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups" had been taken up by many textbooks on genetics and medicine. In 2003, A. W. F. Edwards wrote a commentary essay in the journal BioEssays
in which Edwards proposes a statistical model for classifying individuals into groupings based on haplotype data. Edwards wrote, "There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification," pointing to his own work with Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, the author of the book
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)which I read soon after it was published in 1994. In general, Edwards cites a lot of publications from his collaboration with Cavalli-Sforza, and mentions that collaboration prominently in his subsequent review article
in which he describes their method for tracing ancestry with genes. Edwards even shows a photograph of Cavalli-Sforza with him in 1963 in his 2009 article, emphasizing their scholarly friendship.
So I wanted to look up Cavalli-Sforza's current views as well while I traced citations of the Lewontin 1972 article and the Edwards 2003 article in subsequent secondary sources. Through searches with Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books, both from my home office computer and from a university library computer, I found a number of books and articles that cite both the Lewontin paper and the Edwards paper. Through a specialized set of wide-reaching keyword searches (for example, "Lewontin Edwards") on the university library's vast database subscriptions, I was able to obtain the full text of many of those articles and of whole books that discuss what current science says about grouping individuals of species Homo sapiens into race groups. I also found more up to date discussions by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza of the Human Genome Diversity Project.
Listed here are sources that have the following characteristics: (1) they cite both previous articles by Lewontin and the 2003 article by Edwards, discussing the underlying factual disagreement between those authors, (2) they are Wikipedia reliable sources for medicine (in particular, they are secondary sources such as review articles or textbooks rather than primary research articles), and (3) they are or have been available to me in full text through book-buying, library lending, author sharing of full text on the Internet, or a university library database. They are arranged in approximate chronological order, so that you can see how the newer sources cite and evaluate the previous sources as genetics research continues. The sources listed here are not exhaustive, but they are varied and authoritative, and they cite most of the dozens of primary research articles on the topic, analyzing and summarizing the current scientific consensus.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)This first book (Koenig, Lee, and Richardson 2008) is useful because it includes a chapter co-authored by Richard Lewontin in which he updates his views.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)The Whitmarsh and Jones (2010) source has several very useful chapters on medical genetics.
Most studies of human population genetics begin by citing a seminal 1972 paper by Richard Lewontin bearing the title of this subsection [29]. Given the central role this work has played in our field, we will begin by discussing it briefl y and return to its conclusions throughout the chapter. In this paper, Lewontin summarized patterns of variation across 17 polymorphic human loci (including classical blood groups such as ABO and M/N as well as enzymes which exhibit electrophoretic variation) genotyped in individuals across classically defined 'races' (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, Australian Aborigines [29] ). A key conclusion of the paper is that 85.4% of the total genetic variation observed occurred within each group. That is, he reported that the vast majority of genetic differences are found within populations rather than between them. In this paper and his book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change [30], Lewontin concluded that genetic variation, therefore, provided no basis for human racial classifications. ... His finding has been reproduced in study after study up through the present: two random individuals from any one group (which could be a continent or even a local population) are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world (see proportion of variation within populations in Table 20.1 and [20]).
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)Like Whitmarsh and Jones (2010), the Krimsky and Sloan (2011) source has several useful chapters on medical genetics.
Actually, the plant geneticist Jeffry Mitton had made the same observation in 1970, without finding that Lewontin's conclusion was fallacious. And Lewontin himself not long ago pointed out that the 85 percent within-group genetic variability figure has remained remarkably stable as studies and genetic markers have multiplied, whether you define populations on linguistic or physical grounds. What's more, with a hugely larger and more refined database to deal with, D. J. Witherspoon and colleagues concluded in 2007 that although, armed with enough genetic information, you could assign most individuals to 'their' population quite reliably, 'individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own.'
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)The massive efforts to study the human genome in detail have produced extraordinary amounts of genetic data. Although we still fail to understand the molecular bases of most complex traits, including many common diseases, we now have a clearer idea of the degree of genetic resemblance between humans and other primate species. We also know that humans are genetically very close to each other, indeed more than any other primates, that most of our genetic diversity is accounted for by individual differences within populations, and that only a small fraction of the species' genetic variance falls between populations and geographic groups thereof.
The book chapter by Barbujani and Colonna (2011) above is especially useful for various Wikipedia articles as a contrast between biodiversity in other animals and biodiversity in Homo sapiens.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)The small genomic differences between populations and the extensive allele sharing across continents explain why historical attempts to identify, once and for good, major biological groups in humans have always failed. ... We argue that racial labels may not only obscure important differences between patients but also that they have become positively useless now that cheap and reliable methods for genotyping are making it possible to pursue the development of truly personalized medicine.
By the way, the Barbujani, Ghirotto, and Tassi (2013) article has a very interesting discussion of SNP typing overlaps across the entire individual genome among some of the first human beings to have their entire individual genomes sequenced, with an especially interesting Venn diagram that would be a good graphic to add to some Wikipedia articles.
Lewontin's conclusions have stood up remarkably well, across diverse kinds of genetic markers, but this produces an odd paradox.
An author who is intimately familiar with Edwards's statistical approach, because he has been a collaborator in fieldwork and co-author on primary research articles with Edwards, is Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Cavalli-Sforza is a medical doctor who was a student of Ronald Fisher in statistics, who has devoted most of his career to genetic research. In an invited review article for the 2007 Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Cavalli-Sforza joins issue directly with the underlying factual disagreement among previous authors, but cites different previous publications.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)GENETIC VARIATION BETWEEN AND WITHIN POPULATIONS, AND THE RACE PROBLEM
In the early 1980s, Lewontin (11) showed that when genetic variation for protein markers is estimated by comparing two or more random individuals from the same populations, or two or more individuals from the whole world, the former is 85% as large as the latter. This means that the variation between populations is the residual 15%, and hence relatively trivial. Later research carried out on a limited number of populations and mostly, though not only, on protein markers has confirmed this analysis. The Rosenberg et al. data actually bring down Lewontin’s estimate to 5%, or even less. Therefore, the variation between populations is even smaller than the original 15%, and we also know that the exact value depends on the choice of populations and markers. But the between-population variation, even if it is very small is certainly enough to reconstruct the genetic history of populations—that is their evolution—but is it enough for distinguishing races in some useful way? The comparison with other mammals shows that humans are almost at the lower extreme of the scale of between-population variation. Even so, subtle statistical methods let us assign individuals to the populations of origin, even distinguishing populations from the same continent, if we use enough genetic markers. But is this enough for distinguishing races? Darwin already had an answer. He gave two reasons for doubting the usefulness of races: (1) most characters show a clear geographic continuity, and (2) taxonomists generated a great variety of race classifications. Darwin lists the numbers of races estimated by his contemporaries, which varied from 2 to 63 races.
Rosenberg et al. (16 and later work) analyzed the relative statistical power of the most efficient subdivisions of the data with a number of clusters varying from 2 to 6, and showed that five clusters have a reasonable statistical power. Note that this result is certainly influenced by the populations chosen for the analysis. The five clusters are not very different from those of a few partitions that had already existed in the literature for some time, and the clusters are: (a) a sub-Saharan African cluster, (b) North Africa–Europe plus a part of western Asia that is approximately bounded eastward by the central Asian desert and mountains, (c) the eastern rest of Asia, (d ) Oceania, and (e) the Americas. But what good is this partition? The Ramachandran et al. (15) analysis of the same data provides a very close prediction of the genetic differences between the same populations by the simplest geographic tool: the geographic distance between the two populations, and two populations from the same continent are on average geographically closer than two from different ones. However, the Rosenberg et al. analysis (16) adds the important conclusion that the standard classification into classical continents must be modified to replace continental boundaries with the real geographic barriers: major oceans, or deserts like the Sahara, or other deserts and major mountains like those of central Asia. These barriers have certainly decreased, but they have not entirely suppressed genetic exchanges across them. Thus, the Rosenberg et al. analysis confirms a pattern of variation based on pseudocontinents that does not eliminate the basic geographic continuity of genetic variation. In fact, the extension by Ramachandran et al. of the original Rosenberg et al. analysis showed that populations that are geographically close have an overwhelming genetic similarity, well beyond that suggested by continental or pseudocontinental partitions.
A year later Cavalli-Sforza joined seventeen other genetics researchers as co-authors of a review article, published as an "open letter" to other scholars, on using racial categories in human genetics.
We recognize that racial and ethnic categories are created and maintained within sociopolitical contexts and have shifted in meaning over time Human genetic variation within continents is, for the most part, geographically continuous and clinal, particularly in regions of the world that have not received many immigrants in recent centuries [18]. Genetic data cannot reveal an individual's full geographic ancestry precisely, although emerging research has been used to identify geographic ancestry at the continental and subcontinental levels [3,19]. Genetic clusters, however, are far from being equivalent to sociopolitical racial or ethnic categories.
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |display-authors=18
(
help)Other current review articles related to human population structure include
What does this imply for the existence of human races? Basically, that people with similar genetic features can be found in distant places, and that each local population contains a vast array of genotypes. Among the first genomes completely typed were those of James Watson and Craig Venter, two U.S. geneticists of European origin; they share more alleles with Seong-Jin Kim, a Korean scientist (1,824,482 and 1,736,340, respectively) than with each other (1,715,851). This does not mean that two random Europeans are expected to be genetically closer to Koreans than to each other, but certainly highlights the coarseness of racial categorizations.
There are a lot of factual claims about humankind that impinge on specifically medical claims. I appreciate the work of the participants in this project who put together the WP:MEDRS guidelines over the last several years, as those help improve Wikipedia articles by identifying better sources. I look forward to working collaboratively with the Wikipedians involved in this project in updating a variety of articles within the scope of this project in the next several years. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 20:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Here! Here! You talk the truth my bruther and your smart too. Everyone trys to make nazees sound like a bunch of dumasses but they forget how close we came to winning world war 2. Hitler was not a dumass — their the dumasses. White people have allways bin smarter then everyone else its just that we let blacks and jewdiasm get into our blood which is making us weak. We need to get smart again like you and Hitler and become doctors like those other guys you talk about. Only white people are smart enough to be doctors. Did you ever notice that? I don’t see any jew or black doctors at my hospital. Never have never will. 88!!!
A user added a number of articles to the above category recently, which I feel are at best indirectly linked. I asked the user if they had any evidence that such articles were classified as excretion in the real world, but they failed to respond so far ( User_talk:SummerWithMorons#Excretion). Should articles such as pus be in this category? Thoughts? Lesion ( talk) 11:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI, an editor has significantly expanded dental implant and has now requested a peer review which has gone unanswered for a while: Wikipedia:Peer review/Dental implant/archive2. If anyone familiar with MEDRS/MEDMOS is interested please have a look. Possibly @ Zad68: who has experience writing another surgical topic, perhaps some advice is transferable? Lesion ( talk) 13:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
And there is also
Mylohyoid muscle at
WP:ANATOMY. --
WS (
talk) 00:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I would propose that we remove BLPs from WPMED. I consider this to be a project more about diseases and their treatments than about specific individuals. There is WP:BIOG. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
|importance=low
for WPMED. Most of them (physicians, surgeons, researchers, etc.) should additionally be listed with WPBIO's group set to |s&a-work-group=yes
(probably not patients, although there aren't that many of them).
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 23:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Template:Medheader ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.50.148.105 ( talk) 04:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that Template:DentPortalTalk ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. This showed that WP:WikiProject Dentistry is inactive. Perhaps dentistry should be merged as a taskforce into this project? And Portal:Dentistry should come under the WPMED banner? -- 70.50.148.105 ( talk) 04:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Could members of this project please review the section in Anthony Holland (composer) on his cancer research experiments, and join the discussion at Talk:Anthony Holland (composer)#Seeking qualified unbiased editors? I've tried repeatedly to clarify in the article that this Holland is not a trained scientist, and that the work he's carrying out, which appears to be a new variant of the Rife machine, is fringe, alternative medicine. The consensus in that talk page discussion, from all editors bar one anonymous editor, is that it's appropriate and accurate to note that he's carrying out amateur research. Thanks, Ruby Murray 12:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've apologised to JFW and James elsewhere but I'd like to do it here, too, for my uncalled-for insults yesterday. They didn't deserve that. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
On a related note about our differences, I want to bring up a historical example that some folks might not be aware of. Some want a disclaimer, some want expert review, and some want to work as hard and as fast as they can to improve content. My comment is about the feasibility of bringing our content to any level and keeping there.
Who has been here long enough to have remembered or to have worked with TimVickers? He arrived here with the same enthusiasm of DocJames and Anthony, he did boatloads of good work (quickly writing a number of GAs and FAs, helping restore and maintain others), he helped develop resources like our dispatch on sources in medicine, and he published some journal articles about Wikipedia and medical content. I was particularly fond of him. [41] Tim has made about eight edits this year. What has happened to all that content he developed and defended? Well, together Tim and I improved tuberculosis when it was at Featured article review, and for quite some time, we tried to defend it to FA standard. After Tim's departure, tuberculosis fell into disprepair, and it is now defeatured.
Draw what conclusions you may about how likely we are to ever raise and keep any number of articles in here to standard. I appreciate everyone's attempts, but offer this example as one explanation for our differing views. I hope DocJames doesn't burn out, but if he does, history shows us that all of the content he has upgraded and defended will quickly sink to the usual low level in here. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Just a wild idea: since much of the thrash is around recent work that hasn't yet got high quality secondary sources, let's make the work of identifying the lower-quality sources easier. The {{
cite journal}} template takes parameter |type=review
or alternately |type=clinical trial
etc. If we actually made use of this parameter, it would be far simpler to know where we need to seek secondary sources. Failing that, perhaps MOSMED could ghettoize the primary recentism in one limited-size section.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 16:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Type: Additional information about the media type of the source. Hence using this field to store the PubMed publication type might clash with the current usage of this field. It might be better to create a new special purpose field in Module:Citation/CS1 to store the publication type. It appears that the Publication Type (PT) (see list of publication types) is accessible from the Entrez E-utilities. So in principle it should be possible to modify Diberri's template filling tool to populate this field as well as create a bot that could add this information to existing citations. Boghog ( talk) 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Type: Examples: Thesis, Booklet, CD liner, Press release.Boghog ( talk) 20:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose the "format" param already can give an indication of "media type" ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Format of the work referred to by url; for example: PDF, DOC, or XLS; displayed in parentheses after title.One minor issue is that the type parameter is displayed after the journal name:
{{
cite journal}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)There are three main terms per the International League Against Epilepsy:
We seem to muddle these up. So does the NHS [42] so at least we are in good company. I am going to try to apply the ILAE structure to our articles. Anyone have any other ideas? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Are interested in collaborating. They are looking into the issue of copyright non compatability. Thoughts on this end? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
External videos | |
---|---|
Post-Impressionism, Seurat's A Sunday on La Grande Jatte - 1884, Smarthistory [4] |
I don't know much about this project or your need for videos and other media provided by well-recognized non-profit educational organizations, and only a bit that I've heard about the need for external validation/checking of medical articles. I have seen Doc James and Blue Raspberry around and respect their work. I think I've only edited one or two medical articles in the 7 years I've edited on Wikipedia. That said, I think if you need either good media or some (however weak) type of "external verification" then this would be a good opportunity for this project. I just ran into this discussion via the Wikipedia notification system today and wanted to give you a thoroughly researched overview of all the issues, but it's taking too long, so some bullet points will have to do for now.
External videos | |
---|---|
Flu Epidemiology, Stanford School of Medicine with Khan Academy [5] |
External videos | |
---|---|
Fragonard's The Meeting, Smarthistory [4] | |
Fragonard's The Swing, Smarthistory [6] | |
Beneath the Painted Surface: Fragonard's Fountain of Love, Getty Museum |
Well, that probably more information than you wanted to know. Feel free to ask any questions here or on my talk page or even via e-mail. I do hope that you get something going with KA because I think it would improve the encyclopedia, especially improving our use of videos. since I don't know much about medical articles, I doubt that I'd do too much inserting of videos. Maybe just enough to show a couple of people how it can work.
All the best,
Smallbones( smalltalk) 22:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) (minor ec)
I just noticed the nav template has gone from this page. Was there consensus for this? Lesion ( talk) 10:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Ian Furst:@ Biosthmors:@ Leighblackall:
There seems to be a group of students who will be working on the some dental pages as part of a class from La Trobe University. Here is their Wikiversity page [46], and I think this is the list of articles they will be working on:
Welcome to all and please feel free to ask here or on the talk pages of each article if you have any Qs. Lesion ( talk) 06:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Comments are needed from this WikiProject with regard to this matter: Talk:Condom#Push for FA status. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Per "Dr. Gavin Buffington, professor and chair of the Department of Physics at Fort Hays State University in Kansas. "I'm using a Boundless textbook this semester in my Engineering Physics I class, and I've been impressed by the quality of content"" [47] with this page [48] borrowing heavily from kinematics Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I was wondering if any of you would be willing to help me with this before I nominate
amphetamine for FA. Per
Sasata's suggestion in
Talk:Amphetamine/GA1, I'd like to get some feedback on the article's readability in the
Pharmacodynamics and
Detection in body fluids sections from anyone without a background or working knowledge of
molecular neuropharmacology or chemistry respectively. Time permitting, reviewing the entire pharmacology section for readability would be a big help if anyone is willing to do more.
I just need to know what statements, if any, are unclear or a bit too technical for a layperson to understand.
Thanks,
Seppi333 (
talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
A new paper is out, with comments on the quality of a subset of medical Wikipedia entries:
I do not have access to it. -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 10:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Although the pathogenesis of disease was provided in most articles, the mechanisms were briefly described and did not show the pathological changes at body system, organ, cellular, and key molecular level. Significant gaps were noted in the mechanisms described for diseases such as cirrhosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, portal hypertension, and ascites. A number of problems and errors were identified in several articles (Appendix II).
Have a number of comments:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been looking around, and there are some great free resources out there with pathology images. I haven't got to uploading them, but these are under CC-BY-A 2:
This resource in under NC, but maybe could be persuaded for use on wikipedia:
CFCF ( talk) 09:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I came across this article: Adaptogen, which relies heavily on pharamacological concepts, but doesn't adhere to WP:MEDRS. It could do with some work, perhaps removing references from books such as The tao of medicine. CFCF ( talk) 10:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
A class is working on Sexual violence ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and of course that article deals with a lot of medical aspects. I have been fixing and/or tweaking the student edits there, but help with that article from other WP:MED members would be very beneficial to that article. For example, there is this and this matter with regard to the World Health Organization (WHO); by that, I mean the statistics and "The WHO’s World Report on Violence and Health[33] lists the following ways in which sexual violence against females can be committed" material (some of those ways surely apply to more than just females). But anyway, thanks in advance to anyone who helps out. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have proposed a person property at Wikidata that I think members of this WikiProject should review, and probably can improve upon. It is a way to record notable medical conditions/procedures/causes. Please see d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person#medical_condition. I am not convinced that 'medical condition' is the best term. Ideally this property would also cater for voluntary body modifications such as tattoos/piercings/cyborgs, if it is a notable attribute (and on Wikipedia there is usually always one article where the person is notable for anything). Is ICD10 L81.8 the code for a tattoo? Is there a code for horns? ;-) There is also the concern that in the future there will be voluntary amputations for athletic performance reasons [51], which we can add to the list of weird and wonderful reasons why people would do strange things to their body. John Vandenberg ( chat) 13:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Developmental regression - A new article which has possible copy / paste issues could someone please have a look at it dolfrog ( talk) 15:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
An interesting discussion is taking place here User_talk:MastCell#I_voted... which has had a significant effect on WPMED. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
We all know that all the obvious articles have already been created, right?
Well, if someone would like an easy opportunity to try for a WP:DYK, it turns out that hip pain is still a red link. I think that these are the codes, if you want to set up an infobox: ICD-10 and ICD-9. Hip pain leads to things like hip replacement; it affects about one in seven older adults. There are plenty of review articles out there, but since it's a general symptom involved in a lot of separate conditions, you might be better off finding a good textbook.
And if this area interests you, then elbow pain and foot pain are also possible topics. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:54, 8 December 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 39 | Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | → | Archive 45 |
Please browse topics at
SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 21:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
As university term-end approaches, these articles (and classes listed above) will need attention! SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:37, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
We're currently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Link to terminology undergoing discussion editing a few articles that may be of quite high relevance to you over here. The proposition we have been acting on is to combine articles to a shorter entry on human anatomical terms at Anatomical terminology. A draft for a new article is available at User:CFCF/sandbox/Anatomical terminology and is a slightly adapted text from [1] which is CC.
The reason I believe this article is relevant to you is that it sums up at least three articles (which also need to be expanded in the near future):
At least this last one is very much up your strasse, and I hope some form of cooperation because all these articles are in dire need of expansion. To help, please proofread User:CFCF/sandbox/Anatomical terminology and copyedit and expand (do not remove anything major as its better to discuss). Then there is the question of sources on that article, the entire text is pulled from a secondary source, how do you attribute this? Is it by referencing every line?? CFCF ( talk) 13:03, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Comments are needed on this matter: Talk:Body#Merge with disambiguation page. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:58, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
[2] Thoughts? Lesion ( talk) 14:39, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes the copyright office around Wikipedia/Commons is getting a little out of control. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:37, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
@ Benlisquare:, no, I don't think there is any evidence for this statement. See link posted above by LT. I think James was also working on a advisory document on these issues, which I can't find now. Lesion ( talk) 13:24, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
No one has any idea the copyright of X-rays or even if they are copyrightable. And than if they are copyrightable does the license go to the ordering physician, the radiologist reading it, the patient, the X-ray tech or the hospital? And does this vary depending on the country the image is taken in? Than are the images held to the copyright of were the images are hosted (the USA) or the country were the images are taken? It seems each edit on Commons makes up their own version of what they think the law is and than begins trying to delete X-ray images from there. It is a huge waste of time for those of us trying to build an encyclopedia having to deal with those who are trying to destroy one. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
To give the end to this tale: several of the images were now deleted. It is clear that the user is the copyright holder of the images and has even attempted to accommodate us by jumping through these arbitrary hoops [4]. Lesion ( talk) 10:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at Help talk:Citation Style 1#Reboot: inconsistent citation style due to change in long-standing URL v PMC parameters. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
At e-cigs here Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Problem_with_this_edit_.5B20.5D. Comments welcome. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:14, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd like to request that someone start an article on diffuse alveolar hemorrhaging, and I'm not sure if there's a specific place within this project to do that. It was recently announced that a voice actor from a game series I enjoy has the condition, and as someone without a medical background, I couldn't make heads or tails of any of the descriptions on other websites.
If there is a better place to request this, please feel free to move it there and then ping me.
Thanks, Sven Manguard Wha? 18:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
This article has just been expanded by a student. I've fixed format & some copyedit. There's a lot of medical/technical stuff there which I can't evaluate. Would someone please look at it, and also change "start class" on the talk page. Thanks, Hordaland ( talk) 03:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I do not often use primary sources. But I have added one per Talk:Cardiac_arrest#Recent_RCT_questions_benefit_of_hypothermia. What do people think? This new RCT is twice as large as the previous meta analysis and was published in the NEJM. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Our pageviews have been down these last four months Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Popular_pages. This however may be due to a recent changes in peoples usage of HTTP versus HTTPS rather than a true change in readership per Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-11-13/News_and_notes.
We also see this same drop for other groups of articles using [8]. Even though overall pageviews have increased significantly per [9]. Hopefully this will be fixed soon. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
An RFC on Template:Bullying is taking place at Template talk:Bullying#RfC: Template links. Input from project members would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 08:47, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm creating three new articles about aspects of the NIH:
Do we have a contact at the NIH - an NIH insider with a good grasp of their history and functions - who can review my work when I'm done and possibly offer structural, sourcing and other guidance as I go?
National Institutes of Health Clinical Research Training Program? (I know it's barely notable. It will probably end up in an overview article eventually.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 10:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
These edits [11] seemed to remove secondary sources and replace with one primary source; and change the tone of the section from saying there is no evidence. I don't have time to look in detail at this right now, but it looks like it might need reversing from a very superficial analysis. Lesion ( talk) 11:57, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
There is a dispute about the proper application of WP:MEDRS, primary studies, and position statements by major medical associations on this article. Further input would be appreciated. Yobol ( talk) 13:32, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
We have a primary source being misinterpreted and given undue weight right now Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Primary_source Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
GOMER could use some work. I remember a book I read saying it was more applied to the lonely who had lost their "humanness" and just came to the ER for human attention. I forget what book it was, but it might have been the one by Robert Martensen (RIP). Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 06:50, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
Comments are needed on this matter: Talk:Safe sex#Requested move. Flyer22 ( talk) 00:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
More comments would be welcome, but this talk has gotten four responses already. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I will be out today for a family friend funeral. There are a number of competency issues with a new medical editor, and from what I've seen, everything s/he has done may need to be reverted. There is also copyvio (see Talk:Psychosurgery). I don't have time to do anything today, can anyone help? [12] SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
The Intersex article could use help from this WikiProject. A class is currently working on that article and it's quickly become a dumping ground for all sorts of intersex material, with formatting issues and the like. I'll also alert WP:Anatomy to this matter. Flyer22 ( talk) 02:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Since it is increasingly unlikely we will get any help from the WMF, and increasingly likely we will see more and more of this, I suggest that we are going to need to develop our own templates for dealing with these situations, and perhaps our own watchlist page, subpage, or place where we can track all of the problems and courses. This talk page is being taken over by problems with student editing, to the point that it is becoming hard to get attention to other, more worthy articles and issues.
This course seems to be UC Irvine, Women's Studies, 60A Gender and Science. And there seem to be quite a few of them. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
did it myself because the nimwits at WP:ENB couldn't be bothered ... please, folks, watchlist this one so it will work for us, because everything we have tried to do via the ENB has been watered down to fluff and promote their project that is creating more messes than we can keep up with.
{{ subst:Welcome medical student}} SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:07, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
User:Stefan2 per here Wikipedia:Possibly_unfree_files/2013_November_20#File:Hscbefore.jpg has put a diagnostic image up for deletion on Wikipedia. It is interesting as a very similar one uploaded by the same user was deemed to be fine here [13] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:23, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
If a reliable source appears to have "copy and pasted" from Wikipedia is it still a reliable source? Do we say that the Wikipedia content has undergone formal peer review and can we than use that ref to support our own content? Ref is this one [14] published in Dec of 2012. Here is the history section of our article back in 2010. [15].
Anyway to address User:SandyGeorgia's concern regarding a lack of medical warnings. We are writing many of the worlds textbook and journal articles unattributed. Not sure if that is a good thing. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:25, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
NO. Whomever is doing this, it needs to stop; if it doesn't, ANI is needed. See WP:ELNEVER. A number of ebooks scrape WikiContent and reproduce them. They do attribute the content to Wikipedia, so they are not copyvios (I don't know if that particular book does), but precisely because they are mirrors of Wikipedia, in addition to the copyvio issues, they are not reliable sources. They are scraped from a website (Wikipedia) which by definition (user contributed) is not reliable. Whomever is adding wiki mirrors or ELs that contain copyvio as sources needs to be stopped, and reverted. That is a basic contradiction to WP:V (not reliable), or in some case, copyvio if the attribution to Wikipedia is not given. At FAC, we once came across a copy of an FA in an ebook on Amazon. I ordered that book, and we discovered that they had scraped the entire FA, paired it with "Jock strap" (from Wikipedia), and marketed it. Since they attributed it correctly to Wikipedia, there is nothing we can do about that, but Wikipedia mirrors are NEVER reliable sources. See further description in FAC archives. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 13:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This is on the other hand a very different matter, where we are talking about a very reputable publishing house, and that on its own should be enough to except sufficient peer-review. The book does not carry a disclaimer that it doesn't give medical advice (although a different disclaimer is there). I don't think this is at all that simple, and it needs to be discussed at a larger forum than WP:MED, but first it may be good to summarize several of these cases in a list. WP:CIRCULAR is not clear concerning anything other than websites. -- CFCF ( talk) 13:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Got this nice write up a while ago :-) [16] Another example is mentioned here [17]. The issue is that the doc in question copied stuff from Wikipedia that was wrong. I corrected Wikipedia of course but unable to correct this book. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:17, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
{{
Backwardscopy}}
atop the article's talkpage so that other editors will be alerted to the existence of the mirror.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 07:08, 22 November 2013 (UTC)This journal article copied much more liberally from our Wikipedia article on COPD without attribution [18] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:11, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
What the heck is the difference between Distal spinal muscular atrophy type 2 and Congenital distal spinal muscular atrophy and why is there no link anywhere in that article to a main condition, and which would that be and why is Spinal muscular atrophies in the plural rather than singular? I am not a Dr. I don't know if this new student article belongs elsewhere, needs to be merged, duplicates an existing article, and this student article generally needs medical review. There's a mess in there. Why do we have Spinal muscular atrophies and spinal muscular atrophy and why does one of them mention "Autosomal recessive proximal spinal muscular atrophy", which also seems to be a redirect, and how is that different from the congenital type? A doc is needed to sort out all of this. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:38, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Would like to archive threads > 5 days per consensus previously reached. Talk page is getting unwieldy and slow to load. However will not do this if reverted. Is there still consensus on archiving threads > 5 days? -- LT910001 ( talk) 07:52, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
Archiving here has been off. Five days is premature, and open topics are being archived. Install the one step archiver (see my contribs for how to find it), and use it to selectively prune the page of topics that are truly done, or where there is consensus to archive, and let open topics stay longer (say 10 days at least, particularly since the Project has gone moribund and we aren't getting responses on lots of things). The page is NOT that long, and stuff is getting missed. And, this business of no third-level headings is what is making the page a mess. Restore normal talk page headings. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:20, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
We have a user who is trying to add their own personal experience to the article on Social anxiety disorder Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Update: admin watch. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
ANI SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
A single user is constantly reverting edits here made by several editors from WP:MED, and is not following consensus on the talk-page. I have been forced to revert a number of times relying on WP:3RRNO, but I don't want to rely on it anymore. Please help by reverting or talking sense in to the editor. -- CFCF ( talk) 14:06, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Please see Epilepsy in females with intellectual disability. You won't have heard of this syndrome before, because it doesn't exist. It was invented by Wikipedians. Please comment on the naming dispute at the talk page. -- Colin° Talk 18:43, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Expert_review_project_again. Thanks for starting this user:Anthonyhcole. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
The Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare has undertaken a large scale drive to create a database of rare diseases and disorders that affect less than 100 people per 1,000,000.
The ultimate goal is to raise availability of information about these diseases and conditions. Additionally a drive has been undertaken to translate this material into English because it was seen that many who accessed the material were not from Sweden. It is a high quality source of medical knowledge, and could most likely expand many articles on Wikipedia. Available here: http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/rarediseases (Unfortunately the material is subject to copyright law, but that does not hinder it from being a reference material, or linking to it). CFCF ( talk) 11:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello. In Tourniquet test You can read "The test is positive if there are more than 10 to 20 petechiae per a circle 2.5 cm(1 inch) in diameter". In Dengue: "cut off being more than 10 to 20 per 2.5 cm2 (1 inch2).". Inch^2 isnn't equal to 2,5 cm^2 and, what is more, π(inch/2)^2. Which version is true? Mpn ( talk) 06:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Would whoever took the barnstars off of WP:MED put them back please? Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 07:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Not mainspace:
Top | High | Mid | Low | NA | ??? | Total |
99 | 1,100 | 11,582 | 37,856 | 18,463 | 867 | 69,967 |
To install on a page: {{
WPMED related changes}}
.
Using like: {{WPMED related changes
|mylinks1=Leukemia
|mylinks2=Malaria|label2=My interest topic}}
- DePiep ( talk) 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) - DePiep ( talk) 00:05, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
Dumber than I look ... do I put this in my own user space and link to the articles I follow? And why is the template called WPMED-- would it not work for any kind of article? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
{{WPMED related changes}}
|mylinks1=
. See link examples 5 and 6 (
Leukemia and
malaria): free to choose. Can be any wiki page (|mylinks3=Napoleon
), or a userpage: |mylinks4=User:SandyGeorgia/my hot pages
. This will act like a handmade watchlist. Note:
Related changes does not show that single page's edits, but the edits in all links on that page (e.g., edits of
white blood cells, via the leukemia page). -
DePiep (
talk) 21:09, 23 November 2013 (UTC)This looks wondeful! As someone not so versed in the technical side of Wikipedia, would it be possible to appropriate this to WP:Anatomy as well? CFCF ( talk) 12:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
We discussed this issue here [22].
IMO it would be useful to our readers to have "open access" icons in our refs. This will let them know if they should bother hitting the link or not. A bot would take care of adding / updating this info as it changes. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:39, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
I know that some of you have banner blindness, so here's a reminder that the ArbCom elections are underway, and a note about a problem that caused all early votes to be discarded:
Voting is now open to elect new members of the Arbitration Committee. Voting will close on Monday, 9 December at 23:59 UTC. (Important note: Votes made prior to 00:01 26 November 2013 were discarded due to a technical error)
Pay attention to that "important note" if you think that you've already voted. You can see the list of successfully recorded voters at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2013/Log. If you tried to vote, and your name isn't on the list, then you need to vote again. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
This book copy and pasted some of the images I have uploaded. They have even borrowed heavily from our text copying my strange writing style word for word. [23] Anyway we are getting some good reviews on Amazon [24]. I wondering if we are being used in any schools yet? I am looking into it. This could be a big break and maybe news worthy :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
It is still listed as CC BY SA at the end. CC BY SA is copyrighted just it is an open copyright. They are putting some work into it. We do need to come out with our own textbook formatted work. I am not sure what prevents people from just buying one copy and then sharing it? You should be able to download a copy of each and start your own website selling them for 99 cents or nothing. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Looking at it more. This appears to be a potentially useful collaboration. It is freely available online such as here and does attribute us [28] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Boundless (company) is publishing these books. It seems that this is a startup commercial operation which raised about USD 10 million and is seeking to supplant the entirety of the USD 8 billion textbook industry by replacing all texts, especially introductory texts, with free equivalents. I am not sure what their funding model is. On Amazon they seem to give away their books, and then charge for supplemental learning guides.
I read that they have an ongoing lawsuit. The best summary I found on first glance is at insidehighered.com but the court complaint is accessible also. The accusation is that Boundless is starting with any given copyrighted textbook and paraphrasing it in entirety to create a free version. The plaintiffs allege that the paraphrasing is too close and constitutes copyright infringement.
I would not support infringing behavior, but I am in favor of replacing all popular textbooks with free equivalents. This is a goal of the open educational resources movement and WikiProject Open also promotes these ideas. It might be the case that with Boundless facing legal trouble for whatever method it was using to generate textbooks, the company might be favorable to a partnership with the Wikipedia community in getting advice on compiling future textbooks. I feel that a partnership with Boundless or any other such community could be in Wikipedian's favor, and starting with medical texts might not be a bad idea. I would be delighted if Boundless leveraged its resources to improve Wikipedia articles so that they would be more fit to insert into its textbooks, especially since its textbooks seem CC-By-SA and could be remixed and reused by anyone.
How would others feel about inviting Boundless people here to discuss putting a medical text on Wikipedia? If a textbook were dropped here, how should it be hosted? Wikisource? Wikibooks? Wikiversity? How do people here feel about commercial companies like Boundless packaging Wikipedia content and tapping volunteer contributions for resale? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this info reasonable in a section on society and culture in the cough medicine article? [29] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
As above. Review article is here [33] Pubmed of course has the best coverage for US stuff. Less from other parts of the world. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
This is from the Medical Products Agency - Sweden, translated by me (with great care not to influence the guidelines) [36]:
Hos vuxna är den akut påkomna hostan i samband med en infektion svår att påverka men lindras nog bäst med varm dryck. Olika läkemedels effekt på hosta är dåligt studerad och resultaten svårtolkade. Läkemedel mot hosta är därför inte rabattberättigade. Om torr rethosta föreligger, kan man pröva centralt hostdämpande farmaka, t ex noskapin, och är hostan mycket besvärande nattetid kan man med vederbörlig försiktighet skriva ut läkemedel innehållande etylmorfin, såsom Cocillana-Etyfin. Antibiotika påverkar inte förloppet.
In adults acute cough in conjunction with an infection is diffucult to influence, but is most likely helped best with warm beverages. The effect of different medication on cough is poorly studied, and the results difficult to interpret. Therefor pharmaceuticals against cough are not entitled to reduced rate[in Sweden]. If dry irritating cough is found it is possible to to try a centrally cough-reducing medicine, for example noskapin, och if the cough is very inconveniencing during the night one can with proper caution prescribe pharmaceuticals containing ethylmorphine such as Cocillana-Etyfin. Antibiotics do not effect the course of events.
Hos barn är det viktigt att först skapa sig en bild av den underliggande infektionen. Det gäller att behandla en eventuell obstruktivitet i första hand. Får man obstruktiviteten under kontroll avtar ofta också hostan. Att ge slemlösande medel är verkningslöst. Hostan kan ofta förklaras av att det tar tid för flimmerhåren att återbildas efter infektionen och den går över efter 1–2 månader utan behandling. Ett barn i 4–7-årsåldern kan efter en period av recidiverande nedre luftvägsinfektioner ha utvecklat postinfektiös hyperreaktivitet och hostreflexen har blivit mer lättutlöst. Sannolikt finns ett kroniskt inflammatoriskt tillstånd i slemhinnan. Vid långvarig hyperreaktivitet kan man pröva inhalationssteroid i lågdos 1–2 gånger/dag. Antibiotika påverkar inte förloppet.
In children it is important to form an image of the underlying infection. It is due to treat a possible obstructivity in first hand. If you get the obstructivity under controll the cough will often subside. To give exporants is without effect. The cough can often be explained by the time it takes to regain the cilia after an ifection and it will pass after 1-2 months without treatment. A child 4-7 years of age can after a period of recidivating lower airway-infection have developed a postinfectious hyperactivity and the cough-reflex has become easier to provoke. Most likelt there is a chronic inflammatory condition in the mucous membrane. During prolonged hyperreactivity one can try an inhalation-steroid in low dosage 1-2 times a day. Antibiotics do not effect the course of events.
CFCF ( talk) 11:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Another at WP:ENI#Postmenopausal confusion, Georgia IT SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:28, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Student editing cleanup needed, see Talk:Cholera. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Another at WP:ENI#University of Manchester, AD; regulars here might as well watchlist the education noticeboard incidents page. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
(@ SandyGeorgia, Tryptofish, Jmh649, Biosthmors, and Colin: cross-posting here from the education noticeboard, since I know some of you folks are trying to keep that off your watchlists.)
I've gone ahead and taken a first stab at building a module of topic-specific advice for the educators training. (We can similarly add these to the student trainings as well.) Take a look at the trainings starting here: Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Topic-specific modules.
The content for the medical editing module lives here:
Please improve! We can add more pages if necessary, but I strongly recommend not letting any individual pages get much longer than these; the less information on each page, the more of what's there will sink in. -- Sage Ross (WMF) ( talk) 19:47, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
Collapse done SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
1. Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Topic-specific modules
2. Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Medical topics 1
3. Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Medical topics 2
They don't get this ... heck, most established editors don't get it. I suggest changing it to ...
4. Wikipedia:Training/For educators/Medical topics 3
5. Missing: we need to somehow get them to add PMIDs. That could involve adding one more page explaining how to search pubmed for a PMID. Having a PMID in the citation significantly lessens our burden when we review the student's work. Can we add one more page on this?
Thanks for doing this! Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:51, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
|
Sage Ross (WMF) Nice job of incorporating my concerns, Sage Ross-- thanks. There is only one thing that we might look further at:
In the interest of space and not overwhelming the students, sending them to the "cite pmid" template is the fastest and easiest. But most medical articles don't use that template, and it generates a horrid citation that we don't mostly use in medicine (we use the Diberri/BogHog citation filler template, which yields a more compact citation). And since most students use regular citation templates, the cite journal generated by BogHog would make sense to them. But I'm not sure you can work that citation filling template in with brevity. But I don't want to be recommending they use the cite pmid template, because in most medical articles, that will run them afoul of WP:CITEVAR-- don't change established citation style, which is usually Diberri/BogHog. I'm not sure how you can fix this ... SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:32, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Should this even be an article? Don't even know where to start ... student editing, perhaps someone should open an incident at WP:ENI. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:45, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Hey all, We've reached the stage with Flow where it's relatively stable, and we'd like to invite you to take some time to try it out and chase bugs. It currently lives on a staff-run test server, which means it isn't hooked up to Single User Login - you can either edit anonymously or, preferably, create a new account under your current username.
The software has a minimal set of features at the moment; normal discussions with wikitext and templates should work fine (although Quiddity has only imported a few hundred templates), but there are some known bugs (and features that we're working on this fortnight) with the software. We're not looking to deploy Flow to enwiki in its current form, nor asking you to give your seal of approval to that.
What we'd like is for you to use the software, test it out and let us know two things:
On the off chance that Flow is really, really broken for you, to the point where you can't post (maybe a browser issue?) you can of course use the enwiki talkpage for both purposes. If you have any questions about the test, you can post them there too :). We're going to be holding this testing open for a week to allow people to really hammer on the software, although we may not be around Thursday or Friday (it's Thanksgiving). If not, don't worry: we'll reply to you when we return.
Thanks! – Quiddity (WMF) ( talk) 21:39, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
The Human Immunodeficiency Virus(HIV) was discovered in 1981. In the thirty-one years that we have known about HIV substantial progress has been made in understanding and treating the virus. However, understanding of the virus as it pertains to children and adolescents is still a relatively new research area. In the late 1980s, researchers and health care professionals turned their attention toward adolescents as an at-risk population [1]. This population was cited as at-risk due to adolescents believing they are impervious to the virus as well as the risky sexual and drug experimentation that occurs during this period of development. In order to prevent high-risk behaviors that could result in the acquisition of HIV, the authors called for HIV/AIDS education in the schools.
Children who have been perinatally infected with HIV are now living longer and relatively healthy lives due mostly to antiretroviral therapy (ART) [2]. Researchers take the stance that HIV/AIDS should be viewed not as a death sentence as it once was, but as a chronic illness and calls for an integrative and multidisciplinary approach in caring for these individuals that takes into account many factors including psychological well-being. Children infected with HIV/AIDS as well as their families have many new challenges to face due to longer longevity. These challenges are affecting children with HIV/AIDS differently from other chronic or incurable diseases. For example, children may have had to watch family members become ill and die from HIV/AIDS. They face stigmatization, lack of resources, family disruption, and exposure to abuse. Not only do they have to deal with external sources of stress they are also dealing with thoughts of their own mortality and feelings of guilt, loss, anger, etc.
[2]states that mental health interventions must become incorporated into the standard of care for those children living with HIV/AIDS. However, health care systems often fail to provide this need. Researchers call for a multidimensional approach that would incorporate primary care physicians, psychologists, psychiatrists, and families. Primary care nurses, school nurses, and general practitioners can learn to recognize the signs of mental illness and manage the most basic of mental illnesses or make an appropriate referral. Or, a clinical psychologist could be present at these children’s primary care facilities.
[3] states a particularly disturbing statistic that more HIV infections are attributable to adolescents and young adults between the ages of 13-29 years of age. Researchers state that “HIV is an epidemic primarily of young people.” Psychiatric disorders that have high prevalence rates among adolescents with HIV/AIDS which include but are not limited to: attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, anxiety, behavior problems, and oppositional defiant disorder.
|}-- S Philbrick (Talk) 12:37, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Please participate in the move discussion on Talk:Wegener's granulomatosis whether the eponym or the descriptive name should be the article title. JFW | T@lk 13:04, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
In the last several months a few different persons have added various "celebrity" figures, often unreferenced to this section of the above article. My gut feeling is that we should scrap the whole section. Or if you have any thoughts on who should stay and who should go, please comment here Talk:Trigeminal_neuralgia#Notable_cases_section. Thank you, Lesion ( talk) 17:11, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
Hello again, medical experts! Is this a notable topic, and can the "essaylike" qualities be removed to make a good article? If not edited right away, it will be deleted as a stale draft. — Anne Delong ( talk) 13:29, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: Here's another old declined Afc submission that is about to be deleted. If there is any value in it, please someone make an edit to postpone deletion so that it can be improved. — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Not automatically deleted, but deleted per G13 because it was started in May 2012, and then abandoned.
Here's the content, if someone wants to work on it, let me know and I'll restore it
|
---|
I have been editing human nutrition as part of a class assignment in recent months, and am seeking feedback and advice on Human Nutrition. The article was previously exclusively made up of the same exact content as Nutrition, and as tagged as so. I am wondering if any of that content should remain there or not? How can I get the banner to be removed? I have been adding content to provide a social perspective to understanding access to nutrition, nutritional status of countries internationally, organizations involved with nutrition, and the prevalence and effects of malnutrition. Any feedback, edits, additions, or guidance would be appreciated. thank you! Lbockhorn ( talk) 00:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. However, I have been advised by our education coordinator not to remove any of the material in the article that originated from Nutrition. I found this to be a perfectly advisable strategy. I foresee that eventually someone may find it useful to provide more information about nutrition not pertaining to humans in the article Nutrition, therefore, I would not like to be responsible for removing human specific information from Human Nutrition. Thank you for your suggestion. Lbockhorn ( talk) 08:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I am in the process of editing Human Nutrition, and having trouble organizing the different challenges involved with malnutrition. There needs to be consideration not only for the individual effects that malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies can have on an individual, but also a consideration of the social affects of widespread malnutrition issues. The organizational structure of malnutrition needs some more work I believe. Does the following structure provide a better combination of the previous article and the new social information that needs to be incorporated?
Individual nutrition challenges
4.2.3.1 Illnesses caused by improper nutrient consumption
4.2.3.3 Mental agility
4.2.3.4 Mental disorders
4.2.3.5 Cancer
4.2.3.6 Metabolic syndrome and obesity
4.2.3.7 Hyponatremia
Global nutrition challenges
2.1 Malnutrition and causes of death and disability
2.2 Child malnutrition
2.3 Adult overweight and obesity
2.4 Vitamin and mineral malnutrition
2.4.1 Iron deficiency and anaemia
2.4.2 Vitamin A deficiency
2.4.3 Iodine deficiency
2.5 Infant and young child feeding
2.6 Undernourishment
Are there any comments on this structure? Thank you Lbockhorn ( talk) 15:23, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your detailed and thorough response. I agree that much work needs to be done on this page, and still needs to be done. I have implemented some of the structure suggestions I listed before, which turned out to help organize content I had already provided in a more accessible manner. However, I did not edit the structure of any of the material that was already provided from the creators of Nutrition, from where all the material has been copied from. I did not implement all of my structure changes. I have left some subsections blank in the hopes that other Wikipedians may have interest in further providing information for this article. You have been very helpful and I appreciate your comments. Lbockhorn ( talk) 08:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Diet and bone health Have returned it to their sandboc. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
...has all the hallmarks of a student creation, but nothing explicit to indicate that. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:30, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
<big>
to change the size of the text rather than the Wikipedia-specific method of doing this, which is ==Level 2== headers. You left a warning that says these "edits appear to constitute vandalism", which by definition means "these edits appear to constitute a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia". If you still think that these accusations are "completely appropriate", then IMO you do not have enough experience and judgment to issue warnings of any kind whatsoever to anyone. The fact that the last half of the vandalism warning contains some useful advice does nothing at all to make up for your false accusations in the first half.Hello again medical experts! Here's another Afc submission that may be of interest. — Anne Delong ( talk) 06:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This article is in desperate need of some love. Recent papers are showing it to be a theraputic target in preventing oncogenesis for many types of cancers, but the article doesn't have any refs from the past decade! LeadSongDog come howl! 20:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to ask for your opinion on a draft text I've written, describing an elaborate clinical trial which is currently ongoing and funded by the European Commission (FP7 project). We simply wanted to increase our exposure in the scientific community before the results come in (expected in 2 years from now, study started 3 years ago). The intention is explicitly NOT to recruit patients or new sites through this page.
The 'general' Wiki team took a look at the text I wrote and recommended to ask for advice here. They indicated they rather see the description of a completed study, results, impact etc. They indicated that describing an ongoing clinical trial -even within any indication that we are still looking for new patients and/or participating sites- may not be appropriate. I certainly agree that it is much more interesting to report about new results, but I also think it is important to show what innovative research is currently being conducted.
Anybody willing to give some advice? Many thanks in advance, Inge Winter, PhD IngeWinter ( talk) 10:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback - however there seem to be various wikipages on other ongoing research within the same funding institution (framework 7 program from the European Commission), don't think it's reasonable to allow some and not others? IngeWinter ( talk) 12:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
FYI: A somewhat similar discussion to this one occurred in 2011-2012 about articles about EU research projects. It is generally more friendly to the idea of such articles in Wikipedia than the current one is. It's a long page and it's here. Hordaland ( talk) 03:32, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks everybody for your comments! Unfortunately, we cannot comply to the requirements regarding citations just yet, but as soon as the first publications appear I will definitely re-visit this plan! IngeWinter ( talk) 19:00, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, everyone, I've been reading university textbooks on human genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. I am not a medical doctor by training, but I still enjoy this kind of recreational reading. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us who collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for improving articles on human genetic history and related articles. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.
As you know, the guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."
Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.
The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."
On the topic of human population genetics and variation within and among human populations, a widely cited primary research article is a 1972 article by Richard Lewontin, which I have seen cited in many of the review articles, monographs, and textbooks I have read over the years.
Quite a few Wikipedia articles specifically disagree with Lewontin's overall conclusion (which has been updated in a source listed below) but don't always rely on medically reliable sources to do so. As Wikipedians, we can evaluate where the findings in Lewontin's article fit in the current understanding of the topic of human genetic variation by reading current reliable secondary sources in medicine.
Some Wikipedia articles give weighty emphasis to a commentary essay published years after Lewontin published his primary research article on human diversity, when his primary research results had been replicated in many other studies and his bottom line conclusion that "about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups" had been taken up by many textbooks on genetics and medicine. In 2003, A. W. F. Edwards wrote a commentary essay in the journal BioEssays
in which Edwards proposes a statistical model for classifying individuals into groupings based on haplotype data. Edwards wrote, "There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification," pointing to his own work with Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, the author of the book
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)which I read soon after it was published in 1994. In general, Edwards cites a lot of publications from his collaboration with Cavalli-Sforza, and mentions that collaboration prominently in his subsequent review article
in which he describes their method for tracing ancestry with genes. Edwards even shows a photograph of Cavalli-Sforza with him in 1963 in his 2009 article, emphasizing their scholarly friendship.
So I wanted to look up Cavalli-Sforza's current views as well while I traced citations of the Lewontin 1972 article and the Edwards 2003 article in subsequent secondary sources. Through searches with Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books, both from my home office computer and from a university library computer, I found a number of books and articles that cite both the Lewontin paper and the Edwards paper. Through a specialized set of wide-reaching keyword searches (for example, "Lewontin Edwards") on the university library's vast database subscriptions, I was able to obtain the full text of many of those articles and of whole books that discuss what current science says about grouping individuals of species Homo sapiens into race groups. I also found more up to date discussions by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza of the Human Genome Diversity Project.
Listed here are sources that have the following characteristics: (1) they cite both previous articles by Lewontin and the 2003 article by Edwards, discussing the underlying factual disagreement between those authors, (2) they are Wikipedia reliable sources for medicine (in particular, they are secondary sources such as review articles or textbooks rather than primary research articles), and (3) they are or have been available to me in full text through book-buying, library lending, author sharing of full text on the Internet, or a university library database. They are arranged in approximate chronological order, so that you can see how the newer sources cite and evaluate the previous sources as genetics research continues. The sources listed here are not exhaustive, but they are varied and authoritative, and they cite most of the dozens of primary research articles on the topic, analyzing and summarizing the current scientific consensus.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)This first book (Koenig, Lee, and Richardson 2008) is useful because it includes a chapter co-authored by Richard Lewontin in which he updates his views.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)The Whitmarsh and Jones (2010) source has several very useful chapters on medical genetics.
Most studies of human population genetics begin by citing a seminal 1972 paper by Richard Lewontin bearing the title of this subsection [29]. Given the central role this work has played in our field, we will begin by discussing it briefl y and return to its conclusions throughout the chapter. In this paper, Lewontin summarized patterns of variation across 17 polymorphic human loci (including classical blood groups such as ABO and M/N as well as enzymes which exhibit electrophoretic variation) genotyped in individuals across classically defined 'races' (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, Australian Aborigines [29] ). A key conclusion of the paper is that 85.4% of the total genetic variation observed occurred within each group. That is, he reported that the vast majority of genetic differences are found within populations rather than between them. In this paper and his book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change [30], Lewontin concluded that genetic variation, therefore, provided no basis for human racial classifications. ... His finding has been reproduced in study after study up through the present: two random individuals from any one group (which could be a continent or even a local population) are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world (see proportion of variation within populations in Table 20.1 and [20]).
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help){{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)Like Whitmarsh and Jones (2010), the Krimsky and Sloan (2011) source has several useful chapters on medical genetics.
Actually, the plant geneticist Jeffry Mitton had made the same observation in 1970, without finding that Lewontin's conclusion was fallacious. And Lewontin himself not long ago pointed out that the 85 percent within-group genetic variability figure has remained remarkably stable as studies and genetic markers have multiplied, whether you define populations on linguistic or physical grounds. What's more, with a hugely larger and more refined database to deal with, D. J. Witherspoon and colleagues concluded in 2007 that although, armed with enough genetic information, you could assign most individuals to 'their' population quite reliably, 'individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own.'
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)The massive efforts to study the human genome in detail have produced extraordinary amounts of genetic data. Although we still fail to understand the molecular bases of most complex traits, including many common diseases, we now have a clearer idea of the degree of genetic resemblance between humans and other primate species. We also know that humans are genetically very close to each other, indeed more than any other primates, that most of our genetic diversity is accounted for by individual differences within populations, and that only a small fraction of the species' genetic variance falls between populations and geographic groups thereof.
The book chapter by Barbujani and Colonna (2011) above is especially useful for various Wikipedia articles as a contrast between biodiversity in other animals and biodiversity in Homo sapiens.
{{
cite book}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)The small genomic differences between populations and the extensive allele sharing across continents explain why historical attempts to identify, once and for good, major biological groups in humans have always failed. ... We argue that racial labels may not only obscure important differences between patients but also that they have become positively useless now that cheap and reliable methods for genotyping are making it possible to pursue the development of truly personalized medicine.
By the way, the Barbujani, Ghirotto, and Tassi (2013) article has a very interesting discussion of SNP typing overlaps across the entire individual genome among some of the first human beings to have their entire individual genomes sequenced, with an especially interesting Venn diagram that would be a good graphic to add to some Wikipedia articles.
Lewontin's conclusions have stood up remarkably well, across diverse kinds of genetic markers, but this produces an odd paradox.
An author who is intimately familiar with Edwards's statistical approach, because he has been a collaborator in fieldwork and co-author on primary research articles with Edwards, is Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Cavalli-Sforza is a medical doctor who was a student of Ronald Fisher in statistics, who has devoted most of his career to genetic research. In an invited review article for the 2007 Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Cavalli-Sforza joins issue directly with the underlying factual disagreement among previous authors, but cites different previous publications.
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |lay-date=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |laysummary=
ignored (
help)GENETIC VARIATION BETWEEN AND WITHIN POPULATIONS, AND THE RACE PROBLEM
In the early 1980s, Lewontin (11) showed that when genetic variation for protein markers is estimated by comparing two or more random individuals from the same populations, or two or more individuals from the whole world, the former is 85% as large as the latter. This means that the variation between populations is the residual 15%, and hence relatively trivial. Later research carried out on a limited number of populations and mostly, though not only, on protein markers has confirmed this analysis. The Rosenberg et al. data actually bring down Lewontin’s estimate to 5%, or even less. Therefore, the variation between populations is even smaller than the original 15%, and we also know that the exact value depends on the choice of populations and markers. But the between-population variation, even if it is very small is certainly enough to reconstruct the genetic history of populations—that is their evolution—but is it enough for distinguishing races in some useful way? The comparison with other mammals shows that humans are almost at the lower extreme of the scale of between-population variation. Even so, subtle statistical methods let us assign individuals to the populations of origin, even distinguishing populations from the same continent, if we use enough genetic markers. But is this enough for distinguishing races? Darwin already had an answer. He gave two reasons for doubting the usefulness of races: (1) most characters show a clear geographic continuity, and (2) taxonomists generated a great variety of race classifications. Darwin lists the numbers of races estimated by his contemporaries, which varied from 2 to 63 races.
Rosenberg et al. (16 and later work) analyzed the relative statistical power of the most efficient subdivisions of the data with a number of clusters varying from 2 to 6, and showed that five clusters have a reasonable statistical power. Note that this result is certainly influenced by the populations chosen for the analysis. The five clusters are not very different from those of a few partitions that had already existed in the literature for some time, and the clusters are: (a) a sub-Saharan African cluster, (b) North Africa–Europe plus a part of western Asia that is approximately bounded eastward by the central Asian desert and mountains, (c) the eastern rest of Asia, (d ) Oceania, and (e) the Americas. But what good is this partition? The Ramachandran et al. (15) analysis of the same data provides a very close prediction of the genetic differences between the same populations by the simplest geographic tool: the geographic distance between the two populations, and two populations from the same continent are on average geographically closer than two from different ones. However, the Rosenberg et al. analysis (16) adds the important conclusion that the standard classification into classical continents must be modified to replace continental boundaries with the real geographic barriers: major oceans, or deserts like the Sahara, or other deserts and major mountains like those of central Asia. These barriers have certainly decreased, but they have not entirely suppressed genetic exchanges across them. Thus, the Rosenberg et al. analysis confirms a pattern of variation based on pseudocontinents that does not eliminate the basic geographic continuity of genetic variation. In fact, the extension by Ramachandran et al. of the original Rosenberg et al. analysis showed that populations that are geographically close have an overwhelming genetic similarity, well beyond that suggested by continental or pseudocontinental partitions.
A year later Cavalli-Sforza joined seventeen other genetics researchers as co-authors of a review article, published as an "open letter" to other scholars, on using racial categories in human genetics.
We recognize that racial and ethnic categories are created and maintained within sociopolitical contexts and have shifted in meaning over time Human genetic variation within continents is, for the most part, geographically continuous and clinal, particularly in regions of the world that have not received many immigrants in recent centuries [18]. Genetic data cannot reveal an individual's full geographic ancestry precisely, although emerging research has been used to identify geographic ancestry at the continental and subcontinental levels [3,19]. Genetic clusters, however, are far from being equivalent to sociopolitical racial or ethnic categories.
{{
cite journal}}
: Invalid |display-authors=18
(
help)Other current review articles related to human population structure include
What does this imply for the existence of human races? Basically, that people with similar genetic features can be found in distant places, and that each local population contains a vast array of genotypes. Among the first genomes completely typed were those of James Watson and Craig Venter, two U.S. geneticists of European origin; they share more alleles with Seong-Jin Kim, a Korean scientist (1,824,482 and 1,736,340, respectively) than with each other (1,715,851). This does not mean that two random Europeans are expected to be genetically closer to Koreans than to each other, but certainly highlights the coarseness of racial categorizations.
There are a lot of factual claims about humankind that impinge on specifically medical claims. I appreciate the work of the participants in this project who put together the WP:MEDRS guidelines over the last several years, as those help improve Wikipedia articles by identifying better sources. I look forward to working collaboratively with the Wikipedians involved in this project in updating a variety of articles within the scope of this project in the next several years. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 20:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Here! Here! You talk the truth my bruther and your smart too. Everyone trys to make nazees sound like a bunch of dumasses but they forget how close we came to winning world war 2. Hitler was not a dumass — their the dumasses. White people have allways bin smarter then everyone else its just that we let blacks and jewdiasm get into our blood which is making us weak. We need to get smart again like you and Hitler and become doctors like those other guys you talk about. Only white people are smart enough to be doctors. Did you ever notice that? I don’t see any jew or black doctors at my hospital. Never have never will. 88!!!
A user added a number of articles to the above category recently, which I feel are at best indirectly linked. I asked the user if they had any evidence that such articles were classified as excretion in the real world, but they failed to respond so far ( User_talk:SummerWithMorons#Excretion). Should articles such as pus be in this category? Thoughts? Lesion ( talk) 11:41, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI, an editor has significantly expanded dental implant and has now requested a peer review which has gone unanswered for a while: Wikipedia:Peer review/Dental implant/archive2. If anyone familiar with MEDRS/MEDMOS is interested please have a look. Possibly @ Zad68: who has experience writing another surgical topic, perhaps some advice is transferable? Lesion ( talk) 13:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
And there is also
Mylohyoid muscle at
WP:ANATOMY. --
WS (
talk) 00:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I would propose that we remove BLPs from WPMED. I consider this to be a project more about diseases and their treatments than about specific individuals. There is WP:BIOG. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:42, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
|importance=low
for WPMED. Most of them (physicians, surgeons, researchers, etc.) should additionally be listed with WPBIO's group set to |s&a-work-group=yes
(probably not patients, although there aren't that many of them).
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 23:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Template:Medheader ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- 70.50.148.105 ( talk) 04:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that Template:DentPortalTalk ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. This showed that WP:WikiProject Dentistry is inactive. Perhaps dentistry should be merged as a taskforce into this project? And Portal:Dentistry should come under the WPMED banner? -- 70.50.148.105 ( talk) 04:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Could members of this project please review the section in Anthony Holland (composer) on his cancer research experiments, and join the discussion at Talk:Anthony Holland (composer)#Seeking qualified unbiased editors? I've tried repeatedly to clarify in the article that this Holland is not a trained scientist, and that the work he's carrying out, which appears to be a new variant of the Rife machine, is fringe, alternative medicine. The consensus in that talk page discussion, from all editors bar one anonymous editor, is that it's appropriate and accurate to note that he's carrying out amateur research. Thanks, Ruby Murray 12:02, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I've apologised to JFW and James elsewhere but I'd like to do it here, too, for my uncalled-for insults yesterday. They didn't deserve that. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 14:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
On a related note about our differences, I want to bring up a historical example that some folks might not be aware of. Some want a disclaimer, some want expert review, and some want to work as hard and as fast as they can to improve content. My comment is about the feasibility of bringing our content to any level and keeping there.
Who has been here long enough to have remembered or to have worked with TimVickers? He arrived here with the same enthusiasm of DocJames and Anthony, he did boatloads of good work (quickly writing a number of GAs and FAs, helping restore and maintain others), he helped develop resources like our dispatch on sources in medicine, and he published some journal articles about Wikipedia and medical content. I was particularly fond of him. [41] Tim has made about eight edits this year. What has happened to all that content he developed and defended? Well, together Tim and I improved tuberculosis when it was at Featured article review, and for quite some time, we tried to defend it to FA standard. After Tim's departure, tuberculosis fell into disprepair, and it is now defeatured.
Draw what conclusions you may about how likely we are to ever raise and keep any number of articles in here to standard. I appreciate everyone's attempts, but offer this example as one explanation for our differing views. I hope DocJames doesn't burn out, but if he does, history shows us that all of the content he has upgraded and defended will quickly sink to the usual low level in here. Best, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Just a wild idea: since much of the thrash is around recent work that hasn't yet got high quality secondary sources, let's make the work of identifying the lower-quality sources easier. The {{
cite journal}} template takes parameter |type=review
or alternately |type=clinical trial
etc. If we actually made use of this parameter, it would be far simpler to know where we need to seek secondary sources. Failing that, perhaps MOSMED could ghettoize the primary recentism in one limited-size section.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 16:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Type: Additional information about the media type of the source. Hence using this field to store the PubMed publication type might clash with the current usage of this field. It might be better to create a new special purpose field in Module:Citation/CS1 to store the publication type. It appears that the Publication Type (PT) (see list of publication types) is accessible from the Entrez E-utilities. So in principle it should be possible to modify Diberri's template filling tool to populate this field as well as create a bot that could add this information to existing citations. Boghog ( talk) 19:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Type: Examples: Thesis, Booklet, CD liner, Press release.Boghog ( talk) 20:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I suppose the "format" param already can give an indication of "media type" ... Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 20:50, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Format of the work referred to by url; for example: PDF, DOC, or XLS; displayed in parentheses after title.One minor issue is that the type parameter is displayed after the journal name:
{{
cite journal}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)There are three main terms per the International League Against Epilepsy:
We seem to muddle these up. So does the NHS [42] so at least we are in good company. I am going to try to apply the ILAE structure to our articles. Anyone have any other ideas? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:50, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Are interested in collaborating. They are looking into the issue of copyright non compatability. Thoughts on this end? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
External videos | |
---|---|
Post-Impressionism, Seurat's A Sunday on La Grande Jatte - 1884, Smarthistory [4] |
I don't know much about this project or your need for videos and other media provided by well-recognized non-profit educational organizations, and only a bit that I've heard about the need for external validation/checking of medical articles. I have seen Doc James and Blue Raspberry around and respect their work. I think I've only edited one or two medical articles in the 7 years I've edited on Wikipedia. That said, I think if you need either good media or some (however weak) type of "external verification" then this would be a good opportunity for this project. I just ran into this discussion via the Wikipedia notification system today and wanted to give you a thoroughly researched overview of all the issues, but it's taking too long, so some bullet points will have to do for now.
External videos | |
---|---|
Flu Epidemiology, Stanford School of Medicine with Khan Academy [5] |
External videos | |
---|---|
Fragonard's The Meeting, Smarthistory [4] | |
Fragonard's The Swing, Smarthistory [6] | |
Beneath the Painted Surface: Fragonard's Fountain of Love, Getty Museum |
Well, that probably more information than you wanted to know. Feel free to ask any questions here or on my talk page or even via e-mail. I do hope that you get something going with KA because I think it would improve the encyclopedia, especially improving our use of videos. since I don't know much about medical articles, I doubt that I'd do too much inserting of videos. Maybe just enough to show a couple of people how it can work.
All the best,
Smallbones( smalltalk) 22:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC) (minor ec)
I just noticed the nav template has gone from this page. Was there consensus for this? Lesion ( talk) 10:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
@ Ian Furst:@ Biosthmors:@ Leighblackall:
There seems to be a group of students who will be working on the some dental pages as part of a class from La Trobe University. Here is their Wikiversity page [46], and I think this is the list of articles they will be working on:
Welcome to all and please feel free to ask here or on the talk pages of each article if you have any Qs. Lesion ( talk) 06:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Comments are needed from this WikiProject with regard to this matter: Talk:Condom#Push for FA status. Flyer22 ( talk) 05:22, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Per "Dr. Gavin Buffington, professor and chair of the Department of Physics at Fort Hays State University in Kansas. "I'm using a Boundless textbook this semester in my Engineering Physics I class, and I've been impressed by the quality of content"" [47] with this page [48] borrowing heavily from kinematics Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
I was wondering if any of you would be willing to help me with this before I nominate
amphetamine for FA. Per
Sasata's suggestion in
Talk:Amphetamine/GA1, I'd like to get some feedback on the article's readability in the
Pharmacodynamics and
Detection in body fluids sections from anyone without a background or working knowledge of
molecular neuropharmacology or chemistry respectively. Time permitting, reviewing the entire pharmacology section for readability would be a big help if anyone is willing to do more.
I just need to know what statements, if any, are unclear or a bit too technical for a layperson to understand.
Thanks,
Seppi333 (
talk) 21:29, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
A new paper is out, with comments on the quality of a subset of medical Wikipedia entries:
I do not have access to it. -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 10:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Although the pathogenesis of disease was provided in most articles, the mechanisms were briefly described and did not show the pathological changes at body system, organ, cellular, and key molecular level. Significant gaps were noted in the mechanisms described for diseases such as cirrhosis, nonalcoholic fatty liver disease, portal hypertension, and ascites. A number of problems and errors were identified in several articles (Appendix II).
Have a number of comments:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:48, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I've been looking around, and there are some great free resources out there with pathology images. I haven't got to uploading them, but these are under CC-BY-A 2:
This resource in under NC, but maybe could be persuaded for use on wikipedia:
CFCF ( talk) 09:05, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I came across this article: Adaptogen, which relies heavily on pharamacological concepts, but doesn't adhere to WP:MEDRS. It could do with some work, perhaps removing references from books such as The tao of medicine. CFCF ( talk) 10:38, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
A class is working on Sexual violence ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), and of course that article deals with a lot of medical aspects. I have been fixing and/or tweaking the student edits there, but help with that article from other WP:MED members would be very beneficial to that article. For example, there is this and this matter with regard to the World Health Organization (WHO); by that, I mean the statistics and "The WHO’s World Report on Violence and Health[33] lists the following ways in which sexual violence against females can be committed" material (some of those ways surely apply to more than just females). But anyway, thanks in advance to anyone who helps out. Flyer22 ( talk) 20:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have proposed a person property at Wikidata that I think members of this WikiProject should review, and probably can improve upon. It is a way to record notable medical conditions/procedures/causes. Please see d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Person#medical_condition. I am not convinced that 'medical condition' is the best term. Ideally this property would also cater for voluntary body modifications such as tattoos/piercings/cyborgs, if it is a notable attribute (and on Wikipedia there is usually always one article where the person is notable for anything). Is ICD10 L81.8 the code for a tattoo? Is there a code for horns? ;-) There is also the concern that in the future there will be voluntary amputations for athletic performance reasons [51], which we can add to the list of weird and wonderful reasons why people would do strange things to their body. John Vandenberg ( chat) 13:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Developmental regression - A new article which has possible copy / paste issues could someone please have a look at it dolfrog ( talk) 15:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
An interesting discussion is taking place here User_talk:MastCell#I_voted... which has had a significant effect on WPMED. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
We all know that all the obvious articles have already been created, right?
Well, if someone would like an easy opportunity to try for a WP:DYK, it turns out that hip pain is still a red link. I think that these are the codes, if you want to set up an infobox: ICD-10 and ICD-9. Hip pain leads to things like hip replacement; it affects about one in seven older adults. There are plenty of review articles out there, but since it's a general symptom involved in a lot of separate conditions, you might be better off finding a good textbook.
And if this area interests you, then elbow pain and foot pain are also possible topics. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 22:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)