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

Fecal incontinence article

This article needs some major attention from this project. A related article was recently merged into it and now there is a lot that needs sorting out, as is mentioned on the article's talk page. 108.60.139.170 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Fecal incontinence ... putting up for WP:PR, in the understanding that this should happen before Good article nomination, is this correct? lesion (talk) 03:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Here is review page, ty for any advice. lesion (talk) 04:16, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Also no WP:GI task force rating for page...lesion (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, is no-one going to review this article?...I know it is not a glamorous topic and all, but since I started editing and creating articles, there has been no formal peer review. Instead, there is only baptism of fire, trial and error feedback about what is more or less likely to be rolled back, and this appears to be arbitrary, dependent mostly upon the traffic on the article...I feel I might be damaging the encyclopedia through ignorance without review of at least on of the articles. I could then apply those principles to the others. Thank you in advance.lesion (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

problems at psychiatry articles

We currently have a tendentious editor with a strongly anti-psychiatry point of view causing trouble at psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, bipolar disorder, etc. In my experience the most effective way of dealing with things like this is to get more editors involved -- please take a look at the articles if you can. (The issue has also been raised at WP:NPOVN, but in my experience this is a better place.) Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

watched. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And unwatching ... this guy is posting the same TLDR IDHT stuff on five six pages, and I don't have time for that on my watchlist at the same time as the university term is ending and my watchlist is hit by bad student edits that need repair. At the rate this is going, it will end up in higher forms of dispute resolution. When it does get bumped up the DR chain, if someone will remember to ping me, I would be grateful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The general questions brought here are

• 1. - Whether the deletion of all medical claim not supported by a source is WP:TEND and WP:POV, or whether it is something that is required per WP:MEDRS.
• 2. - Whether "minority" can be asserted re a position regarding a medical practice, without sourcing the assertion.
• 3. - Whether being a (supposedly) "minority" view on a medical practice implies that WP:UNDUE trumps WP:MOS (lede) - "include significant controversies".
• 4. - Whether publication of a controversy in multiple major mainstream peer reviwed medical journals, specifically on topic to the article topic, establishes MOS (lede) "significance", no matter whether it is a minority view or not. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• 1. I deleted unsourced medical claims, and they were immediately put back in, again without sources, violating MEDRS.[1] Deletion per MEDRS is not POV, especially since when I first put citation needed tags up, then Looie496 took them down as "pointy".
• 2. The second lede paragraph of the DSM article at WP states "It has also attracted controversy and criticism. Some critics argue that the DSM represents an unscientific system…”.
• 3. There is corresponding controversy specific to article topics psychiatry, forensic psychiatry, and bipolar disorder.
• 4. Per MOS (lede) - "summarize the most important points — including any prominent controversies". I applied MOS (lede) with solid MEDRS and RS sources, International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, and New York Law School.[2]
• 5. My edits were deleted with edit summary claims unsupported by any RS - "far too strong" as simply too strong, and sources disputing whether psychiatry is a science are in the minority"and "These edits blatantly push an anti-psychiatry POV". ParkSehJik (talk) 20:39, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What evidence is there that Wikipedia articles are not communicating information found in WP:MEDRS? Please keep it short, because WP:TLDR. Biosthmors (talk) 19:31, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

• 1. Biothmors, this[3] reversion of my deletions added back implicit and explicit medical claims without any sources, violating both MEDRS and RS.
• 2. This series of reversions of my edits supported by MEDRS and RS, had edit summaries unsupported by any RS - "far too strong" as simply too strong, and sources disputing whether psychiatry is a science are in the minority"and "These edits blatantly push an anti-psychiatry POV" ParkSehJik (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Checking the links above, you seriously put "dubious" tags on statements like psychiatry is medicine? Um, yes, we have a POV problem here and a WP:TEND issue. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Seems like there is a lot of stuff here. I am having trouble determining what needs being addressed. If you want to discuss content issues can you summary one issue with refs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:58, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

First, Park, read WP:TALK and refrain from excessive markup in your posts. Second, article comments do not belong on this page; confine them to article talk and keep them off of this page. Finally, I suggest someone move these comments to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

But which article? Agree one should just post here to ask for further eyes. Than discussion should occur somewhere else. We all here agree more or less to WP:MEDRS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I see the problem (which article)-- Park is all over the map, with similar issues. So cap off the whole discussion above as an inappropriate use of this page and let the original poster use article talk pages appropriately to address individual items and create a new post here to address the overall. Perhaps he is able to do that without hollering, using excess markup, relying on appropriate uses of sources, and by accurately reading policy and guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:09, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Now shortened. [4] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Better; thank you for adjusting so quickly. Regarding your points 3 and 5, see WP:LEAD and WP:CRITICISM. There was notable criticism of DSM-3, we don't require Criticism sections in articles, and also see WP:UNDUE as it explains how we would determine what controversy should be added to aricles. Also see WP:MEDMOS on how we organize medical articles; controversy would be incorporated in the correct section. The rest of your points are still article specific and belong on article talk, not here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I posted at Talk before editing. I got no response. I asked for sources for the edit summary claims of "minority", and of UNDUE since minority. I got no response. There is certainly significant controversy, as the sources I provided are peer reviewed then edited mainstream sources, different from those cited in DSM, critical specifically of the article topics I was editing at, but related to the DSM controversy. I put up citation needed tags on unsourced medical claims. Looie496 took them off as "pointy". I then deleted the unsourced material entirely, and it was immediately put back in withuot sources, violating MEDRS. . There was not RS cited to support WP:UNDUE trumping MOS (lede) "significant controversies". I put up construction tags to hold the edits while I tried to improve the articles and the construction tags were removed within hours.

The general question brought here seems to be whether it is POV to apply MEDRS to delete all med claims without sources, and whether being a (supposedly) "minority" view on a medical topic makes WP:MOS (lede) - "include significant controversies" trumped by WP:UNDUE. ParkSehJik (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I have asked you to read WP:TALK, avoid excessive markup, and stop hollering. Bolding removed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia - Thanks, I have now read WP:TALK and applied it. ParkSehJik (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

And, based on the links above, you are misrepresenting. Putting "dubious" tags on psychiatry as medicine is pointy and we don't need citations for common knowledge. Now, I will no longer be responding here-- take your items to article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

What is your source for saying that putting dubious tags on psychiatry as "medicine" is pointy. That is the very essence of what is argued in the deleted sources. Part of psychatry is medicine. Psychiatry is not all medicine, according to the WP definition of medicine as being all suported by scientific method, according to my deleted mainstream MEDRS sources, and per recent discussion at Alternative medicine re the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences Flight from Science and Reason conference. There is a significant question as to whether certain psychiatric catgories describe are correlated with "disease" at all, or worse, are entirely imaginary, like demonic possession. For example, "penis envy" was used in 20th Century forensic psychiatry to involuntarily inter people and sieze their assets , and what is practiced at Guantanamo does not "heal". That is the significant controversy cited by the sources I added. If someone has a source calling ALL psychiatry medicine, then put it in the article. If someone has a source challenging certain practices in psychiatry as not being related to "disease", or not being science based, i.e., not medicine, then this is not being pointy. What is your source? ParkSehJik (talk) 21:22, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

what the hell are you talking about may I ask? lesion (talk) 22:05, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

ParkSheJik, psychiatry is a combination of medicine and psychology from a medical perspective. Diagnosing and treating mental illness, requires a lot of skill as much as psychiatric scientific knowledge. I don't think there is any debate that psychiatry is a mixture of science and skill, such as the skill of psychoanalysis and the ability to consider differential diagnoses etc. Even medical doctors don't practice pure medicine and a lot of their work will require aspects of psychoanalysis, gut instinct etc when assessing and diagnosing patients. I don't really see what your position is or where you are coming from clearly? Are you coming from the anti-psychiatry angle that because psychiatry is not a pure science that psychiatry is not legitimate?--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the motivations of an editor are less important than how they edit. I suggest that we focus on the latter. I have urged ParkSehJik to slow down and listen to advice from experienced editors. A lot of WPMED content (particularly Psychiatry content) is poorly sourced, but in many cases excellent sources exist and simply need to be cited ("excellent" being defined as clearly representing consensus - scientific or otherwise). -- Scray (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I made a post on the NPOV noticeboard about this user and his/her edits:

• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#NPOV_dispute_at_Psychiatry_and_Forensic_Psychiatry

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I should also point out that this user's edits are still up on forensic psychiatry. Most of these issues don't even relate to forensic psychiatry at all.

There is controversy regarding the motives and scientific validity of forensic psychiatry findings of mental disorders. Forensic psychiatrists are frequently called “whores”. In psychiatry, “politics and economics has replaced quality science”. Unlike evidence based medicine or even traditional medicine, psychiatry may use the term “disease” or "disorder" without a systemic etiology indicated, i.e. even without any observable and measurable abnormalities in anatomy, chemistry, and physiology hypothesized as causative for mental categories declared by psychiatrists to be diseases or disorders. Psychiatry may apply the term “disease” politically, for the mere belief that a cluster of symptoms must be a disease because the symptoms are very uncommon, to justify crude its own specialty treatments such as lobotomies, to justify involuntary commitments, and for financial profit to justify the sale of psychotropic drugs.

...Really? Whores? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

To be fair, have a look at the abstract (in PubMed) of the reference embedded in your quotation here: In 35 opinions, professionals were termed or compared with "hired guns"; five cases described testifying experts using the word "whore," and five cases used some variation on "prostitute." As has been suggested above, discussions like this below on the article's talk page, but I don't think the editor should be attacked for using text found in an abstract on PubMed. In direct response to your question: "yes, really". -- Scray (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the supportive AGF. I expect editors new to reading RS on the topic will gradually come around per the RS and MEDRS.

• 10% of legal opinions (re forensic psychiatry) termed or compared expert witnesses to “hired guns”, “whores”, or “prostitutes”. (source - Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 27:414 –25, 1999 – 2). Prosecutors made the plurality of the comments. This is not just a review of usage on the street, this is a review of legal opinions. 10% of legal opinions, the majority of which are by prosecutors, is significant per MOS (lede), and is in no way UNDUE. And that is just a citation of what is in the legal record, so it the very most conservative number on prevalence of opinion in the legal profession.

• There is also RS that such usage has a rational basis in the way the profession is currently practiced, of which I am compiling. Here are four of many RS on the topic - (1. “Hired guns,” “whores,” and “prostitutes”: case law references to clinicians of ill repute, D. Mossman, Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 27:414 –25, 1999 – 2. Whores of the Court: The Fraud of Psychiatric Testimony and the Rape of American Justice, Hagen MA, New York: HarperCollins, 1997 – 3. Reel Forensic Experts: Forensic Psychiatrists as Portrayed on Screen, Susan Hatters Friedman, MD, Cathleen A. Cerny, MD, Sherif Soliman, MD, and Sara G. West, MD, J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 39:412–17, 2011.

• Hagan criticized the methods of clinical assessment and psychological testing (in an evidence based and very reasoned and manner) and argued that mental health testimony is business rather than science, which is only a small part of the many bases of my placement of the Dubious tag on “medicine” re forensic psychiatry, and thereby on "all of psychiatry" being medicine. I was ridiculed as not being worthy of responding to re my arguments to keep the content I put in with MEDRS, with no sourcing for the ridicule, and simply because I put a dubious tag per the MEDRS and RS. This is not a good way to treat editors, nor is it a good basis for editing andarguing on talk, citing "common knowledge" to trump MEDRS sourced info.

• Samuel Gross (a Michigan Law School prof) writes “The contempt of lawyers and judges for experts is famous. They regularly describe expert witnesses as prostitutes.” This is RS for the use of “famous”, in addition to the source I provided describing “frequent” use of the expression. No wiki editor critical of my edits is citing any sources to base their opinions. The New York Times published similar remarks re being partisans rather than science based medical practitioners (In U.S., expert witnesses are partisan, Liptak A, New York Times. August 12, 2008, p A1).

• This is not just a “minority” “opinion”, and my recitation of what is in highly MEDRS and RS sources is not POV. It is citing sources. Deletions based on editors (likely as yet uninformed) opinions are not justified. I expect that in the end, these editors, likely deleting in good faith, will read the RS and MEDRS literature, and the material will gradually go into the article. In the meantime, editors should stop attacking me because they are uninformed as to what is in the MEDRS and RS sources, and is a prevalent, if not dominant, view in the legal, medical, and scientific community.

This discussion belongs here, as well as in the three articles whose content and POV is in dispute, because of the general points I raised at the top of this section. Please read the sources, or refrain from comenting, and in any case, as I requested at the outset of this section, please comment on the sources, not on me. I am simply regurgitating what is all over in the RS and MEDRS, all evidence based, like it or not. ParkSehJik (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

All I see here is a lot of attention seeking. If this topic is notable as is suggested, it may be put in its own article (where the user can rant on that talk page)? Call it "antipsychiatry movement" or something, and those who want to read this kind of stuff can go there.lesion (talk) 20:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

@Tepi, your attack on me, "attention seeking rant", is nonresponsive to the points I made, and offensive. ParkSehJik (talk) 06:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I suppose Allen Frances would be the head of Tepi's "antipsychiatry movement" demanding standards, at least greater than "monkeys achieving throwing darts"? -

"DSM 5 will accept diagnoses that achieve reliabilities as unbelievably low as 0.2-0.4 (barely beating the level of chance agreement two monkeys could achieve throwing darts at a diagnostic board"[5] - Allen Frances, M.D., was chair of the DSM-IV Task Force — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParkSehJik (talk • contribs) 06:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

To which article dose this discussion pertain? And it should than probably be moved there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Am I correct in thinking that the Samuel Gross comment refers to expert witnesses in general or is it specific to psychiatrists? If the former, are the views of prosecutors of psychiatric expert witnesses different to their views of other expert witnesses? FiachraByrne (talk) 21:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know. It appears in isolation to be to general experts, but I was working from hard copy source which quoted Gross, which was about forensic psychiatry experts. I believe the quote first appeared in Wisconsin Law Review (although he is at Michigan Law). I will do more research. Per these sources however, WP:SPADE seems to be more appropriate re the "people who will do anything for money" phenomena in court, including locking people up for life or putting them in assisted living, and seizing all of their assets to sell off to pay themselves and for the involutary internment, all done based on highly dubious claims of a basis in "science", rather citing POV and BATTLE just for stating what is in multiple RS. ParkSehJik (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no doubt that there are notable controversies regarding forensic psychiatrists and their opinions in court, which deserve some form of mention on wikipedia. I think the issue is giving appropriate WP:WEIGHT to the controversies. Forensic psychiatry is an important field but like many fields, there are always complexities and controversies.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion re uniform application of MEDRS standards to all WP articles

Link is here Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Discussion_re_uniform_application_of_MEDRS_standards_to_all_WP_articlesDoc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Your input appreciated at an active RFC!

Hello WP:MED folks... your input would be very much appreciated at an active RFC at Talk:Circumcision, direct link to the RFC is here. Thanks for your input! Zad68 22:04, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't quite figure out the question here, but it's something about sexual side effects of circumcision, if anyone is interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Merging the articles Applied behavior analysis and Behavior modification

Hi,
I wanted input back on merging the articles ABA and Behavior mod., as the former is a new term for the latter.
See here: Talk:Applied_behavior_analysis#Merging_the_articles_Applied_behavior_analysis_and_Behavior_modification.
Thanks!
ATC ^{. Talk} 04:37, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Oops, ATC, sorry-- you asked me long ago and I never got back to you. But Cas asked the same I would ask ... are you sure the two are the same? I'm not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Some sources say it's a "former expression" for it and others do not. Also, if you are just reinforcing behavior it's now called Positive behavior support (PBS, a form of ABA). A clinical psychologist who studied, work for, and was personal friends with Lovaas prior to opening up her own clinic said "Behavior modification is what we used to called it in the old days." How are they different? If Cognitive-Behavior Therapy (CBT) used to be called Cognitive-Behavior Modification, I don't fully understand. And people still refer to behavior modification when I think they are referring to Behavior therapy which includes Applied Behavior Analysis (a form of behavior analysis) and psychotherapies such as CBT. Under the umbrella of ABA is the Lovaas/UCLA model for autism (or Early intensive behavior intervention (EIBI) for young children) and Positive behavior support; the latter of which is used for various things to reinforce behavior NOT just autism. ATC ^{. Talk} 21:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I found a journal explaining the controversy over the terms. See here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2223172/. It states as follows: "A New Science? [section] Perhaps there is a tendency to draw pejorative contrasts between PBS and ABA in order to bolster claims about the status of PBS as a new and distinct science or discipline (e.g., Bambara et al., 1994; E. Carr, 1997; E. Carr et al., 2002; Knoster et al., 2003; Sisson, 1992). There may be disagreement among PBS leaders on this point. On the one hand, for example, Horner (2000) stated that 'Positive behavior support is not a new approach. … [It is] the application of behavior analysis to the social problems created by such behaviors as self-injury' (p. 97). He further stated, 'There is no difference in theory or science between positive behavior support and behavior modification. These are the same approach with different names. If any difference exists, it is in the acceptance [by PBS] of much larger outcomes and the need to deliver the global technology that will deliver these outcomes' (p. 99). Other writers have referred to PBS as an 'extension' of applied behavior analysis (e.g., Turnbull et al., 2002, p. 377). ATC ^{. Talk} 21:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Pending changes goes live in two hours

Just a reminder that, after an exhausting round of RFCs, WP:Pending changes goes live in a little less than two hours. The policy is in the usual place, at WP:Protection policy. Requests should be handled like any regular request, i.e., at WP:RFPP.

Requests for WP:Reviewer permission can be made at the usual place (WP:Requests for permissions). Admins automatically have the permission. If you have the permission, you can review changes and will see notes about any articles needing review on your watchlist. Please do your best to review changes quickly, and squawk here, at WT:PC, or on my user talk page if you need help.

People who are just thrilled about it are reminded that it's for real problems on lower-traffic pages, not for universal deployment, and sincerely, strongly begged not to drown RFPP in requests during these early days. Also, please keep in mind that it's rumored to have some performance issues, so it's not good for very large or very busy pages. It might be perfect for a short, obscure vandal magnet, though.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about, pending changes is a special kind of page protection that allows unregistered users and newbies to edit the page, but doesn't display their changes to the readers until someone else "approves" the change. This lets us move pages out of WP:Semi-protection and into a semi-sorta-protection mode, because these people can edit directly, but if the change is vandalism or libel or other serious garbage, we can reject the change and no reader will have ever seen it. It makes more work for the rest of us, but it should reduce problems that the readers see. If you're interested in helping review changes, you can request the permission/userright.

Good luck, to all of us and the wiki, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Finally :-) This has been in discussion for years. Is there a list of all WP:MED pages on which PC has been applied? It would be great if lists of pages needing review could be viewed by Wikiproject. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

You can get the complete list of all articles under PC at Special:StablePages, and the complete list of all articles needing to have an edit reviewed at Special:PendingChanges. Additionally, if any page on your watchlist needs to have an edit reviewed, a note will appear on your watchlist. At this moment, no articles (in the entire encyclopedia) needs to have an edit reviewed, and only Malaria is under PC for this project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Parasitology expert?

Hi everyone, I'm working on Ann Bishop (biologist), which is at FAC right now, and one of the reviewers has asked if I could track down a parasitology person to look it over. Is there anyone here who could help? Thank you so much; I would really appreciate it. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 05:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

GrahamColm (talk · contribs), the FAC delegate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:33, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Also try DrMicro (talk · contribs). Sasata (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Also Jfdwolff (talk · contribs)-- he wrote dengue fever, so may be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you! Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:37, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

You might try Tim Vickers (talk · contribs). He seems to have been away but has a few recent edits. Maralia (talk) 00:02, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment

Hi, this article (the result of a class assignment) could use some attention of an expert. Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Tag it with Wikipedia:TC#Expert_needed and specify what kind of attention you think it needs on the talk page? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) It needs major rework; lots of errors, such as it's description of the pharmacodynamics of neuroleptics sounds closer to the pharmacodynamics of amphetamine and the article says ECT is a surgical procedure. They are are just a couple of examples, lots more errors on the page. Sourcing seems at first glance to be poor and biased with a suggestion of possible misuse of references and WP:SYN. The article title, may lack notability, as it really is just a theory promoted by Dr Peter Breggin, and few others and he is on the fringes of psychiatry; so the article may end up needing deleted.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That's unfortunate. Nominate for WP:AFD? Biosthmors (talk) 04:29, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a good idea. Is the class assignment finished? I would feel a little guilty if we were to delete the article when it is 'being marked' by her tutor.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Assignment finished! The final version to be graded was the version on the 28th. See more details at User:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro. Biosthmors (talk) 16:43, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, great. :) I have started the AfD, here,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain-disabling psychiatric medical treatment.--MrADHD | T@1k? 19:09, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Student assignments on Wikipedia

Comment: I agree with the AfD that the article should be deleted, and have said so there. But I am puzzled by the comments above. Do we have a policy or a general feeling here, to retain unacceptable or unencyclopedic articles temporarily as a favor to students doing assignments? Personally I wouldn't feel "guilty" at all about deleting such an article if it deserved deletion, and in fact I kind of hate the whole idea of professors telling students to come here and post their homework in the middle of an international encyclopedia. --MelanieN (talk) 19:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah I am not too happy about encouraging or supporting this use of Wikipedia either. Maybe the articles could be posted to AFC instead, and then a notice about each one could be posted here at WT:MED. Then we, or any of the regular patrollers at AFC, could review them, and accept or reject them as normal. Zad68 19:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be better. It would also "protect" the essay as written - give the student ownership of their work, as is not the case on Wikipedia mainspace. What happens to their assignment if someone comes along and does a major edit or rewrite - which they have to accept as a possibility when they post here? --MelanieN (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Exactly! And, every AFC accepted automatically increases one letter grade. And, if the AFC is accepted by someone who is NOT a member of WP:MED, it increases TWO letter grades! Zad68 20:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Not in my discussions with the professor. Biosthmors (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, everyone is expected to write about notable topics. Unfortunately I wasn't around to help this class with topic selection at the beginning of the semester. Whether or not someone wants to let empathy temporarily delay a deletion request is not expected (nor is it desired according to any Wikipedia guideline I'm aware of as it would be preferential treatment), but it is of course a personal one and I respect those who take either side of the issue. There is no requirement to give preferential treatment. Please only don't WP:BITE or be uncivil. That's all. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Consider discussing education-specific issues at WP:Education noticeboard. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:39, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) How are people expected to know that they are dealing with students, and that they shouldn't "bite or be uncivil", if the articles are simply tossed into mainspace rather than a more forgiving environment like Articles for Creation? And how do you deal with the student's ownership of their work if it is in mainspace? I would really urge you (and the professor) to have such articles posted to AfC in the future as suggested by Zad68. What I am trying to say is, I have a real problem with this kind of assignment; I think it violates several Wikipedia principles including WP:ESSAY, WP:SYNTHESIS, and WP:OWN. --MelanieN (talk) 20:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Please post and discuss at User talk:Biosthmors/Intro Neuro. Biosthmors (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Melanie, I don't think it really hurts us to have an article on a borderline-notable topic hang about for a few extra days. Being a little less quick with the deletion button is one thing we can do to improve editor retention. We don't have to worry about editor retention, but threatening a new editor with deletion as soon as the article has been posted is one of the actions that is proven to run off new editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Collaborative publication

For those interested in "WP:MEDPUB", I posted at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Collaborative_publication#Priorities. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

RFC/U

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rhode Island Red.2 involves a user whom a few of you may have encountered. Rhode Island Red does some work in articles about AltMed/herbal-type products. It appears that the immediate area of contention is the biography for the founder of the Melaleuca MLM company. RFC/U pages are about a user's conduct (not article content) and are open to anyone who believes s/he can be helpful, so if you're interested, feel free to see if you can help resolve the dispute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes though he added balance to some alt med topics. It is a difficult subject area to edit. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome and DSM-V

Asperger syndrome will be dropped from the DSM-5 in May 2013. It is a featured article. I believe that if it is rewritten carefully, it should be able to retain its featured status. I suggest that, since IPs and others are dropping in there increasingly often after seeing press reports of the pending change in DSM-5, that work should get underway soon. In order to retain its featured status, working carefully and collaboratively in sandbox might be a good approach. Is anyone willing to help? The holidays make it hard for me to take the lead in this effort, but if the med editors don't do the work, IPs and random editors may cause the article to deteriorate to the point of losing its featured status. See here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

• I would be very conservative about changes and wait how practice changes. Would not advocate a rewrite just because DSM changes. Richiez (talk) 14:11, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• What is the fear? Why would the article need to be rewritten? I think that there should be a section about the re-classification of the condition, but that does not change the other content in the article, does it? I am willing to help. If someone proposes a source to add then I will add content to the article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It needs the new info, but some text will also need to be switched to past tense ... and a review of anything else it might need. And to make sure the new info and re-classification is well sourced. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
    • Why the past tense? Surely we wait for our scholarly sources to refer to it in the past tense, and to do so globally. A quick glance at the some autism websites shows no change at all in the way they describe AS. I do encourage folk to watchlist the various autism spectrum articles and be on the lookout for folk just taking scissors to the articles. AS is like a 100w incandescent light bulb. -- Colin°^Talk 16:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

      I don't think they're saying it doesn't exist, but surely any sentence like "is listed in the DSM" would need to be put in the past tense. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

      • Is it May 2013 already? Colin°^Talk 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what we would do with PDD-NOS and Autism as well. What I think will end up happening is, like the Attention-deficit disorder (ADD) article didn't change titles yet mentions in the article that it is now classified as ADHD, Predominately Inattentive (ADHD-PI). I have a feeling the titles wont need to be changed but it should be added in the lead noting what the new diagnostic terms. Everybody will know them as Autism, PDD-NOS, and Asperger's even when it does change. ATC ^{. Talk} 23:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I already have some ideas and may make a sandbox. The way I worded the last sentence of the first paragraph in the lead for Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), I'll use similar wording for describing the new terms. ATC ^{. Talk} 23:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Germ theory of disease article

• Germ theory of disease

The article is small and not that well developed. It needs a lot of work. Anyone willing to add to it?--Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:49, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That would be great if someone took it on. It definitely has a lot of tags at the top, and it is an important subject. But I bet its length is far from its biggest issue. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages for a list that might contain articles thought by some to be higher priority. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 18:03, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

It gets 22k views a month, and I think of articles over 20k as being of average importance. I have actually looked for sources into this about contemporary notions of germ theory, because in the developing world one of the major external health recommendations is to provide access to clean water but many local people do not see this as a priority. It upsets international health workers when they go to places which do not respect external attempts to provide clean water. About a year ago I looked for sources describing contemporary disregard for germ theory as it relates to water and sewage infrastructure in the developing world but was unable to find anything. If anyone can find sources about educational outreach for boiling water, building toilets, or teaching handwashing which ties those actions to germ theory then I would help integrate the content into this article. In the field, germ theory education is a hot topic. I just have not found literature on it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks for mentioning this. Biosthmors (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Since the article is partly a summary of work in the 19th century, it lends itself well to re-using sections from other pages, and then editing them together. This is what I've done so far. I will expand some other areas as well. And yes, sources discussing modern people ignoring the Germ theory of disease would be very welcome. Anything discussing germ theory in the modern context would be welcome. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:42, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Medical tattoo article

Any source recommendations for this article? 199.229.232.42 (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added a few to get you started - it's a big topic and notably overlooked in radiation oncology. Tattooing for radiotherapy is so old that I could not easily find a recent review online. An excellent source would be a recent radiation oncology textbook. -- Scray (talk) 06:16, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Resolved

MEDRS for claiming regular food causes cancer?

There is a discussion here: Talk:Organic_food#Article_protection about whether agricultural journals are reliable for saying regular food causes cancer, compared to using only WP:MEDRS sources. More input welcome. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course regular food causes cancer. Everything in the world either causes or prevents cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Um, bra wearing causes cancer? Thank you for clearing that up, daily mail.lesion (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

You must not have seen Dressed to Kill (book). An IP from the authors' hometown seems to come by and "fix" that article every now and again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Arbcom Election

Voting is ongoing here. A few of the people have a back ground in medicine / science. [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

List of cancer types

List of cancer types needs to be on more watchlists, to protect it against simple vandalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Added, if it remains bad, it's a candidate for pending changes. Zad68 19:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Added. Thank you for the information. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 09:47, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

There are probably errors remaining in Leigh's disease

Based on this edit. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 11:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Request For Comment on Koro (Penis Panic) regarding 1 sentence inclusion of Peyronie's Disease explanation

Talk:Koro (medicine)

Re: Adding / Removing a sentence on Peyronie's Disease in the introduction of this article.

I added a clarification to the top of this page that Koro (a psychological condition) should not be confused with the biological condition with the same symptoms (early stage Peyronie’s Disease). I cited 2 sources, The Journal of Urology (peer reviewed) and the National Kidney and Urologic Diseases Information Clearinghouse (NKUDIC). Then, “OhNoItsJamie” (an admin whose reputation for speedy & unhelpful deletions has driven people off wikipedia - just google his screen name) immediately deleted this change and cited WP:SYNTH. He did not post on the talk page or clarify this any further. Deleting my sentence due to WP:SYNTH was not an accurate application of that guideline. So, I sent him a detailed explanation of why I made the change & why WP:SYNTH did not apply. He simply replied in 1 sentence that all information has to be sourced & reliable (apparently ignoring the fact I cited the leading journal in the field of urology the first time)... I suppose he saw me state that I have a MA and PhD and immediately assumed I was injecting my own personal experience. The reality is I AM using my perspective & knowledge of these topics to draw the information from the sources (peer reviewed journals) - and that is the point of wikipedia (multiple people coming together with different sets of knowledge). Some people are going to know more about topics than others, and having rules applied by people who are ignorant of the topics just makes the articles worse.

Therefore, I would like to keep my statement as it appears in the edit, which simply stated “This psychological condition should not be confused with Peyronie's Disease which is a urological condition in which the penis shrinks in size due to scar tissue.” I also added "Peyronie’s disease" to the “see also” section (which OhNoItsJamie also deleted for unknown reasons). So, I want to add that back as well. His complaint that I am not citing sources makes no sense, given that I cited 2 prominent sources. As far as talking about 1 disease in an article where another disease is mentioned goes (the WP:Synth complaint), that is not a violation of WP:SYNTH. Every disease that is related to another disease gets discussed on Wikipedia articles. And, I am only asking to add 1 very short (but important) sentence - not an entire section on Peyronie's disease. Additional information is on the Koro talk page. I would really appreciate people from this project to please help on this issue. thank you. Angelatomato (talk) 02:04, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Neither of the articles you cited connect Koro with Peyronie's; you making the connection is plainly WP:SYNTH/WP:OR. Please take the time to read those policies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 05:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's a DIRECT source that connects the two which is not "original research" or "synth" as you (OhNoItsJamie)want to insist: http://connection.ebscohost.com/[scratch that - it appears I copied the wrong link...hence the argument below...sorry]. If you cannot access empirical journals (usually only through universities or libraries) to see this, google google "koro and peyronies disease" so you can see previews where they are mentioned without having access. This is a RARE condition so you will not see 1000s of sources, but here's one. Since the symptoms of the two are identical in the early phase, it was just an obvious statement not requiring a reference - but here you go anyway.

OhNoItsJamie - Please just accept that I am trying to improve the article and move on. Your application of wikipedia guidelines is incorrect (wp:synth is not violated and it is a flexible policy - go read it again yourself). I am asking for other opinions from people with actual science / medicine backgrounds since you have you missed the point of what I wrote & of the citations entirely. You are making irresponsible edits that harm the quality of the content and other users for some reason that I cannot fathom. I have a PhD in psychology & your issues are obvious, but I won't even go there...I've read complaints about you all over the web. People have stopped using wikipedia because of you. Google your screen name & count the number of people you've driven off this site with your bizarre power trip behavior. I've published in peer reviewed journals & responded to 30 pages of criticism which have been easier to deal with than your behavior...I'm leaving it up to others to add their opinions. Remember, this is a collaborative website. You don't own it. Angelatomato (talk) 14:21, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A list of articles from periodicals targeted to the general public does not constitute a connection (other than a shared keyword). Learn to tell an article from a list.Novangelis (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Uh...I have a PhD, and you don't think I can tell an article from a keyword? I was trying to make it easier for people who are not at a university (or other library) to read articles because they won't have access to medical journals. Sorry for that. If two (both extremely rare) disorders have identical symptoms, it is virtually impossible to find an empirical article about them at all - let alone connecting them. That's just how it is. Nobody is going to publish it and no journal editor will let it in. If you do not have experience publishing in empirical journals, you won't understand & I do not expect you to. Just use your common sense. If I want to say that the early stages of a heart attack should not be mistaken for a panic attack (supposing they had the same symptoms) - it would not require a citation to say they are frequently confused with each other. Rather, common sense would allow someone to say "here are the sympoms of a heart attack" and "here are the symptoms for a panic attack" and "there may be confusion between the two". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelatomato (talk • contribs) 15:17, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If no one is going to publish it, then you are done. "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought"Novangelis (talk) 15:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is not "original thought" - the lists of the symptoms for both are the same - and those are published (and what I cited). I gave you the heart attack / panic attack analogy...what is the confusion? I am not interested in publishing my original thoughts here. I am interested in improving the article with facts...as I have cited. If you fail to understand that, then you should move to another topic. Nothing is "done" - I just opened the rfc last night.Angelatomato (talk) 15:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on you to prove that there is a published connection. None of the abstracts I saw mentioned them. Googling both terms pulls up articles related to one or the other, but not both. If you fail to understand Wikipedia policies, you should move on to another encyclopedia. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You said " I'm done discussing the matter with you (i.e., any further posts on my talk page by you will be removed). Feel free to continue your crusade on other venues"... So why are you back? Anyway, yes I do understand wikipedia policies & am acting within them. You are not - and that is why I have opened this up for other opinions under wikipedia guidelines that allow me to ask editors for other perspectives. Nothing is "done" - I just opened the rfc last night. And, that was a published source...my point (above) was that if you are not in a library (or have online access), it probably will not open (without permissions - empirical journals just show abstracts). So, I gave people keywords (who did not have library access) - and then I was told that I didn't know the difference between keywords and articles. Joy. And all this over 1 sentence...amazing. Angelatomato (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I said I wasn't discussing it on my talk page' anymore. You've already admitted that there aren't any published sources connecting the two, and that your "expert" clinical experience was enough to justify your adding original research. We don't make policy exceptions based on claimed (or verified) credentials. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You said you are done discussing THE MATTER and I.e., (which means "in other words") you would delete things on your talk page. I live in the real world w/ patients who have this issue - so what I "admitted" came from my daily life, where I do not need to find citations for obvious facts in my...however, since it is necessary here, I will continue to look for them - and I have put out a RFC (which you called a "crusade") to get opinions of others. I did not do a thorough literature search through every psych and urology journal - so there may be something - and we'll see what happens. Regardless, that one tiny little sentence still does not violate any of those policies (as if every sentence on wikipedia is cited? Not to mention, nobody - in any discipline - cites the obvious). Because you disagree, I have asked for other opinions and we will see what they say. You are interpreting the guidelines incorrectly, and therefore the guidelines suggest I put out a request for comment, which I did. If every rule on earth was so back and white, we wouldn't have millions of lawyers and judges, would we? Sorry we are seeing this completely differently, but I doubt this is the first time it happened on here. Look at your talk page - first I asked you to work with me to come up with a sentence that satisfied your interpretation of the guidelines & the information that is published...but you decided against it...so I posted the RFC & per the RFC "promotion" guidelines, I put it in the medicine section, which you then called a "crusade"...it appears you are only interested in deleting the sentence and being right - and not improving the content at all. Angelatomato (talk) 16:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We should not create a cognitive link between conditions without support from appropriate sourcing. If common knowledge, support should not be too hard to find (I sympathize - I've had to do this, too). It's important to remember that just because something else on WP is poorly sourced is not a good reason for us to worsen the problem. -- Scray (talk) 19:12, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's the latest / closest thing I could find for the original statement: Bernstein, R. L., & Gaw, A. C. (1990). Koro: Proposed classification for DSM-IV. American Journal of Psychiatry, 147, 1670–1674.Angelatomato (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

One alternative would be to do a list of related conditions and symptoms. I have already added body dysmorphic disorder (with a citation) - so this would work in my mind - but I dont want to spend time on it if it will be deleted. Angelatomato (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I posted 3 additional sources on the Koro talk page...I think the issue is resolved. Now, the problem is - how to integrate this into the existing article... Angelatomato (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A2 milk

This link is being added to a number of articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Have reverted a bunch of new additions. Mostly solved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

A2 milk is currently being poorly edited. It needs help Bhny (talk) 06:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes user is persistent. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Paedophilia epidemiology

There are major issues on the paedophilia article regarding its prevalance. I am wondering if anyone here is interested or knows how to resolve this problem? The problem is as follows. According to wikipedia 1 in 10 men approximately are fixated on prepubescent kids. To me this is obvious nonsense. I suspect that either sources have been misinterpreted, such as prevalance rates in prison samples have been extrapolated across into the general population or else adolescentophilia, particularly hebephilia has been included in these statistics without informing the reader. The big problem is that for obvious reasons there are no solid estimates as to the prevalence rate of DSM IV-tr paedophilia in the general population but I just know it is not 1 in 10 men! People with access to full text medical articles are particularly needed. The discussion is here for all who are interested, Talk:Pedophilia#Prevalence_rates.--MrADHD | T@1k? 20:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a claim in the article that 10% of men are pedophiles. Can you tell us exactly which sentence concerns you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The prevalence section says estimates range from 3-9 percent of people have paedophilia with 5 percent suggested as an average. The 10 percent comes from two places. Half of the population is male, and almost all paedophiles are male, thus the 5 percent statistic needs to be doubled or almost doubled for men as the article does not state that it is talking about men only. Even 5 percent of men seems way way off to me. The other thing is the estimate ranges up to almost 9 percent, which if you double that up you could argue our wikipedia article is saying up to almost 18 percent of males are paedophiles as the article currently states from 3 percent and up to 9 percent of the population are paedophiles.--MrADHD | T@1k? 22:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Unsurprisingly, the figures are being misused. The relevant passage from the first cited Seto article is:

The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is unknown because large-scale epidemiological surveys have not yet been conducted. Much smaller surveys of convenience samples suggest that the upper limit for the prevalence of pedophilia is around 5%, as almost all of these surveys have shown that 3% to 9% of male respondents acknowledge sexual fantasies or sexual contact involving prepubescent children (e.g., Briere & Runtz 1989, Fromuth et al. 1991, Templeman & Stinnett 1991). Only some of these respondents might meet the diagnostic criteria for pedophilia, however, as these surveys have not asked questions regarding the intensity or persistence of sexual fantasies or behavior.

Some of this is closely paraphrased in the article, with some fairly important qualifiers having been removed. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:58, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, well probably what they are detecting with the wording of those questions is mostly non-paedophiles who at some point in time have on occasion allowed their mind to wander into perverse thoughts about prepubescent children, probably when they were highly 'sexed'/horny for want of a better expression. They probably could have detected similar rates of sexual thoughts involving the elderly, if they asked the same questions regarding the elderly but that doesn't mean 3-9 percent of men are gerontophiles. As the author states, only some of these people would have prepubescent fantasies recurring and dominating their sexual thoughts, so yes the source(s) have been grossly misquoted. Thanks for digging out the source content!--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The article says that "is estimated to be lower than 5% based on several smaller studies with prevalence rates between 3% and 9%", not that it is estimated to be 5%. I've clarified, and used the opportunity to remove a primary source while I was at it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:05, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ah my bad memory, I didn't quote article text correctly. Thanks for helping with the article. :)--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, did you mean to remove the SetoReview refname? The 5% part looks unsourced without that beside it. And shouldn't we keep the fact the 5% is based on several small studies? As for the "prevalence rates between 3% and 9%" information, is removing it better than rewording it in some way? Flyer22 (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Especially since the information has been somewhat misrepresented? Flyer22 (talk) 23:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Yea, it is a review article; just needs to be better summarised so as to not misrepresent the source.--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

IMO SetoReview ought to appear only once in that sentence. Where in the setence is not terribly important to me.

I do believe that it is appropriate to remove the 3–9% claim, since that detail is basically unimportant and tends to de-bunk the conclusion of the review, which is that the prevalence is less than 5%. I can go either way about including "based on several small studies", but I removed it because we don't normally want to call out the details of how a review article arrived at its conclusions per WP:MEDMOS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In this case I feel that we need to convey to the reader the nature of the prevalence evidence. The review author states themselves that only some of the 3-9 percent of people reporting ever fantasising sexually about prepubescents would be actual paedophiles; that doesn't sound like this review author believes that anywhere near 5 percent of men are sexually fixated on prepubescents. I feel we either need to briefly explain the origin of the statistics and that the review author felt that only some of the sample would actually be paedophiles or else exclude the 3-9 percent and the below 5 percent of men statistics. Otherwise we are going to have lots of readers with a warped view of reality and a warped view of the review authors thoughts, regarding the incidence of paedophilia and male sexual thoughts.--MrADHD | T@1k? 00:05, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, as always, thanks for the reply WhatamIdoing. I'm aware of WP:OVERREFERENCING, but I've seen too many cases where, even when the reference is placed earlier on in the line, the rest of the line is thought to be unsourced because it doesn't have a reference at the end of it. But that way of thinking makes sense because there's no reason to place the reference near the beginning or middle instead of at the end of the line. Other instances, though, such as one reference supporting an entire paragraph at the end... It irks me when editors don't realize that the entire paragraph is supported by that one source, and then place a citation-needed tag somewhere in the paragraph. It's understandable when they don't have access to the source, especially since there are cases where a source at the end of the paragraph doesn't support all of the paragraph's text, but people should always check the source(s) before adding a citation-needed tag. I've even seen cases that are the reverse of the SetoReview example, where even with the reference at the end of the line, an editor will think that first part of the line is unsourced because the line is talking about two different matters. Anyway, end of rant. I've gone ahead and duplicated the SetoReview refname to the end of the line.

MrADHD, I definitely don't feel that the above statistics information should be excluded altogether. Flyer22 (talk) 00:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Suggested text: Anonymous surveys of adult males have found that 3-9 percent men admit to having ever as adults sexually fantasised about prepubescent children, however, it is likely that only some of these men would be paedophiles. Anonymous surveys of the general public asking questions regarding age related sexual preference or exclusive interest to obtain an accurate picture of the number of paedophiles in the general public has not yet been carried out. From what is known the incidence of paedophilia in men is believed to be below 5 percent.--MrADHD | T@1k? 00:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

You're probably aware of this but Seto has a 2012 article where he again reviews the evidence for prevalence rates - available here. That source appears to be a little more detailed on this question and it's not cited in the article. Personally, I think it would be important to state that current estimates are based on non-representative samples. I'd also be inclined to follow Seto's wording that the 5 per cent figure is an upper limit. Also is James Cantor still active on Wikipedia? FiachraByrne (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

MrADHD, yes, that wording is fine. I feel that the initial wording of "The prevalence of pedophilia in the general population is not known" that is in the article should stay, though. Also, keep the spelling consistent with the article's spelling, per WP:ENGVAR; "fantasised" should be "fantasized," "paedophiles" should be "pedophiles"...and "paedophilia" should be "pedophilia."

FiachraByrne, MrADHD is new to this topic area, as stated on the Pedophilia talk page (by MrADHD). So I'm sure that he didn't know about that 2012 article. Thank you for presenting it; we should definitely use it, especially since it's a fairly recent review of the same material. The thing about trying to follow WP:MEDRS's recommendation of "Look[ing] for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years." for the Pedophilia article is that recent material is not always coming out for every aspect of pedophilia; this is why WP:MEDRS also states that its instructions about up-to-date material "may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." Some of the sources in the article, though old by WP:MEDRS's standards, are the most up-to-date for the information they are supporting. And, yes, James Cantor (James Cantor) is still active on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 17:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I also still feel that it should be stated that the above statistics are based on only several small surveys. So I would prefer the above proposed text begin with "Several small anonymous surveys." And "would be pedophiles" should be "are pedophiles." And a comma should be placed after "From what is known." Flyer22 (talk) 17:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Kyle M. Johnson

Kyle M. Johnson was PRODded. Maybe there is something notable about his operation, then I guess it would be Brain operation of Kyle M. Johnson if there is something notable there. Biosthmors (talk) 01:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Badhan (blood donor organization)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badhan (blood donor organization). -- Trevj (talk) 08:56, 8 December 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Asperger's Syndrome: re-evaluation by APA

Expert attention is welcome at Talk:Asperger syndrome#Time for a revisit to this article (version of 15:15, 8 December 2012).
—Wavelength (talk) 17:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)