Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172

MMR vaccine controversy

Rename article? See Talk:MMR vaccine controversy#Suppression of dissenting voices.3F. SandyGeorgia (Talk)

medical article infoboxes hard to understand?

Hi docs:

I wondered what is the rationale for the infoboxes that I see on medical articles? Like this one:

WikiProject Medicine

I guess they are lists of External Links. I'm fine with that actually (never been a stickler for the approach of not referring to external content.) But my concern about the boxes is they are so inscrutable to a regular reader. Why not have some format that is more like normal external links, where we say what article and content people are heading to? I mean, maybe docs know what the letters and numbers are, but it is pretty cryptic even to a technically trained, smart, non doctor.

TCO (Reviews needed) 22:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 24#Helpfulness of data in infobox. Colin°^Talk 22:37, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

If you click on the ICD it will tell you that it is, the internal classification of diseases by the World Health Organization. Just one click away... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

You all are very helpful here (honest, have gotten great help, don't get mad at me), but I still worry that the vast amount of people are getting crufty letters and numbers in a very "valuable piece of real estate". I mean, look at this infobox, is there any reason to have the MeshID (whatever that is) unique identifier so prominent? It feels like putting an ISBN or a LOC catalog number up in a very important area.

WikiProject Medicine

For what it's worth, I consider these links and their esoteric codes to be unhelpful, even detrimental, to Wikipedia's medical articles. It is especially ironic when COI editors attempt to justify adding external links that are actually more useful than these infoboxes' links. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes as mentioned there has been discussion of what better could go in its stead. With respect to technical data elements such as mercury (element) and chemicals such as Acetic acid have a great deal more. Would be happy to hear about proposals for improvements.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I should keep my head low in Project Medicine. Have a little eh...wheelbarrow problem according to some.  ;-)

But seriously, thanks for letting me interact and even thinking about it. Really liked how you all tried to help me get the HF burn image. I finally tracked one down from a hand surgeon (fourth donation attempt!)

HF burns, not evident until a day after

Getting serious, now though. Take a look at the different infoboxes. I think in some cases, infoboxes are actually bad (when they just repeat the lead, say for something in Project Mythology) and then they also drive a too small image in one of the few spots where a big image really great. I do like city infoboxes having some of the "World Almanac" info convenient. Am kinda meh on the species infoboxes with the long synonym lists, but they are OK. I think the element or chemical infoboxes are pretty useful. My gut feel is no infobox, would actually serve you better. Then put all the number stuff down in some penatlybox table at the end, sort of like a Project Aviation list of plane specs. but I am just babbling...TCO (Reviews needed) 00:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh...and I was seeing some really good doc to talk about something...and he used the Wiki when a question came up! He was kind of young and academic and used a program that had more of a root cause analysis path (not like a normal neighborhood doc, no offense). But he sure as heck did NOT use the ICD stuff. He scanned the text. I had to push him to look at the ref (I'm such a good Wikipedian...but it was some paper by a Harvard doc...and on the web too...)

TCO (Reviews needed) 00:39, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

ICD and MESH codes are mostly a way of aggregating and categorizing data. I don't think they're particularly useful in clinical practice, nor would they be useful to the interested lay reader. It's a bit like including an ISBN or Dewey decimal number in a book infobox. I agree the ICD/MESH info maybe should appear somewhere, but I'd agree with those who think it doesn't belong in an infobox. I agree that there's plenty of borderline useless info in other infoboxes (e.g. elements), but we don't need to follow that lead in our articles if we think it's a bad idea. MastCell ^Talk 01:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell here. I think the links in the infobox add important info and should be included somewhere in the article, but inclusion in the infobox skews the article towards their importance. I am a medical student – before I was, I found the boxes confusing. Now, I understand them, but don't find them useful.

Also, I think removing these links from the infobox template would free up room for information which a non-medical reader may find more useful (random examples: name of person who first described disease, date of first description, body system(s) affected etc.). The infobox at present seems to cater more to healthcare professionals as a technical tool, rather than to inform the layman. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 01:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments 1) Many diseases do not have discovers and have been described since antiquity. 2) Many conditions involved many body systems. 3) The main purpose for the ICDs IMO is the justify how we name the conditions in question. There are BTW exceeding useful when doing medical paperwork. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I realise those issues with the examples I suggested. To be honest, I wasn't suggesting them as an alternative, I was just trying to illustrate my point. The ICDs may well be useful to a professional as reference, but I don't think ICDs are useful to a non-medical reader, and it is non-medical readers we're writing for. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 13:53, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The content is "still in the article" even if you shift it to the end. You don't have to have an infobox, either. If the choice is no infobox or one with those Dewey decimal numbers, I would go no infobox and just have a big picture. Make the MESH, ICD stuff a table way at the end. I mean "refs" are helpful for paperwork also. But they are at the end. It's not a question of getting rid of the links, but do they justify their prominence, given low usage and inscrutability.TCO (Reviews needed) 15:59, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I am happy to consider putting other stuff in the infobox but consider them a good idea in general, better than nothing, and better than the infoboxes for many other subject areas with respect to technicality and usefulness.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the present userbox is a lot better than nothing at all. Perhaps it could be expanded so that it isn't so dominated by the links. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 18:49, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes a sandbox was created to trial additions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_24#Helpfulness_of_data_in_infobox Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The ICD codes are actual content; some readers are actually looking for them.

But nobody's looking for the eMedicine section/number, so we could put anything we wanted there. However, I haven't been able to think of anything that doesn't seem pointless (like the name of the disease). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I tend to think of such links as useful in the early stages of article development, less so later on, but not terribly problematic even then. For example, using them avoids wp:OR in choosing article titles among various options. There's some value in them in helping to find different names for the same disease, and in kickstarting interlanguage linking (because the ICD code listings are available in many languages). That's an area that might well someday be bot-assisted. Editors are far from unanimous on the question of hiding information: some want everything reflected on the rendered page, others would happily bury such details on a subpage or under a show/hide toggle. The former perspective seems to be the one that holds sway most often. I'd suggest that the ICD codes should be accompanied by the plain-English name that the code represents. Again, this could be bot assisted. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

How does hiding the ICD code number help educate the person who actually wants to know what the code is? It's like hiding the atomic number on an element. We know from past comments that real people (both professionals doing medical coding and patients trying to figure out their paperwork) actually use Wikipedia to look up these ICD numbers. If you replace 733.9 with Other and unspecified disorders of bone and cartilage, how does the person find the "733.9" that he actually wants to know? By guessing at the number based on the URL? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I did say "accompanied", not "replaced". LeadSongDog come howl! 17:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Prostate cancer. 174 references

A primary, empirical study
Primary studies	62
Secondary studies (reviews / meta-analysis)	40
Medical information resources	24
Epidemiology / statistics / overall studies	18
Newspapers / news sources	17
Textbooks	8
Uncertain and/or difficult to classify	5
SUM	174
Primary studies	35,6 %
Other studies etc.	64,4 %

Castration – resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) is being treated with the plant secondary metabolite taxol (class: alkaloid). I am about to rewrite the Pomegranate health section with a focus on ellagitannins and anthocyanins (class: phenols). Many authoritative reviews are available. It is my opinion that reviews are preferable (as a safeguard), but that they should not become a strait jacket (secondary studies are based on primary studies …). What do you think about the balance in the example above? Granateple (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely not, per MEDRS, NPOV, and OR. --Ronz (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Ronz, you need to remember that WP:OR is the policy that directly says "primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Wikipedia". WP:USINGPRIMARY sources is permitted on the English Wikipedia, even in medicine-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clearer: Absolutely not in the Pomegranate article. --Ronz (talk) 06:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said, many peer reviewed and authoritative reviews are available, published in reputed academic journals. They assess both completed and ongoing clinical trials (ongoing: M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Johns Hopkins Medical Center, University of California (LA) in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute). This pertain to Medicine. You are a man of few words, can you elaborate? Granateple (talk) 15:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

We'll have to see the sources, but looks to me like we're doing original research to make a case for heavily promoting a health claim into an article on a foodstuff that contains some bio-active substances that may have some positive health effects. --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

One thing to remember is that we are permitted to WP:USEPRIMARY sources, even in Pomegranate—but that doesn't mean that we can use primary sources that way. For example, I recommend dumping the Kaplan mouse study, because no mouse study can "directly support" a claim that pomegranates reduce LDL oxidation in humans (which is what the sentence in the article clearly implies). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you. One part of the Pomegranate article is outdated. I will rewrite it and use secondary sources (reviews), and only cite a primary study when it fit into the context. Granateple (talk) 17:45, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As I said, we'll have to see the sources. NPOV, OR, MEDRS all apply. If the information doesn't apply directly to pomegranates and there are no secondary sources guiding us around NPOV, OR, and MEDRS problems, then it doesn't belong. --Ronz (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

A centralized discussion was started on the Cranberry talkpage. A summary of the input from the community can be found there. Granateple (talk) 01:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

We're discussing the matter here and now at your request. Please continue if you want to be a part of the consensus-making. --Ronz (talk) 17:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The primary sources need addressing, but this does not give you a carte blanche to discuss unproven or doubtful non-standard treatments.

Secondary sources are usually not "studies" but reviews or textbook chapters that place the mass of primary research in context, describe trends, and identify gaps in the knowledge base. JFW | T@lk 20:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I depend on the community. I somewhat agree with you, but I prefer to use other words. The in vitro and in vivo results are promising, but the clinical findings (prostate cancer, rheumatoid arthritis etc.) are early and limited, and should be used with care.

As to the question regarding secondary sources vs. primary studies, it is my impression (being a Wikipedian for three months) that the majority do a very good job, respect the NPOV and do their best to build an Encyclopedia. That is why I think that something also must be left to the judgment of its members. Perhaps the contributors to the “Prostate cancer” article have found a certain balance? Granateple (talk) 00:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Prostate cancer articles needs a rewrite using review articles. I will get there eventually. Look at featured articles like dengue fever for the appropriate balance. It uses all secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a little complicated, because primary sources are always fine for some purposes (e.g., a particularly famous paper), and what the best balance is depends on both the subject (good luck finding a bunch of secondary sources for extremely rare diseases) and on the use (a textbook cited 20 times is more important to the article than three primary sources, even though you might say that 75% of the citations were to primary sources).

What we really want editors to do is to use the best type of source that is available. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I know WhatamIdoing likes to correct any statements that smack of WP:BANPRIMARYSOURCES but empirical evidence is that citations to primary research papers nearly always indicate an incorrect use of sources, an attempt to violate WP:WEIGHT, and evidence the editor is conducting their own review of the primary literature. For example this edit to ketogenic diet required reverting twice after this editor didn't get the point. Frequently we see such editors cite policy or guidelines in saying they "may use primary sources", even arguing no reviews exist (which in this case is clearly false). Can we, for balance, ensure that every time it is pointed out that one may use primary research papers as sources for medical articles, also point out that is is very likely that one should not. And the chances that one should not increase if one is in a dispute over content. In addition, discussion of PSTS without context is pointless. BTW, I can think of a "particularly famous paper" by a chap called Wakefield. Colin°^Talk 13:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Ouch! But there are some generic instances that we can identify. Eponymously named diseases such as Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, etc generally got those names for a seminal paper that should be cited in our articles, just as those papers are frequently cited in subsequent reviews and texts. We could hardly ignore Wakefield in the articles on autism or the vaccination controversy. The trick is not to fall into the error of treating these primary or outdated sources as more reliable than the subsequent higher-quality sources in the article. They remain of interest to readers (if only historically) and should be included with appropriate context from current reviews. This is of course not an argument in favour of nonsense such as medicinal mushrooms where the use of primary sources has run amok. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not mind if people use primary sources in the history or society and culture sections of an article. It is when they use them for medical information especially when secondary sources are available. This editor wishes to discuss palates for hernia treatment as seen here [1] and justifies it by saying MEDRS states no academic sources can be used with causion [2].Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

We absolutely do not cite seminal papers "just as those papers are frequently cited in subsequent reviews and texts" -- for reviews and other text cite the source research paper as a matter of course and in order to attribute credit. Citations can appear in WP articles for two reasons. The most common is when referring to a source used by the editor for the article. Another less common reason is to fully identify the work or study referred to in the text. The former typically appears as footnotes in a References section. The latter could appear in the article body (e.g., a list of papers published by someone, in their bio article), in a Bibliography section or as a footnote. It is not uncommon to see such footnotes interspersed with article-source citations in the References section but there could be a separate Notes section or the Bibliography could be hyper-linked from the body text if one wanted. If you haven't actually read the paper, then WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT requires you add a "cited by..." suffix if you put it in with the References. Such info-citations aren't covered by WP:V or WP:MEDRS: they aren't sources.

Editors may wish to list Parkinson's seminal work(s) to inform the reader. But lets not pretend they are sources [except rarely]. You didn't, one dull wet afternoon in an obscure corner of the university library, happen upon some old manuscript and say to yourself "You know, this Parkinson fellow might just have been the first person to describe that shaking palsy disease". Unlike in academia, we should not be ashamed to cite the true secondary source of our information, and we are under no obligation to credit the original discoverers of new information.

Using primary sources in the History section is as potentially troublesome as using them in any part of WP. The history of medicine might generally be less controversial than the efficacy of alternative medicine or the toxicity of western drugs but the problems remain. Colin°^Talk 20:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Template problems

Hi, some medical navigation templates, such as Template:Nervous tissue and Template:Virus topics, contain a whole bunch of gibberish, like "noco(m/d/e/h/v/s)/cong/tumr, sysi/epon, injr" and so on. Has something gone wrong with these? If it is for some reason intentional then it seems a rather bad idea. Who is supposed to understand it? 86.181.172.222 (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. They are quite incomprehensible without prior knowledge, purest wp:Easter eggery. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the original author (Arcadian) wanted to crosslink all relevant templates to each other. I'm sure this could be done in other ways. JFW | T@lk 16:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

See Template:Medicine navs, and the notes at the bottom. --Arcadian (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

linking to Clinicaltrials.gov as a reference

Is there a policy of linking to clinical trials as a reference? In general I make it a habit to remove links to prospective or ongoing clinical trials; though there's guidance regarding external links, what about those found in the body of the article? As an example, I just removed an entire table of "advanced disease-modifying drug (DMD) candidates". It would seem to violate WP:CRYSTAL. Is this is what is implied by the statement "Wikipedia is not a directory of clinical trials or researchers" in the diseases section of MEDMOS?

For context, right now "clinicaltrials.gov" is found nearly 600 times and even on the first page a lot seem to be direct links to ongoing trials. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that they violate WP:CRYSTAL and thus should in most situations be removed. There are secondary sources that put ongoing research into better perspective.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how saying "As of 2011 ClinicalTrials.gov listed over 600(/only one/no) active clinical trials on X disease" would violate CRYSTAL. It provides a crude but impartial measure of how much research is being conducted on a topic. It is a wp:ROUTINE factoid that doesn't need MEDRS secondary sourcing afaikt. The problems arise when the details of such trials start being put as facts in the voice of WP, which would need RS or even MEDRS (depending on what was being stated). LeadSongDog come howl! 17:34, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

My issue, particularly if a single clinical trial were linked to, would be the implication that this clinical trial will have impprtant results. What do you think of the diff I included in my first post? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the version prior to your edit I don't see any very controversial assertion made in the table, but I agree that the criteria for inclusion should have been made clear -- in fact I doubt they were ever systematically considered in this case. I might have looked for a statement including all results of this query which found 14 records on "alzheimer AND Studies With Results AND Interventional Studies AND disease modification AND Phase III, IV", then perhaps adding an end date limit, on the premise that any truly significant results will have been reviewed after two years, and thus be available in better quality sources.LeadSongDog come howl! 20:27, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that, at best, it might be a barely acceptable primary source, but I generally discourage them.

In particular, for something like Alzheimer's (where excellent sources about the state of research exist), it smacks of advertising and promoting trials. If it were some rare disease, then that website might be the best source available to the editors, but that's never going to be the case for Alzheimer's. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• I certainly do not agree that linking to clinicaltrials.gov would violate WP:CRYSTAL. In fact, that page says this specifically: "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced". If someone is now going to change that, please let me know because I don't have it watchlisted. Mentioning on ongoing clinical trial does not say that it will be successful, but it does provide further, often notable information on the topic, and when the due date for the clinical trial comes up, it provides a reminder for the editor to go look for the results. My opinion is that removing these without a good reason is a poor use of time, likely to lead to pointless and lengthy arguments (if nobody else, I may defend their inclusion), and does not serve the reading public in any way that I can tell. Admittedly, ideally these trials would be large and have secondary coverage. Also, considering that trials are often eager to find people, from a public policy perspective they could help connect potential participants connect to trials, a perennial problem (see, e.g., http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/health/research/03trials.html?pagewanted=all) and help draw scrutiny to clinical trials prior to publishing, which is often nice given the common methodological flaws which are discovered after all the money and effort is spent. II | (t - c) 21:52, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

II, makes me think of the injunction in the "Diseases" subsection that points out we're not a directory of clinical trials (and not said there but implied - we're not here to help recruit people).

These links would be very susceptible to link rot as the trials end and new ones begin, and if secondary sources exist discussing a clinical trial then they are redundant.

There's no consensus apparent on removing them and that pretty much addresses my original question, thanks for everyone's comments. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 23:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Under the recommendation for a section called ==Research directions==, it says "Wikipedia is not a directory of clinical trials or researchers." It's been there since the summer of 2010. The nearly identical injunction at WP:MEDMOS#External_links is even older. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course, Wikipedia is not a "directory" for anything (Wikipedia:DIRECTORY#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory). So that by itself is not saying anything we don't already know. II | (t - c) 21:45, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

DSM copyright

Could someone check the copyright status on Global Assessment of Functioning? There are past problems noted on its talk page, and I think they may have resurfaced. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

A copy of it is here http://www.medi-mouse.com/graphics/GAFScale.pdf Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

References

As many of you know I am working on a project to translate our top importance articles into as many other languages as possible. One problem I have encountered is that while {{cite}} is support in other wikis {{vcite}} and {{sfn}} is not. Is there any agreement here to go with cite?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Please excuse the refactoring James. Did you mean you wanted to use 'cite' to replace 'vcite' and 'sfn' (and presumably {{harvnb}}?) in our en-Wikipedia articles, or in the translated articles in other language wikis? --RexxS (talk) 12:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you proposing changing the en.wiki articles? Then no, please leave the templates alone. Any {{vcite}} template on en.wiki can be converted to a {{cite}} template on another wiki by just dropping the "v". Colin°^Talk 12:52, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

What I am wanting is that text I have worked on and cited with "cite" not be changed to other reference styles by those who do this and where not involved in writing the content in question.

What is the benefit of "vsite"? And why is this bot doing it? [3]

If justification can be provided I might be convinced... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

On some articles, such as Alzheimer's disease, the sheer number of cited references has meant that the switch from {{cite journal}} to {{vcite journal}} was necessary for technical reasons. The html rendering is much smaller and faster. LeadSongDog come howl! 14:53, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

While if that is the case how much work is it to switch other wikis over? And should we be going be vcite across the board? I see there is already a bot that does this... We should change the ref tool in the edit box aswell... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion of the relative speeds of citation templates at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Citation templates (technical). Vcite is quicker than Cite because it does not offer as many features. In addition, Vcite uses a "Vancouver" style of reference formatting, rather than the normal "wikipedia house style" (which I think is mainly based on a "Chicago" style). You'd need to make proposals to change policy in such a major fashion at the Village pump, but be prepared for lots of opposition as everyone has their own favourite referencing schemes, and will defend them because each offers some advantages over the others. --RexxS (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue discussed at Talk:Alzheimer's disease was that the NewPP limit report (shown as a comment in the rendered html) was showing the Post-expand include size maxed out at 2048000/2048000 bytes, breaking the subsequent navigation templates at the end of the page. Changing to vcite cut that number to 1058289/2048000, even after the additional templates at page-end were once again correctly rendered. Compare the before and after versions. For medical topics, Vancouver is generally accepted anyhow, having been developed and adopted (with minor variances) for use by all the major medical journals. It's used, for instance at Parkinson's disease, which is FA-class. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:49, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The applicable rules are at WP:CITEVAR. Wikipedia does not have a single "house style". The style chosen varies between articles, based on what editors at that particular article believe is best. If you want to change the style on an article, you must have a discussion (at each and every single article, not just one mass discussion here) that demonstrates a consensus to change the style for that article. This means, by the way, that if the article is already using vcite, then you need to use vcite for any material that you're adding or re-working, even if that means going to the trouble of manually typing a "v" into the template that Diberri's tool generates for you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

At the risk of being pedantic here, Wikipedia does have a "house style" (although I feel we are using it in different senses), which is the default produced by the {{cite}} templates: author1 last name; comma; author1 first name; semicolon; additional authors; year in parentheses; period; title in quotes and linked; period; publication in italics; period; etc. This is neither Chicago, nor API , nor Vancouver, but a hybrid that Wikipedia has created. In that sense alone, it is our house style, but obviously is not mandatory. Everything else WAID said is absolutely correct however, and editors may invest a lot of effort into deciding which style of reference works best in any given article. They will often not take kindly to wholescale changes for no obvious reason. --RexxS (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, several of the cite templates are incompatible with other cite templates.

If your definition of house style is "made up on Wikipedia", then we have hundreds of house styles, and four or five commonly used ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The {{cite}} series use a common set of core routines and have been tweaked over time to return reasonably consistent results within the family. Of course {{citation}} gives a noticeably different format, so the two shouldn't be mixed; likewise for {{vcite}}. The editing interface presents an editor with the 'cite' family from the toolbar, and I expect that the majority of citation templates are inserted by that route using default settings in a style that appears to be unique to Wikipedia. That was what I had in mind when I used the phrase "house style". --RexxS (talk) 14:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

"In other animals"?

WP:MEDMOS recommends inclusion of a section "In other animals" in medical articles. While this may be appropriate for predominantly "animal diseases" such as myxomatosis, I don't think that it is appropriate for "human diseases", or least articles that are clearly about the disease in humans. For such articles, could we change the guideline to recommend the section title "In animals" instead? (Yes, I am aware that humans are technically animals.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:27, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I like "in other animals" as there are still some who try to claim humans are not. Most articles I agree will not and do not have this section. We can make it optional maybe?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I prefer "in other animals" too. I think that it connects humans to the tree of life. Snowman (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose "in other species" might be a more general answer, plus avoiding the problem of confusing the bizzarely large number of people with the misconception that only mammals are animals. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I quite like "In animals", because when asked to make the distinction people will probably distinguish between "people" and "animals". JFW | T@lk 22:58, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Dissociative identity disorder

There is a full-blown edit war going on at this article and it could use the intervention of some level-headed editors from this project. Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:28, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like things have quieted down a bit.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Since midnight, over 25Kb of text has been added again to the talk page in 51 edits, with accusations of meatpuppetry and off-wiki hounding... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

And now we have one of the editors deciding unilaterally that we should not be producing a table of contents where a section has a single subheading because it doesn't match his concept of what a sub-division should entail, and dismissing any advice to the contrary. More eyes at Talk:Dissociative identity disorder would be much appreciated. --RexxS (talk) 03:30, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The environment for that article is really screwed up. We seem to have a couple of POV pushers—maybe a couple on each side, but definitely two on the "There is no controversy whatsoever about this condition" side of things. The appearance of several level-headed editors would be appreciated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Potential project for a student

I am going to be apply for a summer student and have proposed a project here [4] Comments welcome.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS and sock check

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/NutritionalNeuroscientist
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mariahsalyer

New account takes up where Mariahsalyer left off; adding primary studies to articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and fixed.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Golding Bird

Golding Bird has been nominated for FA. You are welcome to add your comments there. SpinningSpark 13:09, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Really amazing job! NCurse _work 12:36, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Image caption in pneumothorax

Re: File:Pneumothorax CXR.jpg. This image was uploaded to Commons and described there as an X-ray of someone how had clinical tension pneumothorax. The caption for this image on the Pneumothorax article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pneumothorax/archive1. The current caption is "Chest X-ray of left-sided pneumothorax (seen on the right in this image). The left thoracic cavity is partly filled with air occupying the pleural space. The mediastinum is shifted to the opposite side." Currently, the caption and the Commons image description may be unstable. I think that mention of tension pneumothorax should be included in the image's caption in the Wikipedia article. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes there is a debate. As per this ref and my years of ER training a CXR that shows a tension is one that should never have been taken as treatment should have been carried out before hand.[5]. And while not diagnostic a X rays can be consistent with tension pneumothorax and this is indeed common medical usage.[6] It can also be suggested by an Xray per[7] and some cases are missed clinically as health care is not perfect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

This editor has repeatedly been ignoring my contention (based on the sources) that X-ray appearances do not correllate with the presence or absence of tension. One of the sources on pneumothorax (Noppen & De Keukeleire) states unequivocally that mediastinal shift is a common feature on X-rays in people with pneumothorax, and that this is not a proxy for tension. The sources make very clear that tension is defined by the clinical state of the patient. Despite this, Snowmanradio has repeatedly insisted on adding to the image caption that the "X-ray is consistent" with tension, something that one simply cannot conclude from the image. JFW | T@lk 01:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that Snowmanradio's changes amount to a straightforward NOR violation and should be rejected. I also think it inappropriate for him to worry about the state of the Commons information page, as what appears not only a completely separate page, but actually a completely separate project is irrelevant to the FAC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

There is no element of NOR in writing "consistent with tension pneumothorax" in the caption. The original X-ray description on commons said that the person, who was X-rayed had tension penumothorax clinically. I agree with User Doc James that "abc changes are consistent with a diagnosis of xyz" is a commonly used expression. The phrase is used in X-ray reports, pathology reports, and probably many other situations. I think that than an X-ray, like this one, consistent with a potentially life threatening condition should have "consistent with tension pneumothorax" (or another phrase to mention tension pneumothroax or an emergency in an appropriate way) written clearly in the caption. I am concerned partly because readers might look at the image and read its caption, but not read the text in the article. Incidentally, I think that image documentation on Commons it a legitimate topic for FAC, especially when there are important differences between the two. Snowman (talk) 09:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

If the fact that this image (or images similar to it) is "consistent with xyz" does not appear in a published, reliable source, then you, that is, the Wikipedia editor, deciding that it happens to be "consistent with xyz" and calling out your own conclusion about the image, is a straightforward violation of NOR. Not published in any reliable source == NOR violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes a CXR does not rule in a tension pneumo but it does rule it out if one only sees a small pneumo.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not quite sure exactly what Doc James is saying "yes" too, but I think he is again confirming that "consistent with a tension pneumothorax" is a useful thing to say about this X-ray. I do not see a mass of fibrosis that could be pulling the mediastinum to one side in the lung not affected by the pneumothorax. I maintain that this X-ray is consistent with a tension pneumothorax and that this dangerous possibility should be mentioned in the caption. Snowman (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Doc James' statement that a person with a "clinically diagnosed tension pneumothorax" should not proceed to x-ray prior to treatment. That assertion alone makes the Commons text questionable. The Commons text continues: "Due to the fact this is an posterior to anterior x-ray of the patients chest, the patient's left is your right (as if you are looking at the patient facing you". That statement is unequivocally false. The only information that we can definitively claim from the x-ray alone is that there is a pneumothorax with tracheal deviation away from the side of the pneumothorax. We can't even be sure which side is the left; for some reason the marker has been obscured. (I accept that the shape of the heart suggests that the x-ray is in the conventional orientation.)

" While not diagnostic a X rays can be consistent with tension pneumothorax and this is indeed common medical usage. "

— Doc James

" I agree with User Doc James that "abc changes are consistent with a diagnosis of xyz" is a commonly used expression. The phrase is used in X-ray reports, pathology reports, and probably many other situations. "

— Snowmanradio

I am unable to view the links that Doc James provided. Radiologists and pathologists are provided with a lot of extra clinical information. Indeed they keep insisting that clinicians provide as much relevant information as possible, because it assists them in reporting. Despite extra clinical information, radiologists may "sit on the fence" with terms such as "consistent with", purely because the diagnosis must be made in the clinical context, not from the x-ray alone. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:18, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I would like to advance the discussion, because I think that writing in the possibility of a significant diagnosis in a X-ray or pathology report with "consistent with a diagnosis of xyz" is primarily to inform clinicians useful information and it is not simply a case of "sitting on the fence". Writing in "consistent with a diagnosis of xyz" is proactive, while at the same time being honest about the limitations of the material or images at hand. It is also for medico-legal reasons, to insure that the clinician is aware of the possibility of a significant diagnosis or sometimes to write in a working clinical diagnosis that has ample alternative documentation. I would agree about delays taken to do an X-ray of a clinical case of tension pneumothorax could be very important here, and the expected delays are dependant on the whereabouts of the patient. I was reading one reference yesterday, which said that some tension pneumothoraces take hours to evolve, while others are very quick. If the X-ray facilities are distant then this would make the time delays of doing an X-ray even more unacceptable. I would agree that the image description on Commons could be improved. The image shown in the article is a cropped version and the un-cropped image can be seen in the file history in Commons. The shape of the heart, a possible stomach bubble under the left of the diaphragm and the possibility of a radio-apaque liver under the diaphragm on the right are all indicators of the left and right orientation, and I think that there is no doubt about its orientation. I had access to two out of three of the external links Doc James provided. Snowman (talk) 14:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

The image description on Commons may need to be rewritten carefully with the information of a fictional case showing this X-ray at clinical cases. I am used to reading about "true cases" and I am not sure to what extent the case history on clinicalcases is fictional or real (with some circumstances changed). The websites disclaimer says; "There are no real life patient data on this website." Snowman (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I think that this discussion should be continued on Talk:Pneumothorax or on the FAC page. JFW | T@lk 20:39, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I have tidied up the image description on Commons. Snowman (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Inguinal hernia

User:Mokotillon wish to add the following text to inguinal hernia supported by a ref to http://www.groin-hernia.com/herniabible/exercises.html and a youtube video. He feels that these refs are supported by WP:MEDRS as mentioned here [8].

Alternative treatments to surgery, like pilates exercices, have been suggested, but they have neither been backed nor denied by empirical studies.

IMO this is WP:OR and WP:UNDUE. As well as not supported by WP:MEDRS. Further comments welcome.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Nope, it's straight WP:FRINGE and has no place in Wikipedia. I think Mokotillon is acting in good faith, but is clearly mistaken about what our requirements are for medical claims. I've pointed him to WP:REDFLAG as well to try to establish some perspective. --RexxS (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

More pneumothorax

Hello all, at the risk of boring everyone, I'd really appreciate some more comments at the FAC for pneumothorax. JFW | T@lk 22:50, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Sadly the FA has failed due to lack of feedback. Shame. Will try again in a while. JFW | T@lk 11:02, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

should articles about medical conditions only deal with medical information?

Should articles about medical conditions only deal with medical information? Or can they also report about what people actually do with their disease, (as far as this practice meets WP:notability), even if the medical community has not written anything about it? The current guidelines WP:MEDRS do not deal with this topic: they deal with non-academic sources http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources_%28medicine-related_articles%29#Other_sources as sources of medical information, but they do not deal with them as sources of information about social practices related with a medical condition. This is different: I think that medical information should clearly be separated from social practices information, but I also think that both can be part of the same article. For example, evolution article has a section "Social and cultural responses".Mokotillon (talk) 14:47, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

We do have a section on "society and culture" but they still need to be reliable secondary sources.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

yes, but do they really need references from medical journals, if it is not medical information? I am afraid you did not understand my point. I am giving up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mokotillon (talk • contribs) 09:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

In most cases, if a medical condition has a significant sociocultural impact one would be able to find something on this in the medical literature. But I agree that if this is not possible, a reliable secondary source is still required. Quite a few medical articles have "Society and culture" sections, where appropriate. JFW | T@lk 11:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

If you're talking about non-medical stuff—e.g., lawsuits about drugs, references in popular culture, social movements, historical perspectives—then no, you don't need to use medical journals or medical textbooks as your sources. In fact, while such sources are often available, they're often not the best possible source. Try a law review for legal issues, a pop culture book for pop culture issues, a sociology text for sociological stuff, a history journal for historical information, and so forth. And even for medical information, you're not restricted purely to review articles; you can also use good-quality medical textbooks or other kinds of secondary sources.

Given your recent edit history, though, let me clarify what "non-medical" means: Most of what you'll find at Breast cancer awareness is non-medical. Most of what you'll find at AIDS#Society_and_culture is non-medical. Whether people get surgery for Inguinal hernias is medical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Open Access Journals and related issues

There is a serious question about the legitimacy of "open access" journals as sources under WP:MEDRS. Clearly, the concept that the author pays to have his paper published is at odds with the traditional model of academic journals, raising questions about the extent to which the journal's editorial standards (assuming it has any to begin with) are compromised by the lure of the cash from the prospective authors. Many open access journal publishers have been singled out as nothing more than the academic journal version of a vanity press, others identified as being on a "watchlist" for having vanity press aspects that raise questions. [9] This question came to my attention because of a large number of articles in open access journals of recent vintage being extensively used as sources in the Wikipedia article Transcendental Meditation research. See discussion here Talk:Transcendental_Meditation_research#Sources_under_scrutiny I question (i) whether any "open access" journal can serve as a source and (ii) if being an "open access" pay-to-play journal is not automatically disqualifying, how we establish for purposes of WP:MEDRS whether a particular publisher or a particular journal is indeed high-quality, accepted and reputable. Anybody nowadays can publish an online-only journal, claim to have peer review, put an impressive name on it, and have someone at Wikipedia use it as a source on a medical article. Thoughts? Fladrif (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Open access journals and papers more and more becomes the rule rather than the exception in science. PLoS ONE is an good example. Granateple (talk) 17:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This is hardly a medicine-specific issue, it should be discussed at WP:RS/N if anywhere, but in short the idea that the method of payment affects the reliability of the result is hardly a new one. We need objective measures of reliability. That's what citation index measurements such as impact factors and journal ranking are for, flawed as they may be. For new journals these measures take some time to be established, hence they are generically suspect. Journals with prominent experts on their editorial boards gain some halo effect but we can't quantify that.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:38, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

PubMed → Cancer = 2.594.783 hits and 467.894 Free full text Granateple (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

If authors are paying to have research published, in smaller, obscure journals, I think this is a big red flag for the reliability of the material (I have not looked into whether this is the case in this instance). Also, after a brief review of the discussion on the TM page, other red flags that immediately rose for me about the journals being discussed include that they are being published in journals that would be typically outside their specific area of interest (in this case nursing and nutrition -- which raises the question of how good the "peer" review actually was) and that the journals, after a quick search, are not MEDLINE indexed (to me almost an immediately disqualifying factor - there are enough journals that ARE MEDLINE indexed that don't meed MEDRS, there is no need to use ones that aren't). Yobol (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

• • • Because of the general nature of this posting I've moved a specific discussion to [10], so that the specific content and source in question can be scrutinized.(olive (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

No, you are not moving this discussion to RSN. The presumption is staggering. This involves particulary references to specific journals and whether they meet the requirements of WP:MEDRS, and there is an ongoing discussion here. This smacks of desparate forum shopping as the initial comments here are hardly favorable to your advocacy of these sources. Fladrif (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say I'd moved this discussion, I said I'd moved a discussion that is more specific per a single source. To be clear. As well this isn't a DR forum, so whether the source is considered reliable or not and removed should be dealt with on a NB, which it now is. (olive (talk) 21:59, 24 January 2012 (UTC))

A complicating issue is that several institutions require researchers to publish in journal that ensure public access to the material (this notably includes NIH-funded research). See, for example, this Ars Technica article, or the NIH policy. While this doesn't mandate open access journals, they may be the easiest way to comply with such a requirement. So I don't think that we can regard open access as automatically suspicious.

That said, there are an awful lot of journals, both open access and with a conventional publishing model, that seem highly dubious from a reliability standpoint. I wish that we could find some way of sorting the wheat from the chaff. I haven't looked at any of the sources in this particular case, and hence won't comment on them. Jakew (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Many open access journals do not require authors to pay any publication fees. Fladrif (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well said, Jakew Granateple (talk) 19:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Last I checked, the "traditional model of academic journals" was that you paid Elsevier or Springer somewhere between a couple hundred and two thousand bucks a page (depending on the journal) for the privilege of letting them publish your paper. Some of their journals also have submission fees, i.e., payments made for them to even consider whether they want to publish your article. They're also now typically charging a couple thousand dollars so that readers won't be charged ~$30 each to read your article.

Why would it be okay to pay Elsevier to publish your paper, but not an outfit that additionally guarantees anyone can read the article for free at no extra cost? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

MEDRS review needed for FAC article

Hi. I'm preparing to nominate Birth control movement in the United States for Featured Article status, and it was suggested that the article be reviewed first by a medical black-belt, to ensure it conforms to WP:MEDRS standards. Could someone help out? Please post any comments at the articles Talk page. Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 05:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

That was fast! I was also coming here to ask for help. Noleander has written an FA, is a competent writer, and I advised him/her that WP:MEDRS compliance on any medical statements in the article was needed. On my advice, Noleander withdrew the FAC to consult first with editors here, so anything folks can do semi-quickly would be most appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:42, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I had the very quickest skim over the article and sources. It appears to mostly a historical and social article rather than one dealing with many medical facts, so WP:MEDRS isn't the main concern. The sourcing for the emergency birth control drugs at the end isn't appropriate IMO. The article is concerned with

• the dates of FDA approval
• that the drugs are available over-the-counter
• that the drugs are effective for three days and five days after sex (respectively) (hence the '"morning after pill" is a misnomer' point)

For these facts, the papers Sarkar 2001 and by Creinin et al 2006 are not appropriate as sources (nor are they especially interesting or relevant to the reader of this article). It is one thing for a scientific study to show efficacy for five days, say, but another for the drug to be approved and recommended for that duration -- which is what counts in this historical article. I would be quite happy to use any reliable professional US-related secondary source on drugs or birth control. For example, the FDA website if you can find a stable url, or an up-to-date drug reference book.

I'll try to read this article properly later but probably not today. Colin°^Talk 08:38, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Colin! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Oh, and one other point. Is this particular article, which deals with the social aspect rather than the medical or biological, and focuses just on the US, I think it is reasonable and preferable to use the approved drug's US brand name rather than the INN name if that is what the lay press (and thus general public) used (e.g. "Plan B" or "ella"). The wikilink can still point to our article with the INN name. Colin°^Talk 11:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Colin: Thanks for the feedback. I'll fix the sources per your suggestion; and also change the drug names. If you find time for a more thorough review, that would be great: just post your comments on the article Talk page, and I'll take care of them. --Noleander (talk) 14:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

New articles needing review...

Food protein-induced Enterocolitis syndrome and PTSD in postpartum women. These need cleanup, at the very least. Steven Walling • talk 05:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The first one doesn't exist? NCurse _work 08:46, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

It was just deleted as a copyvio. Unless someone gets there before me, I should be able to do basic cleanup on PTSD in postpartum women. First thing it needs is a new name, but I'm not sure what. We've got Postpartum post traumatic stress disorder, Postnatal post-traumatic stress disorder, and trauma related to childbirth all mentioned in the sources. And a search of PubMed turns up more mentions of general postpartum anxiety, stress, trauma, psychiatric disorders, etc. So I don't know how to name the article. I found one copyvio, deleted one that might have been, and the sources are primary studies-- I don't know what search term to use for locating reviews. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 09:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Strikes me that "in postpartum women" would be a tad redundant unless it's to distinguish from neonatal PTSD or paternal PTSD (if such disorders even exist). Searching on "Related Citations for PubMed (Select 8159558)" turns up quite a variety of formulations. Is the article to discuss only partus as the stressor or be more general? The largest envelope would seem to be Posttraumatic stress disorder after pregnancy, which would encompass all stressors, including emergency delivery, miscarriage, injuries during pregnancy, and so forth. Obviously lots of redirects will be needed whatever the article is named. What does the DSM use? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't even know if it's in the DSM-- I don't have access to full text sources. Anyway, editors are plowing ahead at Postpartum posttraumatic stress disorder, chunking in text from primary sources, even though I've listed secondary reviews on talk. That's all I can do, I don't have access to sources, don't know how to name the article, and don't even know if it should be an article or should be merged to PTSD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Article Osteopathic Medicine in the United States Nomenclature DO vs. Osteopathic Physician

I have come to this talk page to discuss this nomenclature issue in an effort to prevent an editing war. A user has been reverting my edits that have changed the phrase "osteopathic physician" to DO. I have laid out several logical reasons for making this change both on the Osteopathic Medicine in the United States page and on the user's talk page. I would like to hear other opinions on the matter. The user has stated more or less that it is his personal preference that osteopathic physician be used to refer to the holder of the DO degree and that DO should be reserved solely for the degree. He believes that referring to osteopathic physicians as DOs will confuse people. However, I completely disagree with him. An example of a sentence using DOs in this way: DOs perform surgery, prescribe medications and attend medical school for four years just like their MD counterparts. It is clear from context in a sentence like this one that the holder of the degree is what is being described by the phrase DO or MD not the degree itself. Clearly, degrees do not perform surgery, prescribe medications, etc. Secondly, DO is potentially less confusing in terms of nomenclature since many people those relatively uninformed about DOs and MDs often conflate U.S. trained osteopathic physicians and foreign osteopaths which are not the same thing. The term DO would make this distinction clearer and lessen confusion. Third, replacing the phrase osteopathic physician, which in an article like this is used extensively, can shorten the article somewhat and make sentences more concise and vary the sentence structure to further improve the writing in addition to the added clarity that will result from my previously mentioned point. Additionally, professional organizations such as the AOA and AACOM use DO to refer to both the holder of the degree and the degree itself in the way I have asserted is acceptable. Here are some links to support this statement: http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/what-is-a-do/Pages/default.aspx http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/Pages/default.aspx http://www.aacom.org/resources/bookstore/cib/Documents/2012cib/2012cib-p21-23.pdf

Also, this same person has insisted in his edits that the plural of DO must be written as DO's which seems incorrect since the plural of MD that I have seen written most often is MDs. I have also found pages from professional DO organizations that write the plural of DO as DOs which is the form I have been advocating. Here are links demonstrating this: http://www.aacom.org/resources/e-news/ome/2011-03/Pages/LoanRepayment.aspx http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/Pages/default.aspx http://www.osteopathic.org/osteopathic-health/about-dos/dos-around-the-world/Pages/default.aspx

So, to sum up my points, the term DO is synonymous with osteopathic physician and should be written as such to make a more parallel comparison with the term MD in this (and other) articles discussing/comparing DOs and MDs and editor's "personal preferences" should not be a deciding factor in an NPOV article. Here is the link to the osteopathic medicine in the united states talk page where you can see the discussion at the bottom: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Osteopathic_medicine_in_the_United_StatesDoctorK88 (talk) 19:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

One last note-people on the user's page (the one who has been undoing the edits) has had people on his own talk page tell him in the past that DO is a more accessible/recognizable term to them and the purpose of wikipedia pages is to inform and serve as a resource of accessible and easily comprehensible information. DoctorK88 (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Many lay readers will not know what 'DO' stands for, therefore I think osteopathic physician is more clear and an easier understood term for our readers.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 19:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Whether "DOs" or "DO's" is preferred is probably addressed directly somewhere in the WP:MOS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Calling a practitioner "an MD" or "a DO" is equally wrong, even if it is a common error to do so. The granted degree is not the person holding it. Neither is it their license to practice. Our language should be as clear and accurate as we can make it. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[Disclosure: I am a British doctor and I have limited exposure to the US healthcare system.] My understanding is that "MD" refers to the degree. Use of the abbreviation to denote the holder of the degree is colloquial and should be avoided in a formal setting such as an encyclopedia. I have looked at the American Osteopathic Medicine website, and I believe that they use this colloquial term to help engage with lay American readers who are probably already familiar with the colloquial use of "MD". Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect Literaturegeek,LeadSongDog I must strongly disagree with you both. DO professional organizations use the term this way and it is used this way commonly in both the DO and MD communities alike not to mention peer-reviewed research uses the terminology this way as do government websites such as the NIH. These titles can be used dually for the degree and for the person who has the degree. It should be clear from context that when an MD performs surgery that it is not the piece of paper doing the action but the holder of the degree. It is simply common sense and I really do not believe it requires further explanation for the lay reader beyond that. As long as a DO or an MD is defined at the beginning of the article, as it is in this particular article for DOs, then the point is moot. Furthermore, the article starts off by saying what a DO is by definition. The first sentence says "Osteopathic physicians also known as DOs" so I cannot agree that the confusion argument for lay readers is a legitimate one. Again, there will likely be more difficulty for lay readers to distinguish between foreign osteopaths and U.S. trained osteopathic physicians since the names are even more similar than what I am proposing. I have seen numerous posts expressing this confusion in lay readers. As for the claim that these terms are colloquial, that is false. For a term to be colloquial means it is used in everyday language, which it is, but not in more formal writing such as that of academics. However, I have seen these terms used in peer-reviewed literature which is a prime example of academic writing not to mention that professional organizations of these groups use these terms in exactly the way I have proposed. I would be happy to provide links to demonstrate this if you are not convinced, feel free to ask. Also, what do you think about the other point, the plural of DO?DoctorK88 (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you should go read WP:MOS#Abbreviations, which prohibits the use of the apostrophe in such circumstances.

Whether professional organizations and some (not all) publications use the informal "DO" to refer to licensed physicians is irrelevant. Wikipedia aims for a more formal tone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

If we're being technical here, which I feel like you are being a bit technical here, DO is not a colloquial term. And I am the one advocating for the removal of the apostrophes from the plural of DO if I have not yet made that clear. That is the reason I asked it in the first place, because I removed those apostrophes and someone reverted it. So, just to be clear, consensus has not been reached yet and reversions should not occur until it is reached. The standard for a formal term is not for "all" papers to use it. The threshold is that the term is used in academia and government pages (which should not be ignored) which are indeed formal arenas designed to inform so I must disagree with you on a fundamental level WhatamIdoing. It is not irrelevant because it addresses Leadsongdog's claim that it is colloquial because I showed that by definition, it is not: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/colloquial It is a term used in formal settings whether you agree or not and I have shown that. I would be happy to further demonstrate its presence in formal settings if necessary. DoctorK88 (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you are splitting hairs here, and I disagree, in my view there is a consensus which goes against your viewpoint. I am sorry about that, but that is how wikipedia works, Doctork88. It sucks some times and then we move on. :) I don't see why this has now went to dispute resolution board, when consensus seems clear to me unless I am missing something? :@(--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

"Dispute resolution board"? I had no idea. I have just checked WP:DRN and I see that DoctorK88 has indeed opened a case on the matter. I am assuming good faith as to DoctorK88's reason for not informing me. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:47, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Health Science Journal

WP:RSN seems to be willing to take up questions regarding whether sources meet WP:MEDRS, so I've asked the question there [11], rather than here, which would have been my first inclination. I'm inquiring about the use of an article from the online nursing publication Health Science Journal, formerly known as ICUs and Nursing Web Journal in the Transcendental Meditation research article. I'd appreciate any uninvolved editor input on the reliability and use of the source. Thanks. Fladrif (talk) 16:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Input requested regarding recent changes to psychiatry articles

I noted a change on my watchlist today on Mental disorder by Psychiatrick (talk · contribs) which looked like material that took material out of context to promote an undue POV. I note that this user has made numerous other Psychiatry-related pages including Psychiatry which have prominently cited the works of psychiatry critic Thomas Szasz as well as using google book references to publishers I'm not familiar with. As this user has added numerous similar material across multiple pages, I wanted to see if anyone else is seeing the same problem I am seeing before mucking around with these articles, or if I am missing something (psychiatry being outside my usual comfort zone). Thanks! Yobol (talk) 00:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The editor has made thousands of edits! Is there an article or some edits which are of particular concern? I haven't any of the articles that he is contributing to on my watch list. Thomas Szasz is on the fringes of psychiatry and is connected to CCHR and thus his views should only be given low weight, if any weight at all.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Checked the recent edits on psychiatry article and they were problematic.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:19, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Specific examples: ::This diff shows changes to the DSM page, where the user adds Szasz's definition of the DSM to the lead (it is cited to a different author, but in the source it is actually written by Szasz) as well as addition of material published by O-books, which I'm not familiar with. This diff shows multiple changes that have been made to Psychiatry, including adding such quotes as "In spite of all the evidence, people underappreciate or, more often, ignore the political implications of the therapeutic character of Nazism and of the use of medical metaphors in modern democracies. Dismissed as an "abuse of psychiatry,” this practice is touchy subject not because the story makes psychiatrists in Nazi Germany look bad, but because it highlights the dramatic similarities between pharmacratic controls in Germany under Nazism and those in the USA under what is euphemistically called the “free market"" - in the section about political abuse of psychiatry. This edit also added a section titled "Skepticism about the concept of mental disorders" which appears to take a paragraph out of context from one commentary and setting it up as a separate section. Yobol (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yea, saw those edits; they made the article too undue and sourcing was problematic, so I reverted those contributions.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, other articles that could use a once-over (and watchlisting) include Medicalization, Action T4 and Anti-psychiatry as similar material has been added to all of these. Yobol (talk) 05:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I've just made some excisions at Anti-psychiatry (though, only got half-way through). I'm moving house and won't have time to look carefully at this for a while. Can I ask everybody to treat this editor with kindness? Our psychiatry content badly needs a critical eye, the considerable body of non-fringe criticism, from both within and without the profession, is very poorly represented in the encyclopedia. I don't know if Patrick is what we need, but he might be, once he's tutored on NPOV, RS, etc. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:51, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Contributions with regard to criticisms of psychiatry which are mainstream or minority view are welcome if within policies and guidelines; outright antipsychiatry is WP:FRINGE though I believe. I agree that we should give this enthusiastic editor WP:GOODFAITH and be civil to them and try to help them to improve their editing; I have sent them a message to explain that my revert of their contributions was nothing personal and gave this editor a few pointers, incase he misinterpreted my revert as personally hostile.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 13:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

(←) We've had no end of trouble with critics of psychiatry in the past on Wikipedia. I'd say their perspectives are reasonably well represented. NPOV and WEIGHT need to be adhered to at all times. JFW | T@lk 07:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you all think that the article “Psychiatry” needs the new section “Criticism” based on reliable sources by physicians and psychiatrists critical of psychiatry? There are a lot of psychiatrists critical of psychiatry, not only Loren Mosher, who was a member of the American Psychiatric Association, and Thomas Szasz, who is its member. Then, why does the article “Psychiatry” not have the section “Criticism” and why is psychiatry badly defended from its critics? Biased against them, people do not usually think that criticism of surgery is antisurgery, but they think that any criticism of psychiatry is antipsychiatry, and any critics of psychiatry are unreasonably labeled as antipsychiatrists. Psychiatrick (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)