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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
The WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month for December 2013 is Psoriasis. The previous collaboration was Gastrointestinal disease. We welcome your help! |
This month's COTM has been selected as Psoriasis! The COTM, here ( WP:MCOTM), is selected be affirmative voting. Editors are encouraged to post any projects on the page so that they may be voted in as future endeavors. Last month's effort was a bit of a flop, so let's hope that this month's effort is somewhat more encouraging!
Ping to the following users who have expressed interest: Peter.C, Wouterstomp, jfdwolff, LT910001. Any other interested editors are of course welcome to participate, and with any luck we can bring this article up to GA-status by the end of the year. -- LT910001 ( talk) 07:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggested a while back that we focus on the students in WP:MEDUCSF in December, which generated press in the New York Times. Anybody? I suggest saving the other article for another month. I'd rather January just be "get the numbers down" in regards to cleanup templates. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest that we ask The American Academy of Dermatology, whose mission is to promote "leadership in dermatology and excellence in patient care through education, research and advocacy", to provide us with one or two interested experts to collaborate on this? They don't expressly have a remit for public education but they may be willing to help - especially considering the number their students and medical professionals that use Wikipedia. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Would anybody object to me approaching the AAD, in the name of this project, asking for their assistance? If they agree, would they be welcome here? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Anthonyhcole. You never needed my okay for this but you unequivocally have my support. I have been going about this in a way that is a bit different from what you are doing. It seems to me that you are tracking down your own sources. This is fine - you are pulling great sources, and even from the societies which are authoring the papers. However, I am getting some sources provided to me by the society itself. Since we were talking about AAD before you raised the feeding tube example, see Wikipedia:Choosing Wisely/American Academy of Dermatology. I have a list of sources there. I have always been citing the "5 things" paper, and then the sources from which those statements are derived as they are listed on that paper. The layman summary that you are citing does not suggest in itself MEDRS-compliant sources, which you sought yourself.
Additionally, this project was proposed on the premise that Wikipedia is a useful platform for sharing this information, and the measure of utility which I am able to capture is pageviews to a Wikipedia article. When I integrate information from this campaign into an article, I am also making a note of what I have done at the project page I make for each society. While the AAD page is currently empty, this AAHPM page has some items recorded and how I reported on the feeding tube information that you researched. Perhaps it would be good to put that layman summary in there as well, but my concern has always been connecting non-MEDRS layman sources with MEDRS sources and only that list of 5 makes a solid connection. I regularly report traffic back to the monitors. If you want to contact AAD, then I would propose to complete this project page and integrate the five items they requested of me, then show them what has been done as a demonstration. If I were to request something of you, it would be comments on these practices as an outreach and partnership strategy between Wikipedians and any organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
A list of 1-2 sentence stubs are proposed for merging into the main psoriasis article. Comments here: [1]. Many thanks, Lesion ( talk) 08:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I have resurrected my attempt at adding language regarding identifying possibly poor journals for WP:MEDRS here. Would appreciate comments. Yobol ( talk) 19:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 19:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The page Tumescent liposuction was tagged as disputed in June of this year, but since it was not in this WikiProject, no one who might settle the dispute noticed. I have just added a WikiProject banner (I also added class and importance ratings, but someone more knowledgeable than I should probably review those). I'm also bringing it up here, in the hopes of speedier resolution. I gather from the talk page that the disputed issues relate to tone and lack of discussion of the procedure's risks. Cnilep ( talk) 04:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Another case of student editing; can anything be done with this or should it be prodded? It was sourced to a single rat study, several student papers, and a book where page nos aren't given. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a new editor editing the molecular breast imaging section. More eyes would be helpful. Yobol ( talk) 18:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone might wish to start an article about the G8 Dementia Summit.
— Wavelength ( talk) 18:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: This article has just been submitted at Afc. Any opinions? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month for May 2024 is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease! Head to its talk page to organize our efforts. Continue to nominate topics for future months at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month#Nominations. |
Just talking with James, and I thought that it might be an idea in the immediate future to restrict the COTM article selection to articles which 1. are not GA or FA, and 2. are top importance. Often these topics have broad scope and might also therefore attract more interest from WPMED members. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesion ( talk • contribs)
Alternate proposal. I agree with the sentiment but am not in favour of 'iron-cast' rules. How about we give every Top-importance article (+2) votes each round, and every High-importance article (+1)? That way we can still promote the nomination of these articles, but popular choices can also be selected, and there won't be the need for a future RfC or large discussion when, inevitably, a user wants to nominate high-importance article.-- LT910001 ( talk) 14:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be the subject of a student assignment with potentially problematic edits. The issue was raised first at the NPOV Noticeboard where more details are available. Course and instructor currently unknown. Voceditenore ( talk) 12:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Whilst I am very thankful for the AfC team for monitoring new articles and contacting us about it, I worry that these queries soak up a lot of time for, essentially, articles which will have a tiny, minute audience and often end up very short in length. I feel that, as with the student editors problem openly festering here, ideally there would be more time for users to work on articles of higher priority. I would like the opinions of other users on this, and how to deal with it? I propose three mechanisms:
Yes, AfC is important, but I feel working on getting the top 1-100 most visited articles, or the top-priority articles up to GA status would be much more productive.
Thoughts?-- LT910001 ( talk) 11:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
After one month of the article being protected it has been opened up at once to editing by a group who hold a very clear point of view, and strongly believe that WP:MEDRS is only to be followed when it is in favor of their view. I would hope some editors from here could take a look and see whats been happening.
How long is this dragging on? We have a minority of editors who clearly are unable to treat this article with neutral POV. I think topic ban is very appropriate considering the history. You cannot always push one POV on an article and expect other editors to assume good faith. Lesion ( talk) 00:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
After two months of work, I here formally announce the creation of the Society and Medicine Taskforce This taskforce is intended to collect and maintain articles relating to the intersection between society and medicine, specifically people, companies, charities and any other relevant articles. As many users will know, these three groups constitute the majority of new articles, and not only compose an increasing workload but an increasing amount of discussion on this talk page. This taskforce is intended to:
Collecting and centralising information about these articles is the first step in productively dealing with this issue, and has been noted in the past by myself, Jmh649, Jfdwolff, quality issues noted by SandyGeorgia, and I'm sure many others.
To tag an article for this task force, please add society=yes |society-imp=Mid to the assessment status on the talk page. Please do this for all new biographical entries. I have made a simultaneous edit to our scope so that article assessors (eg. Wouterstomp) will know.
Special thanks to Bluerasberry for discussions during the creation of this task force, and DePiep and ScottAlter for helping automate the assessment criteria. -- LT910001 ( talk) 11:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
{{ WikiProject Medicine | class= | importance= |society=yes |society-imp=Mid}}
Medicine: Society Project‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Per many discussions on WP:ANATOMY, and a current attempt at a GA status for one article, I have proposed a change to the MOS for Anatomy articles here ( Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Anatomy_guidelines), and have outlined the reasons on the said page. Kind regards, -- LT910001 ( talk) 02:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The Human Liver article was recently created as a split from the Liver article; some WP:MED members might want to take a look at that and analyze whether this split was needed. A lot of the times we dedicate our articles significantly more to humans with an Other animals section, as Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Sections shows, because the topic has been studied significantly less with regard to non-human animals and our readers will usually be looking for the human aspect of that topic.
The article was tagged for speedy deletion, but that deletion has been contested on its talk page. [7] If the Human Liver article is to be kept, it needs to be retitled to Human liver (meaning without the capitalization), per WP:Article titles. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with LT910001 concerning the use of article names such as mandible for the human and mandible (non-human) for potential animal articles. Regarding high profile articles there is a great deal of information on livers, kidneys, lungs etc. that isn't necessarily non-human or human, but concerns food and cultural aspects etc., and I think it may be hard to fit in either article. I think it is less demanding of a reader in search for info on the human liver to go to Human liver, than a reader in search of food-preparation to go to Liver (non-human). This question does not only cover liver, but all the other articles as well. I'll be around to help improve the articles on liver which I split regardless of consensus. CFCF ( talk) 12:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, I have opened an RfC about the use of 'Human' in anatomy article titles, here ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#RfC:_Use_of_.22Human.22_in_Anatomy_article_titles), and invite comment from members of the WP:MED community. -- LT910001 ( talk) 03:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Reinnervation has this:
The first of these links seems commercial to me; can't tell about the second.
Thanks -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 22:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Addressed. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone with access? If so please take a look: here A number of institutions in the United States [8] have access. CFCF ( talk) 19:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This user seems to be adding these [9] Wondering what people think? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I speak fluent Spanish, but I didn't even make it to the Spanish-language sources at Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory before finding copyvio. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This article could use some eyes. [pun excused] A bunch of new primary studies being added, some self-citing as well. Yobol ( talk) 15:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I work regularly with a class at Rice University titled Poverty, Justice and Human Capabilities. Last semester's class is here, for example. More than once a student has worked on a topic that relates to medicine; recent examples include diarrhea in developing regions, social determinants of health in Mexico, Zimbabwean cholera outbreak, and media portrayal of HIV/AIDS.
Here are my opinions about this sort of content -- I suspect not everyone here would agree with these opinions, which is why I'm posting here. I'd like to get some consensus on these points, not just for next semester but as a general guideline for this sort of topic.
Both the above rules are to be applied with common sense and without weakening any other rules -- we still require reliable sources, after all, regardless of MEDRS. The question is whether non-medical material, governed by non-medical guidelines, can be added to MED articles. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I've currently nominated the image Image:Sobo 1909 260.png for feature image. The reasoning behind my nomintion is that it is a high-quality image from a respectable anatomy text-book without any similar images on Wikipedia. It is in my view easy on the eyes, informative without being overly explicit, and a very high quality retouched scan. It holds both artistic and educational merit. See here for the nomination Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sobo 1909 260. Please add any relevant comments or if you wish your support. Voting ends on the 19th. CFCF ( talk) 19:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
So... this is a "notable" medical WP:FRINGE theory, but the whole page (cited by 8 self-published scientology or news media sources) fails MEDRS. It doesn't seem to cover or link to the equivalent mainstream views either.
Seems like its worthy of an XFD, but I have a feeling that might be a contentious can of worms. Thoughts? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 06:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Posting here as I believe it will garner the most attention. I have been working on adding images from Commons:Category:CNX to Wikipedia as they are a very good source of medical illustrations, just the type we are currently lacking. I started in the far end of the book, also going for one of the articles I knew I would probably meet most resistance: Human penis. Any edits at all are very difficult to do, as there are forces intent on keeping the article from containing images of anatomy or physiology. I know these articles may be a cess-pit of incoherent argument, but if anyone were to quickly look over the recent edits, for example this revert [10] and see if there is any reason behind it, I would be glad. CFCF ( talk) 18:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe we should be adding image galleries to anatomy articles. We have Commons for that. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey folks,
Just a reminder that Cochrane is taking signups for a Wikipedian in Residence: Wikipedia:COCHRANE/WIR.
Cochrane is a fantastic organization which publishes systematic reviews about medical treatments and efficacy.
Wiki Project Med Foundation is helping to coordinate the search for great candidates.
The Wikipedian in Residence would ideally be:
The position is open to anyone who can meet these criteria but may be particularly suited to students or recent graduates looking to expand their skills and experience, or those who work part-time in another job. Candidates should have an excellent level of written and spoken English, although those that speak more than one language are particularly welcome to apply.
Cochrane is structured as a network of groups located throughout the world to which people contribute in different ways, but primarily as authors of Cochrane Systematic Reviews. The WiR will work remotely from their chosen location and will interact with a number of groups and their contributors via email and online. Cochrane will provide a selection of online collaboration tools to facilitate communication.
The WiR will report to, and be guided by, Cochrane’s Head of Communications & External Affairs, and a Senior Editor of The Cochrane Library. They will also interact regularly with other members of Cochrane’s senior management team and representatives of its publishing partner for The Cochrane Library.
The WiR will be expected to work flexibly at different times of their day to suit their schedule and to help support Cochrane groups throughout the world (some work in the evenings is likely to be required). The exact number of hours per week will be agreed with the successful candidate, but is likely to be in the region of 7-12 hours per week.
The WiR will receive a stipend of up to $6,500 USD/£4,000 for the initial six month term, which will be paid in two instalments at the beginning and middle of the term. In addition, the WiR will be funded to attend and present a session at the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium in Hyderabad, India, 21st-25th September 2014.
We want to learn more about you and see how we can best give you an opportunity to work with Cochrane. Signup! WP:Cochrane/WIR.
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 18:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm it:user:Doc.mari from Italian Wikipedia. I see that English Wikipedia has an article about chronic allograft nephropathy, while "chronic allograft dysfunction" is a more appropriate term according to many authors (see for example [11], [12]). The histologic changes found in chronic allograft injury are very variable according to the specific factors involved, so we can't really talk about "nephropathy". The same opinion is expressed by Floege et al in Comprehensive Clinical Nephrology, fourth edition, chapter 103. I think we should move the article to "Chronic kidney allograft dysfunction", as I did on it.wiki and I'd like to add some informations, but my English is very poor so I need your help and your advice. Thank you. -- Doc.mari ( talk) 22:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)[1] or a historical eponym that has been superseded.
The possibility of a bot has been made available to automatically tag articles under WP:MED with the Society and medicine taskforce. It seems reasonable that this could also be the case for other task forces. Although I'm strongly in favour of getting it working for Society & Medicine first, and tweaking afterwards, as I feel we ought to strike while the Iron is hot, this bot could be expanded later to tag articles for other task forces.
As I understand it, a bot could tag using three criteria:
A list of taskforces with proposed criteria is here:
The aim here is to produce results that are 90-95% accurate with some reasonably simple rules. If we miss some articles, or some articles are added to a taskforce in error, the sky will not fall down. Articles that are subsequently removed from a taskforce may be able to be permanently removed so that they are not consistently re-added. -- LT910001 ( talk) 02:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
As a sidenote, one major taskforce we appear to be missing is an infectious and/or chronic disease taskforce. -- LT910001 ( talk) 02:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
|hemonc=yes
, and you can optionally add |hemonc-imp=
, but adding "???" is the same as leaving it blank.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 21:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
|imp=???
rating rather than the |hemonc=???
rating (which would be quite ambiguous). The discussion is here (
Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Tagging_pages_for_a_new_Taskforce), and if/when the bot gets going, I'll ping you. --
LT910001 (
talk) 12:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)See [13]. Bound to have some gems for WP:Med. Not quite sure how to deal with that quantity of images though. -- LT910001 ( talk) 05:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I just created this, feel free to work on it. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 19:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
As some of you may know, I have created many articles on autism researchers. I was wondering if Autism Speaks' blog (blog.autismspeaks.org, later moved to http://www.autismspeaks.org/blog) was a reliable source for such biographical articles, or whether it should be avoided given that it is a " blog". If not, I will remove it from the bios to which I have added it. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 22:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
If you want, you can look at the articles in which I have used it, including:
Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 11:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The biggest challenge is making sure that the BLP is somehow "part" of the org whose website you're citing.
Any regular website, whether a blog or not, is self-published: the people writing the contents are the same people who are making those contents available to the public. Who writes Coca-Cola's website? Coca-Cola's employees. Who made that website available to the public? Coca-Cola's employees. This is in contrast to traditional publishing, in which the author and the publishing house are separate entities: Who wrote Harry Potter? JK Rowling. Who decided to make that book available to the public? Bloomsbury's employees.
We have strict rules against using self-published sources, including almost all non-newspaper/non-news websites, as sources of information about living people who are not associated with the source. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Jinkinson I realize I still owe you work on the issue of whether the bios you are creating meet notability. (See WP:PROF). Since the earlier question was archived without a single other editor here weighing in, perhaps no one cares. But I do wish you would give WP:PROF serious consideration; I'm not sure some of those bios would stand up to close scrutiny. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
TylerDurden8823 has been hard at work preparing hypothyroidism for a GA nomination (and taking away my coffee per levothyroxine absorption :) I've looked in and the sourcing is 100% sound, the prose looks competent, and WP:MEDMOS#Sections are followed. If some other folks would look in and opine whether it's GA-ready, I believe it would be a solid investment of your time. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Anybody home? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia:Articles for creation submission, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alycia Halladay, to create a biography article about Alycia Kay Halladay, a senior director of Autism Speaks.
It currently ends with a quote from Halladay, sourced to the Huffington Post, that taking folic acid during pregnancy is "a relatively inexpensive way that parents can take action to possibly prevent risk of tube birth defects and autism."
I think this and other statements may need some input from this project with regard to Wikipedia:MEDRS.
It is also unclear to me whether Halladay is notable under Wikipedia:ACADEMIC or not; the sources provided in the submission thus far do not appear to prove her notability under Wikipedia:GNG. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 13:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Schizophrenia, needs eyes. It has long needed an update for DSM5, no one did it (to my dismay, grumble), and now it is being hit by numerous editors who are not familiar with the featured article standards, are changing citation style, aren't familiar with WP:OWN#Featured articles, are dropping text based on old sources into the lead without developing the body, and are using sources not compliant with MEDRS. Yes, it needs an update-- if the update is not done correctly, the article will end up de-featured. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Shizophrenia still needs experienced eyes. Or perhaps I should just send it to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, OK, Schizophrenia is one of our few Featured articles and I am tired of babysitting it; since no one can be bothered to update or help maintain it, I shall give it another week or so and submit it to WP:FAR. A medical FA needs to be tended, and no one seems to care about this one, and it's becoming a headache to me, so time to get it defeatured. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, since the horrid cite pmid template was only invented in 2009, it's unlikely it was the chosen citation style on any established article. Just sayin', since no one should be adding them to any FA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I know a lot of you don't watch the drama pages, so here's a heads-up that we now have a new "Draft" WP:namespace. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#Draft namespace live and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#Draft namespace being enabled soon discussions for more information.
WP:Articles for Creation is expected to move to the Draft: namespace, although old AFC pages will probably remain where they are. Editors are still allowed to create new articles in their userspace or in the mainspace (the regular place for articles); you don't have to use the new draft namespace unless you want to. Eventually, it might be possible to automagically connect draftspace pages to regular articles (just like talkspace pages), so that you could easily use the new namespace for testing or proposing complex edits. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I've cleaned out student essay material, off-topic text that belongs in other articles, and primary sourced material (which was mostly off-topic as well). What remains is (somewhat, needs checking) sourced to reviews, but a) it's not clear to me that all of it is ontopic, and b) it's not clear if what is left should be merged to atherosclerosis. Could a doc take over? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
One that turns out students proficient in editing Wikipedia? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The best I ever saw was the attempts by jbmurray. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem also read [ [19]]. Remember ( talk) 15:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with the reliable sources guidelines take a look at this article, currently Today's Featured Article. I removed a paragraph based on a single unpublished study, cited to news reports on a conference abstract, and pointed to the WP Medicine reliable sources guidelines, but it has been reinstated with the comment "the page you link explicitly states "Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources." If we were stating this as a medical truth, we would need better info, but at the moment it is carefully and correctly explained as a controversy." Thanks, Espresso Addict ( talk) 17:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
After discussion on multiple talk pages, it was revealed that multiple other language Wikipedias do have medical disclaimers. Initially, I was concerned about the decline in participation at WT:MED, where basic concerns are no longer being addressed:
Separately, I have been concerned with the effect of the education program on medical content-- considering declining participation in Wikipedia, I don't believe we can keep up with the bad content being added by students:
Those discussions led to various proposals at:
Wikipedia language | Number of articles | Template | Position in article |
---|---|---|---|
Chinese | 732,000 | zh:Template:Medical small | Top |
Dutch | 1,700,000 | nl:Sjabloon:Disclaimer medisch lemma | Top |
German | 1,600,000 | de:Wikipedia:Hinweis Gesundheitsthemen | Bottom |
Indonesian | 322,000 | id:Templat:Penyangkalan-medis | Top |
Norwegian | 399,000 | no:Mal:Helsenotis | Bottom |
Portuguese | 802,000 | pt:Predefinição:Aviso médico | Section: Treatment |
Turkish | 220,000 | tr:Şablon:TıpUyarı | Top |
This proposed version for use on en.wikipedia emerged from discussion at User talk:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer and several other on-Wiki talk pages and external websites:
Anyone can edit Wikipedia; do not rely on its medical content. See the full site disclaimer. |
I am planning to install it on Tourette syndrome (where I am the only significant contributor) unless a significant consensus against emerges. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Articles may contain errors. Please help us fix them using high quality sources |
Per WP:NDA, it's weird that we consider {{ recent death}} and {{ current}} reason enough for a disclaimer, but not potentially life-altering content. I wouldn't mind working in some of your wording, but I'm still in favor of a more prominent disclaimer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia; do not rely on its medical content. Articles may contain errors; please help us fix them using high quality sources. See the full site disclaimer. |
How about this version (below)? It links the disclaimer more subtly to make the box smaller and makes the text a little less semicolon-happy. I also think "medical content" sounds a bit weird, like "content used as medicine", so I thought "do not rely on it for medical guidance" is a bit more clear. (I'll add this to the versions in my userspace as well.) alanyst 04:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Do not rely on it for medical guidance. Articles may contain errors; please help us fix them using high quality sources. |
Medical content on Wikipedia is not a substitute for medical advice from health care professionals. See the disclaimer. |
I shortened it and made it sound less negative. Not sure we should be using such a template. The rationale that because other language wikipedias use these templates should be qualified with the fact that their medical content is likely of lower quality then the medical content on the English Wikipedia. Lesion ( talk) 09:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Articles may contain errors; help us fix them using high quality sources. |
OK, so we have six versions up here now, and it's no longer clear to me which is which or if any have consensus. Could we address the principle of a disclaimer, yes or no, and then sort out the specifics over at Alanyst's page or a proposed template page? Because I no longer know who supports what, if anything. The last one on the page now is fine with me. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia have a warning about our reliability at the top of each article or section that contains health-related information? (Let's address the nature of the warning in a separate discussion.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I support the disclaimer because our medical content is unreliable, and a good number of our readers don't know that. It is the morally necessary thing to do. Not doing so is highly negligent. Would Lesion, James, JFW, CFCF or anyone else who opposes putting a disclaimer above all health information please explain to me the harm/s a disclaimer would do to outweigh the obvious good it would do in informing our readers? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see some resistance to putting a template on an FA (personally, I disagree ... autism is not in good shape, and I was willing to be a guinea pig at TS, but whatevs).
How about if someone who knows how to figure such things out (I don't) determines which is our most important and most viewed GA and we trial that?
While we're here dickering over the small print, Wikipedia is busy promoting massive poorly sourced POV medical content (in an area upon which our readers surely based medical decisions) throughout the walled garden of {{ Cannabis}} articles, which two sections down, you'll find more work than the two editors who are engaging can pretend to deal with. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Have made a separate section to stop this getting too messy. I do not support this proposal. Although I agree that we should strive to keep information accurate, reliable, and sourced, and I agree it's noble goal, I don't support this for the following reasons:
We could create a new tag along the lines of ('this page appears to be written like medical advice, of which it is not '), and then treat this like a cleanup tag. From my read of the above text, at this stage there does not appear to be consensus in either direction. -- LT910001 ( talk) 07:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Casliber has proposed version CL here (Please read his thoughtful reasoning):
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Please do not rely on it for medical advice. Help us improve our medical articles using high quality sources. |
Is this a version you can support? (We can discuss issues such as the nature of the trial and where to place the disclaimer elsewhere.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Too lazy to read through the whole thread, so I'll just give my thoughts/advice:
A medical disclaimer is a good idea, but some people personalize things, so don't address the reader directly when disclaiming and, more importantly, don't tell the reader what to do. A disclaimer of any kind, be it investments, medicine, or, more important than both of those, your skydiving parachute, should just be cautionary (if legally possible), not a request or command. An unnecessarily strong statement just runs the risk of alienating/offending the target audience.
Okey lets go through the basics. There is a very long standing consensus that such disclaimers are a bad idea. No localised position on single wikiproject can overturn that. You want to introduce them I'm afraid its the slog through the village pump and similar.
The idea that medical is a special case doesn't really hold. For example cooling towers which I doubt you would classify as medical have a multiple square mile kill radius (ah Legionnaires’). And despite what you may think the number of unregistered ones the HSE tends to find after each outbreak suggests not everyone with one knows what they are doing. Our articles on aspects of driving and motor vehicles again have a fairly impressive risk profile. Forestry industry, american football (given the head industry risk) the list goes on. Then there is the usual stuff on law and finance.
Oh and your notices don't even work on the mobile site so general disclaimer it is.
©Geni ( talk) 21:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
This sort of "it's against the guideline" doesn't impress me. Yes, it's against the current guideline. So? If people want to do this, then they can make a WP:PROPOSAL to change the guideline. WP:Consensus can change even at guidelines. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not 100% opposed to medical disclaimers, but I do have to remind people here that any decision made from a discussion here is largely a local consensus specifically confined to WikiProject Medicine. In order for such a proposal to become valid, it would require overall community consensus Wikipedia-wide, since Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is an existing guideline. The current consensus is that we do not place disclaimers within articles, because we have pages such as Wikipedia:General disclaimer, Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer et cetera which fulfil this purpose. Sure, there's no specific policy on the issue, but the existence of a content guideline is enough to justify seeking overall consensus first prior to making such a huge change from the status quo. I recommend starting something over at the WP:Village pump. -- benlisquare T• C• E 01:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Geni, do you not find it interesting that you are the only editor who has removed the disclaimer, and you've removed it four times? [26] Are admins immune to edit-warring blocks? You seem to be the only editor troubled by the disclaimer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit this article.
Do not rely on it for medical advice. Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources. |
This piece in the Boston Globe, by a medical student, underlines the importance of making our readers aware that our medical content is not authoritative. (Diff link added for reference.)
That’s the promise of Wikipedia in health care — a freely accessible and user-friendly platform through which to explore virtually any subject in medicine. But there’s another side to consider. During our pulmonology block last year, two of my classmates saw an error in the site’s entry for hyperventilation. They fixed the mistake and, as a joke, added “Kenny’s syndrome” as a name for a particular condition. To their surprise, the edit stayed for weeks, and they even found other websites citing my friend as an acid-base disorder. Hence, the opportunity for anyone to edit Wikipedia with minimal regulation has a terrifying capacity to influence the environment for clinicians-in-training. In the worst-case scenario, these inaccuracies could adversely impact the care that patients eventually receive.
— Nathaniel P. Morris, New operating system: Wikipedia’s role in medical education brings awesome promise — and a few risks, Boston Globe, 18 November 2013
— Scott • talk 18:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
My viewpoint may change as I think about this more, but I think I would support the versions that refer readers to a medical professional but oppose the others. For some wordings, I think that disclaimers on certain articles, like vaccination (or MMR vaccine controversy), are likely to do more harm than good - it will become an argument for anyone who wants to discredit the scientific consensus on these topics, and a prominent reason for a reader (who might otherwise have been educated on the topic) to reject that consensus when it is presented in Wikipedia. On a similar note, many templates can be used for POV pushing, but without the right wording, I think this would be one of the worse ones (when does an article or section have enough medical content to deserve a template? etc). So I would probably oppose any template that contained the phrase "Do not rely on..." but I would probably support the template "Wikipedia is not a substitute for the advice of a medical professional. Please help us improve our medical content using high quality sources."
Of course, I do see the problem this is meant to solve, but I'm not sure this is the best way to address it. Is it possible to write some scripts to identify (and maybe tag) non-MEDRS sources being used in medical articles? That would probably meet with a lot less opposition and wouldn't require a community-wide discussion. Or, if such a discussion is to be initiated anyways, I think raising MEDRS to policy might be a better goal, and one which I would support unreservedly. Sunrise ( talk) 05:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Some participants in these discussions have expressed the idea that our FAs don't need a disclaimer. (We used to have a nice chart of our FAs on the WP:MED mainpage, which seems to have disappeared along with a lot of other helpful content, but I digress ... )
So, looking at Wikipedia:FA#Health and medicine, I can say that at minimum the following have isssues:
Those are just the ones I know about; I would guess that 50% of our medical FA content would not stand up to WP:WIAFA scrutiny. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't gotten very far on it yet, but want to have an RFC ready for after the holidays, when it can be moved out of my userspace and announced at the Village Pump, other central places:
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 02:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The lead image for neck pain has been a photo of a guinea pig with torticollis for at least one year (first talk page objection raised in 2012: Talk:Neck pain#Main Picture). Comments? Alternative images? Many thanks, Lesion ( talk) 01:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I came across this article, which was apparently created about a month ago. Seems to rely a bit too heavily on primary sources, and needs reorganization. Help would be appreciated. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This still needs attention. I don't have journal access-- has anyone checked the remaining text for copyvio? Does this article need to be redirected? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The page Tumescent liposuction was tagged as disputed in June of this year, but since it was not in this WikiProject, no one who might settle the dispute noticed. I have just added a WikiProject banner (I also added class and importance ratings, but someone more knowledgeable than I should probably review those). I'm also bringing it up here, in the hopes of speedier resolution. I gather from the talk page that the disputed issues relate to tone and lack of discussion of the procedure's risks. Cnilep ( talk) 04:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I retrieved this section from archives because ... it's baaaack! I've been reverted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences there seems to be a bias away from medical content and towards non-human biology. There are there 159 articles on birds and 110 on medical content. Furthermore the articles on anatomy are mixed between human and non-human articles. Any thoughts? Who makes these lists? CFCF ( talk) 13:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Alternative_medicine#Reddit_discussion_on_Wikipedia:_Alternative_medicine_article I responded to a query from a user on Reddit about the state of the article. He says that the article's definition of alternative medicine does not reflect the definitions of alternative medicine from "major world health organization[s]".
I don't specialize in science-related articles, but I would like to know what these definitions are, and if there is a need to tweak the definition in the article. WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I just wanted to make a brief second announcement about this article. The hypothyroidism article is on its way to GA status, but would really benefit from a few more experienced medicine editors discussing what revisions need to be made to make that happen. Axl has graciously been helping me, but I would really appreciate a few more individuals helping me get this important article up to GA. Thanks, happy holidays everyone! TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 06:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI, a cleanup request for Template:Traditional Chinese medicine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been filed at WT:CHINA -- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 22:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
My husband was diagnosed with bacterial pneumonia today, he is 72. He had a ruptured colon in Sept. which resulted in removing a part of the colon and a temporary colostomy. Today they prescribed Alubuterol Inhaler and Amoxicillin 875 Mg. He was on his third day of a Z-Pack, Zithromyacin, 500 mgm. which he has now completed.
What can cause this type of bacterial pneumonia They did not tell us the type of bacteria, gram 1, gram 2 etc.
1. He does use a cpap machine
2. We are careful with his bags and bag changes with his colostomy.
3. We were in the San Joaquin valley of California for Christmas, and they also checked him for Valley Fever, but did not give us any results??? We were staying in our large building, in an office we changed into a place to stay while there as we live 7 hours away. So we stay while work is being performed. They tore out an old cold box(like meat storage or cold storage, and there is a lot electrical, dropped ceiling and flooring going on. Could this be a possible source of the bacteria?
Any opinions about this, what we should do, look for, ask for. etc.
Thank you. S. Anderson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:F280:C400:8515:EC7B:C209:5637( talk) 03:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a lot of time on my hands right now, but we should probably have a close look at the very new article, List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as the biographies linked from it. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 04:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I have notified the creator. We need to keep in mind that list criteria are extremely broad. We have a parallel situation at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. In an overall sense, we have an undue weight issue, but I'm not sure that counts on the creation of lists. It does place all the fringies in one place. Maybe we need one for all the homeopathetics NOT. Maybe a case could be built using the rulings on improper fork articles. I assume they would apply to lists as well. -- Brangifer ( talk) 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought that project Steve had rather demonstrated the problems with such lists. I'd suggest AFD. ©Geni ( talk) 02:05, 19 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 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 |
The WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month for December 2013 is Psoriasis. The previous collaboration was Gastrointestinal disease. We welcome your help! |
This month's COTM has been selected as Psoriasis! The COTM, here ( WP:MCOTM), is selected be affirmative voting. Editors are encouraged to post any projects on the page so that they may be voted in as future endeavors. Last month's effort was a bit of a flop, so let's hope that this month's effort is somewhat more encouraging!
Ping to the following users who have expressed interest: Peter.C, Wouterstomp, jfdwolff, LT910001. Any other interested editors are of course welcome to participate, and with any luck we can bring this article up to GA-status by the end of the year. -- LT910001 ( talk) 07:54, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I suggested a while back that we focus on the students in WP:MEDUCSF in December, which generated press in the New York Times. Anybody? I suggest saving the other article for another month. I'd rather January just be "get the numbers down" in regards to cleanup templates. Biosthmors ( talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{ U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
May I suggest that we ask The American Academy of Dermatology, whose mission is to promote "leadership in dermatology and excellence in patient care through education, research and advocacy", to provide us with one or two interested experts to collaborate on this? They don't expressly have a remit for public education but they may be willing to help - especially considering the number their students and medical professionals that use Wikipedia. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Would anybody object to me approaching the AAD, in the name of this project, asking for their assistance? If they agree, would they be welcome here? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 06:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Anthonyhcole. You never needed my okay for this but you unequivocally have my support. I have been going about this in a way that is a bit different from what you are doing. It seems to me that you are tracking down your own sources. This is fine - you are pulling great sources, and even from the societies which are authoring the papers. However, I am getting some sources provided to me by the society itself. Since we were talking about AAD before you raised the feeding tube example, see Wikipedia:Choosing Wisely/American Academy of Dermatology. I have a list of sources there. I have always been citing the "5 things" paper, and then the sources from which those statements are derived as they are listed on that paper. The layman summary that you are citing does not suggest in itself MEDRS-compliant sources, which you sought yourself.
Additionally, this project was proposed on the premise that Wikipedia is a useful platform for sharing this information, and the measure of utility which I am able to capture is pageviews to a Wikipedia article. When I integrate information from this campaign into an article, I am also making a note of what I have done at the project page I make for each society. While the AAD page is currently empty, this AAHPM page has some items recorded and how I reported on the feeding tube information that you researched. Perhaps it would be good to put that layman summary in there as well, but my concern has always been connecting non-MEDRS layman sources with MEDRS sources and only that list of 5 makes a solid connection. I regularly report traffic back to the monitors. If you want to contact AAD, then I would propose to complete this project page and integrate the five items they requested of me, then show them what has been done as a demonstration. If I were to request something of you, it would be comments on these practices as an outreach and partnership strategy between Wikipedians and any organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
A list of 1-2 sentence stubs are proposed for merging into the main psoriasis article. Comments here: [1]. Many thanks, Lesion ( talk) 08:44, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
I have resurrected my attempt at adding language regarding identifying possibly poor journals for WP:MEDRS here. Would appreciate comments. Yobol ( talk) 19:19, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 19:41, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
The page Tumescent liposuction was tagged as disputed in June of this year, but since it was not in this WikiProject, no one who might settle the dispute noticed. I have just added a WikiProject banner (I also added class and importance ratings, but someone more knowledgeable than I should probably review those). I'm also bringing it up here, in the hopes of speedier resolution. I gather from the talk page that the disputed issues relate to tone and lack of discussion of the procedure's risks. Cnilep ( talk) 04:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Another case of student editing; can anything be done with this or should it be prodded? It was sourced to a single rat study, several student papers, and a book where page nos aren't given. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 08:53, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a new editor editing the molecular breast imaging section. More eyes would be helpful. Yobol ( talk) 18:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone might wish to start an article about the G8 Dementia Summit.
— Wavelength ( talk) 18:00, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Dear medical experts: This article has just been submitted at Afc. Any opinions? — Anne Delong ( talk) 18:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
The WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month for May 2024 is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease! Head to its talk page to organize our efforts. Continue to nominate topics for future months at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month#Nominations. |
Just talking with James, and I thought that it might be an idea in the immediate future to restrict the COTM article selection to articles which 1. are not GA or FA, and 2. are top importance. Often these topics have broad scope and might also therefore attract more interest from WPMED members. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesion ( talk • contribs)
Alternate proposal. I agree with the sentiment but am not in favour of 'iron-cast' rules. How about we give every Top-importance article (+2) votes each round, and every High-importance article (+1)? That way we can still promote the nomination of these articles, but popular choices can also be selected, and there won't be the need for a future RfC or large discussion when, inevitably, a user wants to nominate high-importance article.-- LT910001 ( talk) 14:43, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
Appears to be the subject of a student assignment with potentially problematic edits. The issue was raised first at the NPOV Noticeboard where more details are available. Course and instructor currently unknown. Voceditenore ( talk) 12:29, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Whilst I am very thankful for the AfC team for monitoring new articles and contacting us about it, I worry that these queries soak up a lot of time for, essentially, articles which will have a tiny, minute audience and often end up very short in length. I feel that, as with the student editors problem openly festering here, ideally there would be more time for users to work on articles of higher priority. I would like the opinions of other users on this, and how to deal with it? I propose three mechanisms:
Yes, AfC is important, but I feel working on getting the top 1-100 most visited articles, or the top-priority articles up to GA status would be much more productive.
Thoughts?-- LT910001 ( talk) 11:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
After one month of the article being protected it has been opened up at once to editing by a group who hold a very clear point of view, and strongly believe that WP:MEDRS is only to be followed when it is in favor of their view. I would hope some editors from here could take a look and see whats been happening.
How long is this dragging on? We have a minority of editors who clearly are unable to treat this article with neutral POV. I think topic ban is very appropriate considering the history. You cannot always push one POV on an article and expect other editors to assume good faith. Lesion ( talk) 00:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
After two months of work, I here formally announce the creation of the Society and Medicine Taskforce This taskforce is intended to collect and maintain articles relating to the intersection between society and medicine, specifically people, companies, charities and any other relevant articles. As many users will know, these three groups constitute the majority of new articles, and not only compose an increasing workload but an increasing amount of discussion on this talk page. This taskforce is intended to:
Collecting and centralising information about these articles is the first step in productively dealing with this issue, and has been noted in the past by myself, Jmh649, Jfdwolff, quality issues noted by SandyGeorgia, and I'm sure many others.
To tag an article for this task force, please add society=yes |society-imp=Mid to the assessment status on the talk page. Please do this for all new biographical entries. I have made a simultaneous edit to our scope so that article assessors (eg. Wouterstomp) will know.
Special thanks to Bluerasberry for discussions during the creation of this task force, and DePiep and ScottAlter for helping automate the assessment criteria. -- LT910001 ( talk) 11:40, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
{{ WikiProject Medicine | class= | importance= |society=yes |society-imp=Mid}}
Medicine: Society Project‑class Top‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Per many discussions on WP:ANATOMY, and a current attempt at a GA status for one article, I have proposed a change to the MOS for Anatomy articles here ( Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Anatomy_guidelines), and have outlined the reasons on the said page. Kind regards, -- LT910001 ( talk) 02:30, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The Human Liver article was recently created as a split from the Liver article; some WP:MED members might want to take a look at that and analyze whether this split was needed. A lot of the times we dedicate our articles significantly more to humans with an Other animals section, as Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Sections shows, because the topic has been studied significantly less with regard to non-human animals and our readers will usually be looking for the human aspect of that topic.
The article was tagged for speedy deletion, but that deletion has been contested on its talk page. [7] If the Human Liver article is to be kept, it needs to be retitled to Human liver (meaning without the capitalization), per WP:Article titles. Flyer22 ( talk) 11:31, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I agree with LT910001 concerning the use of article names such as mandible for the human and mandible (non-human) for potential animal articles. Regarding high profile articles there is a great deal of information on livers, kidneys, lungs etc. that isn't necessarily non-human or human, but concerns food and cultural aspects etc., and I think it may be hard to fit in either article. I think it is less demanding of a reader in search for info on the human liver to go to Human liver, than a reader in search of food-preparation to go to Liver (non-human). This question does not only cover liver, but all the other articles as well. I'll be around to help improve the articles on liver which I split regardless of consensus. CFCF ( talk) 12:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Per the discussion above, I have opened an RfC about the use of 'Human' in anatomy article titles, here ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy#RfC:_Use_of_.22Human.22_in_Anatomy_article_titles), and invite comment from members of the WP:MED community. -- LT910001 ( talk) 03:21, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Reinnervation has this:
The first of these links seems commercial to me; can't tell about the second.
Thanks -- Jo3sampl ( talk) 22:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Addressed. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone with access? If so please take a look: here A number of institutions in the United States [8] have access. CFCF ( talk) 19:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This user seems to be adding these [9] Wondering what people think? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I speak fluent Spanish, but I didn't even make it to the Spanish-language sources at Social Phobia and Anxiety Inventory before finding copyvio. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
This article could use some eyes. [pun excused] A bunch of new primary studies being added, some self-citing as well. Yobol ( talk) 15:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I work regularly with a class at Rice University titled Poverty, Justice and Human Capabilities. Last semester's class is here, for example. More than once a student has worked on a topic that relates to medicine; recent examples include diarrhea in developing regions, social determinants of health in Mexico, Zimbabwean cholera outbreak, and media portrayal of HIV/AIDS.
Here are my opinions about this sort of content -- I suspect not everyone here would agree with these opinions, which is why I'm posting here. I'd like to get some consensus on these points, not just for next semester but as a general guideline for this sort of topic.
Both the above rules are to be applied with common sense and without weakening any other rules -- we still require reliable sources, after all, regardless of MEDRS. The question is whether non-medical material, governed by non-medical guidelines, can be added to MED articles. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 14:29, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I've currently nominated the image Image:Sobo 1909 260.png for feature image. The reasoning behind my nomintion is that it is a high-quality image from a respectable anatomy text-book without any similar images on Wikipedia. It is in my view easy on the eyes, informative without being overly explicit, and a very high quality retouched scan. It holds both artistic and educational merit. See here for the nomination Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Sobo 1909 260. Please add any relevant comments or if you wish your support. Voting ends on the 19th. CFCF ( talk) 19:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
So... this is a "notable" medical WP:FRINGE theory, but the whole page (cited by 8 self-published scientology or news media sources) fails MEDRS. It doesn't seem to cover or link to the equivalent mainstream views either.
Seems like its worthy of an XFD, but I have a feeling that might be a contentious can of worms. Thoughts? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 06:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Posting here as I believe it will garner the most attention. I have been working on adding images from Commons:Category:CNX to Wikipedia as they are a very good source of medical illustrations, just the type we are currently lacking. I started in the far end of the book, also going for one of the articles I knew I would probably meet most resistance: Human penis. Any edits at all are very difficult to do, as there are forces intent on keeping the article from containing images of anatomy or physiology. I know these articles may be a cess-pit of incoherent argument, but if anyone were to quickly look over the recent edits, for example this revert [10] and see if there is any reason behind it, I would be glad. CFCF ( talk) 18:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe we should be adding image galleries to anatomy articles. We have Commons for that. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hey folks,
Just a reminder that Cochrane is taking signups for a Wikipedian in Residence: Wikipedia:COCHRANE/WIR.
Cochrane is a fantastic organization which publishes systematic reviews about medical treatments and efficacy.
Wiki Project Med Foundation is helping to coordinate the search for great candidates.
The Wikipedian in Residence would ideally be:
The position is open to anyone who can meet these criteria but may be particularly suited to students or recent graduates looking to expand their skills and experience, or those who work part-time in another job. Candidates should have an excellent level of written and spoken English, although those that speak more than one language are particularly welcome to apply.
Cochrane is structured as a network of groups located throughout the world to which people contribute in different ways, but primarily as authors of Cochrane Systematic Reviews. The WiR will work remotely from their chosen location and will interact with a number of groups and their contributors via email and online. Cochrane will provide a selection of online collaboration tools to facilitate communication.
The WiR will report to, and be guided by, Cochrane’s Head of Communications & External Affairs, and a Senior Editor of The Cochrane Library. They will also interact regularly with other members of Cochrane’s senior management team and representatives of its publishing partner for The Cochrane Library.
The WiR will be expected to work flexibly at different times of their day to suit their schedule and to help support Cochrane groups throughout the world (some work in the evenings is likely to be required). The exact number of hours per week will be agreed with the successful candidate, but is likely to be in the region of 7-12 hours per week.
The WiR will receive a stipend of up to $6,500 USD/£4,000 for the initial six month term, which will be paid in two instalments at the beginning and middle of the term. In addition, the WiR will be funded to attend and present a session at the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium in Hyderabad, India, 21st-25th September 2014.
We want to learn more about you and see how we can best give you an opportunity to work with Cochrane. Signup! WP:Cochrane/WIR.
Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 18:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm it:user:Doc.mari from Italian Wikipedia. I see that English Wikipedia has an article about chronic allograft nephropathy, while "chronic allograft dysfunction" is a more appropriate term according to many authors (see for example [11], [12]). The histologic changes found in chronic allograft injury are very variable according to the specific factors involved, so we can't really talk about "nephropathy". The same opinion is expressed by Floege et al in Comprehensive Clinical Nephrology, fourth edition, chapter 103. I think we should move the article to "Chronic kidney allograft dysfunction", as I did on it.wiki and I'd like to add some informations, but my English is very poor so I need your help and your advice. Thank you. -- Doc.mari ( talk) 22:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name)[1] or a historical eponym that has been superseded.
The possibility of a bot has been made available to automatically tag articles under WP:MED with the Society and medicine taskforce. It seems reasonable that this could also be the case for other task forces. Although I'm strongly in favour of getting it working for Society & Medicine first, and tweaking afterwards, as I feel we ought to strike while the Iron is hot, this bot could be expanded later to tag articles for other task forces.
As I understand it, a bot could tag using three criteria:
A list of taskforces with proposed criteria is here:
The aim here is to produce results that are 90-95% accurate with some reasonably simple rules. If we miss some articles, or some articles are added to a taskforce in error, the sky will not fall down. Articles that are subsequently removed from a taskforce may be able to be permanently removed so that they are not consistently re-added. -- LT910001 ( talk) 02:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
As a sidenote, one major taskforce we appear to be missing is an infectious and/or chronic disease taskforce. -- LT910001 ( talk) 02:07, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
|hemonc=yes
, and you can optionally add |hemonc-imp=
, but adding "???" is the same as leaving it blank.
WhatamIdoing (
talk) 21:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
|imp=???
rating rather than the |hemonc=???
rating (which would be quite ambiguous). The discussion is here (
Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Tagging_pages_for_a_new_Taskforce), and if/when the bot gets going, I'll ping you. --
LT910001 (
talk) 12:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)See [13]. Bound to have some gems for WP:Med. Not quite sure how to deal with that quantity of images though. -- LT910001 ( talk) 05:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
I just created this, feel free to work on it. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 19:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
As some of you may know, I have created many articles on autism researchers. I was wondering if Autism Speaks' blog (blog.autismspeaks.org, later moved to http://www.autismspeaks.org/blog) was a reliable source for such biographical articles, or whether it should be avoided given that it is a " blog". If not, I will remove it from the bios to which I have added it. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 22:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
If you want, you can look at the articles in which I have used it, including:
Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 11:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
The biggest challenge is making sure that the BLP is somehow "part" of the org whose website you're citing.
Any regular website, whether a blog or not, is self-published: the people writing the contents are the same people who are making those contents available to the public. Who writes Coca-Cola's website? Coca-Cola's employees. Who made that website available to the public? Coca-Cola's employees. This is in contrast to traditional publishing, in which the author and the publishing house are separate entities: Who wrote Harry Potter? JK Rowling. Who decided to make that book available to the public? Bloomsbury's employees.
We have strict rules against using self-published sources, including almost all non-newspaper/non-news websites, as sources of information about living people who are not associated with the source. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:27, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Jinkinson I realize I still owe you work on the issue of whether the bios you are creating meet notability. (See WP:PROF). Since the earlier question was archived without a single other editor here weighing in, perhaps no one cares. But I do wish you would give WP:PROF serious consideration; I'm not sure some of those bios would stand up to close scrutiny. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 16:08, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
TylerDurden8823 has been hard at work preparing hypothyroidism for a GA nomination (and taking away my coffee per levothyroxine absorption :) I've looked in and the sourcing is 100% sound, the prose looks competent, and WP:MEDMOS#Sections are followed. If some other folks would look in and opine whether it's GA-ready, I believe it would be a solid investment of your time. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Anybody home? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 15:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a Wikipedia:Articles for creation submission, at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alycia Halladay, to create a biography article about Alycia Kay Halladay, a senior director of Autism Speaks.
It currently ends with a quote from Halladay, sourced to the Huffington Post, that taking folic acid during pregnancy is "a relatively inexpensive way that parents can take action to possibly prevent risk of tube birth defects and autism."
I think this and other statements may need some input from this project with regard to Wikipedia:MEDRS.
It is also unclear to me whether Halladay is notable under Wikipedia:ACADEMIC or not; the sources provided in the submission thus far do not appear to prove her notability under Wikipedia:GNG. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 13:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Schizophrenia, needs eyes. It has long needed an update for DSM5, no one did it (to my dismay, grumble), and now it is being hit by numerous editors who are not familiar with the featured article standards, are changing citation style, aren't familiar with WP:OWN#Featured articles, are dropping text based on old sources into the lead without developing the body, and are using sources not compliant with MEDRS. Yes, it needs an update-- if the update is not done correctly, the article will end up de-featured. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Shizophrenia still needs experienced eyes. Or perhaps I should just send it to WP:FAR. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:12, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, OK, Schizophrenia is one of our few Featured articles and I am tired of babysitting it; since no one can be bothered to update or help maintain it, I shall give it another week or so and submit it to WP:FAR. A medical FA needs to be tended, and no one seems to care about this one, and it's becoming a headache to me, so time to get it defeatured. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 23:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Furthermore, since the horrid cite pmid template was only invented in 2009, it's unlikely it was the chosen citation style on any established article. Just sayin', since no one should be adding them to any FA. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I know a lot of you don't watch the drama pages, so here's a heads-up that we now have a new "Draft" WP:namespace. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#Draft namespace live and Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 121#Draft namespace being enabled soon discussions for more information.
WP:Articles for Creation is expected to move to the Draft: namespace, although old AFC pages will probably remain where they are. Editors are still allowed to create new articles in their userspace or in the mainspace (the regular place for articles); you don't have to use the new draft namespace unless you want to. Eventually, it might be possible to automagically connect draftspace pages to regular articles (just like talkspace pages), so that you could easily use the new namespace for testing or proposing complex edits. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I've cleaned out student essay material, off-topic text that belongs in other articles, and primary sourced material (which was mostly off-topic as well). What remains is (somewhat, needs checking) sourced to reviews, but a) it's not clear to me that all of it is ontopic, and b) it's not clear if what is left should be merged to atherosclerosis. Could a doc take over? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
One that turns out students proficient in editing Wikipedia? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
The best I ever saw was the attempts by jbmurray. Check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Murder Madness and Mayhem also read [ [19]]. Remember ( talk) 15:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with the reliable sources guidelines take a look at this article, currently Today's Featured Article. I removed a paragraph based on a single unpublished study, cited to news reports on a conference abstract, and pointed to the WP Medicine reliable sources guidelines, but it has been reinstated with the comment "the page you link explicitly states "Finally, make readers aware of controversies that are stated in reliable sources." If we were stating this as a medical truth, we would need better info, but at the moment it is carefully and correctly explained as a controversy." Thanks, Espresso Addict ( talk) 17:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
After discussion on multiple talk pages, it was revealed that multiple other language Wikipedias do have medical disclaimers. Initially, I was concerned about the decline in participation at WT:MED, where basic concerns are no longer being addressed:
Separately, I have been concerned with the effect of the education program on medical content-- considering declining participation in Wikipedia, I don't believe we can keep up with the bad content being added by students:
Those discussions led to various proposals at:
Wikipedia language | Number of articles | Template | Position in article |
---|---|---|---|
Chinese | 732,000 | zh:Template:Medical small | Top |
Dutch | 1,700,000 | nl:Sjabloon:Disclaimer medisch lemma | Top |
German | 1,600,000 | de:Wikipedia:Hinweis Gesundheitsthemen | Bottom |
Indonesian | 322,000 | id:Templat:Penyangkalan-medis | Top |
Norwegian | 399,000 | no:Mal:Helsenotis | Bottom |
Portuguese | 802,000 | pt:Predefinição:Aviso médico | Section: Treatment |
Turkish | 220,000 | tr:Şablon:TıpUyarı | Top |
This proposed version for use on en.wikipedia emerged from discussion at User talk:Alanyst/sandbox/reliability disclaimer and several other on-Wiki talk pages and external websites:
Anyone can edit Wikipedia; do not rely on its medical content. See the full site disclaimer. |
I am planning to install it on Tourette syndrome (where I am the only significant contributor) unless a significant consensus against emerges. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 19:28, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Articles may contain errors. Please help us fix them using high quality sources |
Per WP:NDA, it's weird that we consider {{ recent death}} and {{ current}} reason enough for a disclaimer, but not potentially life-altering content. I wouldn't mind working in some of your wording, but I'm still in favor of a more prominent disclaimer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia; do not rely on its medical content. Articles may contain errors; please help us fix them using high quality sources. See the full site disclaimer. |
How about this version (below)? It links the disclaimer more subtly to make the box smaller and makes the text a little less semicolon-happy. I also think "medical content" sounds a bit weird, like "content used as medicine", so I thought "do not rely on it for medical guidance" is a bit more clear. (I'll add this to the versions in my userspace as well.) alanyst 04:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Do not rely on it for medical guidance. Articles may contain errors; please help us fix them using high quality sources. |
Medical content on Wikipedia is not a substitute for medical advice from health care professionals. See the disclaimer. |
I shortened it and made it sound less negative. Not sure we should be using such a template. The rationale that because other language wikipedias use these templates should be qualified with the fact that their medical content is likely of lower quality then the medical content on the English Wikipedia. Lesion ( talk) 09:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Articles may contain errors; help us fix them using high quality sources. |
OK, so we have six versions up here now, and it's no longer clear to me which is which or if any have consensus. Could we address the principle of a disclaimer, yes or no, and then sort out the specifics over at Alanyst's page or a proposed template page? Because I no longer know who supports what, if anything. The last one on the page now is fine with me. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:25, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Should Wikipedia have a warning about our reliability at the top of each article or section that contains health-related information? (Let's address the nature of the warning in a separate discussion.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 19:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I support the disclaimer because our medical content is unreliable, and a good number of our readers don't know that. It is the morally necessary thing to do. Not doing so is highly negligent. Would Lesion, James, JFW, CFCF or anyone else who opposes putting a disclaimer above all health information please explain to me the harm/s a disclaimer would do to outweigh the obvious good it would do in informing our readers? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I see some resistance to putting a template on an FA (personally, I disagree ... autism is not in good shape, and I was willing to be a guinea pig at TS, but whatevs).
How about if someone who knows how to figure such things out (I don't) determines which is our most important and most viewed GA and we trial that?
While we're here dickering over the small print, Wikipedia is busy promoting massive poorly sourced POV medical content (in an area upon which our readers surely based medical decisions) throughout the walled garden of {{ Cannabis}} articles, which two sections down, you'll find more work than the two editors who are engaging can pretend to deal with. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Have made a separate section to stop this getting too messy. I do not support this proposal. Although I agree that we should strive to keep information accurate, reliable, and sourced, and I agree it's noble goal, I don't support this for the following reasons:
We could create a new tag along the lines of ('this page appears to be written like medical advice, of which it is not '), and then treat this like a cleanup tag. From my read of the above text, at this stage there does not appear to be consensus in either direction. -- LT910001 ( talk) 07:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
User:Casliber has proposed version CL here (Please read his thoughtful reasoning):
Anyone can edit Wikipedia. Please do not rely on it for medical advice. Help us improve our medical articles using high quality sources. |
Is this a version you can support? (We can discuss issues such as the nature of the trial and where to place the disclaimer elsewhere.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Too lazy to read through the whole thread, so I'll just give my thoughts/advice:
A medical disclaimer is a good idea, but some people personalize things, so don't address the reader directly when disclaiming and, more importantly, don't tell the reader what to do. A disclaimer of any kind, be it investments, medicine, or, more important than both of those, your skydiving parachute, should just be cautionary (if legally possible), not a request or command. An unnecessarily strong statement just runs the risk of alienating/offending the target audience.
Okey lets go through the basics. There is a very long standing consensus that such disclaimers are a bad idea. No localised position on single wikiproject can overturn that. You want to introduce them I'm afraid its the slog through the village pump and similar.
The idea that medical is a special case doesn't really hold. For example cooling towers which I doubt you would classify as medical have a multiple square mile kill radius (ah Legionnaires’). And despite what you may think the number of unregistered ones the HSE tends to find after each outbreak suggests not everyone with one knows what they are doing. Our articles on aspects of driving and motor vehicles again have a fairly impressive risk profile. Forestry industry, american football (given the head industry risk) the list goes on. Then there is the usual stuff on law and finance.
Oh and your notices don't even work on the mobile site so general disclaimer it is.
©Geni ( talk) 21:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
This sort of "it's against the guideline" doesn't impress me. Yes, it's against the current guideline. So? If people want to do this, then they can make a WP:PROPOSAL to change the guideline. WP:Consensus can change even at guidelines. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:43, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm not 100% opposed to medical disclaimers, but I do have to remind people here that any decision made from a discussion here is largely a local consensus specifically confined to WikiProject Medicine. In order for such a proposal to become valid, it would require overall community consensus Wikipedia-wide, since Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles is an existing guideline. The current consensus is that we do not place disclaimers within articles, because we have pages such as Wikipedia:General disclaimer, Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, Wikipedia:Content disclaimer et cetera which fulfil this purpose. Sure, there's no specific policy on the issue, but the existence of a content guideline is enough to justify seeking overall consensus first prior to making such a huge change from the status quo. I recommend starting something over at the WP:Village pump. -- benlisquare T• C• E 01:10, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Geni, do you not find it interesting that you are the only editor who has removed the disclaimer, and you've removed it four times? [26] Are admins immune to edit-warring blocks? You seem to be the only editor troubled by the disclaimer. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 02:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Anyone can edit this article.
Do not rely on it for medical advice. Please help improve Wikipedia's medical content using high-quality sources. |
This piece in the Boston Globe, by a medical student, underlines the importance of making our readers aware that our medical content is not authoritative. (Diff link added for reference.)
That’s the promise of Wikipedia in health care — a freely accessible and user-friendly platform through which to explore virtually any subject in medicine. But there’s another side to consider. During our pulmonology block last year, two of my classmates saw an error in the site’s entry for hyperventilation. They fixed the mistake and, as a joke, added “Kenny’s syndrome” as a name for a particular condition. To their surprise, the edit stayed for weeks, and they even found other websites citing my friend as an acid-base disorder. Hence, the opportunity for anyone to edit Wikipedia with minimal regulation has a terrifying capacity to influence the environment for clinicians-in-training. In the worst-case scenario, these inaccuracies could adversely impact the care that patients eventually receive.
— Nathaniel P. Morris, New operating system: Wikipedia’s role in medical education brings awesome promise — and a few risks, Boston Globe, 18 November 2013
— Scott • talk 18:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
My viewpoint may change as I think about this more, but I think I would support the versions that refer readers to a medical professional but oppose the others. For some wordings, I think that disclaimers on certain articles, like vaccination (or MMR vaccine controversy), are likely to do more harm than good - it will become an argument for anyone who wants to discredit the scientific consensus on these topics, and a prominent reason for a reader (who might otherwise have been educated on the topic) to reject that consensus when it is presented in Wikipedia. On a similar note, many templates can be used for POV pushing, but without the right wording, I think this would be one of the worse ones (when does an article or section have enough medical content to deserve a template? etc). So I would probably oppose any template that contained the phrase "Do not rely on..." but I would probably support the template "Wikipedia is not a substitute for the advice of a medical professional. Please help us improve our medical content using high quality sources."
Of course, I do see the problem this is meant to solve, but I'm not sure this is the best way to address it. Is it possible to write some scripts to identify (and maybe tag) non-MEDRS sources being used in medical articles? That would probably meet with a lot less opposition and wouldn't require a community-wide discussion. Or, if such a discussion is to be initiated anyways, I think raising MEDRS to policy might be a better goal, and one which I would support unreservedly. Sunrise ( talk) 05:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Some participants in these discussions have expressed the idea that our FAs don't need a disclaimer. (We used to have a nice chart of our FAs on the WP:MED mainpage, which seems to have disappeared along with a lot of other helpful content, but I digress ... )
So, looking at Wikipedia:FA#Health and medicine, I can say that at minimum the following have isssues:
Those are just the ones I know about; I would guess that 50% of our medical FA content would not stand up to WP:WIAFA scrutiny. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I haven't gotten very far on it yet, but want to have an RFC ready for after the holidays, when it can be moved out of my userspace and announced at the Village Pump, other central places:
SandyGeorgia (
Talk) 02:55, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The lead image for neck pain has been a photo of a guinea pig with torticollis for at least one year (first talk page objection raised in 2012: Talk:Neck pain#Main Picture). Comments? Alternative images? Many thanks, Lesion ( talk) 01:32, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I came across this article, which was apparently created about a month ago. Seems to rely a bit too heavily on primary sources, and needs reorganization. Help would be appreciated. Jinkinson talk to me What did he do now? 16:37, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
This still needs attention. I don't have journal access-- has anyone checked the remaining text for copyvio? Does this article need to be redirected? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 14:11, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
The page Tumescent liposuction was tagged as disputed in June of this year, but since it was not in this WikiProject, no one who might settle the dispute noticed. I have just added a WikiProject banner (I also added class and importance ratings, but someone more knowledgeable than I should probably review those). I'm also bringing it up here, in the hopes of speedier resolution. I gather from the talk page that the disputed issues relate to tone and lack of discussion of the procedure's risks. Cnilep ( talk) 04:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I retrieved this section from archives because ... it's baaaack! I've been reverted. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 00:44, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Biology and health sciences there seems to be a bias away from medical content and towards non-human biology. There are there 159 articles on birds and 110 on medical content. Furthermore the articles on anatomy are mixed between human and non-human articles. Any thoughts? Who makes these lists? CFCF ( talk) 13:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Alternative_medicine#Reddit_discussion_on_Wikipedia:_Alternative_medicine_article I responded to a query from a user on Reddit about the state of the article. He says that the article's definition of alternative medicine does not reflect the definitions of alternative medicine from "major world health organization[s]".
I don't specialize in science-related articles, but I would like to know what these definitions are, and if there is a need to tweak the definition in the article. WhisperToMe ( talk) 07:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I just wanted to make a brief second announcement about this article. The hypothyroidism article is on its way to GA status, but would really benefit from a few more experienced medicine editors discussing what revisions need to be made to make that happen. Axl has graciously been helping me, but I would really appreciate a few more individuals helping me get this important article up to GA. Thanks, happy holidays everyone! TylerDurden8823 ( talk) 06:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI, a cleanup request for Template:Traditional Chinese medicine ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been filed at WT:CHINA -- 65.94.78.9 ( talk) 22:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
My husband was diagnosed with bacterial pneumonia today, he is 72. He had a ruptured colon in Sept. which resulted in removing a part of the colon and a temporary colostomy. Today they prescribed Alubuterol Inhaler and Amoxicillin 875 Mg. He was on his third day of a Z-Pack, Zithromyacin, 500 mgm. which he has now completed.
What can cause this type of bacterial pneumonia They did not tell us the type of bacteria, gram 1, gram 2 etc.
1. He does use a cpap machine
2. We are careful with his bags and bag changes with his colostomy.
3. We were in the San Joaquin valley of California for Christmas, and they also checked him for Valley Fever, but did not give us any results??? We were staying in our large building, in an office we changed into a place to stay while there as we live 7 hours away. So we stay while work is being performed. They tore out an old cold box(like meat storage or cold storage, and there is a lot electrical, dropped ceiling and flooring going on. Could this be a possible source of the bacteria?
Any opinions about this, what we should do, look for, ask for. etc.
Thank you. S. Anderson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:F280:C400:8515:EC7B:C209:5637( talk) 03:53, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't have a lot of time on my hands right now, but we should probably have a close look at the very new article, List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of the thimerosal controversy ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as well as the biographies linked from it. TenOfAllTrades( talk) 04:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I have notified the creator. We need to keep in mind that list criteria are extremely broad. We have a parallel situation at List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. In an overall sense, we have an undue weight issue, but I'm not sure that counts on the creation of lists. It does place all the fringies in one place. Maybe we need one for all the homeopathetics NOT. Maybe a case could be built using the rulings on improper fork articles. I assume they would apply to lists as well. -- Brangifer ( talk) 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought that project Steve had rather demonstrated the problems with such lists. I'd suggest AFD. ©Geni ( talk) 02:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)