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
87 952 8,595 15,879 6,259 580 32,352
List overview · Lists updated: 2014-10-18 · This box: view · talk

Torpor and Lethargy[edit]

Hello there, I just want to let you know that it looks like the interwiki links of Torpor and Lethargy (es:Letargo) are messed. A number of articles are linked to Torpor but they should probably be linked to Lethargy, since it's the same word: ca:Letargia - eo:Letargio - eu:Letargia - fr:Léthargie - pt:Letargia. I would like to ask those who have enough medical knowledge and can read those languages to take a look at this. Thanks. —  Ark25  (talk) 06:44, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

And what's with the Lethargy (a redirect to wiktionary) anyways? Shouldn't it be a redirect to another Wikipedia article? —  Ark25  (talk) 06:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes what do you propose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:48, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
@Jmh649: Sorry, somehow I forgot about this topic. I propose to take a look at ca:Letargia for example, and move it into wikidata:Q15637420 if it better fits there. The same with the other 4 articles mentioned above. —  Ark25  (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Barium meal, swallow, follow through[edit]

We have Barium follow-through, Barium meal and Barium swallow. The first is completely unsourced, the second very poorly sourced and the sources for the third are not exactly medrs either. In any case two articles too many for the same procedure imo. Ochiwar (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose to merge the articles if there are no objections. Ochiwar (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Seconded. What name should we go with for the final article? I'm in favor of Barium swallow. Cannolis (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
I was thinking of merging the above named articles together with Barium enema and double contrast barium enema under the title Barium contrast imaging. Ochiwar (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC) I had started a draft along those line in my sandbox, hoping to present it here for approval when it stands on solid feet. Feel free to expand and edit. Ochiwar (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm perhaps. Although the swallow looks at the upper GI while the enema looks at the lower Cannolis (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that and the route of application of the contrast medium are the major differences between the enema and the swallow. Medical uses, indications, contraindications, adverse effects, mechanism, interpretation, accuracy and specificity are largely similar and in most cases identical for all. A sub-section on each under the heading "Types of Barium contrast imaging" should high light the differences. The terms Barium swallow, meal, and follow through are used somewhat ambiguously or interchangeably in the literature, but most authors use the term swallow for studies of the pharynx, larynx and esophagus,(and sometimes stomach) while the terms meal and follow through are most frequently used for examinations of the stomach and small intestine. Ochiwar (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Ochiwar These are different studies used for different indications. I am unsure if a merger is definitely the way to go. A "barium swallow" looks at the swallowing mechanism in real time and may identify problems with the oesophagus. A "barium meal" is a longer contrast investigation under fluoroscopy that has effectively been replaced by the upper GI endoscopy. A follow-through study is generally used to look for abnormalities in the small bowel and requires a number of fluoroscopic exposures to identify strictures and fistulae.
The "barium enema" studies examine the large bowel, and could be merged into one. JFW | T@lk 19:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Jfdwolff, I am also unsure if a merger is definitely the way to go, that is why I am mentioning it here for discussion. I am aware that swallow, meal, follow through and enema examine different areas of the anatomy. After having gone through the available literature it also appears that the terms are often used ambiguously (at least as far as the first 3 are concerned) which complicates the issue. When you say fluoroscopy has been largely replaced by endoscopy, you are certainly right if you are considering only the part of the world you live in but in many other parts of the world this may not apply yet. While I am not sure of the definitive way to go, I had hoped to be able to combine all these terms and terminologies, similarities and differences in one single well referenced article leaving redirects, because at the end of the day there are more similarities than differences between these procedures. And as you have pointed out, they are being replaced by more advanced technologies as we speak. I have started a draft along this line of thinking (I have not gone very far yet) in my sandox and would appreciate if you could take a brief look at it. Let me know please if you think a merger along these lines is useful to the encyclopedia or rather not. I would not want to be wasting my time. In any case I feel the present state of the named articles is not up to encyclopedia standard and updating each one individually would entail unnecessary duplication. I will put my draft on hold until I get some feedback and face other projects. Ochiwar (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Ochiwar I agree that I was exhibiting systemic bias by presuming that some barium studies are now almost obsolete. You are also correct that the terminology is confused - in the UK the studies called "barium swallow" and "barium meal" are typically combined, although "meal" is also used for small bowel follow-through. As such I am willing to support a merge of all the "proximal" studies, but I would leave the large bowel studies separate. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. In that case I would suggest "Upper Gastrointestinal Series" as the title for the new merged article of proximal procedures. Ochiwar (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
In addition we also have Upper gastrointestinal series, Small-bowel follow-through and Enteroclysis which I also hope to merge to the article on proximal procedures Ochiwar (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The draft is ready for peer review in my sandbox. Will be moving it to Upper gastrointestinal series in the next days. Ochiwar (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Cross-wiki infoboxes[edit]

Category:Templates using data from Wikidata has some templates that we (meaning people more technically adept than I) might want to look over. It should, in theory, be possible to use this to automagically fill in a parameter (e.g., an ICD code) based on Wikidata if the parameter isn't specified in the article itself.

The documentation is at Wikipedia:Wikidata#Infoboxes (Phase 2), and it's not completely up to date. I believe that if we figured out how to do this, and then ported the changes to the other Wikipedias, then this would work everywhere, which might be very convenient for translators. I may be wrong, of course, but I believe that it might make it possible to type just {{infobox disease}} at the top of the page, and have the entire infobox filled in, without needing to have a dozen lines of confusing, case-sensitive code at the start of every lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Yes, what you say is correct, and this is already done in some places. As I understand, we are waiting for any community member to trial this and trialing this would take a non-programmer only hours to set up. Anticipated problems include making infoxes thereafter incomprehensible and increasing page load time by seconds for when 100 data pieces are called.
There will be an IRC meetup on this 16 October hosted by Fabrice Florin (WMF).
Here are some medicine-specific past discussions.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
Sounds like a great idea, especially for things like the ongoing translation project this would probably be of great value. I am however a bit concerned with editing those data; if you look at the cross-language interwiki links, it has already become incredibly hard to do anything other than adding one language link (which can still be done with the wikipedia interface, anything more takes you to wikidata and beware if two different wikidata items exist linking to the same topic in different languages, things start getting ugly very quickly then). It would be nice if wikidata's interface could be improved a bit before this. Alternatively (but less optimally), the locally specified values could overrule wikidata values, so if you put in an infobox it would take all data from wikidata but you could still enter different data in the article itself. --WS (talk) 20:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Wouterstomp To start I think the hope is to minimize need for anyone to localize data. Propagating things like links to WHO pages would be a good start. Numerical data which is widely accepted is another option. I do not think Wikidata's interface will be improved without a trial of this, and a trial of this is not going to be easy until Wikidata's interface is improved. This is why we have halted. I would love for someone to apply for a grant at the meta:Grants:IdeaLab space to get the resources necessary to prototype a model for this so that discussion and development can continue. The project will only be messy and problematic in the beginning. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I think we pretty much need one or two advance scouts to go figure it out and report back, so we'll have a clearer idea of what to do. ICD numbers seem like a good place to start, since they're the same all over the world, or maybe OMIMs would be good.
@Scottalter:, do you think you could figure out how to adapt the infobox to read something from Wikidata (only if the item were blank in the article)? The en.wp template side of the matter seems more accessible to me than the Wikidata side. If someone else could figure out how to get the Wikidata record fixed (just for one article; I'll suggest the incredibly low-traffic ODDD as a target), then we could try a test run to see if it works. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the challenge. I think I've figured it out. The ODDD article now has its infobox data at wikidata:Q17148148 and the article uses Template:Infobox disease/sandbox. The sandbox infobox just draws the data right from Wikidata and ignores any parameters passed to the template from the article itself. But another if statement could be added for each variable to use existing data piped to the template if the Wikidata does not exist, or vice-versa. (Which data should take priority - info from Wikidata, or info in the local Wikipedia passed directly to the template?) Also, if any of you guys are admins, any chance I could get the template editor right? Template:Infobox disease is protected to that level. Thanks. --Scott Alter (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
A while ago I wrote a module, Module:Wikidata, that I intended to be usable for getting data from Wikidata into infoboxes. It takes a parameter which can be either a locally provided value or "FETCH_WIKIDATA" - in the former case it just returns the parameter (even if it's ""); in the latter case it returns the data from Wikidata or nothing if the data does not exist. If it is invoked from within a template using e.g. | data1 = {{#invoke:Wikidata |getRawValue |p494 |{{{ICD-10|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}} }}, then having a local parameter called 'ICD-10' in the infobox takes precedence; otherwise it attempts to fetch the data from Wikidata. You may be able to understand from the module documentation how you can use it, or examine some working examples at {{infobox person/Wikidata}} or {{infobox video game series/Wikidata}}. --RexxS (talk) 10:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
That looks great, Scott. A one-line, zero-parameter template adds everything.
I like the idea of being able to override it locally whenever we want, so I'd be happy to see you and RexxS work out how to do that.
Also, would the next admin passing by please grant that request for templateeditor rights? Scott has been one of the primary maintainers of {{WPMED}} for years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
RexxS, do you know how CPU intensive the module is? Another possible use of your module is to have a second function like "FETCH_WIKIDATA," but called "FETCH_KEY" that gets the language-specific name of the field. That way, the language-specific field names can be pulled from Wikidata, and then only 1 infobox code is needed for every language Wikipedia. This could be useful, but I am not familiar with how to write modules to access Wikidata, and it would take me a long time to try and reverse engineer all of your code.
The other options regarding combining Wikidata and explicitly mentioned parameters are: 1) to include an if statement for each parameter in the template, or 2) maybe simply {{{ICD-10|{{#property:P494}}}}} would do the job. The complexity of data display comes with how to parse the data for linking, rather than how to get the data. Since the data is just stored as one string, it needs to be cut up using string functions to format it properly for templates like {{ICD10}}. (Unless we change how those templates work, which I would be fully supportive of. {{ICD10|Q|87|8}} seems excessive, when {{ICD10|Q87.8}} could do the same job.) --Scott Alter (talk) 07:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There is a bit of efficiency discussion about load times at meta:Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Tools_for_using_wikidata_items_as_citations#Efficiency_issues. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Fixed your link-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nirfast[edit]

Dear medical experts: I know this isn't directly a medical topic, but the Technology WikiProject appears to be inactive. Is there a better place to discuss this old AfC draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there would be, and this seems thoroughly promotional to me, it would likely be okay to delete. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Besides its a copy paste from here. and the nirfast website. Ochiwar (talk) 16:12, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, CFCF and Ochiwar. I have deleted it. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Non-melancholic depression[edit]

Hello again, medical experts. Here's another old AfC draft which may be of interest. Is this a notable topic? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Sort of but not really as put across here as it is somewhat misleading. It will already be covered in major depressive disorder. I'd not use it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:30, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Should that term redirect to atypical depression? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Tempting...but I always took non-melancholic to be broader than atypical depression. The latter predates adjustment disorder with depressed mood really and harks back to days of endogenous vs reactive depression. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
The lead of atypical depression should probably be revised to reflect the distinction. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 01:06, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Casliber,WhatamIdoing, Seppi333, there is already Melancholic depression. is this the opposite? Neither Major depressive disorder nor Atypical depression mention "Non-melancholic depression", so, for a reader, redirecting the term to one of these articles would be misleading, because that would indicate that it was a synonym. If this is a legitimate medical terrm, and if it's a type of Major depressive disorder, can that article be expanded with a short paragraph describing it? Then the draft can be turned into a redirect to the main article. Alternatively, if the topic is notable, but the article just has misleading information, maybe it could be stubbed, leaving a paragraph explaining (with a wikilink) that it's a kind of Major depressive disorder, which, I presume, doesn't include melancholic symptoms, and let the reader then follow the link to find out more about MDD. The second option seems better to me, because it would make it easier for someone to add sourced content in the future. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
What I was referring to was the 2nd sentence in the lead of atypical depression, "In contrast, people with melancholic depression generally do not experience an improved mood in response to normally pleasurable events." The fact a distinction is made with melancholic depression only makes it seem that this is "non-melancholic" depression. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 14:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
@Anne Delong: - am really in two minds how to proceed with this one - I have been really busy IRL but will try to chisel out some time to look at sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Anne, my impression is that this was a legitimate medical term, but that it's been superseded since then.
What made me think of atypical depression was the description that it's the most common kind. It's always amused me that the most common kind of depression has been called atypical, because (by definition) the most common type ought to be called typical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There are 269 papers on google scholar since 2010 - mainly from Gordon Parker and colleagues, who promote the distinction with melancholic depression. I think it probably warrants a stub maybe. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I have postponed its deletion so it won't disappear before something can be done with it. It's longer than a stub now, but I guess if there's an overlap with Atypical depression some of the detail can be omitted and a link added to that page. Perhaps someone who understands this could do that, and then the draft can be moved to mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Extending or adding infoboxes[edit]

My english isn't very good, but I'll try to explain what's on my mind...I'm sure this has been discussed before, but there are some things I miss here on Wikipedia. I was thinking that disease articles could've had additional infoboxes with general information like case fatality rate, laterality (e.g. unilateral in the case of pneumothorax, or bilateral testicular torsion, etc.), typical biological markers, incidence rates, affected sex (male, female, both), prognosis (poor, good, very good), typical symptoms, contraindications, etc. Perhaps even more technical information, like typical blood count values and so forth. Please provide a link if this has been discussed before. What do you think? Gautehuus (talk) 17:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Off the top of my head, I'd say it's quite hard to come up with numbers that are useful because it all depends on context. For example, incidence--where? In the US? Worldwide? How long before those figures are out of date and become inaccurate? Blood values vary with age, and prognosis is tremendously dependent on all kinds of things (how prompt the diagnosis was, access to services, probably socioeconomic status, age, general health of the patient).Basie (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Some of these are possible. Perhaps a different box under ==Diagnosis== would be good for blood tests. A box listing symptoms under ==Symptoms== is also possible. I wonder if that would tend to introduce editing problems. Some people might think that a box for symptoms needed to contain all the possible symptoms (and especially whichever symptoms they personally experienced). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:18, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
If we do decide on something like this we would need some firm guidance on where and how many items these contain. We should be trying to write in prose rather than list form IMO. And with more boxes things can get become poorly formatted / more confusing rather than less. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
If you're interested, we could try collaborating on a dummy/sandbox article just to see how it would look, and to find out whether it will work or not. I imagine it will be hard to create a one universal infobox, but to start this off, I think we could make one that can be used in the larger articles on common diseases. Gautehuus (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Gautehuus I am very supportive of this idea. For medicine there is less work in trying this than there is in economics. There are several issues to overcome. One is the creation of the infobox, another is deciding how to store the data which goes into the infobox, and another is deciding which datasets to present. For medicine deciding which data to present can be difficult as there are arguments about whom to trust.
For economics there is more consensus in many datasets, and at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Global Economic Map there is a proposal to make an infobox for all regions which presents the economic data by year and updates automatically every year. This proposal is not being developed by anyone but I think if it were funded for economics then based on that precedent we could try something with medicine.
What you suggest is an excellent idea and it must be the future of Wikipedia. The biggest problem right now is finding someone who is able to apply for a grant to do the necessary development to make this happen. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Active surveillance of prostate cancer[edit]

Newly moved to specific title and tagged for the project. Needs some checking, if only for links and copvio. Long and expert. It was previously called just Active surveillance, previously a redirect to Watchful waiting, which I have restored. But the new article (only about prostate) distinguishes between the two, whereas Watchful waiting treats them as synomymous. Thoughts? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Health statistics: US vs global[edit]

When editing pages is it better to use US statistics, global statistics, or both? For example, many of the cancer pages only list a 5 year survival from a US perspective. Global stats seem more prudent to me, and I wouldn't be opposed to including both. Just wanted to get people's opinions on this. Thanks. Muscat Hoe (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

We should always use global statistics, whenever possible! We do have a US-bias, but only because many editors come from the US and are savvy about the situation there, and will more likely be interested in such numbers. Additionally we aren't limited to US or global statistics either, but should display UK, EU, Japan, China etc. etc. whenever they are notable (mentioning these as they are more likely to have statistics on a variety of diseases as opposed to say Rwanda).
US statistics aren't premiered in any way, and if for example industrialized countries have a certain incidence, which is the same as the US, we are safe to assume that readers can extrapolate that the US is an industrialized country and it would not need independent mention, unless on a more list-type epidemiology article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with CFCF. Ideally, we would feature global statistics whenever possible. If there are significant differences in different areas of the world, different ages, or different gender, or specific occupations than it is important for us to use these statistics, too. We have a long way to go to do this in a consistent way in most health articles. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I'd agree that we should use global statistics, but in some cases the U.S. data is collected and available and the global information is not. The CDC, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Healthcare Utilization Project, and other databases do provide much more epidemiology info than is sometimes available on a WW basis, and the EU has similarly detailed info on many topics. I'd hate to see useful local statistics that one can in many cases extrapolate from excluded in favor of non-existent stats of a more global nature. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:20, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I take the point as a general one, but for cancer, regulars here have at least 3 copies of World Cancer Report 2014 (World Health Organization. 2014. ISBN 9283204298), and CRUK's CancerStats sub-site has good global and UK figures. We are normally only giving the very top-level figures just as figures, and for more detail and explanation/interpretation should mostly be using normal MEDRS reviews etc. So both, as we all agree. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with everyone else that worldwide is best, but anything (well, anything halfway decent) is better than nothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
The issue is that we too often use low hanging fruit of US stats when the other content is available with just a bit of effort. So, I would like to ask everyone to think broader and make the effort to look for global stats that give a more complete picture. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
On this issue, as part of my training work, a Wikipedia:WikiProject_CRUK/Angel_training#Participants.2C_stats_team number of CRUK specialists from the stats team added basic UK stats to several cancer articles on October 3rd - eg this, with this note/disclosure on the talk page: "Hi, I'm from Cancer Research UK and going to add some UK stats to the epidemiology section complied from ONS, ISD Scotland, Welsh Cancer Intelligence and Surveillance Unit and the Northern Ireland Cancer Registry as summarised on the Cancer Research UK website". They now plan to do the rest of the 35 cancer types they cover in the same way. At a later stage I hope we can add more on global figures and patterns, but this is a welcome start I think. I'm thinking a standard edit summary with a reference to a version of this explanation on the CRUK project page will be enough, without a talk page section each time. Do people agree with this? The figures will be sourced & referenced to the CRUK CancerStats sub-site, which they write. I expect most of you will be familiar with my pitch that for the UK stats these are the best source for us to use, as the figures published by the various official stats bodies are mostly in forms designed for professionals, so I won't repeat that. What is great is that they are keen to incorporate this into their standard updating procedures, so after I am gone from CRUK new figures will be updated on Wikipedia. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Global stats should be first if available. Sometimes they do not exist. I often than provide stats of large English speaking nations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
John, that sounds fine to me. I think it's reasonable to include stats from English-speaking countries even if we've got good global data, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I don't feel we should limit ourselves to English-speaking countries, seeing as it would be a major disservice to our readers from other countries, (of which we have very many). My fear is we could end up with list-type entries of all available statistics (even if we are far from that today), and I think we need to take the notability of a statistic into account. What I mean is that there is nothing inherently more notable about US-numbers as opposed to say Chinese statistics. Arguably the same holds when you compare US vs. Canada, with the only caveat being the difference in number of citizens. To many, US-state statistics are relevant, and Texas, Florida or California statistics cover more people than Canadian or even UK ones do.

So where do we draw the line? For a similar problem concerning regulation: Electronic cigarette was split into a daughter article Legal status of electronic cigarettes (more list-type). The main article mentions: US FDA regulation, EU regulation and Western Australia regulation, while the list article goes into much more depth with individual countries and US states. US, EU and Western Australia is hardly balanced, and maybe there is need to chisel out which statistics/regulations etc. are notably mentioned in the main article. Wikipedia:WORLDVIEW gives little info on how to solve these issues, and maybe this is something for WP:MEDMOS? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree we don't want a long list, and US & UK are mostly broadly similar (as rates). On the other hand they are very high quality and of of interest to lots of readers. We could look at Euro figures too, and Canada and Australia where they are different from other English-speaking countries.£ (see below) The WHO has Asian figures, which are often considerably different, but I think raw numbers here won't convey too much, nor perhaps % of global cases/deaths. We'd need rates. Likewise Africa, though I think the figures there have more issues. I suggest we work up one or two cancer article sections as models. Maybe lung and esophagus, which both vary a good deal around the world? Ideally we want to concentrate on what broad rate differences reveal about the causes and different patterns of treatment, but of course this involves a good deal more work. And we should have more on age and gender incidence in many cases. Wiki CRUK John/ Johnbod (talk) 09:30, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
£ (note to above) eg see the existing Skin_cancer#Epidemiology re Australiasia. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with just about everybody (I think) that we should be aiming at a worldwide perspective, though as WAID points out anything decently reliable is better than nothing. Certainly, if our information on the distribution of malaria, say, were restricted to large, non-(sub)tropical English-speaking countries, then that would indeed be a concern... More generally, it's normal for the distribution of just about any disease to vary by geography, as well as age, gender, socioeconomic factors etc. It's also true that the common availability of official statistics for certain developed countries, including the USA, UK, etc, makes it tempting to give them extra weight. Ideally, I think it would be good to see members of organizations such as (and hopefully not limited to) CRUK using their expertise to help build a well-balanced global perspective, rather than focusing specifically on (for example) UK statistics. But I recognize that this is by no means straightforward, as organically conceived contributions require an ongoing familiarity with WP processes and etiquette that takes time (and regularity) to accrue. Fwiw, I'm happy to collaborate with CRUK and other editors on developing Esophageal cancer#Epidemiology, per John's suggestion above (though I won't be around much in the next few days). I've had useful tip off that an ideal source (I believe) on the subject is due to be published tomorrow, so that should help considerably.
RE "...what broad rate differences reveal about the causes and different patterns of treatment": MEDMOS of course foresees a "Causes" section which implicitly covers that I think. As regards "treatment patterns", hum, now where does that go...? A relevant question, imo. (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Unfortunately this is one of Wikipedia's WP:systemic biases. This includes articles about training pathways for specialists, costs to the US health system, random healthcare statistics from the US health system, drug names from the US, epidemiological figures from the US, and so on and so on. I would fully support a move towards national-level statistics. The issue then becomes what statistics - there are so many countries. One way to divide this up would be by population, extremes (ie countries with good/bad states of care), or by English-speaking countries (likely to be the majority of our readers), or a combination. This is similar to a problem we face in WP:ANATOMY where the "Society and culture" sections of articles are usually hollowed out and do not make any reference to the rich histories or knowledge of anatomical structures in arabic medicine, Ayurvedic medicine and Traditional Chinese Medicine, not to mention other cultures and ethnic traditions. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Although not a design specifically mentioned in WP:MEDRS, I believe this very recent publication (thanks to John for the heads-up) may be considered an ideal source for Esophageal cancer#Epidemiology, somewhat similarly to our use of meta-analyses. Imo, when available, this sort of worldwide survey helps obviate the temptation to focus on statistics from the English-speaking countries. I'd be interested in any feedback, especially from MEDRS regulars such as WAID (though please don't expect me to respond promptly). (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't make up my mind about this source. It will be interesting to see how other sources react to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Rudolph Tanzi needs eyes[edit]

Rudolph E. Tanzi, a medical BLP, is almost totally unsourced. BTW, Tanzi has been in the news lately for developing cell cultures that develop structures of Alzheimer's disease. [1] Jinkinson talk to me 15:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

As so often with "unsourced" articles, it looks like a largely copyvio from the EL hospital bio. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Marburg virus,,,Pros/Cons[edit]

Recently I found opposition to include the Marburg virus [2](filoviridae ,same as Ebola) in the "Ebola west Africa" article. Though it did NOT originate in west Africa, I though it would add to the article (Congo and its 71/43 CFR, is included, though it also has no connection to west Africas' current outbreak). So im asking for opinions, of whether to push the matter or drop it.thank you.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

you have done good work per WP:BRD - you added it to the article, it was reverted, so you brought it up for discussion on the talk page where no one agreed, and now you are bringing it here to get more opinions, instead of edit warring over it. that is great. my read is that you offer no reason here why the content fits in the scope of the 2014 outbreak article; "i want to" is not a useful grounds to persuade others. There was debate in the Talk page about deleting the Congo strain content and another brief discussion here since it is not the same as the west african strain and is located far away, but a) to clarify that the outbreaks are currently different and b) due to the possibility of the two outbreaks eventually merging, the congo content has been retained (not a decision i agree with but that was local consensus). i don't see any way that the marburg outbreak on the other side of the continent falls in the scope and would also have said to leave it out. more generally, if consensus develops against, you, give up and move on per WP:STICK. Jytdog (talk) 09:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I will therefore drop it,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:Disruptive editing at psychology articles, reported at WP:ANI[edit]

Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on the following matter: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Chesivoirzr regarding psychology articles or articles that include psychological perspectives. A WP:Permalink to that section is here. If Chesivoirzr continues to edit psychology articles, or Wikipedia in general, I am not confident that this WP:Disruptive behavior will stop. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Help wanted in improving the article William Pooley (Ebola patient) and ZMapp[edit]


I recently started the William Pooley (Ebola_patient) article which has now been nominated for deletion. I'm trying to find out more information about his treatment with ZMapp, he seems to be one of only a very small number of people who have been treated with the experimental drug with no new supplies of the treatment being available for months to come. I'd also very much like to include this information in the ZMapp article.

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 04:54, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

mrjohncummings, i believe that under privacy laws like HIPAA you are going to find very little detail published in reliable sources about his or any other individual's treatment. speaking generally, folks have wanted to add lots of information about specific patients treated with ZMapp and I have been trimming that. The reasons are a) the article is about the drug b) what happened with the individual cases tells us little about whether the drug is safe and effective, which we'll only know from aggregate data from testing or using the drug in many people c) the structure of the article is set by WP:MEDMOS which rightly doesn't have space for individual case studies; some content on these individual treatments has been retained in the History section since they were big news; d) little information about these individual treatments is available from WP:MEDRS compliant sources, so there is little we can say anyway (except that they happened) - in other words, these studies are History, which is OK to source from sources other than biomedical reviews and statements by major scientific and medical bodies (the kind of sources we use for actual health/medical content). Jytdog (talk) 09:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
projectmed members, i've been even keeping names out of the article - again, the identity of the patients is irrelevant with respect to the drug, and in my view there are privacy issues (I know that people's names were reported in the media, but we don't have to do that here as well). Thoughts on this, and what i wrote above, are very welcome.... Jytdog (talk) 13:20, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Regional function of the heart[edit]

New article: I don't even know where to begin. total rubbish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animalparty (talkcontribs)

What makes you say it's rubbish?. Currently it's lacking references, which I give you is a major issue, but as the author Naelosman seems knowledgable about the field we may be able to salvage some if the article. Preferably we would run the article through the copyvio-bot, move it to the sandbox and get in touch with the editor who wrote it and see if we can make it adhere to WP:MEDMOS, WP:MEDRS etc. I think the worst thing we can do is to write of a potential useful contribution as rubbish because someone isn't knowledgeable of our guidelines and reference style from the start. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The editor is also working on this page Strain Encoding MRI, and I think there may be some conflict of interest issues there. This account Nfosman seems to be related as well. — CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I have just started to write the articles. I am waiting for the 4 days period to start adding more material to the article. This is my field of my expertise and I would appreciate help to eliminate the weaknesses mentioned. I am going to add more references (scientific journal publications) to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naelosman (talkcontribs) 13:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC
this account appears to be the same as Nfosman and there appear to be WP:COI issues here. hopefully the user will clarify on his Talk page or pages. these appear to be typical new editor mistakes; none are fatal and hopefully we can get things on track going forward. Jytdog (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

RfC regarding Epilepsy article[edit]

There has been a long and protracted discussion regarding if epilepsy should have a "mechanisms / pathophysiology" section. Or if this content should be combined into causes. Talk:Epilepsy#Should_the_article_on_epilepsy_have_a_mechanisms_section.3F Further comments appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

And in six months time I predict blindness will have a "Mechanism" section, "per MEDMOS". There won't be any discussion, long, short, snappy or protracted. Because the only person on Wikipedia permitted to edit medical articles will be James. I appreciate few people here (well, nobody) is an expert in epilepsy so may feel reluctant to get involved, or to challenge James. Well one day he'll own an article in your specialisation and you can enjoy the experience as much as Jophiel and I have recently. -- Colin°Talk 17:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
This dispute makes me feel sad.
It would actually be helpful to have someone help out, especially if you know anything about the mechanism of "developing epilepsy", which is distinct from the mechanism of "having a seizure". We've got the mechanism of seizures fairly well settled, but the mechanism of epilepsy itself can't seem to get beyond some vague handwaving about "there are changes in the brain" (possibly because the mechanisms are unknown or because every form of epilepsy has a different mechanism). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
There are lots of potential sources as mechanisms of epilepsy is discussed in many textbooks and journal article
User:Colin appears to be set on trying to get me topic banned per [3] and [4]
All a little strange. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
You know, this article could really do with a neurologist's help. Wouldn't we all agree that it would be wonderful if a neuroloist joined WPMED to help with topics like epilepsy? I'm quite sure if one turned up with some reasonable ideas of how to improve the article, we'd welcome him with open arms. We'd have friendly chats on the talk page. We'd ask lots of questions, because (as WhatamIdoing knows) that's absolutely the best way to draw out what the reader needs to know. We wouldn't have closed minds. We'd be open to change, because Wikipedia merits change more than status quo. We'd help them with the wiki stuff and policies while respecting their greater knowledge of the subject. We'd ensure the general reader wasn't neglected and their questions answered in a readable way. Wouldn't we? Oh, I guess we wouldn't. No, we'd chase them away. Revert everthing they do. We'd stubbornly refuse to get the point. We'd keep repeating our misconceptions as though doing so might make them seem reasonable. We'd invent made-up rules like "every article must follow MEDMOS sections" to discourage any radical thoughts. And we'd behave so badly that a long-term wikifriend would ask for us to be temporarily topic banned. -- Colin°Talk 07:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup because here at Wikipedia we are all about claimed credentials and not about sources.
Also fixed up some copy and paste violations along the way [5]
Even checked with the ILAE to see if they were willing to release the text that was borrowed under a compatible license. They unfortunately said no for now.
If this is the response I get from a wikifriend I hardly need wikienemies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The dispute is not about sources. It is about how to build an article in an online hyperlinked encyclopaedia that also happens to be a collaborative wiki with behaviour guidelines. Here's a source for that. This is a behavioural dispute, where the owner of an article (who it now appears has very limited understanding of the topic and a chronic inability to write readable prose that actually supplies relevant information) doing everything possible to treat an expert like a troll. Look above where he's keen to point out where our newbie has blundered, and yet thinks ILAE releasing text under a compatible licence might in any way help us to avoid plagiarism. There is a pride and competence issue here. That's all. I'm well aware that claimed credentials should be treated with suspicion, but there's every evidence our new editor knows what he's talking about and, I'm sorry to say, every evidence the incumbant does not. James should be working with our new editor, not against him. -- Colin°Talk 09:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Per "limited understanding of the topic and a chronic inability to write readable prose that actually supplies relevant information", it seems like you need to take this user to WP:ANI User:Colin and request they be indefinitely banned from Wikipedia. From what you write it definitely sounds like they are ruining the place.
With respect to licensing yes I am of the opinion that if the ILAE releases the text under an open license we can than use it word for word by leaving a note in the edit summary. This is what we do / should do when we move text from one Wikipedia article to another. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Well then your opinion would be wrong. James, I am really trying to understand why you are so hostile to our new editor? And why this project, which only exists due to the combined medical expertise and enthusiasm of its members, allows this to occur. Remember when we despaired at the incompetent writings of that Candadian megaclass of first year students? James, in arguing with our expert, wrote "Benign rolandic epilepsy can be a "cause" of epilepsy". This is as dumb as writing "Acute lymphoblastic leukemia can be a "cause" of cancer". You'd roll your eyes and despair that this person was heavily editing, never mind owning the article. Please folk, how would you like it if a non-specialist turned up on an article in your speciality and kept telling you you were wrong and reverting you? Do you think you'd find Wikipedia a welcoming place if, when trying to write about liver failure, some cardiologist fought with you over every edit and insisted you reach a consensus with him before making any edits? This is the issue I'd like WPMED members to consider, not some silly poll over article sections. -- Colin°Talk 10:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
If my opinion were wrong than we could never move something from one Wikipedia article to another.
I could have explained my position with respect to Rolandic epilepsy better. Epilepsy syndromes are types of epilepsy and these types have causes that can be described separately from those of secondary epilepsy. Thus IMO it was a reasonable heading under which to discuss the causes of these syndromes. We (including me) have now moved this to the diagnosis section where it also fits reasonably well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
See, this is the problem we have on Epilepsy. James cannot accept he might be wrong and over-estimates his understanding of the topic he is arguing about. And he will argue from this position of a-little-knowledge-is-a-dangerous-thing the cows come home. This is a pride thing. James is now unable to contemplate/admit that what he's said about reusing external free content might not be correct, but rather than going to find out his mistake, he'll just argue. I'll leave pointing out where James is still wrong as an excercise for the reader. -- Colin°Talk 12:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Colin, please stop using this as a project Talk page to pursue what should be a straight-forward content discussion instead as a venomous personal dispute. If you've got an issue with an editor's behavior, and you've been directed not to post on that editor's User Talk, take it to an appropriate behavior-related discussion venue. Please don't do it here. Zad68 12:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It isn't a "straight-forward content discussion" I've had plenty of them and they don't involve hundreds of words flying in and out of an article in a revert war. And it now involves two members of this project edit warring (James, and more recently User:CFCF). As I keep asking, why is this project so hostile to this new editor? I note you aren't asking James to stop. In fact, nobody is censuring James at all. Shame on you all. -- Colin°Talk 13:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Likely the hostility is towards the way arguments are presented, and not towards the new editor. Simply trying to shout loudly enough to drown out others – writing swathes of text that noone is going to read may be a fully functioning strategy elsewhere, but it obviously isn't cutting it with this project. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

(unindent) James, why are you so [and by extension this wikiproject] so hostile to our new editor? Who, other than WhatamIdoing, is making any effort to understand their position both on the content and as an editor? Or who is just automatically taking James's side, lifting their pitchfork, and joining the crowd to evict this monster. -- Colin°Talk 12:25, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Painful to peruse... :-/ I suspect this incident could provide useful material for a case study of how a series of gf edit/talk-page interactions can turn damagingly ugly in this online environment. Imo, we need to think outside the emotionally charged "toxic environment" cliché/metaphor (it's nothing to do with toxicology!).

Agree with WAID, it's sad to see. Especially after hearing James repeatedly cite Colin as example of an admirable MED editor.

(As a footnote, I think it may be worth highlighting that "Mechanism" and "Pathophysiology" are not actually synonyms. Unfortunately, our MEDMOS initiatives - like this proposed heading change - to make medical articles more reader-friendly may sometimes unwittingly trigger talk-page misunderstandings.) (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

may be worthwhile getting back on track. productive comment made earlier as to the mechanism of developing epilepsy which is different to the actual mechanism of one having a seizure. agree that the mechanism of epilepsy itself is vague. may help to focus on this point for added value.Docsim (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Use of the word "outbreak"[edit]

Currently, the article title for Ebola virus disease in the United States (a better title, in my opinion), is Ebola virus outbreak in the United States. Is the use of the word outbreak overly sensationalistic? How many cases does it take before one gets an Ebola outbreak in a geographical region? Two, ten, twenty? I know the lay press might be using outbreak, but it seems obvious to me that its usage should be someting medical sources agree upon. I think our current article title hypes the situation, just going off of my first impression. Thoughts? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 15:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, outbreak is very sensational when compared to any meaningful statistics. As is the image at the top of the article with Texas in red. There have been 3 cases, it isn't an outbreak. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:28, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
What do reliable sources call it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
The CDC calls them "cases" [6] Specifically "travel associated cases" [7], very fram from outbreak. WHO are of a similar stance [8] -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:48, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I placed a requested move template on the talk page. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Well that might not be best. It requires 7 days of discussion. Maybe an admin could just lower the protection level and move it. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

How the World Health Organization defines 'outbreak.' [9] Also, in Epidemiology, two related cases = an outbreak. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Could you source your epidemiology statement? Also the link you gave states:

A single case of a communicable disease long absent from a population, or caused by an agent (e.g. bacterium or virus) not previously recognized in that community or area, or the emergence of a previously unknown disease, may also constitute an outbreak and should be reported and investigated.

May being central here, and as neither the WHO or CDC are referring to it as an outbreak, we should not either. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:24, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, I think it's premature to call the US cases an "outbreak". The West Africa cases are considered an outbreak by the CDC as seen here (, but use of the word outbreak might really cause feelings of panic in those who read that language. Since the number of cases in the US can be counted on one hand, I feel the need to echo the sentiments above and say no to using that word for now. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Given that the two locally transmitted cases (i.e. other than the index case) were not in the general population, but rather health care workers inside the index case's isolation, calling it an outbreak would really be straining the term beyond the breaking point. Rather it still seems pretty well contained to one small place and subpopulation. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Surely this is also a question of good editorial judgement: in WP terms, how much weight currently to give to a particular ongoing event? Personally, I don't think giving prominence to the term "outbreak" would be editorially appropriate at present, given the emotive, non-technical associations that word may convey in common usage. (talk) 21:11, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Based on the content at Outbreak, any cases at all in the US is an "outbreak", because the expected number is zero.
I don't agree that this term is sensationalistic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree that it's "senstionalistic" either. At any rate, our main outbreak article has been using the WHO definition. If they are calling the one case in Senegal an outbreak [10] why should we decide that they are wrong and call the US something different? We need to keep the split articles consistant, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
logic dictates we follow WHO, and WHO dictates we follow the term "outbreak"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with WhatamIdoing, Gandydancer, and Ozzie10aaaa. It is not sensational and we are using the WHO definition on the other articles, as Gandy and Ozzie point out. The expected number in America is zero as Whatamidoing notes. We've now got 3. There are 76 healthcare workers who had contact with Thomas Duncan who are currently being monitored. The CDC expects more cases. The virus is not endemic in America nor is the suspected natural reservoir, fruit bats, in America. In addition, this page has been moved numerous times to the point that when it was moved by another editor this last time, I asked an admin to protect the page from further moves. It's too disruptive. An editor on the talk page right is saying move it now, and we'll move it again when he's satisfied it's an outbreak. That's the problem. This is exactly why I asked the admin to protect the page. It can't be done on whim. Also, keep in mind the American officials are trying to prevent any panic, but there might also be political motives, as they are always present in any event that disrupts commerce and business as usual. The WHO definition doesn't concern itself with politics. It focuses on the science. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Does any one say their is an "outbreak" of Ebola in the United States? If the answer is NO neither should we. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

When asked if the recent Ebola cases in Dallas should be considered an "outbreak," The White House said "No." (10/15) --Light show (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL. An outbreak would be scary and it's not politically correct to be scared of Ebola in the US. Yet.

This reminds me of the discussion we had on Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster about the wisdom of calling some accident a "disaster" on Wikipedia, even if nobody had been actually killed, and it wasn't at all clear if anybody would ever be killed. How much a disaster can that be, considering all the man-made disasters there are? It was certainly a public relations disaster for nuclear power, but that was about it. Compare with the worst coal mine accident that killed over 1500 people and is not graced with the word "disaster" on Wikipedia: Benxihu Colliery. It turns out, after some research, that natural disasters (like the 2011 Tohoku earthquake and tsunami itself) are not called disasters in specific on Wikipedia. Just because. While man-made accidents are called "disasters" on Wikipedia sometimes and other times not. With no particular rhyme or reason [11], and it varies greatly by category, and nowhere are the worst things called "disasters" more than the others. But I was told to just follow what the press called it. We don't worry about stirring up fear, since we follow the press and the press certainly doesn't worry about that.

For example, consider Islamic-extremist terrorism. Clearly we fear THAT a lot more than aging and disease, since we've spent $1 trillion on wars since 2001 vs. $300 billion for all government biomedical research in that time. But this use of money is not a disaster because the press doesn't feel it is.

In any case, if this unfortunate Ebola emergence or outbreak (inability to deal with which, has been at least partly to cuts in biomedical research in the last 11 years while we dropped bombs on Iraqis) ever should become a "plague" according to the press, we'll be sure and let you all know. So that we can change the name here on Wikipedia, like the good mirrors of official public sentiment and nomenclature that we all are.

At least we know that no Ebola outbreak and failure to contain it, will ever be a "disaster." Not on Wikipedia.SBHarris 03:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

According to this definition from UCLA (, the term epidemic could be used though that obviously carries similar fear-inspiring connotations. Are those fears justified? Probably a matter of debate, but in terms of meeting the criteria, it appears that the cases in the United States meet the definition of an epidemic. " A single case of a communicable disease long absent from a population or the first invasion by a disease not previously recognized in that area requires immediate reporting and epidemiologic investigation; two cases of such a disease associated in time and place are sufficient evidence of transmission to be considered an epidemic." (partial quote). The Manitoba government's definition of outbreak (seen here: also seems appropriate for the U.S. cases. Therefore, I will revise my stance on this question and say that outbreak or epidemic are both acceptable from a definition standpoint regardless of the "political correctness" or the fear that these words will likely instill in readers. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
This source ( also agrees that an increase in cases beyond what would normally be expected in a population qualifies as an outbreak. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
But I do not see how nurses who weren't adequately trained or given appropriate gear to care for an Ebola patient count as part of the population, which I think means the general population. The disaster of not having these nurses prepared to handle the situation is terribly tragic. As for the word "outbreak", I haven't checked out the definitions myself, but the LA Times says this is far from an outbreak. I've tagged the article as having a non-neutral title and asked for admin assistance at WP:AN. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I now see User:WhatamidoIng's point above. I might need to think about this more, but I know the importation of a case to the U.S. has been expected, due to international travel. And it's also entirely expected that cases will develop if health care providers do not have the appropriate training and resources to care for a patient. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:54, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Try User:WhatamIdoing again. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed move Varicose veins ==> Varicose vein[edit]

Please join the discussion at Talk:Varicose veins#RfC: Propose moving title to singular form. Curly Turkey ⚞¡gobble!⚟ 23:19, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine merge[edit]

aka MDMA

I have virtually no interest in this article/topic, but given that it has very high traffic, has crappy references (e.g., lots of erowid-type refs), and I'm probably the most familiar medical editor with the article topic, I figured I'd un-crappify the article. That said, I plan to merge Effects of MDMA on the human body (or, probably delete most of it, since it also has very crappy references and is largely a duplicate of MDMA) with MDMA.

Does anyone have any objections before I go ahead with this merge?

I plan to use PMID 18973636 (a paywalled review that covers amph, meth, and mdma individually) and this HSDB-TOXNET MDMA entry to add/edit/source content to the adverse effects and overdose sections of MDMA following this merge. There's a lot of subsections in MDMA that I plan to prune or merge with other sections in order to reduce redundancy as well, so it will probably be about as long as it is now if I go through with merging the articles and copyediting the MDMA article. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 02:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a barnstar for cleaning up messes that nobody else is willing to bother with? You'd deserve it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll probably complete it all within the next day or 2, as it's a pretty big page to merge. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 08:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
(Oct 6th)
(Oct 19th)

I think I'm done. Any thoughts/suggestions? I'm too lazy to copyedit the history/culture section, but it's nonmedical anyway. Also, wanted to say thanks to Formerly 98 for helping out. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 20:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Virginitiphobia article, and other phobia articles created by PlanetStar[edit]

I don't see that the Virginitiphobia article (created July 14, 2014) should exist at all. It certainly is not WP:MEDRS-compliant. It was recently proposed for deletion by Srleffler (and I thanked that editor for that proposal via WP:Echo), but PlanetStar removed the deletion tag by restoring the article to an earlier version. At Talk:Virginitiphobia I will start section about the need for this article to be deleted, including that it is a non-WP:Notable neologism; per WP:Neologism, neologism Wikipedia articles should usually be deleted (it also notes exceptions, which is why I stated "usually"). Flyer22 (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at PlanetStar's recent contributions, I see that he or she has created other phobia articles that are not WP:MEDRS-compliant and are also neologisms, including Lilapsophobia (created June 28, 2014), Amaxophobia (created July 13, 2014), Pupaphobia (created July 16, 2014) and Siderodromophobia (created July 19, 2014). So I have expanded the heading of this section. Flyer22 (talk) 05:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: Srleffler has nominated the Virginitiphobia article for deletion; therefore, I will not start a section about this WP:MEDRS/WP:Neologism matter at that article's talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 05:48, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've proposed Siderodromophobia for speedy deletion as a copyright violation - it is taken almost word-for-word from an article. I've also prodded Cathisophobia - the source cited (Phobia source) isn't WP:RS, never mind WP:MEDRS-compliant: "If you happen to come across a phobia that we have not listed please contact us and we will be sure to include it." AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The Prod on Cathisophobia was removed, so I have listed the article for AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cathisophobia.--Srleffler (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Phobia articles created by PlanetStar, as listed on their user page:
Lilapsophobia (00:55, 28 June 2014)
Melophobia (fear) (16:55, 28 June 2014)
Chionophobia (20:58, 28 June 2014)
Bibliophobia (21:32, 1 July 2014)
Scolionophobia (02:38, 2 July 2014)
Sophophobia (14:03, 2 July 2014)
Papyrophobia (16:06, 2 July 2014)
Astrophobia (17:54, 3 July 2014)
Selenophobia (18:49, 3 July 2014)
Ombrophobia (02:25, 4 July 2014)
Antlophobia (18:31, 4 July 2014)
Nephophobia (15:36, 5 July 2014)
Chromophobia (fear) (01:23, 6 July 2014)
Fear of daylight (18:06, 6 July 2014)
Toxiphobia (17:08, 8 July 2014)
Mastigophobia (17:55, 8 July 2014)
Logophobia (23:38, 10 July 2014)
Fear of knowledge (00:20, 10 July 2014)
Metallophobia (23:06, 10 July 2014)
Nelophobia (23:43, 10 July 2014)
Vestiphobia (02:41, 11 July 2014)
Samhainophobia (02:04, 12 July 2014)
Botanophobia (02:24, 12 July 2014)
Mechanophobia (02:44, 12 July 2014)
Cathisophobia (19:00, 12 July 2014)
Stasiphobia (20:05, 12 July 2014)
Climacophobia (20:42, 12 July 2014)
Bathmophobia (21:02, 12 July 2014)
Kinetophobia (21:25, 12 July 2014)
Nostophobia (00:50, 14 July 2014)
Koinoniphobia (02:07, 14 July 2014)
Amathophobia (02:45, 14 July 2014)
Virginitiphobia (16:51, 14 July 2014)
Harpaxophobia (17:29, 14 July 2014)
Kleptophobia (17:57, 14 July 2014)
Nebulaphobia (18:29, 14 July 2014)
Scriptophobia (17:04, 15 July 2014)
Ecclesiophobia (17:24, 15 July 2014)
Demonophobia (18:47, 15 July 2014)
Mnemophobia (22:03, 15 July 2014)
Oneirophobia (22:36, 15 July 2014)
Methyphobia (00:36, 16 July 2014)
Pupaphobia (01:21, 16 July 2014)
Coimetrophobia (02:49, 16 July 2014)
Sciophobia (19:14, 16 July 2014)
Kosmikophobia (19:33, 16 July 2014)
Siderophobia (01:31, 17 July 2014)
Prosophobia (22:54, 17 July 2014)
Tachophobia (00:08, 18 July 2014)
Siderodromophobia (21:42, 18 July 2014)
AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:43, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Whoa, Andy, thank you for looking into that. Without even looking at all those articles, I know that, going by PlanetStar's phobia article work, they all need to be deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 06:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've just made the mistake of looking at Harpaxophobia ('fear of being robbed'). This crock of shite tells us that Harpaxophobia "is often caused by a traumatic experience in the past, specifically getting robbed...". You don't say... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:06, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
I've added the actual source (bottom of the page, as always) "American Psychiatric Association. (1994).Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th Ed.). Washington, DC: Author." to the speedy at Siderodromophobia. Since most of is a WP mirror, this should be done to save people having to check. Have the various psycho- wiki-projects been told? I know they are semi-dormant/overwhelmed, but really these are their ugly babies. Obviously, though an old edition, this source has a bearing on notability. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:23, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The phrasing "these are their ugly babies" gave me such a giggle, Wiki CRUK John. Thanks for that. I saw no need to alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology (which is where WP:Psychology should probably redirect) to this matter, since this matter is also a WP:Med concern and WP:Med is far more active than Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology. Furthermore, some of them are also WP:Med members. I think all the active members of WP:Psychiatry, which is a generally inactive task force, are WP:Med members. But I did think about Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology when initially reporting here on this topic. Anyone is free to notify them, of course. Flyer22 (talk) 10:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
This is a hideous list of extremely poorly cited articles, based largely on blogs that try to sell relevant remedies, and interesting only from an etymologic rather than a psychiatric point of view. One can't help wondering what great contributions could have been made to Wikipedia if their creator had spend their time in something more productive. In any case, there's a lot of deleting to do... NikosGouliaros (talk) 14:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Rather than starting a whole bunch of separate AfDs, it would be better to bundle them into a single one. That would waste a lot less editor time. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The usual result is to WP:MERGE and redirect to List of phobias. Pages that are obviously not appropriate for standalone articles can be boldly merged. AFD and admins only need to be involved if there's such a high risk of edit warring that we need an admin to say "merge or I'll block you", and I never want to start from that position. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Stuartyeates has proposed some of the above articles for deletion. I just proposed deleting a bundle of these articles, for the exact same reasons: no bibliographic evidence that these are notable phobias. I 've included the following articles - I admit it is a tiring job, so this is by no means an exhaustive list: Melophobia, Scolionophobia, Papyrophobia, Selenophobia, Ombrophobia, Nephophobia, Mastigophobia, Logophobia, Fear of knowledge, Metallophobia, Nelophobia, Vestiphobia, Samhainophobia, Vestiphobia. However, WhatamIdoing's proposal might be more appealing - though I only read about it after I had proposed the bundle of deletions. NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
[ WP:Edit conflict; sort of]: What is the point of merging and redirecting if the terms are not WP:Notable and are highly dubious as to truly existing? That some of the articles were redirects seems to be what spurred PlanetStar on to turn them into Wikipedia articles. Srleffler has been cleaning up the List of phobias article. Proposed deletion can work well enough in these cases and also saves resources; Stuartyeates has proposed a few of them for deletion so far. Flyer22 (talk) 15:29, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Some articles mentioning the above phobias, e.g. Weathering the Storm. Revisiting Severe-Weather Phobia, cite the American Psychiatric Association 2013 Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed). This may be a reason to at least mention them in a list, though it doesn't prove that they are notable and therefore article-worthy. (NB: I have no access to the above-mentioned manual). NikosGouliaros (talk) 15:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
And I brought up a couple of sources at and reliable sources for phobias?. Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Should all be merged to phobia if proper refs can be found. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Many of these are not even worth mentioning in a broader article on phobias. --Srleffler (talk) 02:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes refs will be required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Update I replaced some citations in samhainophobia with better ones, and bibliophobia was rewritten by Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs). PlanetStar 22:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS verification[edit]

After having edit war on Ayurveda, concerning long standing content, I would like to ask if these sources falls under the MEDRS.

The information that is being removed now[12] seems to be common. It is not actually claiming to be substitute of the scientific terms. Maybe we can remove the scientific terms from the every of the eight component's mention and write short description according to any of these citations. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:34, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

The book sources are WP:MEDRS-compliant, though a person might want to go with stronger sources than encyclopedias. Flyer22 (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
[13] [14] can qualify? Bladesmulti (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
That first one is apparently published by McFarland & Company and speaks of essays; it looks like it is reviewing the literature, but I'm iffy on that one. The second one ("Treatment of sexual dysfunctions based on Indian concepts" by the Indian Journal of Psychiatry) looks like a no-go. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Then again, that second one is an official publication of the Indian Psychiatric Society. Let's see what other WP:Med editors think. Flyer22 (talk) 06:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
How about [15]-[16]-[17]-[18]-[19](cited by 33 google scholar[20]) ? Bladesmulti (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
It seems like the dispute is whether these sources can be used to present translation of Sanskrit words to English words. For example, the wikilink to Pediatrics is deleted from the explanation of Kaumāra-bhṛtya, which is the ayurvedic treatment of children. While I would not use the source cited as an authoritative medical text, in my opinion these kinds of reference works seem fine enough to say that these traditional practices are precursors to modern fields of medicine. Roxy the dog and Dominus Vobisdu, I agree that these are not WP:MEDRS sources, but this seems like a humanities issue and not a science one. What is your objection here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Exactly though, it is actually more about the philosophical texts than about some scientific research. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: The issue is presenting a primitive, undeveloped and chaotic ragtag bag of largely ineffective superstition-based folk remedies and assorted quackery as something that resembles real honest-to-goodness evidence-based medicine. This would violate WP:GEVAL. And no, these are in no way "precursors to modern fields of medicine". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 11:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

That's not even an answer to the question he asked. It is up to you how much credibility you want to but that doesn't means it cannot be described or explained per these valid MEDRS. GEVAL applies on directories, not here. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
DV has summed up my feelings on this quite well, particularly the "precursors to modern medicine" nonsense. Wikilinked headings such as General medicine, Surgery, Paediatrics, Ophthalmology / ENT/Dentistry etc. (need I go on), implying efficacy really need to be backed up with reliable sources, these are not. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:57, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
We have established that these references are reliable sources for the type of information that is being added there. I probably didn't added then, but there are just many sources. [21]-[22]-[23]-[24]-[25] Bladesmulti (talk) 12:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
We most certainly have not established that. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
How would I know unless you back up with some proof that these dozens of sources, and especially these last ones are not good enough for citing these longstanding facts. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Roxy the dog Dominus Vobisdu I agree with you both that efficacy of treatments without backing from MEDRS literature ought not be implied. In this case, I think the intent is to explain history and culture rather than make a medical claim, and if that is not apparent then I wish it could be made so. There are a lot of texts on the concept of "history of medicine", and if I understand Dominus, it seems that one position could be to say that the history of medicine starts about 100 years ago with the advent of evidence-based medicine. I do not think that view can be reconciled with the more common view that medicine's history goes back much further. Are you able to propose some way for these Sanskrit words to be tied to some modern concept? Every culture has child health practices before modern medicine, and tying those to pediatrics seems not unreasonable especially since Wikipedia's precedent is to allow articles like pediatrics to say that quacks like Galen, Hippocrates, and Aristotle are part of the history of medicine. Do you have any suggestions for how Wikipedia can reconcile its current practice to allow modern health articles to link out to Western historical figures when you are uncomfortable allowing articles on non-Western medicine to even link in to modern health concepts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:26, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Good explanation and it will actually work, and bringing in some extended descriptions for each of the eight components, rather than just a scientific term and a 5 words quote. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with bluerasberry. Uncomfortable allowing articles on non western medicine to even link in to modern health concepts. Seems to be a common issue with any alternative type medicine articles. Would it help listing clearly what issues are still at large.Docsim (talk) 12:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no need to translate the terms at all, as a brief definition is given with each. In any case, translating them using the names of modern evidence-based medical fields is beyond the pale. And it's not "Western-centric". We have separate terms for chemistry and alchemy, and for astronomy and astrology. Same applies here. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:46, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
There's no logic in your reasoning. Knowing that they are treated as substitute, and since these terms have been usually translated, by everyone else, why wouldn't we? Once again, can you highlight a good reason behind it? Must be policy backed. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, c'omn, Bluerasberry -- Galen, Hippocrates, and Aristotle were not complete medical quacks (as their well-referenced Wikipedia articles show they were not). What blasphemy have you committed with your words against them, LOL? I'm being half-serious. Flyer22 (talk) 12:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Flyer has beaten me to this, however, User:Bluerasberry and myself would like to announce our collaboration on List of Quacks. We've seen the BR contribution, mine include Max Gerson, Andrew Wakefield, Stan Burzynski, Peter Fisher (physician) and for brit TV watchers That awful poo lady. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The awful poo lady certainly does not follow the traditional medical approach. I've just had reason to quote a BMJ review of Pancreatic adenocarcinoma by 4 authors. "Patients describe foul smelling, oily stools that are difficult to flush away" they say. Am I wrong to find that phrasing hilarious? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 20:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry John, I don't see anything funny about that (well-phrased, imo) description. (talk) 21:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry's right: while at the time these figures were mainstream, their beliefs would now be deeply "alternative". This may not be obvious to people who don't know much about them, or who are more inclined to focus on their general lasting values instead of their many wrong and harmful ideas. Galen pushed Theriac as a panacea. Our article on pulse diagnosis unaccountably fails to mention Galen, although his diagnostic methods included both feeling the pulse and dream interpretation. Hippoocrates thought that arteries were filled with air that maintained vital heat. They also believed in Humorism. None of that sounds too different from the ideas believed by some altmed folks I've encountered (Are you not feeling well? You must need to balance your chakras), except that no Western altmed person is likely to tell you that women were biologically too deficient in vital heat to be as smart as men—but Aristotle did, and his declaration was one of the "logical" reasons for suppressing women's rights for centuries.
Saying they're not quacks (by modern standards) is a bit like lionizing Darwin for getting natural selection right, without taking a moment to laugh at his claim that the giraffe had such a long neck because successive generations had stretched higher, or that the blacksmith's son had large muscles because the results of his father's daily exercise were inherited. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
My point on stating that Galen, Hippocrates, and Aristotle were not complete medical quacks (the word complete being the keyword) is that they did a lot of good for medicine as well; their legacies are clear on that. There was good mixed in with the bad. Flyer22 (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Also, in the case of Galen, if dissection of human cadavers hadn't been outlawed, and he didn't have to therefore resort to dissections of primates and pigs to better understand human anatomy, I'm guessing he would have been right about a lot more things relating to human anatomy than he already was right about by just dissecting those animals. Same for others who had to follow the Roman "no human cadavers" law. Flyer22 (talk) 23:14, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing: You have confused Darwin with Lamarck.--Srleffler (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I feel we are losing some of our focus here. No matter what crack-pot theories Galen, Aristotle, Hippocrates etc. had, they were responsible for major developments in medicine, and are generally considered very influential. That being said, there are numerous influential sources in India and China and other countries that deserve mention.

What needs to be done is to hold a high standard, and to avoid using low quality sources, preferably using WP:MEDRS. Ayurvedic journals are poor sources, as are the encyclopedias of Indian medicine above. Just because something is PubMed indexed or in a book doesn't make it a reliable source, neither by WP:RS or WP:MEDRS standards. Adaptogen previously held numerous references to a book called "The Tao of Medicine" which I deleted. You have to take a number of things in account, looking at the publisher, the intended audience, etc. etc. and MEDRS is an excellent guide on how to do this.

That said, the major reason I suggest we stick to MEDRS is because it simplifies these arguments, and most of it holds true when it comes citing facts relating to anything on the history of medicine. When we say modern medicine has evolved from ayurveda we are given ayurveda legitimacy it does not deserve, when all that can really be said by reliable sources is that ayurveda preceded modern medicine. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

CFCF Good you agree about mentioning these. If we are talking about all sources, most of them are reliable sources since they are published by a reliable publisher and many of them include a notable author. Also on the article we had just mentioned the English terms for those Sanskrit terms, including their importance. No where we have been claiming that modern medicine evolved from Ayurveda.
Such claims cannot be actually found in other reliable sources(including non MEDRS) either. But if some viewer is misrepresenting, misunderstanding the actual meaning behind the content, and claiming something that we did not intended to. Then who's fault it would be? At least blanket removal wouldn't be the solution. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately I am more skeptical to Pinnacle, Concept and JayPree Brother's than you are. Even if they arguably pass RS (Concept likely does), they aren't medical publishers. I think the translated Sanskrit terms are worthy of mention under an etymology section, but only when they are properly sourced and with clear distinction that despite the similarity in name, they are not equivalent. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Concept for example publishes Discovery of Divinity Within: From a Personal File under "Medical". -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Here is a textbook from Jaypee Brothers that copied and pasted from Wikipedia [26] Here is the write up about it in the NYTs.[27] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't said that Jaypee brothers is a reliable publisher, I had said that the sources I have mentioned and "most of them are" reliable, in terms of publisher and some of them having a notable author. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
CFCF, as noted above, these are common information, there's hardly any end if we were to find reliable sources or medsRS. How about the publication that have been recognized by the There are about 5 of them listed above in whole discussion.
It is far obvious that they cannot be same and they differ, but that is same with just any other subject that is separate from other. The translated terms are written for providing understanding about its specialty and effect, example is [28](Page 23), it can be an idea. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the important part is that we are strict in what we allow. I'm not questioning the fact there are decent sources, but a substantial portion of the ones linked here are not acceptable even by RS-only standards. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
These are the sources that Wikipedia most often allows, primary sources to a lesser degree. And as can be seen there, encyclopedias are included. WP:MEDRS is understandably stricter with its sourcing guideline, but it certainly allows book sources (those sources, of course, have to be WP:Reliable and appropriate for the content); they don't always have to be from medical publishers. WP:MEDRS, for example, allows encyclopedias as sources. When I stated that the book sources that Bladesmulti listed above are WP:MEDRS-compliant, I was keeping different aspects of WP:MEDRS in mind. Jaypee Brothers is listed as a medical publisher, but, based on what Jmh649 (Doc James) stated above about it, I would be cautious using sources from that publisher. I have used a few sources from that publisher before (even when wondering just how reliable that publisher is), but will be a lot more critical of using sources from that publisher now. Flyer22 (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking at this edit [29] I am unsure why a MEDRS source is needed? If one is simply listing the 8 components of Ayurveda any textbook would be reasonable. We just need to make sure no health claims are being made. User:Roxy the dog Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:31, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

That edit removed the association of wikilinked real medical topics to supposedly equivalent ayurvedic topics - see an earlier post I made above. I don't think we should be making that association in wiki's voice, so if my use of wp:medrs is innapropriate I apologise. The edit gives a veneer of approval/acceptability in comparison to real medicine that really shouldn't even be implied. I should like to point out that I love a good consensus, me, but we aren't there yet. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Jmh649, that sums up adequately. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay thanks for clarifying the issue. Removing splinters I agree is not surgery. And we need to be careful drawing parallels that do not exist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I was actually saying that your comment sums up, that any Ayurvedic related RS was enough for including that edit. Knowing that it was longstanding and remained until yesterday, it is obvious that none of us were drawing any non-existing parallel, but if Roxy the Dog is having misunderstanding or he is treating the translation of these Sanskrit terms a face of modern medical acts, I am not sure what can be done there.
Consensus is clear that until now there is no policy backed reason to remove any of the translated terms. A shorter description can be included, where we can add the translated terms and how they have been associated. Obviously we cannot say anything like this is it, but whole section is only concerned with the Ayurveda, nothing outside it. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Are there urls for the specific pages so we can look at what they say to support the text in question? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:07, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Give me a few minutes, I will probably make a draft on here and post links of sources that are accessible for just everyone. Bladesmulti (talk) 12:13, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
There Arrowupgreen.png Bladesmulti (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
That is absolutely not going to happen. Using the names of modern real evidence-based disciplines as "translations" of ancient Sanskrit primitive claptrap is a egregious violation of WP:NPOV. Under no circumstances will you be allowed to equate quackery with real medicine. Give this up, because it very clearly violates our policies and guidelines, as you have been told repeatedly by just about everyone here. Continuing to pursue the matter is a waste of everyone's time and is disruptive. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Dominus Vobisdu I am not the one doing so, it's these sources as well as others do. About NPOV, like you have been asked before, if you can arrange a single source that would explicitly state none these terms for these other general medical terms are correct, I wouldn't be objecting, but right now your reasoning of rejecting it due to NPOV just don't fit. I don't see 'everyone' or 'anyone' except you or Roxy the Dog who were against this reliably cited content. First your argument was section is unsourced and OR, after that it was Needs MEDRS and now it is absolutely not going to happen, it's better to say that you should just give up your don't like it mentality and come up with some policy backed rationale. I have lost the count that how many times I have already asked you that, but you are simply not going to hear. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:21, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I shall not be contributing further to this, as it is clear that WP:CIR applies to Blades. He appears to be reading and commenting on a different topic to that which we are discussing. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 13:33, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought we were going to talk about the content, but that's something I haven't observed in your comments, I am wondering why you wouldn't discover your limitations, instead find every way to distract from the actual subject with comments like above one and this[30], obviously because you lack competence, isn't it?
Until now, we have searched for the citations that would include the adequate translations that we had until yesterday, but when we search for the terms, separately, we happen to be discovering sources like this [31] Now I should believe on publication of Oxford University or someone who has been frequently incorrect about this subject? Bladesmulti (talk) 13:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
As has been discussed what is needed are translations for these Ayurvedic terms. . Nor do translations need to be MEDRS compliant. Why would a scientist research translation or linguistics or etymology. Whether we call Ayurveda clap trap or not is not the issue here. WP is full of articles that are about clap trap. What is necessary is that this ancient system is understood and since the terms are Sanskrit, modern day readers need to understand the terms and what these physicians thought/think they were/ are doing. We aren't judging, a NPOV position, we are simply providing information. All of this is subtopic information under the tropic area of Ayurveda so there's no mistaking this for modern allopathic medicine. (Littleolive oil (talk) 16:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC))
There is no meed to "translate them at all, least of all using modern scientific terminology which is anachronistic. It suffices to provide a brief (and very well sourced) definition, and readers will have no problem understanding them. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This is an English encyclopedia. These are Sanskrit terms. Translation to English is logical and an obvious necessary step given the language of this version of Wikipedia. Further, to decide not to translate, an obvious step, may need community agreement rather than, with respect, the opinion of one editor.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC))

I agree with Littleolive oil. Our job is to describe the subject to readers. "It's shalya tantra" does not describe the subject to English speakers. "One branch, called shalya tantra, dealt with surgery" describes the subject. Only an idiot would assume that ancient surgery (Indian or otherwise) looked anything like modern surgery. We do not have a policy of assuming that readers are idiots. WP:NOTCENSORED isn't just about pictures in sex articles; it's also about not hiding verifiable facts just because some idiot might read them and might come to the conclusion that ancient Ayuvedic surgery for, say, cancer worked just like modern oncosurgery, instead of being only slightly less horrifying than the Western version of the same surgery at the same time (less horrifying because Indian surgeons made better use of opiates).
And if you really can't stomach calling the ancient practice of slicing people open with sharp implements for curative purposes "surgery", then you'll have to argue for removing the many similar links from Ancient Greek medicine and other History of medicine articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for discussing. As seen here[32], I went ahead and added back with better citations, including some changes in wording. Reasons are simple, 1st, clear consensus above, 2nd, longstanding and probably added since the article was created. Burden is on Dominus to prove that we(of course excluding Roxy the dog) are incorrect about it and there are reliable citations that would go against these terms. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Dominus Vobisdu has reverted this edit with the edit summary "Per WP:GEVAL, WP:FRINGE and WP:PSCI", it made any sense to you? Lets see
It is not a directory.
I don't see even a single source claiming these translations to be fringed. Fails FRINGE.
We are not making extraordinary claims like Alien cured the patient but only adding the English terms. Or he's saying that publishers like oxford university promotes fringe?
While it has been confirmed numerous times that Dominus Vobisdu has sheer competence issues, his edits(e.g. [33](though it had sources), [34]-[35](exactly Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT)), wikilawyering and refusal to discuss the longstanding changes. I would like to know that what can be done about his disruptive behavior? Bladesmulti (talk) 03:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
This ref is okay [36], no significant opinion either way about these content changes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Just for a user preference, I am informing that Dominus Vobisdu has been blocked for 48 hours, reason was simple, edit warring and disruptive editing. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Scientology sources used as a source in pages:[edit]

I've found a few pages, including the Psychology page itself using Citizens Commission on Human Rights websites as a source. I've removed them and have done a crude search on Google for other pages on Wikipedia that use them. I've removed the ones on the English language Wikipedia, but there's a few in other languages that do. Please ensure that no pages use CCHR (or any other fringe group) as a source. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It is definitely a group effort to keep source requirements high. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:28, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The pages were:

Please add them to your watchlist if possible.

I believe the CCHI sources were added in good faith by editors who were unaware of the affiliation of the group, and do not represent any kind of concerted effort by Scientologists to get their material on there. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

oy, see also
*Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia and see Psychiatry: An Industry of Death and Scientology and psychiatry
articles where bad CCHR sources were used:
* Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union (had paragraph based on CCHR sources I just removed)
* Action T4 (had paragraph based on CCHR sources I just removed)
* Disease mongering (had paragraph based on CCHR sources I just removed)
* State Hospital (had paragraph based on CCHR sources I just removed)
* List of people who have undergone electroconvulsive therapy (had paragraph based on CCHR sources I just removed)
* Social construct theory of ADHD (had paragraph based on CCHR sources I just removed; generally horrible article)
* Lena Zavaroni (had CCHR sources I just removed)
Thanks for pointing that out! Jytdog (talk) 08:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Is there a proper tool to check which sources are used in Wikipedia? All I did was a very crude search on google. Is there a more sophisticated tool? Can there also be certain fringe sources that can be flagged if used as a source in an article? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Harizotoh9, have you tried Special:LinkSearch? It works for most URLs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Electronic cigarettes[edit]

Is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports reliable for the content? User:LeadSongDog explained it at the Talk:Electronic cigarette page here. Other editors claim the CDC reports are unreliable.

The two sources above were removed from the article. The relevant part of MEDRS is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Medical and scientific organizations. Read under: "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements..."

Can we go back to the version before the original research was reverted back into the article? Trying to remove original research from the article should be easy at the electronic cigarettes article if there were more collaborating.

"While some raised concern that e-cigarette use can be a cause of indoor air pollution,[2] the only clinical study currently published evaluating passive vaping found no adverse effects.[37]" Original research ans misleading text.

"A 2014 review found that at the very least, this limited research demonstrates it is transparent that e-cigarette emissions are not simply "harmless water vapor," as is commonly claimed, and can be a cause of indoor air pollution.[3] As of 2014, the only clinical study currently published evaluating the respiratory effects of passive vaping found no adverse effects were detected.[38] A 2014 review found it is safe to presume that their effects on bystanders are minimal in comparison to traditional cigarettes.[38]" Sourced text and neutrally written text (that was blindly reverted). See Electronic cigarette#Second-hand aerosol.

I removed the original research and replaced it with sourced text. I clearly explained it in my edit summary the problem with the article. I removed the POV selected quotes. I expanded the safety section a bit. I replaced original research with sourced text for the second-hand aerosol section. Then another editor recently blindly reverted back in original research and deleted sourced text. I think we should go back to here before the blind revert was made. I hope editors at WikiProject Medicine here will help remove the original research from the electronic cigarettes page and help restore the sourced text. Another editor blindly reverted back in the original research and other problems. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

First objection to QG's statement above: His statement
"back to the version before the original research was reverted back into the article"
Should more accurately be read as:
Please go back to my preferred version, with all the changes i've made to the article, that have been reverted.
The latter would have been the correct description, while the former is unsubtle canvassing. --Kim D. Petersen 20:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Second objection here: It seems like QuackGuru at the moment is cherry-picking every negative source that he can find, without actually putting them into context with real secondary review papers. The CDC material that he is quoting here, is handled within several review papers, that he chooses not to use. That would be a rather blatant breach of WP:MEDRS's don't use primary sources to contradict secondary sources. In my eyes QG is using this forum to win an edit-war to keep his own version of reality, instead of working with other editors to find material that actually would gain consensus, and be supported by the WP:WEIGHT of secondary sources. --Kim D. Petersen 20:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Final note: The claim that another editor "blindly" reverted is incorrect, since that editor has taken part in every thread where QG's changes to the article have been discussed. And the OR version that he claims, is the original version of the article, before QG's edits. --Kim D. Petersen 20:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The other discussion shows that there is WP:CON that the Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations including the CDC are generally reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Translated as "QuackGuru reads that discussion as a blanket OK to use all material on the CDC's website no matter what other sources say, or whether it is primary material (such as the weekly "Notes from the Field" is)" - i would read the consensus differently as: "Material that the CDC produces is generally of high-quality and can be used when the content and context is appropriate", which i agree with completely. I would be very surprised if any source is generally reliable for all material, and context. --Kim D. Petersen 20:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I would assert that any source that states:
The data in the weekly MMWR are provisional, based on weekly reports to CDC by state health departments.--Kim D. Petersen 21:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Is a primary source, and should be used with caution, and certainly not to contradict or expand on secondary review papers. --Kim D. Petersen 21:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
Let me quote the authors guide[37] for the Weekly reports that QG wants to use:
D. Notes from the Field
Notes from the Field are abbreviated reports intended to advise MMWR readers of ongoing or recent events of concern to the public health community, without waiting for development of a Full Report. Events of concern include epidemics/outbreaks, unusual disease clusters, poisonings, exposures to disease or disease agents (including environmental and toxic), and notable public health-related case reports. These reports may contain early unconfirmed information, preliminary results, hypotheses regarding risk factors and exposures, and other similarly incomplete information. No definitive conclusions need be presented in Notes from the Field.
That to me reads almost the very definition of a primary source in WP:MEDRS. If this can be used without caution, then i'm not sure why other sources are being rejected. --Kim D. Petersen 21:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
As detailed above by Kim D. Petersen and extensively debated on the Talk Page, there is no evidence that the MMWR "notes" meet the reliability criteria for MEDRS. Even if they did, we cannot possibly consider they hold enough WP:WEIGHT to be used against multiple secondary sources.

Otherwise, User:QuackGuru has been engaged in a sustained pattern of disruptive editing on this article, as discussed on the talk page [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. I'm inclined to view his post here as an attempt to feign an interest in constructive discussion and reaching consensus. Mihaister (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course "Notes from the Field" is a primary source. It's a great primary source—for its intended audience, which isn't encyclopedia writers. Not only is it a primary source, with all the uncertainty that implies, it's also a WP:RECENTISM trap. You may use them, but only in highly limited, explicitly qualified ways. You should never use them to "prove" something biomedical. You can use them to make statements of the "Somebody said this" type. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Old primary sources[edit]

Should we be using these to support historical claims? Pleas comment here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:23, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

PubMed reference template generator makes reference at the bottom repeat – DOI generator does not – recommendations? PubMed ID recommended over DOI?[edit]

I just finished watching the “Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine” introduction video, and it mentions PubMed as a good choice.

If I were to use a paper, and it has a PubMed ID, should I use that to generate a template over using a DOI generator?

Also, I have a problem with reference template generators.

The following tool allows you to input a PubMed ID:

I found that if I referenced a PubMed source again, the reference number would increment, and at the bottom, the source would appear multiple times.

This doesn’t happen with the following DOI generator tool:

Am I doing something wrong with the PubMed generator?

Does anyone have tool recommendations for generating a PubMed template that doesn’t have these problems?


Bboyjkang2 (talk) 05:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

yes, for anything health-related, a pubmed-based ref is very much best. if you use a reference a second time, you shouldn't fully cite it the second time. instead, name the reference, and use the name the second time. See Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Repeated_citations. Jytdog (talk) 06:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Also not all pubmed sources are suitable. Most in fact are not. If you limit your search to review articles from the last 5 years more appropriate sources will be listed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean by reference number would increment, and at the bottom, the source would appear multiple times. It would really help if you can give a specific example with a diff. I have used the citation template filling tool extensively, and I have never seen the problem you describe. If you give the reference a different name with otherwise the same content, then the reference will be indeed repeated in the reference section at the bottom. If you are using the name reference more than once, it is not necessary to repeat the full citation. Use a <ref name = "name"/> tag for the second and subsequent citing of the same source (see WP:REFNAME). Boghog (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Here is a side-by-side comparison of the same citation generated by the two tools (important: be sure that the "Add ref tag" option is checked when using the citation template filling tool):
  • Citation template generator: <ref name="pmid3776457">{{cite journal | author = Mölsä PK, Marttila RJ, Rinne UK | title = Survival and cause of death in Alzheimer's disease and multi-infarct dementia | journal = Acta Neurol. Scand. | volume = 74 | issue = 2 | pages = 103–7 | year = 1986 | pmid = 3776457 | doi = 10.1111/j.1600-0404.1986.tb04634.x }}</ref>
  • DOI generator tool: <ref name="MölsäMarttila1986">{{cite journal|last1=Mölsä|first1=P.K.|last2=Marttila|first2=R.J.|last3=Rinne|first3=U.K.| title=Survival and cause of death in Alzheimer's disease and multi-infarct dementia |journal=Acta Neurologica Scandinavica|volume=74|issue=2|year=1986|pages=103–107|issn=00016314 |doi=10.1111/j.1600-0404.1986.tb04634.x}}</ref>
One difference is the reference name generated by the two tools (<ref name="pmid3776457"> vs. <ref name="MölsäMarttila1986">. If you use different reference names for the same reference, it will be repeated in the reference section no matter which tool you use. Boghog (talk) 10:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
  • There are different answers here. I think Boghog's first note is the answer to your question. Use a citation generator one time per citation. After that, copy the name of the citation then paste that in every instance where you want that citation repeated. Names look like "<ref name="pmid3776457">" and when you reuse them, you have to put a slash at the end like "<ref name="pmid3776457"/>". Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Lists of ebola patients and articles on individual ebola patients[edit]

I am finding articles like List of Ebola patients and like this Wikipedia:Healthcare workers contracting ebola (I know, wrong space - i have asked its creator to move it). But i am more concerned with the desire to create articles on these individuals and list their names in WP. I am aware of 3 AfDs (I started one of them): Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Pooley (Ebola patient) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Atkins (UK nurse) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Eric Duncan. What do you all think of these lists and the individual articles. In my mind the individual articles generally violate WP:BLP1E and listing their names is a pretty ugly invasion of medical privacy. I am tempted to start deletion discussions on the lot of them, for any who are notable only for getting sick, but before I launch on that, wanted to check my head. thanks Jytdog (talk) 07:33, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that these articles are BLP1E and privacy does matter, in addition I can't help feeling that there is an element of racism in singling out a few individual first world victims while thousands of West African victims remain just nameless numbers - but that is a problem of the systemic bias of the Western media -- Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Hmm - dead or alive we seem to be keeping the Americans and deleting or redirecting the Brits in these AfDs. Johnbod (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
hmmm don't assume bad faith. as i wrote above i was about to go through an nominate them all for deletion but wanted to get some support before i did so. i have some now. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I can't get very worked up about these. In List of Ebola patients, only one (Pooley) is still alive, and he has been doing extensive media interviews this week, with one quoted in the article. The bravery of many of the medical dead deserves memorializing I think, and BLP issues only apply to the living. The Western cases have received massive media coverage, & imo short bios, probably best as sections in a list-type article, are appropriate. Each case has raised legitimate issues about local healthcare. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't think that these individual people qualify for separate articles. I think that Dodger is probably right about the systemic bias: we cover mostly what's in English-language sources, and they cover what their (mostly white, mostly non-African) audiences will pay for. But these are BLP1Es as far as I'm concerned. IMO the best way to handle it is probably to replace them with full-protected redirects to a list. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
There are numerous English newspapers, broadcasters and news websites in West Africa. I blame Google for never including them when one uses their "News" search filter. Even the largest solidly mainstream news sources in South Africa are excluded from Google searches whenever one selects the "News" option. Yet they take special care to include every single inconsequential Nowhereville community blog as long as it's in North America or Europe. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
someone else has nomimated Thomas Duncan for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Eric Duncan. I just redirected Mayinga N'Seka and Mabalo Lokela to Ebola virus disease; the information in both those articles also happened to be wrong. Not sure if those will stick. just nnominated Patrick Sawyer for deletion here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Sawyer (2nd nomination) Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
These articles are springing up all over the place like mushrooms. We barely have enough interested editors to monitor the main outbreak article let alone all of these splits. Some of them (actually all of them) have been started without a word of notice to the editors that work on the main article and some of them remain in very poor quality, without upkeep, and IMO, an embarrassment to WP. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
Which is absolutely normal (bold page creations), even if it's inconvenient in cases like these. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned articles[edit]

I have started Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Orphaned articles (shortcut: WP:MED/O) as a holding area for orphaned medical articles. Editors of medical articles may wish to add it to their watchlists.
Wavelength (talk) 21:18, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully this does not promote the adding of barely related articles to overflowing see also sections. Just one concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the more usual outcome is that someone starts a broad list, like List of physicians, so that most articles can be "de-orphaned" without needing to find a meaningful way to WP:Build the web to some borderline-notable person. Pages about diseases and drugs rarely appear in orphan lists, because we have navboxes that systematically cover almost all of those pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
I started the new page because of my past experience in de-orphaning medical articles. Please see User talk:Wavelength/Archive 5#See also sections (December 2012). Also, I have sometimes seen in CAT:O a consecutively listed series of closely related medical articles, for example, a series of articles about enzymes. I have revised Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Orphaned articles with a link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Standard appendices.
Wavelength (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Medicine recent changes: lists updated[edit]

I have updated the lists behind the MED Recent Changes box (previous update: Feb 24, 2014). Number of pages has increased greatly (total: from 28.569 to 29388).

Lists sources are in Category:Medicine articles by importance. Lists were composed & formatted using WP:AWB (you can do too!; does not require an AWB licence, just install AWB & create lists ;-) ). The "top 1500" was changed into "top 1000"; that one is updated separately & more frequently. -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

If deemed useful, I could add another Recent Changes option to the box, that follows these pages: all MED pages with quality Start and above, plus the Lists, plus their talkpages. That's ~16,000 × 2 pages. 32,000 pages listed is about the max we can handle (a 1 MB wikipage). That RC list would miss: stubs, redirects, pages, all non-mainspace (=non-article) pages such as WP-pages. Would anyone click on that RC link? -DePiep (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I am happy with all medical pages. Doubt I would use talk pages added in. Do not know about others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Really all WP:MED pages are already there, click link: "in all Medicine pages (not talks)". That's 30.000. This addition would select quality articles only (Start to FA; 16.000 p) plus their talkpages (16.000 p). Personal opinion: I don't think we should add a link for these 16.000 articles only (no talks). Too confusing. -DePiep (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)


Some WP:MEDRS related issues in the Talk section here. Comments welcome. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Featured Article deterioration: student editing or general decline over time?[edit]

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:18, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I have been meaning to put significant effort into this article but have yet to get around to it. Agree with you though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Student medical editing[edit]


SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The first course has just been using their sandboxes. I've been watching. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 17:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
The second are so far writing up their high schools, World of Warcraft etc. Some bits added on genetics though. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Simple English[edit]

The question of the type of English we should use in the lead has arisen again on the Ebola article.[44] My position is we should use simple English wikilinked to the technical term.

Other options are using the technical terms followed by the simple description but that can clutter the lead. Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

My preference is to always give the simplest commonly used terms with the medical jargon in parentheses - either then may be wikilinked. The point of showing the medical term is that it helps the reader familiarise themselves with the jargon, so that they understand if they encounter the term later in the article (and we often need to use the exact term in the subsections for reasons of accuracy). We should never rely on wikilinks to explain a word; it can be very disruptive to the reader if they have to follow a link then find their place again in the main article, just to make sense of that article. This is sometimes compounded by having to follow another link in the linked article because it doesn't explain its jargon either. --RexxS (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes I support doing that in the body of the text. It can however clutter up the lead to always have both technical and simple terminology.
Agree that the simple should always be there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with James here, and think we should avoid using terminology for terminology's sake. There is a whole lot of jargon out there that doesn't fill any purpose, and it needs to be a matter of judgement where to use medical terminology and where not to. The lede should try to avoid anything overly complicated and wikilinking lay descriptions is a good way to do it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Influenza vaccine[edit]

Some recent article tagging by some recent IPs, with changes to lead. Some of the content changes may have merit to go in the body, but probably needs more eyes, especially now with influenza vaccine season coming into full swing. Yobol (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Amazing multilingual AIDS advertisements[edit]

Wellcome Trust is a UK-based charity which promotes health research. In February 2014 they were kind to host an editathon and over the past 1-2 years Fae has been working with them on their Wellcome Images project, which is an effort to make some health-related media archives more available. Wellcome wanted the media they collected to be available under Wikimedia-compatible licenses. There were some questions about that and I trust Fae when he tells me that Wellcome was more diligent than most in sorting their rights to share these images, and that their images are appropriate for sharing on Wikimedia Commons.

Wellcome shared about 300 GB of health images. Sharing this much content was complicated. These files should be sorted somehow, and perhaps someone in WikiProject Medicine would like to comment on what should become of this donation. I cannot say what should happen with them. Not all of this is uploaded to Commons yet.

All of the images from this donation are in Commons:Category:Files from Wellcome Images. Files which need categorization are in Commons:Category:Files from Wellcome Images (categorization needed). If anyone wants to help, browsing that category and adding more categories to interesting pictures would make it easier for others to find and use those pictures. I am interested in Commons:Category:AIDS posters, which is a collection of AIDS public health advertisements in many languages. Many of these posters have never been publicly available otherwise, so this is a unique opportunity to add images to Wikipedia articles on a popular health topic in many languages.

This collection of AIDS posters is probably going to be featured in a post on the WMF blog. Could someone please give a comment about their impression of the collection and how it could be used, so that WikiProject Medicine members can be quoted in accounts of this donation? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WPMEDF helped fund some of this effort. Great to have more images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way to bulk-add categories to a list of files? There are hundreds that belong under commons:Category:Medical books, for example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Ruscus aculeatus – unsupported claims[edit]

Could someone with more time than I have right now look at Ruscus aculeatus#Medicinal Uses? I suspect the whole section may need to be removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You're correct, the whole thing was horribly sourced. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 13:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Michael Greger[edit]

I would appreciate it if some additional editors looked at this article and chimed in on the state of the "Criticism" section. A dispute has arisen over the addition of text refuting criticism of Greger by Harriet Hall (see the talk page for the discussion.) Brianyoumans (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)