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
87 954 8,610 15,916 6,262 594 32,423
List overview · Lists updated: 2014-10-18 · This box: view · talk

Neglected tropical disease task force proposed[edit]

Dear Wiki' ites . I invite you all to Join the proposed Task Force on neglected tropical disease More details and Sign up here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Task_forces#Neglected_tropical_disease Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears everyone copies from Wikipedia[edit]

Here is a 2011 "Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses: Biology, Clinical Practice, and Public Health Control" by "Oxford University Press" in 2011.[1] Appears to be the first edition. It says:

"Plants, arthropods, and birds have also been considered as possible reservoirs; however, bats are now considered the most likely candidate. Bats were known to reside in the cotton factory in which the Ebola index cases for the 1976 and 1979 outbreaks were employed. They have been implicated in Marburg infections in 1975 and 1980. Of 24 plant species and 19 vertebrate species experimentally inoculated with Ebolavirus, only bats became infected (Swanepeol 1996). The absence of clinical signs in these bats is characteristic of a reservoir species. In a 2002–2003 survey of 1,030 animals, which included 679 bats from Gabon and the DRC, 13 fruit bats were found to contain EbolavirusRNA (Pourrut 2009). As of 2005, three fruit bat species (Hypsignathus monstrosus, Epomops franqueti, and Myonycteris torquata) have been identified as carrying the virus while remaining asymptomatic. .... Reston ebolavirus—unlike its African counterparts—is non-pathogenic in humans. The high mortality among monkeys and its recent emergence in pigs makes them unlikely natural reservoirs."

Here is the Wikipedia article in Dec of 2010.[2]. We said

"Plants, arthropods, and birds have also been considered as possible reservoirs; however, bats are considered the most likely candidate.[43] Bats were known to reside in the cotton factory in which the index cases for the 1976 and 1979 outbreaks were employed, and they have also been implicated in Marburg infections in 1975 and 1980.[41] Of 24 plant species and 19 vertebrate species experimentally inoculated with Ebolavirus, only bats became infected.[44] The absence of clinical signs in these bats is characteristic of a reservoir species. In a 2002–2003 survey of 1,030 animals which included 679 bats from Gabon and the Republic of the Congo, 13 fruit bats were found to contain EbolavirusRNA.[45] As of 2005, three fruit bat species (Hypsignathus monstrosus, Epomops franqueti, and Myonycteris torquata) have been identified as carrying the virus while remaining asymptomatic. They are believed to be a natural host species, or reservoir, of the virus.[46] The existence of integrated genes of filoviruses in some genomes of small rodents, insectivorous bats, shrews, tenrecs, and marsupials indicates a history of infection with filoviruses in these groups as well.[5] Reston ebolavirus—unlike its African counterparts—is non-pathogenic in humans. The high mortality among monkeys and its recent emergence in swine, makes them unlikely natural reservoirs.[47]"

Investigating further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Some of the content was added to Wikipedia in 2006 in this edit [3]. This was not however the version they copied. Thus it appears they are copying from use. The added edit was supported by the refs in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Wow, and a major publisher as well. Is this the only section copied? Can we contact the editor who added it to the WP-page, to make sure they aren't author of the encyclopedia? I think those would be necessary steps before moving ahead, because this is potentially much bigger than the previous cases of plagiarism. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
And they are the author of the WP passage. I'd think the same author was quite likely. User:Rhys, apparently an Australian virology type, not edited for some years. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
The passage that was lifted was written by two Wikipedians, User:ChyranandChloe and User:Rhys. I have emailed User:Rhys and the last name that bounces back from his email is not G. Lloyd. I have verified his name in other words. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Have tracked down his current email and spoken with the Oxford University Press. Will hopefully have things verified in a day or so.
The Wikipedian is not mentioned anywhere in the text. Neither is Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
That's pretty blatant plagiarism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes it is. Am meeting with the legal team at the WMF next week to discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The 2011 edition was not the first! OCLC 37546636 and OCLC 645892527 were dated 1998, way before the WP article. I suspect p.387-389 is where the text in question would be. Graham Lloyd was the author of that chapter. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Finding more passages which have been copied and pasted:

We stated "March 12, 2009, an unidentified 45-year-old female scientist from Germany accidentally pricked her finger with a needle used to inject Ebola into lab mice. She was given an experimental vaccine never before used on humans. Since the peak period for an outbreak during the 21-day Ebola incubation period has passed as of April 2, 2009, she has been declared healthy and safe. It remains unclear whether or not she was ever actually infected with the virus"
They stated "in 12 March, 2009, when an unidentified 45-year-old female scientist from Germany accidentally pricked her finger with a needle used to inject Ebola into lab mice. She was given an experimental vaccine never before used on humans. It remains unclear whether or not she was ever infected with the virus or if the experimental vaccine proved beneficial
This text was added by this IP address on Mar 28, 2009 [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Doc James asked me to take a look at this. Good work. :/ I have no doubt that what you're seeing here is a backwards copy. And it happens. I've seen backwards copying in extremely reliable (even governmental) sources, although I don't know if I've ever found it in an Oxford UP publication before. It all comes down to the ethics of the individual contributor. I did a few changes to the source text above, as there were some minor variations. The Wikimedia Foundation, as it indicates at WP:C, does not claim copyright over any of this and has no legal standing over the use of Wikipedia text. It simply has permission to use the content. The copyright owners are the contributors who put the content here, who have required the right of attribution and free license of derivatives. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks talks about this. I will be very happy to hear what Oxford UP says about this, since I can't imagine they're any happier about it than we are. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
What would the WMF legal team have to do with it? So far I don't see 300 words - it ought to count under Fair Use. Professionally I understand of course plagiarism is often a kiss of death, but that's a different matter. Wnt (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
How would it be fair use, without attribution? Also, does English copyright law accept that doctrine? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything in Fair Use (the article) about attribution. If you put a figure from a paper on the overhead projector, do you have to include the citation to make it legal? (I admit, I do believe copyright lawsuits are decided at random, so I won't say that you're safe, but there's no particular reason for that) Wnt (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
For the benefit of other readers: I was unfamiliar with the phrase "backwards copy". After some digging around, I eventually found "Template:Backwardscopy". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Wnt, "fair use" is "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research." The copied text is not being used for any of those. It is being used to expand their ebola coverage to help sell copies of the book. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
If writing a textbook isn't scholarship, what is? It is true that the commercial purpose weighs against Fair Use, but these snippets of text are quite small. Not everything disreputable is actually illegal, nor should it be. Wnt (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair dealing applies in the UK. Although there is an allowance for "instruction", it cannot be for commercial use (e.g. text books), also an attribution is required.[5] Little pob (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Wnt, I am not sure which definition of "scholarship" you are using. Here are some. I would consider a postgraduate student writing a PhD thesis to be "scholarship". Even then, there should be attribution to the original author. Otherwise, it appears as an attempt to pass off the work as the scholar's own.
The "Fair use" article also includes the statement "Courts, when deciding fair use cases, in addition to looking at context, amount and value of the use, also look to the standards and practices of the professional communities where the case comes from." The community of book publishers does not permit verbatim copying of text without attribution.
Actually if the book had quoted the text and referenced/attributed it, then there would not have been any problem. The issue with this text is really about plagiarism, not fair use. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
We also require what is produced to be under an open license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the requirement for a free license only applies to actual derivatives, not to entire works. It's not like plagiarizing a single sentence out of Wikipedia means that your entire book gets "infected" with a free license. Only the (in this case) one paragraph needs to be given an open license. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The whole chapter is somewhat similar it appears. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
It's rather a different problem. Attribution is a necessary part both of avoiding plagiarism and of complying with the Without it, a fair use claim cannot be based on commentary or review justifications. Parody justifications fails if the reader cannot identify the object of parody. Certainly OUP won't condone even plagiarism. We should not either. But we do still need to verify which is the original and which the copy. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
If one looks back in the history we are clearly the source. Author of Wikipedia has verified that he is not the author of this textbook or give permission.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

ZMapp - more eyes could help[edit]

What's going on here it seems that this article is being prepared for a DYK. To that end there seems to be a desire for it to say something "meaty" about Ebola treatment, and this requires some judgement calls on the use of sources. Experienced med editors could no doubt help ensure any such judgements are soundly made. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I read through the article. Overall, it looks okay. It has a non-promotional tone to it and seems to be suitably referenced, although I have not checked the references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it's in Template:Did_you_know/Queue. If you/we aren't happy, get it pulled at DYK talk now, or it will run shortly. They are usually responsive there, but need to be told. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it's okay right now, but from recent editing activity worry that could change fast. Could probably just benefit from being watched - particularly if it's about to enjoy a big traffic spike as a result of a DYK. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
John, it is ready. But there are lots of people with strong feelings who don't understand drug development/medicine and we can expect some turmoil when the DYK goes live. i went to the brink of 3RR with such a person yesterday. Am grateful to Alexbrn for posting here to get more eyes on it! thx for that! Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
It's up. The hook text makes imperfect sense: "[DYK] that the experimental Ebola drug candidate ZMapp is manufactured in the tobacco plant Nicotiana benthamiana in a bioproduction process known as 'pharming'". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Someone have PMID 23949286 available? Needed to clean up a bunch of old primary sources there. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
LeadSongDog I've found it in a collection. How do I get it to you? Basie (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── i've got it to - will respond on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog, I'll leave it in your paws :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Simplifying language[edit]

Tried to simplify some language here] at abortion. Wondering what peoples thoughts are? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I like it (although I see it got reverted), with one exception: I think 'termination' is useful in context because it's become part of the vernacular surrounding abortion. The phrase 'terminate the pregnancy' is in such common usage that the word seems fitting in the lead, and shouldn't present much of a barrier to the non-clinical reader. Basie (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


What to say? Something of a record here. And the English needs sorting. Permalink to current state. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Whew, what a mess. One of the worst examples of citation overkill I've ever seen. Got it started but there's a lot more to do. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Gah! (It's ironic that someone has now put a "citation needed" tag for the pancreas.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Merging Traditional medicine and Folk medicine[edit]

There is a (so far limited and dated) discussion about merging Traditional medicine and Folk medicine at Talk:Folk medicine#Merge. I would like additional input from this Wikiproject, please. – Maky « talk » 03:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

New entry on ACTH for retinopathy of prematurity?[edit]

I'd like to write a new entry on ACTH as a treatment for retrolental fibroplasia, later known as retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). Experimentation and later trials on ACTH for ROP in the 1950s (described in the middle of this source) had a major impact on the development of neonatal evidence-based medicine. The associated RCT is sometimes described as the first RCT in neonatology. I think there is plenty of material to support its own entry. If this sounds like an okay idea, what would I title the article? ACTH for retrolental fibroplasia? ACTH for retinopathy of prematurity? ACTH retinopathy trial? Babies' Hospital ACTH trial? It seems that trials of this era didn't have the catchy names of some of today's trials and I haven't run across a particular name for the trial. Thanks! EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

COI concerns at Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine[edit]

WP:COI concerns at Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine and another associated article raised by nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine (2nd nomination).

Perhaps WP:WikiProject Medicine members would be best suited to look into this.

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Acute flaccid myelitis[edit]

I've been trying to scrape together the available news about acute flaccid myelitis. I say "news" because in this breaking story there's certainly nothing like the sources people here usually favor, but given that I've expressed the tentative nature of the data, I think it is very worthwhile to collect what's been reported by what really is a pretty impressive group of doctors, released via the CDC and professional societies. Since I started the article today I still have a few days to mull over how to DYK it; since it's an issue of public interest I think that is appropriate to do. I'd welcome hook suggestions. Wnt (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I've now started the DYK. Wnt (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Changing women to "people with ovaries"[edit]

What do people think of this [6]? The person has been edit warring this back into place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little mixed on this. Where "women" can be swapped with "people" without injury to the text ("people with PCOS") I see no harm. However, "people with ovaries" seems rather awkward, yet the proposed changes still haven't dealt with other text like "daughters" and "female" in the genetics section, which are then inconsistent. Rather than going back and forth I think it may be preferable to take the bull by the horn and say, early on, that "women" refers to biological sex rather than gender. Except... it's possible that this isn't always true; for example, it's possible that in an older general health survey the distinction between gender and sex wouldn't be considered. Ratios like "5-10% of women" may not even technically be valid if the number of people diagnosed with PCOS is divided by the number of "women" listed by a national census, though of course with a range that approximate the error is insignificant. Using a term taken from a source is never really wrong, but it might be improved on with an accurate explanation. Ultimately my feeling is that changing the summary of that many sources all at once based on a global find-and-replace is hazardous, and the flow of the article is adversely affected. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The IP has actually been changing the titles of the references. While the first reference is Terms and thresholds for the ultrasound evaluation of the ovaries in women with hyperandrogenic anovulation, it has been changed to Terms and thresholds for the ultrasound evaluation of the ovaries in people with hyperandrogenic anovulation by the IP. I think we should stick to what the sources say. Ochiwar (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm against changing "women" to "people with ovaries", and have recently commented similarly (being against wording like that) at the Tanner scale article: With Grayfell commenting along the same lines, I relayed the following there: Anatomy does need to be gendered, or, more precisely, be clear on what is a male or a female body and the pubertal process involved in that when it comes to talking about puberty. Male and female bodies biologically exist. This page is about biology, not about gender identity. The sex and gender distinction exists for a reason, though not everyone subscribes to it. And like I recently stated here at the Same-sex marriage talk page, "biology is more complicated than just, for example, 'You have a Y chromosome, so you're a male.' But there's also the fact that, like I stated near the end of this section at the Transsexualism talk page, 'Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter.' The same applies to transgender people (at least when you exclude genderqueer people from the category of transgender); they usually identify as male or female and/or as a man or a woman. 'I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article).'" For how we are generally supposed to treat anatomy and medical topics on Wikipedia when it comes sex/gender, see Talk:Phimosis/Archive 2#Definition.
As seen in that Phimosis discussion, I brought up the recent occasional push of people of giving WP:Undue weight to intersex and transgender matters at anatomy and other medical topics. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 37#Phimosis article again and gender identity, including gender identity at other articles; the discussion did not flourish. Flyer22 (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
We should use the language of the sources. We could switch to male and female rather than men and women if that would make a difference. People with ovaries is silly.
Explaining this matters on every page in which we mention these terms is very much undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Are there MEDRS references covering it in non-women? If not, could be OR to do this. Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
It should be easy to find both "women" and "females" in sources.
This comes up regularly. Flyer's probably right in assuming that this is a question of intersex and transgender issues. There's also the question of whether "females" or "women" would be better writing style or easier for English-language learners to understand. This is something that MEDMOS should address directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I see these issues come up only occasionally, but definitely more frequently as time goes on. And all of these aforementioned cases, including the ones noted in the previous WP:Med discussion, concern presenting inclusive wording for intersex, transgender and genderqueer people. This is despite the fact that, like I've stated above, the vast majority of intersex and transgender people (excluding the genderqueer categories) identify as male/man or as female/woman. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── fwiw, i looked at the edits and it is clearly about female to male transgender. the other edit brought sources (not very good ones) but one of them was an interview with a doc at Mt Sinai in NYC who said he is gathering data for a study he intends to publish showing that fTm transgender have higher prevalence of the condition, probably due to testosterone treatments. which is plausible/interesting but that is like a pre-primary source. i searched pubmed and there are no secondary sources on the increased risk nor any primaries yet. if there were i would be 100% in favor of figuring out better language. as it stands, b/c we don't have good sources for the transgender issues for this condition, it is trickier - it is all about what editors prefer. i would be in favor of language that is more inclusive. "people with ovaries" is sure clunky but it does the job. "XX males" is more compact but I think it is jargon. and btw, flyer22, for somebody who is going through or has gone through sex reassignment treatment - the gender identity would be clear, but to me, the sex would not be clear at all... Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I'm not sure what you mean by "for somebody who is going through or has gone through sex reassignment treatment - the gender identity would be clear, but to me, the sex would not be clear at all." The chromosomal makeup will not change, and the person is either going to pass as that gender, not pass, or not pass well. As for wording, "people with ovaries" is jargon, in my opinion. My issue regarding these topics is what I have stated above -- we should be sicking to what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. In the aforementioned WP:Med discussion above, for example, I pointed to Talk:Human penis/Archive 1#"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth"; that was a WP:Due weight issue. I worked out a compromise wording for the lead in the case of that article, as seen in that discussion. But as for the rest of the Human penis article, we should not be stating "people with penises" throughout the article and avoiding the word "man" and/or "male." If we are talking about anatomical sex, then it stands that a trans woman who has not undergone reconstructive surgery to change her genitalia has a penis; this does not mean that she is a man. What it does mean is that her genitalia is least going by the vast majority of definitions for male and female sex organs. Stating that the penis is a male sex organ is not negating her gender identity. And in the case of trans men, they usually know (once they become well-informed on the topic of transgender issues) that not having a penis does not mean that they are any less of a man. Transgender people often distinguish anatomical sex from gender identity, and often state that their bodies do not align with their gender identity. For many trans women, the penis, as a male sex organ, is a body part that is somewhat foreign to them and is not something they want to own. And, generally, anatomy and other medical topics should distinguish anatomical sex from gender identity in cases such as the ones noted above; by that, I mean, for example, Wikipedia editors should not edit with a WP:Undue weight approach regarding intersex, transgender and genderqueer people simply because they assume that "because we are calling this a male sex organ, it means that we are calling that individual male or are stating that all men have a penis." or that "this condition being exclusive to anatomical females means we are stating that this person is therefore a female/girl/woman, plain and simple." Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
On a side note: WhatamIdoing has started a discussion about this topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#People, women, and females. A WP:Permalink to that discussion here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Electronic cigs[edit]

Wondering if more people could comment at Talk:Electronic_cigarette. A couple of accounts are trying to edit war changes into the article without consensus or discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

On the other hand, as opposed to this, this right here, could be construed as canvassing. --Kim D. Petersen 17:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
actually kim if you take the time to read WP:CANVASS you will see that posting to relevant Projects is "appropriate notification" Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Not, if the issue at hand is that you just lost an edit-war by running out of reverts, and without any real attempt at solving it at the talk-page of the article. --Kim D. Petersen 18:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
kim you are still not reading. i have not been involved in that edit war. if this is how you are conducting Talk at the e-cig article it is bad news indeed. You should calm down a bit. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Actually i was referring to Doc James there, and not you. When someone is in an edit war, then calling on "friendlies" is canvassing. --Kim D. Petersen 22:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Doc James on this one. Much need for external input. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I think that a much wider viewpoint is needed on the e-cigarette article on its categorization, wider than this catagory. IMHO it appears that a medical agenda is in charge of what is a consumer device and is dictating exactly what point of view should be thrust into the face of visitors. This is sad because for the most part little is known from a medical point of view. The article imho and the medical category need to be separated. The health effects section would still be governed by WP:MEDRS regardless of what category its in. But the involvement in the structure of the article, which is now a medical style for a consumer device that does not require a prescription, and is not sold as a medical device is just just wrong. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
i am staying the hell away from that. it is as bad as most alt-med topics. joyless wikipedia hell where editors have completely lost track of the mission and key principles, like that we actually try to work toward consensus. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Except of course that this isn't an alt-med topic, and that some classify it as such, might explain rather a lot. No one is claiming that this has alt-medical effects, and nothing in the article is sourced to alt-med sources. In fact all medical/chemical/etc. material except some negative material (from the CDC "Notes from the Field") is sourced from respected secondary review articles by WP:MEDRS. --Kim D. Petersen 22:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
for fuck's sake, kim i said "it is as bad as alt-med" - editing alt-med articles is unproductive and ugly because people who work on them don't listen or try to reach consensus and often don't understand or apply policies and guidelines well. and you are a case in point kim. you are now 0 for 3 on this board with regard to dealing with what i've actually said and your understanding of policies and guidelines, yet you are adamant as hell. which is par for the course for what i am talking about. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have known that when you say "as bad as alt-med" that you aren't including this topic - you are just going for hyperbole then. Ok. I take your word for it. But i'm a newbie who has never edited controversial subjects, and never read our policies and guidelines, so i obviously don't understand them. (last part was sarcasm btw). --Kim D. Petersen 22:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with AlbinoFerret. The article on the devices should be separated from the medicalized section on health effects, which is currently largely based on hypothetical or imaginary risks put forward by a single "review". Mihaister (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
@ Jytdog I will agree that the article has become "joyless wikipedia hell where editors have completely lost track of the mission and key principles, like that we actually try to work toward consensus.". Consensus isnt being used as a principle, but like a weapon.
By the specific way the article is presented you would think the title isnt Electronic Cigarette, but Health effects of Electronic Cigarettes. I have had to remove health effects claims that are repeated from the health effects section from almost every other section including Components. The NPOV was long gone before I started editing last night. The article read like a jumbled up number of claims with no direction and no focus other than to be negative.
Another editor Levelledout on the talk page had commented that the way the topics on the page were setup added to the NPOV problem. I changed the order to match the lede of the article and avoid the problem because it made sense to me. Only to have that changed in an edit war. Now we have editors removing NPOV tags and banners when there is a RFC on them only days old with no consensus either way. The prominence of the Health effects section is a NPOV problem. Not its existence, not the reliable sources. To Doc James credit he left a lot of the changes to the page alone and only changed the order of the sections back.
I dislike editors posting to other pages when it looks like they are the lone party to disagree and bring in people who dont really edit the page, but revert. So ya, its hell. I dont like when editors use warnings on other users talk page to stop them from acting, and then do exactly what they warned others about. I dont like others using a guideline clearly designed for something completely different (medical devices on a consumer product) to force changes that lead to NPOV problems. Ok I think I have said enough. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
you can like what you like or not, but posting to a relevant message board is 100% OK in Wikipedia. Getting mad about people doing what is OK, is unproductive - it is being part of the problem. You can choose to be part of the problem or not. On the health thing -- I think that the #1 reason anybody thinks about using an e-cigarette is health. The #1 controversy over them is health. I don't see how you can get around having the most WP:WEIGHT (if you have never read that, please do - it is an essential part of the policy, WP:NPOV) in the article be devoted to health. That's my perspective, anyway. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I disagree that the number one focus of most people with E-cigarettes is a health issue. There is a large and growing community of users that doesnt revolve around health related information. I said I didnt like things, that doesnt indicate anger. But it does point out what I would probably not do. That it seems to be the only way forward, I may have to use all those tools even though I would rather not. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
try to stay cool.. and Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures are (to me) good and wise. Try to work in good in faith (really try!) on the Talk page, and if you cannot come to consensus, move smoothly into the pathways offered there. DocJames did that by opening the RfC. There are other ways to (but generally one way at a time, per issue!) but the goal is never to win - it is to reach consensus. those are different things (Wikipedia is weird that way) Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I have been trying, but the new RFC on the page is a problem, Its like asking the mice if they want to keep the cheese. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I also disagree that the section needs to be at the top. It only adds to the problem, and I have long ago read those links. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Addiction is health. These things contain nicotine generally thus it is a health thing. Editors which try to say that it is not health is part of the issue we are dealing with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I never said some of the sections were not a health topic. What I said is the page is about a consumer device, not a medical one. That it contains nicotine does not prove it is a medical topic. Name one other consumer product article that contains nicotine that is categorized as in the medical catagory. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Hell, the asbestos and even the cigarette article's sections do not follow that kind of order that Doc tries to force on the e-cigs article's layout. When it reaches a point where common sense ends and personal POV + agenda takes over it's time to intervene, not to embrace.TMCk (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the simplest way to look at this issue is to follow the WP:NPOV advice of looking at how it is being treated in reliable sources. Try the following Google searches:

  • NYTimes e-cigarette
  • WSJ e-cigarette
  • Newseek e-cigarette
  • Time Magazine e-cigarette
  • CBS News e-cigarette

There are few or no media stories leading off with a discussion of what sort of fashion statement e-cigarettes are making, how they are constructed, what the latest e-juice cocktail is, where they are made, etc. 90% of what you will see in the media is stories debating the health effects. And leaving aside Pubmed, searching Google scholar for "e-cigarette" will bring up no article on the first page of hits that are not health related.

The argument that this is not primarily a health-related article flies in the face of what strongly dominates the result of every search you can perform on the internet. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you double post here I should post my reply to you here as well:
:Strawman. By that measure almost every article [if not all wiki content] is health-related; And health-related is the point: It's related only so it warrants a health section just as in "asbestos" and "cigarettes" but it's not a straight and plain med-article!TMCk (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I have never denied that it has health effects sources and notability. But it is still a consumer device. Forcing a WP:MEDMOS style to the page as you did here is just wrong. Its using a guideline as a weapon. I also know that for over 4 years it was not categorized as medical and was placed there by an editor that only edited medical articles without any discussion. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Have started a RfC here [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

The pool of editors is to small for a consumer product. Only informing medical editors is like asking the mice if they want to keep some cheese. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Only the "rats" will show up I guess :)) TMCk (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Well on the topic of who "shows up", this may not be the place to raise it, but there is something odd about a couple of accounts that have just showed up at the RfC. Newish with only a few (token?) edits in other areas before majoring on the e-cig article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes this is a billion dollar product. It is in somes best interest to not have a neutral article. Thus agree all the new accounts are could be a concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
If I'm reading that right, Doc seems to be insinuating all new wiki editors are industry shills. How many Wiki policies does that go against? wp:agf, wp:bite, not to mention a bunch of etiquette guidelines. I must say this is very disappointing. I expected some professionalism from an established editor with his standing in the community. Mihaister (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
It's well established and common sense, Mihaister, that WP:SPAs (as yours is) suggest something problematic might be happening, maybe a WP:COI. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
You must have a different understanding of "common sense" than I do. The way I see it is most new editors start editing with a small number of articles, just like you did too [8].Mihaister (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

To be checked[edit]

Jonathan Mcrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has edited numerous medical articles to introduce sources (sometimes not needed or helpful) all from the same author (Robert Mendoza), but on diverse medical conditions. I don't have time to check them all; the first I checked wasn't helpful or needed. COI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Renaming the Male reproductive system article[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Male reproductive system#Requested move. A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

British Society for Ecological Medicine[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Society for Ecological Medicine. — Cirt (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine in the New York Times[edit]

Story is here. Good work, everyone who edited ebola virus disease. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James, Jfdwolff, and AminMDMA for contributing to this article.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys! JFW | T@lk 20:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Bravo! Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Global health statistics (revisited)[edit]

I think there's consensus here that we ultimately aim to provide a broad and balanced global picture. Often that's easier said than done... For esophageal cancer at least, I found the distribution statistics listed in the 2014 World Cancer Report (kindly suggested for sourcing by James) somewhat sketchy: in particular, the summaries of regional data are not stratified by the main histological types - a key variable.

I believe a reasonable editorial case can be made for considering a publication such as PMID 25320104 as a reliable secondary source (and, potentially an "ideal" MEDRS), in that it systematically collates data made available by a major international body (IARC - [9]/[10]). While I appreciate WAID's cautious response ([11]) and I too fully accept the need for caution when using such registries (as acknowledged by the authors of the paper - sorry, full text is paywalled), I feel the authors' recognition that the information documented in the paper is largely in keeping with other sources provides another argument in favor of its use, per the guiding principles of MEDRS. Imo, this sort of source could help bring together a section which is somewhat typically fragmented.

I'm raising the matter here again, as I feel it goes beyond any one particular disease. (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Hello. I think there must a misunderstanding because at first look, the source you are presenting is not controversial and sources of this type should be presented on Wikipedia in top-level articles in the epidemiology section. MEDRS does not cover this kind of information, and standard Wikipedia rules do. MEDRS covers information of the sort which individuals can use to gain insight into the nature of medical treatments. The source you shared is about population health. It says "These first global estimates of oesophageal cancer incidence by histology..." and that seems valuable and not likely to cause concern. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing that out Bluerasberry. Doh, (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

National Operation Anti-Vivisection[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Operation Anti-Vivisection. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


A proposal was made in 2013 to modify {{Infobox disease}} to link to a repository called MalaCards (GeneCards but for maladies). This is a site ( that pulls together data from sources such as Wikipedia.

Now it suddenly appears as an identifier in the infobox after Pigsonthewing modified the infobox.[12] I have no very strong views on this, other than that I believe it was discussed in the wrong forum and that MalaCards is not particularly authoritative. Heck, it doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article. Views, anyone? JFW | T@lk 20:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"Sources such as Wikipedia" is misleading, and something discussed over a period of a year is not "sudden". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing It attracted a small number of responses, in the wrong forum, and it stayed on that proposals page for months until it unexpectedly was incorporated in the Infobox. In that sense, it was "sudden" to me.
Incidentally, the methodology behind the database was published in 2013 (doi:10.1093/database/bat018) which is probably why it doesn't yet have widespread name recognition. JFW | T@lk 20:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought I'd take a look at a mitochondrial disease [13]: MalaCards: Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy... is related to leber hereditary optic neuropathy with dystonia... (and unhelpfully, the link provided to the latter is blank). Further down the page, under the heading "Related Diseases" [14], we seem to be informed that LHON is "related to" a range of conditions based on "text searches within MalaCards or GeneCards/GeneDecks gene sharing" [?]. Hmm...
Per the compilers of this, as yet, young database [15], "A well-known disadvantage is the extraction of irrelevant data [my emphasis]. One example is the extraction of genes that are annotated to be ‘unaffected’ by a specific disease to be associated with this same disease. Another example is extraction of genes related to ‘non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma’ for ‘Hodgkin’s lymphoma’ because the close lexical resemblance between the names of these diseases." Wouldn't linking to such content from infoboxes be likely to represent a potential source of confusion to the general usership of the encyclopedia? (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The MalaCards project seems to be of interesting potential, and of course a product of hard work; congratulations to people who work for it. That said, I am not going to comment on the quality of its entries, and neither on its usefulness for the Wikipedia reader. These wouldn't change a simple fact: it was added to the disease infobox without discussion at the proper forum (i.e. here) and without consensus. I oppose adding anything on this or any such important template, below links of universal acceptance and utility like ICD-10, without the above conditions. I propose the immediate removal of the link from the template. NikosGouliaros (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This is not technically "the proper forum" for discussing changes to some other page; WPMED does not actually own Template:Infobox disease. The editor did propose a change to that template in the actual proper forum, which is on the talk page for the template. (However, it proved ineffective, because almost no one watches it.) We tend to discuss things here only because it's more convenient for us, and it increases the likelihood that someone will see it, not because it's "proper". I assume that when you say, "without consensus", you mean something like "without getting written permission in advance", which is not required by policy. Our policy is that the end result matters more than the process used to reach it.
It would be helpful to hear your opinion on whether it would be desirable to have this optional link in that template. Whether you (and other people) think that having this option for editors is a good (or bad) idea for readers is important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarifications, they were helpful for a less experienced editor. I was mistaken to consider this talk-page "the proper forum" - though I believe it is more appropriate than the Molecular Biology Project talk page.
By "without consensus" I was referring to what I believe was not "enough agreement" for the addition in question. Am I misinterpreting the result of the discussion? I believe not, though your more experienced view is welcome.
My opinion is that MalaCards wouldn't be a clearly useful addition to the template. I dislike the fact that part of its content is computer-generated, and one can sometimes see the trivial mixed with the important. Its usefulness and accuracy isn't established enough to stand by ICD-10 or MeSH. NikosGouliaros (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a really valuable and thoughtful explanation, NikosGouliaros.
Do you think that these webpages might be a good ==External link== for some pages (vs an "almost never anywhere" position)? Although there's no set rule, what's often happened in the past with that template is that we move websites in there when it seems like a lot of articles have a link under ==External links== anyway. So far, I only find two links in mainspace, both as <ref>s, which doesn't argue in favor of many editors already finding the links especially useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
At least as far as maladies in my area (cardiology) are concerned, MalaCards doesn't seem to provide more information than a featured article in Wikipedia is expected to include, aside of genetic facts (list of related genes, their pathways and expression). Such information is already included in the links of Infobox Disease, therefore I don't think an external link to MalaCards would offer much, at least to the articles I usually visit and consider editing. NikosGouliaros (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not in favour of adding any further additional sources or identifiers to infoboxes unless they are (a) international standards or (b) exceptional in quality. There is nothing preventing users from conducting searches on google; if this data is to be recorded then Wikidata is the place to do it in my opinion.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Tom that Wikidata may be the appropriate place for this. (As I tried to explain above, infobox links to acknowledged irrelevancies would be a potential source of confusion for our readers.) (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with both. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy's and Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy's impact on each other and WP:MEDMOS[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2014‎ Flyer22 (UTC)

People there seem rowdy. I would not want them tagging article talk pages with a project banner, but otherwise, I see nothing wrong with them trying to organize. I would not want to step into their mix until they calmed a bit. I commented earlier and one person said that they wanted distance from WikiProject Medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times: Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information[edit]

Might be a useful source for use in relevant articles. — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Already noted above at #WikiProject Medicine in the New York Times, Cirt. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Sweet! I posted it to a few talk pages that may wish to incorporate this article as a source. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Five Star Urgent Care[edit]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Star Urgent Care. — Cirt (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Poliovirus and SV40[edit]

Today's google doodle has sparked a bit of interest in these topics. The latter could use a careful going over with MEDRS and MEDDATE in mind. It plays into the whole antivax mythology, so some extra care may be warranted. A Russian-reading editor might be able to use PMID 21384596 to put that into context. Is someone able to tackle this? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Anatomical terminology[edit]

Medical editors are invited to see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Simplifying anatomical terminology essay (version of 19:46, 28 October 2014).
Wavelength (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move regarding naming Ebola virus disease article to Ebola[edit]

There's an active Requested Move discussion regarding renaming the Ebola virus disease article to Ebola, discussion is here, participation welcomed. Zad68 22:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Source request[edit]

Is anyone able to make this available to me?

  • Yoder, P. S., X. Wang and E. Johansen, "Estimates of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in 27 African Countries and Yemen," Studies in Family Planning, 44(2), June 2013. PubMed

Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

i just downloaded it and can email it to you. i just sent you an email so you can reply (I wish the WP email system allowed attachments!) Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, thank you, I got the emails, but couldn't open the link in the second. Would you be able to email me a copy? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
sure but you need to email me back, so i can attach it in gmail. can't attach things in wikipedia mail... Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Combined Movements[edit]

Hello medical experts! Here's another old AfC submission. Is this a notable topic, or should it be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Anne Delong. I reviewed the article and sources. It had four citations, two of which were self published sources, and the others were primary research and not usable on Wikipedia. I tagged this for deletion. Bring these kinds of articles here anytime. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Our presentation of prognosis of ebola in the lead[edit]

Wondering if people can comment here [16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)


Can someone add explanations to Complication (medicine), Sequela, and Late effect to explain how they compare and contrast? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)