Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MED)
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
Medicine recent changes
 Top   High   Mid   Low   NA   ???  Total
88 941 8,564 15,787 6,160 479 32,019
List overview · Lists updated: 2014-02-24 · This box: view · talk

Editorials and WP:MEDRS[edit]

What is the state of editorials and MEDRS? I recently read some editorials from Nature Neuroscience. Is this considered acceptable by Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations as they are written by the journal itself. I'm not for a blank slate on all journal editorials, but I personally accept Nature as a "reputable major medical and scientific body", am I right in that reading of MEDRS? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The language at MEDRS seems generally permissive of most kinds of sources in reputable journals, but with a clear hierarchy. Sounds to me like they are fair game as long as they do not contradict available systematic reviews.Herbxue (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
The use of editorials and other opinion pieces is regulated by WP:RSOPINION, which says that they may be reliable for statements of opinion (This author or publication believes the sky is green) but not for statements of fact (The sky is green)—or, if I may guess about what's likely to be more relevant, that X is pseudoscience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Research editorials do have some opinion, and the also have clear analysis/synthesis of available medical research (valuable MEDRES compliant material). An intelligent reader can tell the difference. - Technophant (talk) 03:21, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
MEDRS discourages the use of "expert opinion". It names it as the lowest possible form of evidence, and later says, "Journal articles come in many types, including...editorials and op-ed pieces, advocacy pieces, speculation, book reviews, letters to the editor and other forms of commentary or correspondence, biographies, and eulogies. It is usually best to use reviews and meta-analyses where possible."
Whether it is "MEDRS-compliant" depends primarily on how you use it. It is possible to use an editorial piece in compliance with MEDRS and RSOPINION. Generally speaking, that requires WP:INTEXT attribution along the lines of "A 2010 editorial in _____ journal said that '(brief quotation or paraphrasing here)'". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:20, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I think MEDRS should be revised to elevate so call opinion. Articles labeled as editorial can be used to validate research article if the editorial specifically names the research and affirms the conclusions. This would be an example of source being more reliable than the source being discussed. MEDRS is far from perfect. - Technophant (talk) 18:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with much of WAID has said above. MEDRS specifically deprecates expert opinion; they should be used only sparingly, in-text attributed when used and probably not to contradict higher quality sourcing unless that opinion is of particular contextual importance (see WP:WEIGHT). I should also note that editorials in journals are not covered by the "Medical and scientific organizations" section, which I think applies to official position statements by these societies. Editorials are explicitly the opinion of the editor/author in question, and not a position statement by the publisher. For example, the journal Science is published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science; editorials published in Science are solely opinion pieces by authors, and are not the same as position statements by the AAAS, which are covered by the "Medical ans scientific organizations" section of MEDRS. Yobol (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Best practices for naming "controversy" articles?[edit]

There was an article called dental amalgam controversy. Its content is mostly about the fringe view that Amalgam (dentistry) in dental fillings causes a range of personal health problems. I was cleaning up the article and among other things, renamed it to dental amalgam toxicity, since the article was about the purported toxicity of the material and had, in my opinion, little information about debate or controversy despite presenting conflicting perspectives. A user suggested that my name change was not ideal because this person felt that it promoted the fringe view, while also saying that the original name was not good.

Does anyone know of a precedent in having names for articles on fringe concepts in medicine? Should these be called "controversy" articles, or is there another name? I proposed other names at Talk:Dental_amalgam_toxicity#Name_change_to_.22Dental_amalgam_toxicity.22. I am not sure what is best. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:08, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Without looking at this case in particular, I think for fringe topics the word "controversy" is not good, as it plays into the WP:GEVAL fallacy of implying that there are just "contrary voices" in play, rather than a (discredited) fringe and a (sensible) mainstream view. In non-medical topics the solution is often to cast the title in a way which makes plain the nature of the fringe views - for example Chemtrail conspiracy theory. Of course then there is a constant assault by fringe-pushers wanting to remove "conspiracy theory" from the title, but such is Wikipedia. Is the dental amalgam things a "conspiracy theory", a "popular misconception", a "myth" ... ? What do RS's say? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:43, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for helping me talk this through.
There might be two unrelated issues with amalgam danger. It kind of surprises me, but some sources from the WHO and others say that dental amalgam in the mouths of the deceased is the majority source of environmental mercury pollution. I think there is no dispute that bodies with mercury in the teeth need special care and reform of funerary practices, and right now, that content is mixed with general concerns about amalgam. If the article is called "dental amalgam controversy" or "dental amalgam toxicity", then this environmental problem which is unrelated to WikiProject Medicine work seems appropriate to include. With a different title about the health issue only, perhaps this content could be forked away and the issues separated.
For the idea that amalgam causes illness, it seems to be all of the things you said, "conspiracy theory", a "popular misconception", a "myth", and something which is repeated by some prominent health professionals who are not reliable sources. So far as I can tell, all health organizations that take a position say that the research finds no danger in the practice, but I have not examined all the sources and the article will eventually need to be cleaned more.
I hope that we do not need to resolve the truth right now just because no one has stepped up to parse the sources. I did want to sort the title... I am not sure right now what reliable sources say. I should think more. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:29, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
I prefer controversy, especially when there's an actual controversy with ongoing debate. It is far from accurate to say that the only legitimate controversy around amalgam is environmental. In addition to the patient health concern, there's informed consent debates and occupational exposure. On the patient issue, there is the 2010 FDA scientific advisory panel meeting, which was widely reported in the media as critical of the FDA's interpretation of safety (as was the 2006 scientific advisory panel). Unlike the 2006 panel, the 2010 one did not vote but the summary of the meeting concluded that the "Panel noted a likely susceptible subpopulation that is prone to adverse health effects after receiving amalgams, but noted also that this population could not be easily pre-identified at this time". This is similar to the 2009 FDA white paper which also noted that there seem to be polymorphisms with greater risk. Also, if I recall correctly, for reasons that I'm not sure are yet elucidated, boys (or at least some) excrete less mercury through their urine and it is unclear what that means. Anyway, I haven't looked into this in a while and it is possible things have changed. I'm heading out camping so I won't be around for follow-up, but that's my two cents. II | (t - c) 01:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Bluerasberry's comments above, to clearly demarcate the fringe alternative medicine quackery related to amalgam toxicity (i.e. the purported medical condition which results from the presence of amalgam fillings in the mouth) and the environmental concerns about amalgam disposal and cremation, etc. which is probably more mainstream and science based. Maybe even on 2 separate articles. (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Either of your two suggestions here sound okay to me, but it depends a bit on what the actual subject of the article is. "Environmental concerns" isn't so good for "making me sick", and "toxicity claims" might not be so great if it's mostly about mercury emissions from crematoriums. "Controversy" might works best if there was a time-bounded "event" around it and the issues were (at one time) considered reasonable or possible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry:: There has been a lengthy precedence for "controversy" titles (see Thiomersal controversy, MMR vaccine controversy, Vaccine controversies, Water fluoridation controversy, Aspartame controversy, off the top of my head). I do feel "controversy" is a more neutral than "toxicity" if the goal of the page is to discuss the controversial claims about the toxicity. Yobol (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

A draft at AFC has problems[edit]

Could/should Draft:Renal dialysis diet be rehabilitated or is euthanasia the best option? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Real enough subject, very poor article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Could use some feedback on improvements[edit]

Signaling cascade in the nucleus accumbens that results in psychostimulant addiction

Insert witty caption here.

I'm still undecided on whether or not to use this image outside ΔFosB, but does anyone have any feedback - cosmetic or otherwise, for improving this? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:12, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I would personally chose a slightly different typesetting, as I've personally found it hard to get text to look uniform in SVGs. Apart from that, some of the arrows do not point to the receptor-ligand binding site. For example the arrow showing (glutamate) binding to AMPAR is pointing far below what looks like the binding site. Could you upload a .png file just to compare so that it isn't down to using non-universal typefaces. Take a quick look at commons:Commons:SVG_guidelines, it might explain some issues. -- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:52, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Concerning the ligand binding sites on the AMPAR and NMDAR complexes, please note that both of these complexes are ligand gated ion channels. The central "binding site" depicted in the graphic actually represents the ion conduction pore (as shown in the case of NMDAR). The ligand binding sites are on the periphery of the complex (see for example File:Activated_NMDAR.PNG). (Note: the depiction of AMPAR should be changed to look more NMDAR in the graphic.) While position of the arrows may not look quite right, they do point to were the ligand binding sites are approximately located. Boghog (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
That is of course true, (maybe I should stop checking Wikipedia one last time 11 pm, and just wait till the morning). Apart from that I still think it might to a lay-reader be slightly unclear where/that they bind, and creating a small indentation to represent the allosteric site would help. As for 7TM receptors, there must be some illustration on Wikipedia we could reuse. The hard work of creating a clear and concise image has been done, if we simply fix the rest this might be ready for featured image. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:17, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
@CFCF: I agree with you that the diagram could be made clearer. As I have stated elsewhere, use of "anatomically correct" figures would be more revealing ;-) Boghog (talk) 12:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I made a variety of changes today - including an optional "Colorcode" parameter that transcludes (4 nested templates...) an annotation containing a reference containing a legend which shows up in the ref tooltip in articles (e.g., see ΔFosB where I've placed the image as a test). Let me know what you think now. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 03:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I like those changes, it makes the image much clearer. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Once sorted out I would think it useful for more general articles where we lack a graphic of comparable complexity. Wiki CRUK john/Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
NMDAR, AMPAR, and CAv1.2 were the only structures I tried to actually model in a way that reflects their function. DRD1-DRD5 are simply geometric shapes that were intended to show similarity in function; I have no desire to try to create the squiggly mess of what a 7TM receptor is supposed to look like, so I went with geometric shapes. Since I wasn't trying to show AMPAR's function (move Na+ ions inside - not directly related to cascade) in the graphic, I simply chose to make it look like NMDAR to reflect their similarity as LGICs, without showing the ion channel. In any event, the point of the graphic is just to show the signal transduction that induces addiction to stimulants, but I went to far more trouble than the citations I referenced to draw a half-decent diagram.[1][2].
About the text though, I'm aware of that page since I read it a while back. I agree SVG text is a pain in the ass to make look right, but I've learned to deal with it. As long as it renders as I intended (easily checked beforehand with this tool), I'm ok with using svg text. I'll upload one with no text some time in the future though. The font in the image is sans, but if anything looks different, it's because I italicized the text for emphasis. I'll see if serif or something looks better when I next revise it. There are unintended italics on DNA and dendrite that I'll remove as well; I forgot to remove those last night when I cut out a bunch of text. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 19:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
  1. ^
      Ion channel
      G-proteins & linked receptors
      (Text color) Transcription factors

Craniosacral therapy[edit]

More eyes needed...we have an IP editor attempting to blank sections and remove a considerable amount of sourced information without explanation and continues to revert. I do not wish to engage the editor in an edit war, so I am requesting other editors' assistance. Thanks. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

You can request for an admin to protect the page for a month or so, the IP will soon lose interest. (talk) 12:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Protected 1 month. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:41, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the swift response. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed category deletion[edit]

Note that Wikiprojects rarely get notified of these: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_13#Category:Articles_lacking_medical_references_or_verification. WCJ/Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

FDA drug safety updates[edit]

For anyone interested, a heads up alert is provided at the link above. Boghog (talk) 16:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Boghog This is an important issue and I wish that I could keep up. I confirm that I am interested but I am unable to go through FDA alerts and update Wikipedia articles in response to them. It would be nice if the FDA recognized that as many people seek information here as in many of the other dissemination channels which they used, and talked with us about developing Wikipedia's health content just as they would talk with any other health organization. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ellyn Satter[edit]

Dear medical experts: This old AfC submission was declined because of lack of independent sources. Later an other editor created Ellyn Satter, but it doesn't have any independent sources either. I found book reviews, but they are mostly on blogs or personal websites. I'm not sure where to look, though. Is this a notable nutritionist? If not, there's little point in trying to merge the pages. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:15, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong:: Thank you for the link. Since I have a Wisconsin connection, I will do what I can. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 18:44, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Ancheta Wis. I have postponed deletion of the draft for six months. If you move any content from the draft to mainspace, be sure to mention the draft's creator, Cldanaher, in your edit summary. If you can't find any reliable sources, the mainspace article may need to be sent to AfD; let's hope not. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Candida alternative medicine quackery not covered well on Wikipedia[edit]

I feel strongly that the small amount of discussion WP appears to have about the alternative medicine claims surrounding candida is not sufficient to provide high quality reliable information to the public. The candida industry is huge, and their lies go well beyond "candida hypersensitivity syndrome". There is widespread belief among sections of the public that a systemic candida overgrowth is possible, and special diets, antifungals, fasting, "detox", supplements and other things are required It is my understanding that a genuine infection with candida in the gut is very serious, leaving the patient fighting for their life in intensive care. Maybe there is some WP article on this topic that I have missed, but feel we need more content. (talk) 18:40, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. That's far too little coverage of a huge area of quackery. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Is it possible to use some of these sources [3] to build content about so called "candida overgrowth"? I'm finding it difficult to find anything on pubmed or in google books. (talk) 20:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
There are some decent sources on pubmed, for example [4]:

Candida organisms commonly colonize the human gastrointestinal tract as a component of the resident microbiota. Their presence is generally benign. Recent studies, however, show that high level Candidacolonization is associated with several diseases of the gastrointestinal tract.

So there this some truth to it, but I see what you mean with dubious industry claims. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:07, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this for years; some of the claims can be entertaining if you forget that some people really believe this. Last I heard, the "industry" was saying that eating bread that contains dead yeast would somehow put live yeast in your gut.
My overall impression was to wonder (as I do for gluten-free diets) how many of them are benefiting from eating less high-carbohydrate food and more vegetables and protein rather than from the ostensible goal of the anti-candida diet programs. I suppose that psychological benefits are also possible: restrictive diets and personally chosen "treatments" provide a sense of control over your fate. (And if your goal is to feel better, and being a true believer makes you feel better, then should people even care that your improved experience is due to psychological or placebo effects?)
Anyway, yes, like Hypoglycemia, there's a mainstream condition under that name and an "altmed condition" piggybacking on the legitimacy of the recognized one. Writing a good article there will be complicated, and maintaining it will be even harder. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

OK Candidiasis is protected so I cannot edit. I will start writing something and put it on the talk page. Please anyone feel free to dive in too. (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

RFC regarding neutrality and MEDRS on "fringe" alt-med topics[edit]

The RFC found Talk:Myofascial meridians#rfc_E441AA7 was started out of frustration due to a number of editor using a very strict, legalistic view of WP:MEDRS by removing all primary sources that don't conform to their POV. There's also a lot of bias in the result of this practice. I'm essentially treated as a vandal, with even non-controversial edits being reverted. The debate has been taken up in multiple talk pages. The opinion of experienced medical editors is requested. - Technophant (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm really disturbed in the trend here. My edits are being reverted and being called "fringe". There's a major issue with the interpretation and application of WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:Fringe_theories.
This debate also extends to acupuncture, referred itch, and Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Issues with alt med not being able to maintain NPOV. - Technophant (talk) 15:27, 20 July}} 2014 (UTC)
You write that the "debate has been taken up in multiple talk pages." Well, you only have yourself to thank for that situation because you have spammed it all over the place, and now here. You need to stick to one discussion and not seek support elsewhere by canvassing editors and writing on more and more boards and talk pages. If you can't work things out with the editors on a talk page, then give up, because your fringe POV pushing agenda is pretty obvious, violates many policies, and has been exposed. Unless you change your POV and way of editing, you're not going to get more support. On the contrary. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:29, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If the same group of editors keep responding, I don't see what's wrong with OP seeking more diverse responses and opinions. -A1candidate (talk) 19:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
If policies are explained again and again by multiple editors and Technophant still doesn't get it, then we're dealing with a case of incompetence, POV pushing, and seeking to right great wrongs, all of which mean he is not good for Wikipedia. Your support for him places you in the same category and under the same spotlight and magnifying glass. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Forum shop, time sink, tendentious, IDHT aaaarghhh! - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:23, 21 July 2014 (UTC)


Have come across another two users who have mostly simply copied and pasted from sources. I am tired of spending my days dealing with this rather than writing content. That User:Truebreath was able to make more than 3,500 edits over more than a year before being picked up [5] is sad. Many excellent edits were lost in the removal. The other user was User:Janbaekelandt and the two may be related.

We need a solution to prevent this and we need it now. We need foundation support. We need the foundation to take this seriously. User:Eloquence, User:Frank_Schulenburg and User:Jimbo Wales can the foundation support WP:Turnitin? User:Ladsgroup I am willing to hire you for this work if you want to take it on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:42, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I have just offered $5000 CAD for a working solution. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Doc, Please take care not to harm yourself, for the sake of the encyclopedia. We need you. Regards, --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 02:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks no concerns of harm. Just see a serious problem that has been festering and needs to be fixed. Not sure if it is also a huge issue in other topic areas but I assume that this is likely. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Is everyone aware of the Individual Engagement Grants? They actually do pay money for solutions to technical needs (not for content creation, of course, since that's what the volunteers do). —Anne Delong (talk) 03:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes aware of them. They are not available to everyone. My offer is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm under the impression that "you" can get the IEG and use the money to pay whatever contractors you need to. User:Ocaasi will probably know more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
To clarify: Yes, the user James wants to hire in this case could indeed be paid as an independent contractor from a grantee's IEG funds (even if the user was ineligible to receive WMF funds as a direct grantee himself). In that sense, like bounties, grant-funding can be made available "for everyone." But money doesn't seem like the real blocker here :) Siko (WMF) (talk) 17:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Have you posted the details of the offer somewhere, James? -- Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:17, 21 July 2014‎ (UTC)
Not yet. You interested Anthony? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:39, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree you might well get an IEG as managing rather than doing the process. In fact you should certainly be part of any application, as a very well-respected figure. It isn't quick though. Per here the next round timetable is:
Proposals accepted: 1-30 September
Committee members finalized: 15 September
Community comment requested: 1–20 October
Committee review: 21 October – 3 November
Grantees announced: 5 December 2014
Grants disbursed: December 2014 – January 2015
Midpoint reports: April
Final reports: JulyWiki CRUK John (talk) 10:20, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Yup so if someone wants my funding they can start right away. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I got a good, quick result here, at WP:VPT. I've been told about engagement grants but chose to go direct because of the suffocating time delay. I'm going direct for some illustrations I'm commissioning too. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation is planning to support the development of a plagiarism checker tool. I pinged Sage Ross (as our product manager), so he's aware of this and can provide more information. @Doc James: hope you're feeling better. Best --Frank Schulenburg (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Doc James, et al: The current timeline for Wiki Education Foundation is that we'll start exploring the plagiarism-checking problem in detail in the last months of 2014 and/or the first months of 2015. I'm currently in the middle of a request for proposals to find a development company for Wiki Education Foundation's first round of development, which includes a "feasibility study" for a plagiarism checking system. Basically, the idea is to do enough work on it to figure out just how big of a project it's going to be. By next month, I'll start working with developers, and I'm happy to coordinate efforts with anyone else working on plagiarism. The system we'd like to build (as a start) would be focused on just checking the edits made by student editors from our courses, but it will hopefully be a good starting point for scaling up to all of Wikipedia.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Sure. We should talk so that we can co-ordinate. Were you planning on using the Turnitin API? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:58, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Doc James: Yes, since all that work establishing a relationship has already been done, I've been assuming that Turnitin's iThenticate API will be the most sensible thing to explore first. Let's try again to find a time to talk.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for slow response I was traveling. @Sbouterse (WMF): I wish you would tell us this sooner. @Jmh649: I think the best thing right now is to make a precise plan on how we want to work on fighting plagiarism and copyright violation, we have lots of options ahead of us right now (IEG or Wiki Education project, etc.) and manging these resources is the most important thing. Thank you for your work here :)Ladsgroupبحث 10:46, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Really exhausted[edit]

The Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring is usually one of the few methods of "dispute resolution" on Wikipedia that actually worked. However now it is appearing not to.

User:Technophant added a bunch of primary sources and a 1900s German alt med text that was recently translated to English which introduces a new "body system" to the standard 11 (the collagenous matrix and ground substance) [6]. They were reverted multiple times by a couple of editors. They re-added content four times making a technical total of 5 reverts in 20 hours. No block [7]

I am sure it will just take some time to straighten out Myofascial meridians and at least the page is protected now. Still contains the text "Continuing education courses in Anatomy Trains are taught regularly.[8]" Glad to see Wikipedia is helping out the "fearless" leader on his birthday. (per text at the bottom of the above link ref) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Fighting on the wrong side of losing battle is frequently exhausting. Perhaps you take a wp:wikibreak and take some time to think about what your reasons are for being an editor. - Technophant (talk) 09:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Techno. Your comments have helped me refocus on why I am an editor :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:04, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Second 3RR on a different article filed. If someone has the energy I think ANI is probably appropriate, topic ban or... I'm tired too. What about discretionary sanctions? Note also removal of warnings, extensive forum shopping, IDHT and clear POV pushing... - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately we all can get some rest from the constant disruption. Technophant is now indefinitely topic banned from all Alternative medicine subjects. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Poppy tea[edit]

Someone with experience on writing on opiates really needs to give a good look at the train wreck of anecdotes and unsourced waffle that is Poppy tea. To my mind, this kind of "folk remedy" article is where the biggest risk (both to readers, and to Wikipedia) lies—all it takes is one kid to die or suffer serious psychological trauma after taking diluted unprocessed opium as a cure for diarrhoea ("Well, Wikipedia says it's a traditional cure so it should be all right") and there's some nasty explaining to do. I suspect that because it doesn't fall neatly into either pharmacology or psychiatry, this one has a tendency to slip through the net when it comes to fact-checking. – iridescent 2 12:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is a ref [9]. Trimmed some Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:47, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Prof Hasty rides again[edit] health. Jake O's comment doesn't make all the points it could. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes this is exactly why we should never use popular press as a reference for medical content. It is simply wrong again and again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I posted a comment there but they deleted it. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Indicating exactly which bits of the text are supported by a citation.[edit]

User:Makyen has recently made this template ("Ref supports2") for article segments supported by more than one source, where each source supports different parts of the segment.

Example (hover your mouse pointer under the footnote marker):

At any given time, about half of all patients with malignant cancer are experiencing pain, and more than a third of those (and two thirds of all patients with advanced cancer) experience pain of such intensity that it adversely affects their sleep, mood, social relations and activities of daily living.[1][2][3]


  1. ^ "Example 1". 
  2. ^ Example 2
  3. ^ Example 3

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

To some extent, this functionality can be obtained from the |quote parameter in citation templates, which I wish was used more often. That's more visible to readers, and is also visible in printed versions. I presume {{Ref supports2}} is more aimed toward editors than readers? Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 05:08, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Adrian J. Hunter, it's aimed at both. Both should be able to easily find what text is supported by a citation, and what isn't. Often, an editor will add something to the middle of a sourced paragraph that isn't supported by the existing citations. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Very interesting! I like where this is going.
I have worked on a different system related to tying specific words/phrases in the lead to the exact section where the content (with the references which back up those words/phrases) from which it is derived can be found. You can see it in my essay: WP:How to create and manage a good lead section#Lead section references
Brangifer (talk) 05:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that it is not compatible across languages of Wikipedia and therefore messes up translation efforts. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Could you elaborate please James? Do you mean it would somehow break the translations or simply that this feature wouldn't appear in the translations because the other language Wikipedias don't use this template, or something else? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The quote= does the same thing and yes other languages do not have this template thus refs will not work in other languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
James, the quote parameter doesn't do the same thing. Where a source supports multiple assertions throughout an article, adding all the text supported by that source to the citation's "quote" parameter could be very bulky, confusing and unhelpful. Could you please explain the exact nature of the problem with this template? Is it that the template markup would have to be manually removed from the article before it's translated? Is that the problem? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Anthonyhcole: I've encountered that problem on amphetamine a few times. I think it'd be best to make a "supports" parameter in existing cite journal/web/book templates. The template example above looks like it's just an abbr template wrapped around a reference (I haven't looked at the template code)... that might screw with accessibility. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 07:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Try using it on Swahili Wikipedia. Having to remove this template from hundreds of refs would be a pain. When it comes to markup we need a KISS philosophy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:23, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, James. If you intend banning from en.Wikipedia any markup that is not universally useable across all MediaWiki sites, in order to make the translation process simpler, I'd have to oppose you on that. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
My position is that it is bad enough as it is now. Do not approve of efforts to make it worse. Really we need a set of universally accepted templates that work on all projects. maybe another WP:IEG idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I've asked User:Makyen if it's possible to create a tool that automatically strips the wrap-around template out of articles. In fact, it should be feasible to create a tool that recognises markup that's not universally readable across Wikipedias, and automatically removes it from an article or replaces it with something that is universally readable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:58, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
User:Seppi333, if that template impairs accessibility, it shouldn't be used. Does it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────See the top of Template:Abbr. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 08:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see at Wikipedia:Accessibility#Text: "Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other 'hover' text. Abbreviations are exempt from these requirements, so the template may be used to indicate the long form of a word." --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:48, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Anthony's guideline that hover text is not suitable. Wikipedia may already be more read on phones and tablets than on PCs with a mouse. I don't support using non-standard templates (don't like templates at all, for that matter) for references because each is a barrier to new editors learning to write/maintain text. James, please stop citing translation as a reason en:wp should not adopt new things or use certain markup. I have in the past shown how trivial it is to add/fix templates on other wikis and even if markup needs changed (to some lowest common denominator) that is a trivial exercise for software tools. You are like a person saying nobody should go swimming because he hasn't got a pair of swimming trunks. You see a problem but not the correct solution. -- Colin°Talk 09:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm a screen reader user, and I would have no idea that that template even existed unless I was editing the wikitext. In other words, I wouldn't be able to use its functionality. Graham87 10:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Graham. I presume this is a critical accessibility issue - that unless a way can be found to provide this information (what text, exactly, is supported by a given citation) to all readers, including users of screen readers, it shouldn't be on Wikipedia. Have I got that right? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
@Anthonyhcole: Yes, exactly. Graham87 01:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
@Anthonyhcole, Jmh649: It is certainly possible to create a tool which strips out the {{Ref supports2}} templates. It is unclear to me from the above conversation at what point this should be done. {{Ref supports2}} was specifically designed to be an addition to <ref>...</ref> tags such that the <ref>...</ref> tags were not changed, allowing them to be directly copied if the {{Ref supports2}} functionality was not desired. It is not clear to me what tools are being used for such translations, or where such stripping should occur. I would think it would be easier to migrate the {{Ref supports2}} and {{abbr}} templates to whichever wiki is the target for translation. Even if all that is done is to create a blank {{Ref supports2}} template on such a wiki which completely drops the functionality, creating a blank {{Ref supports2}} template that just parrots back the <ref>...</ref> tags would be much easier than trying to make sure that the template was always stripped out of the wiki-text when translating. While this would make it such that there is no tooltip on that wiki showing the supported text, it would result in no error being shown (i.e. the {{Ref supports2}}) template would have no effect on the page).
@Seppi333: Yes, {{Ref supports2}} invokes {{abbr}} as that template already has support built in for the <abbr>...</abbr> tag (tooltip functionality) across multiple browsers. If a tooltip is to be used, it is better, if possible, to keep all the browser specific code in one location rather than directly duplicate it within the {{Ref supports2}} template.
If desirable, {{Ref supports2}} can probably be modified such that the supported text shows up within the reference footnote. However, that would require changing the semantics of what is used such that the <ref>...</ref> tags do not appear within the wiki-text. Doing so will break other referencing tools as the <ref>...</ref> tags within the wiki-text are what most tools require to recognize a reference. I considered this to be unacceptable as an implementation. The other possibility would be to duplicate the text within the <ref>...</ref> tags. Doing so would result in the supported text being in the wiki-text in three different places.
Ultimately, how this functionality is implemented depends on what is desired. So far, there have been three different implementations produced: {{Ref supports}}, {{Ref supports2}}, and {{Ref supports3}}. All of them were intended to be able to be used with all references (i.e. references which either do or do not use cite/citation templates). Currently, {{Ref supports}} is not visible to IP users except as text within the reference. {{Ref supports2}} and {{Ref supports3}} are visible to all users but have no method of displaying the supported text within the reference (doing so would break other tools).
  1. Highlights the supported text when the reference marker is hovered. All supported text anywhere on the page is highlighted when any marker for a particular reference is hovered.
  2. For references used multiple times on the page, all supported text is specified within the initial definition of the reference.
  3. Supported text is (optionally) displayed in the reference. This can be changed to being the default functionality. Changing this to showing the supported text within the reference appears to solve the accessibility concern/issue.
  4. Designed specifically such that the functionality could be moved into a parameter within the cite and citation templates with very little work.
  5. Is, currently, a template that is placed within the <ref>...</ref> tags.
  6. Further development was expected to significantly reduce the amount of duplicated text that has to be added to the wiki-text to represent the supported text. This was expected to be done by enabling the use of wildcards within the text specified as supported. Development of that functionality is paused as Anthonyhcole wanted a solution which functions now for all viewers of the page.
  7. Is fully compatible with mw:Reference Tooltips and Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups.
  8. The primary drawback to this version is that it, currently, requires enabling a user script, User:Makyen/RefSupports.js, in order to have the supported text highlighted on the page. Displaying the supported text within the reference does not require the use of a user script, just the highlighting of the supported text on the page. If supported text is displayed in the reference, then it will also be displayed in a tooltip-like pop-up if the mw:Reference Tooltips gadget is enabled.
    If sufficiently used, and a consensus for this functionality shown on a wider basis, it could be migrated into a gadget, a gadget that is enabled by default, or as core functionality.
  9. Longer example (see reference 28 for example of highlighting text in multiple uses of a reference).
  10. Example (A. In this example, the supported text is displayed within the reference for 1 and 3, but not 2.):

At any given time, about half of all patients with malignant cancer are experiencing pain, and more than a third of those (and two thirds of all patients with advanced cancer) experience pain of such intensity that it adversely affects their sleep, mood, social relations and activities of daily living.[1][2][3]

  1. ^ "test 1".   Supports:"At any given time, about half of all patients with malignant cancer are experiencing pain"
  2. ^ test 2.  
  3. ^ test 3.  Supports:"At any given time,", "two thirds of all patients with advanced cancer) experience pain of such intensity that it adversely affects their sleep, mood, social relations and activities of daily living"
  1. Supported text is displayed in a tooltip popup when the mouse is hovered over the reference number. For compatibility with mw:Reference Tooltips and Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups the mouse can be hovered below the reference marker.
  2. For references used multiple times on the page, the supported text for that specific use of the reference is specified at that specific invocation of the reference.
  3. The availability of the tooltip is indicated in most browsers by a line below the reference marker.
  4. Works for all viewers of the page without the need for enabling a user script or gadget.
  5. A accessibility concern was brought up in that the supported text is only indicated within the tooltip. However, the method used is a normal and standard part of the HTML specification which 3rd party accessibility tools should properly handle (i.e. it is a basic part of the HTML specification which if not handled by such tools then those tools should be considered deficient.) It is not something that is only indicated through a visual-only change of the page (e.g. highlighting the text).
  6. Requires the supported wiki-text to be duplicated within the {{Ref supports2}} template. However, the text is free-form and duplication could be reduced by using "..." within the specification of the supported text.
  7. Is a template that is placed around the <ref>...</ref> tags.
  8. Is not compatible with migration into cite/citation templates.
  9. Example:

At any given time, about half of all patients with malignant cancer are experiencing pain, and more than a third of those (and two thirds of all patients with advanced cancer) experience pain of such intensity that it adversely affects their sleep, mood, social relations and activities of daily living.[1][2][3]

  1. ^ "test 1". 
  2. ^ test 2
  3. ^ test 3
  1. Supported text is highlighted if an "s" below the reference is clicked. This also causes the page to jump to the supported text.
  2. Within the wiki-text, indicating supported text is done by both surrounding it by a {{Supported by ref}} template within the text on the page (and naming it) and by a {{Ref supports2}} template surrounding the <ref>...</ref> tags with the name given to the supported text. My impression is that this is more complex within the wiki-text than the other two implementations. However, it does not require the supported text to be duplicated at all. It is unclear to me if this method of indicating the supported text is better than having to duplicate the text, or if it is more more difficult for editors to maintain.
  3. Given the recent change in vector text sizes, any size selected for the "s" is a compromise for visibility on different skins.
  4. For references used multiple times on the page, the supported text for that specific use of the reference is specified at the point in the wiki-text where the reference is used and in the wiki-text (i.e. specifying the supported text is distributed throughout the wiki-text of the page).
  5. Works for all viewers of the page without the need for enabling a user script or gadget.
  6. Has a significant accessibility issue in that the supported text is only indicated by highlighing the text when the "s" for that supported text segment is clicked.
  7. Is templates which are placed around the <ref>...</ref> tags and around the supported text.
  8. Is not compatible with migration into cite/citation templates.
  9. Example:

At any given time, about half of all patients with malignant cancer are experiencing pain, and more than a third of those (and two thirds of all patients with advanced cancer) experience pain of such intensity that it adversely affects their sleep, mood, social relations and activities of daily living.[1]


  1. ^ "test 1". 
  2. ^ test 2
  3. ^ test 3

If indicating the text supported by a reference is functionality that is desired on a wider basis, then we should discuss how it is desired to be shown (i.e. exactly what functionality is desired). There are also various significant issues to be considered as to accessibility; if it is desired to have the functionality available to all users now; is it permissible to break current tools; or even if this is functionality that should be available on a wider basis. These are only some of the issues which should be considered.
If what is desired, is something to indicate the supported text now to all users without breaking current tools (i.e. leaving the <ref>...</ref> tags on the page), then what is available now is {{Ref supports2}} or {{Ref supports3}}. At least {{Ref supports3}} has the drawback of significant accessibility issues (only indication of supported text is visual).
The reality is that at a minimum, without significant wide consensus to deploy the functionality to show the supported text when a reference is hovered, there will be drawbacks and some users will not get to see it. {{Ref supports2}} is what is available now which shows the supported text when a reference is hovered to the widest group of people.
If what is desired is to indicate the text that is supported to every single user then the only way to do that is to have it show up as plain text in the reference text within the references section. In which case, {{Ref supports}} could be used and we can change the default functionality to be that the supported text is always shown within the reference. Showing the supported text when hovered would then be relegated to the very small percentage of people which have either enabled the user script or are using the mw:Reference Tooltips gadget. Having such shown to everyone would require that one of those two scripts become a default enabled gadget pushed to all users (including IP users). — Makyen (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2014 (UTC); better description of near-blank {{Ref supports2}} for translated wikis 19:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Specifically regarding translation: It would be possible to copy Template:Ref supports2/just ref to the "Template:Ref supports2" page on any wiki which is the target of a translation. — Makyen (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
From where I sit, this is too many bells and whistles. I guess if it is available and other folks want to use it that is great. As for me, I have no desire to spend time documenting things to this level. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@Anthony. If you are using the same ref with different quotes supporting different text just create multiple separate references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:30, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yep. That would definitely overcome the accessibility problem. Mmm. I might try combining the two in Cancer pain on passages where what supports what is ambiguous (if I can be bothered going back to the textbooks to see what supports what). If you ever want to put it on the translation list - which would be awesome - let me know and I'll supply you with a simple-English, simple-code version. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Frambesia Tropica in the Americas[edit]

Dear medical experts: This old AfC submission was declined with the suggestion that the information be added to the Yaws article. Now it's about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is there anything that should be moved before that happens? —Anne Delong (talk) 08:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

PhRMA Edits History[edit]

A history of edits of Wikipedia from IPs of companies registered as part of PhRMA. I couldn't find anything all too controversial, but there were a number of edits on medical conditions as well as on pharmaceuticals (mostly minor fixes). Keep in mind this list has only been run from 2002-2010, so if there is anything more recent it isn't there.
(The list for 2010-2014 edits is under way.)

Also the raw data is available in CSV form, if anyone wants to parse articles under the WP:MED or WP:PHARMA banner. -- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:15, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


The page has now been updated and follows up till 2014. There are a number of more controversial edits on pharmaceuticals etc. here, much of which at the very least is not WP:MEDRS complaint.

-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Cancer Research UK review[edit]

As with the other reviews listed below and previously advised here, I asked a CRUK specialist to do an initial review of Brain tumor, the idea being to sort out basic points out in the article before sending the article for review by other outside specialists. I was hoping this would give the medical editing community enough to go on to start serious work on the article. The reviewer here was the same as for lung cancer (an FA), and she was struck by the much poorer quality and randomness of this in comparison. We agreed that sizeable parts of the article should just be cut, or at the least entirely rewritten. In contrast to User:Axl & lung cancer, the article doesn't seem to have a "primary carer" beyond the indefatigable monitoring of JMH & JDW. In these circumstances, I won't write up the notes here. If anyone wants to help upgrade the article, please let me know, & I can communicate as is most convenient. I think much of it will have to be redone from scratch. The other reviews are at Talk:Lung_cancer#CRUK_review, Talk:Esophageal_cancer#Initial_review_by_CRUK and Talk:Pancreatic_cancer#Initial_review_by_CRUK. Thanks again to everyone who has helped, but there is plenty more to be done. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of other readers: the article in question is "Brain tumor". Unfortunately we only have a modest number of dedicated editors, with a huge number of articles in our purview. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, yes. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
One of the things we learned from the Google Foundation project a few years ago is that a few reviewers can easily overwhelm our volunteers. When you're working in a single specialty (e.g., cancer), then the rate at which reviews can be absorbed and processed by volunteers might be as low as one a week. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Personally I am of the opinion that reviews are not that useful. Yes much of our content sucks but the reason that it sucks is not that we the core editing community do not realize that it sucks it is that the core community is a couple of dozen volunteers taking care of more than 27,000 articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:34, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Well actually rather less than one a week I think. At the moment I am doing more on Pancreatic, so there will probably be at least a week before anything changes on Brain, if anyone does want to take it on. But Brain was the last of the reviews planned for now, and the first arrived nearly a month ago. In response to a specific request by an editor who has been expanding it, I have added Endometrial cancer (a rather quicker review I think) which is being done now. Otherwise there will probably be no further articles reviewed for at least a month, possibly longer, unless somebody specifically asks for something to be looked at, which I encourage them to do. But there will be further reviews of these 4 articles by outside specialists - no timetable yet. I will also be improving all these articles myself, but I am letting the community have first crack at them. They will then appear at Peer Review and as GA or FA nominations (not Lung, which is FA already). I am very aware of the ratio of active editors and work-to-be-done. Another aspect of my CRUK work is to try to increase the number of active editors (I am off to Imperial College this afternoon) but I expect most of us know the difficulties in that at the moment (pending WMF actually publicizing/advertising the need for more editors rather than denying it, and also the arrival of good, working, online training). Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I feel a thoughtful and graduated reviewing approach like this can be genuinely useful if it helps focus collaboration among us volunteers without stressing anyone out (per WAID's observation). Given the scale of the challenge we face with only limited numbers of volunteers here I think finding good ways to develop interactions with Cancer Research UK and other organizations with broadly similar aims in such a way as to allow judiciously targeted input could be beneficial for Wikipedia's medical content in the long term. Continuing and developing the sort of thoughtful collaborations that John's been fostering should be a priority imo. (talk) 08:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes I guess when I say "personally" I mean that they are not useful for me. I of course understand that they may be useful for others and thus am happy to see them continue in a gradual fashion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:23, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I sympathise with Doc James' position. Reviews are only useful if there is someone who will actively respond. (This was one of the problems with Article Feedback.) Peer review, GAN and FAC are successful because the reviews are solicited by editors who are improving the articles. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:12, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
True. And the active implementation of changes recommended at GAN/FAC can take days and sometimes weeks. Axl is completely right that a review is only ever really useful if an editor is prepared to go through the recommendations and make the prerequisite edits.
I'm doing yet another outreach activity tonight, but my cynical view is that the most effective Wikipedians don't get taught but develop themselves. JFW | T@lk 14:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Favor contributions over reviews In 2012 someone at the American College of Physicians asked me to help them design a program in which they could encourage professors and students at all medical schools in the US to write reviews of Wikipedia articles. It seemed like a good idea to me, and I proposed it at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_27#Project_proposal_-_Health_Article_Review_Project. After talking with others and making every proposal variant I could imagine, I became convinced that getting reviews would not be very useful because even in our best articles, like lung cancer which is a featured article and which you already had reviewed by Cancer Research UK, it is easy for anyone of almost any skill level to propose many ways that an article can be improved. Asking for reviews is fine, and people giving reviews is nice, but if someone gives a review, I feel that they should know that we Wikipedians have found no way to make use of them and that we would much rather request that people add a single sentence and citation anywhere they saw fit to add one. I have never seen a good outcome result from anyone who flies into Wikipedia, makes requests or proposals, then leaves without engaging and having a conversation or exchange with the community. Even with a conversation, there is little progress unless the reviewer actually participates in Wikipedia. Most review schemes imagine that utility can come from this, but I have never seen one work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, for me "personally" this series of mini-reviews has provided a stimulus to get involved in making a some collaborative contributions, alongside others here, that I doubt I would otherwise have done (and I'm not altogether sure that in all cases others would have either). And I see John has already been implementing some of the reviewers' writing suggestions himself. At least this process would seem to me to supplement the "Collaboration of the month". Ok, so I may have encountered at least one minor, unintended discouragement along the way. Knowing that an "Epidemiology" section was going to be done by an expert dissuaded me from continuing in an area where, with hindsight, I could probably usefully have just gone on regardless. But hey, that's probably just me. (talk) 21:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
Where is Anthony Cole when you need him? Probably at Wikipediocracy. My main comments are interposed above, in case people missed them. I agree reviews are generally less desirable than edits, and especially where students are concerned, but where real experts are concerned the choice in the vast majority of cases is reviews or nothing. My experience has actually been different from Blue R's above. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I must say I was unaware of the previous Google and WP:HARP medical review efforts, which I've bween reading up on. Without too much poking around page histories I could find Talk:Cerebral arteriovenous malformation, where a Google review presumably prompted User:Garrondo to sort out the review points 18 days later. No doubt he could have done this at any point by himself, but it seems the review led to the improvement (perhaps at the cost of whatever else Garrondo would have been doing). Perhaps it is too easy to write-off such efforts as failures. In any case the CRUK reviewing (unless specially requested, as at Endometrial cancer) will be concentrated on a much smaller number of articles, and will in most or all cases be presented/mediated by me, rather than posted directly, unless the reviewer wants to take that route. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Wiki CRUK John Without bring more editors to the project, the best outcome from getting more reviews is squeezing more volunteer time out of a community which is already giving everything that it can. Any donation is acceptable, just like when rich people donate dirty laundry to charity shops the poor accept the donations and try to clean the things to make them usable to present to their clients. It is really nice when donors give useful things to those who need them, especially when it seems trivial enough like using the washing machine before donating clothes, but for some reason in charity relationships donors tend to expect a lot of response and business capacity from people who already do not have many resources. Beggars cannot choose what kinds of donations they get, but sometimes if the laundry is dirty and the volunteers have no capacity to clean it then they smile when they take the donation then put it in the trash. There are a lot of nonprofit organizations that have a policy of accepting any donation, just because it hurts donors' feelings if what they offer is rejected and because if donors give low-value things continually over time then maybe someday they will come around and donate what is really needed. Do what you will, but please also consider finding at least one person in your organization who is willing to listen to what this community actually requests. If they understand the situation and still give reviews, then in the long term if they come to see what we do with the reviews they will not resent us for accepting them without appreciating them as they intended.
Or I could be wrong about this. I certainly hope for the best, and if you find a way to make this work, then please talk with me because I could bring in more reviews also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry, if I didn't know you to be a kind sort of person that you are I think I would have found some of your last comment rather galling. As it is, I feel you're coming close to devaluing the gf work of several volunteers here (mine for one). (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC) previously
Indeed, and there are also people in the community (if not today) who do request reviews. We are daily turning editors away, both existing editors perhaps without much medical background, and newcomers, often with a medical background, and apart from existing editors, well-executed reviews may well give some of these ways to get used to the project's norms. I have linked to explanations of the varying aspects of my CRUK role before, but here it is again, including editing training, which was done here before with reasonable success. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Handbook of Practice Management[edit]

Dear medical experts: Another old AfC submission. Is this a notable medical publication? If so, maybe someone here knows where to find sources. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Intraneural Perineurioma[edit]

Hello again... another old draft that will soon be deleted unless someone takes an interest in it! —Anne Delong (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

It seems to be a notable topic. (However there is currently no "Perineurioma" article.) The draft requires clean-up. Here is a suitable reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure we currently need a separate Perineurioma page. When I wanted to do something for Pacinian neuroma (another rare benign tumor of nerve tissue), James, I think, directed me to Neuroma. On that occasion I tried to do a little clean-up, but as I remarked on the talk page the article is almost inevitably a bit of a rag bag due to the somewhat random (historically-based) designation of the word "neuroma"—an appellative that doesn't really correspond to any well-defined class of lesions. I guess Intraneural perineurioma (aka, I think perhaps incorrectly, intraneural perineuroma) might conceivably also fit in to the miscellaneous list there, which is obviously incomplete. (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I`ve added further usable refs, not all meddate suitable. One goes back to 1995, though for a rare neoplasm that is perhaps less of an issue. Still need someone to carve out some text. The Apr 2007 source is particularly useful. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:01, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
It looks as though you have this well in hand. Thanks, all. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Advice on tackling MEDRS stranglehold[edit]

"you have to break the power not only of the MEDRS-guys but in fact of the Big Money medical and pharmaceutical industry that monopolizes health ... drive them nuts"

Please join the debate at User talk:The Banner#Advice on tackling MEDRS stranglehold you speak of. Thank you! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

We need to get people to follow MEDRS, not weaken it. Big Money? Have not seen this as much of an issue within Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:36, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

What about the complimentary and alternative medicine industries? Are they not even less ethical about making their money considering their buisnesses either definitely don't work or are not proven to work? (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Which is partly why we have MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
if I write on your project's talk page please reply on The Banner's :P --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind the Npov is a core policy, a mandate while Medrs is merely a guideline. - Technophant (talk) 03:09, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS is the application of WP:V, another core policy, to reliable sourcing for medical subjects. There is no daylight between WP:MEDRS and WP:V. Further, WP:NPOV applies to viewpoints "published by reliable sources on a topic". Consequently you have to go through WP:MEDRS first before you can get to the selection of reliable sources you can use to determine compliance with WP:NPOV. You can't play the "merely a guideline" game here. Zad68 03:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
And Technophant, you should keep in mind that you are topic banned from "all articles and talk pages related to Alternative medicine and/or Accupuncture, broadly construed". [10] Given the topic of this thread, I wouldn't be surprised if your posting here was seen as a breach of that ban. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Question: What prevents us from just making MEDRS a policy? RS is a policy, and if MEDRS is appended to it, it also becomes policy. Let's stop pussyfooting around and get it done! Seriously, the editors whose discussion on another page started this thread are a worrisome lot. There is a direct recommendation there to create disruption about this topic. We don't need that type of thinking disrupting things. If we nail this down as a policy, then that same nail can be used to nail those who want to violate it. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources is a guideline; WP:Verifiability is a policy. Flyer22 (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Some people are going to try not to follow MEDRS no matter what we call it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
@Flyer22, you're right. My bad.
@Doc James, that's true, but it's best to remove every excuse.
What should be done about the rebellion here? Would a warning be appropriate? -- Brangifer (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm..invoking WP:BATTLEGROUND..or Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point could be invoked I guess. Badgering people to exhaust them is not a route to take. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:31, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If people are happy to publically state they will be editing specifically against a guideline, then some more topic bans might just save everyone a lot of time. (talk) 12:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Blocks, bans, and topic bans are all designed to "prevent" damage. Actual damage need not have occurred. When the intention to create disruption has been declared, that's good enough for a topic ban, at the least, as "prevention". -- Brangifer (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

OP is trolling really, posting this here just to a get a reaction. (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In fact Demiurge1000 is creating the fuss. My opinion was asked on my own talkpage, and I gave it raw and uncensored. That Demiurge1000 is upset about my opinion, is entirely his problem. By giving a shout here, he makes it far bigger than it should be. But the sheer fact that it created a kind of panic and talks about Blocks, bans, and topic bans are all designed to "prevent" damage makes clear how unstable the footing is of MEDRS. I did not intent any widespread debate and think that the present response from here is just funny. The Banner talk 15:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Weird Medical claims at Miso[edit]

Article has a nutrition section that implies that eating miso can treat radiation exposure. Also implies that salt consumption isn't likely to cause problems with hypertension. Could somebody familiar with MEDRS have a look at those claims? Geogene (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed poor sources making health claims. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)