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

Vinegar and tear gas

I don't know if this is the best place to ask, but I hope someone might be able to help. With all the protests going on around the world, I think it would be beneficial to have good information about dealing with tear gas and pepper spray. There has been a large spike in readers of the tear gas article, and a smaller increase for pepper spray. In Brazil the police arrested people for carrying vinegar as a protection. See Talk:2013_protests_in_Brazil#V_de_Vinagre. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Gave tear gas page a little first aid, but it still needs lot of work - couldn't work out how to fix a reference mess I inadvertently added. Second reference to Hu - if anyone fixes, please don't just stick in the PMID without keeping the link to the free full text which is not available through PubMed. I'd appreciate a pointer to where I can learn to fix references myself. Hildabast (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

On a related matter, shouldn't Pepper spray, CS gas and (perhaps) CR gas be WP:MED? —81.157.7.7 (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

There's also a page on Mace (spray). Hildabast (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The criteria for deciding what's in our scope is at WP:MEDA. Generally, we keep things that are primarily medical, not things that have medical implications if humans are exposed to them. Anyone can assess articles, so just read the criteria and use youre judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you WAID. I can see it's a pragmatic judgement issue. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

• Would be grateful for some further opinions to help resolve a sensitive content/structure issue at Talk:Tear_gas#DIY_.22treatments.22. (I'm way out of my depth.) 81.157.7.7 (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

  Thanks for helping mate. I've changed it from 'DIY remedy' to 'home remedy', as we have an article on the latter which does help the reader understand we're talking about non-medical remedies using materials that are readily available in the home, without resorting to using more pejorative terms like 'folk medicine'. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 00:38, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Good idea imo, thanks. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Health claims cleanup

Mitragyna speciosa is a bit of a stretch at the moment (diabetes, depression, etc...). Is there a protocol for how to deal with these sorts of issues? 150.148.14.8 (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I won't vouch for the quality of the article, but those claims are not all that much of a stretch. The plant (illegal in Thailand) apparently contains pretty high levels of chemicals that function as opiate agonists, and could be expected to have the usual effects of opiates. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm more concerned with our article's assertion that it doesn't have any side effects, when even the cited source (from a pro-legalization advocacy group) notes that it does. MastCell ^Talk 19:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Removing medical claims based on primary sources would be a good place to begin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm pretty concerned that false information keeps getting re-added to the article. The material on side effects in the lead is based on a paper from a pro-drug-legalization advocacy group, which is not a great source to start with for medical info. Worse, while the source does note side effects and addictive potential, editors keep using it to claim that there are no side effects. I'd appreciate additional eyes if anyone's willing. MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Watchlisted, will scan through the sourcing. Zad68 17:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Performance-enhancing use of medically-prescribed Adderall

Just amended my own comment. I'm just concerned that a section on performance-enhancing uses for students of Adderall that is rather an encouraging description of the benefits to students of using Adderall to enhance their academic performance. I think this page is now encouraging students to misuse Adderall. I've never tried to undo something, and am not sure what I'm getting into here. Would appreciate it if others could help out. I'm going to delete the section on the benefits of using Adderall as a study aid. Hildabast (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've made a start. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding: Content now reframed/edited (medical claims based on primary research deleted). 81.157.7.7 (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

More eyes/input needed, imo. Content based on primary research and reviews from 50 years ago is being reinserted. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

There are issues at Amphetamine as well, so discussing here seems appropriate (multiple articles involved). The older references need to be removed where they deviate from current consensus, per MEDRS, and same goes for the primary sources. The ref from Frontiers in Neuroscience does not appear to be a high-quality review, more like a melange of primary research and summary. RL demands prevent me from doing more in the next few hours - hope others can pick up the thread. -- Scray (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree (I have to call time out too). 81.157.7.7 (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

This conversation is currently being held on Talk:Amphetamine_mixed_salts_(medication). Please discuss there. Seppi333 (talk) 13:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes we should not be using primary sources to contradict secondary ones or to change proper weighting of opinion especially for a topic where so many good secondary sources exist. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for someone to show me a single secondary source those papers contradict, particularly the ones regarding augmented physiology. So far the only thing I've read from anyone is vague references to the entire MEDRS article and "all those secondary sources" that I've somehow completely missed for years (background to this statement is on the talk page I linked to above). Seppi333 (talk) 02:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've actually already started writing, so please bear with me a little while longer.Hildabast (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Anthocyanin

Our article on Anthocyanin seems to rather contradict itself - it states in Anthocyanin#Potential food value that "Although anthocyanins are powerful antioxidants in vitro, this antioxidant property is unlikely to be conserved after the plant is consumed. As interpreted by the Linus Pauling Institute and European Food Safety Authority, dietary anthocyanins and other flavonoids have little or no direct antioxidant food value following digestion". However, it goes on to discuss 'research on health benefits' in another section, which cites several (primary?) sources discussing ongoing laboratory research into anthocyanins, which seem to indicate benefits. This is way outside my subject area, and I'm no way qualified to comment on the reliability of sourcing - perhaps someone from this project could take a look? AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately the literature in that area is a mess, and a straightforward application of MEDRS would allow statements that totally contradict one another. It looks like the most authoritative source is this review from the European Food Safety Authority, which concludes that there is no good evidence for a meaningful benefit to human health. (That source is already cited in our article.) However, I think it would be hard for anybody who doesn't have thorough knowledge of the relevant literature to write a good balanced account of the current state of understanding. Looie496 (talk) 16:52, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

New open access journal: National Institute of Health Research Journal Library

NIHR Journals Library

"The new NIHR Journals Library was officially launched at an event in central London on 20 June, by Lord Howe the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Quality, Department of Health. The NIHR Journals Library will provide full publication and open access to an extensive body of health research. It comprises a suite of five programme-specific journal series, published online, which are fully searchable and provide a comprehensive record of work funded by these NIHR programmes. Building on the success of the existing Health Technology Assessment journal, the library will give accessible full publication of findings of the research commissioned by these programmes and will provide an important permanent and comprehensive record of the work which has been funded.

The NIHR is the world’s first health research funder to publish comprehensive accounts of its commissioned research within its own peer-reviewed collection of journals, which provides more detailed information about the research projects, including protocols, study design, methodologies, interview transcripts and questionnaires, which is not normally included in other journals."

source: http://www.nihr.ac.uk/Pages/default.aspx

Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Caption

A monkey using mastication to process tough plant matter

I question the suitability of this caption for this otherwise excellent picture gracing the mastication page. Also, I am very disappointed that we are not using this image in many more pages due to its high relevance to many topics (currently only used on Methods used to study memory, Macaque). So if anyone can think of a better caption, or any other pages beginning with 'm' where this image would be useful, please feel free to suggest. Lesion (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

• for example, isn't the alpha Macaque giving an excellent display of the middle finger? Lesion (talk) 21:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Perhaps beyond the scope of WikiProject medicine? ;-) It's a nice picture, and I see a quasi-forming peace sign/V sign. The image should be cropped, I think, in order to be a helpful addition to the middle finger page though. Biosthmors (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You're right-- I didn't see the V sign before but it's definitely there. Note that the other individuals are paying no attention to the hand gestures, and only focus on the grass being eaten. Maybe this suggests that such hand gestures have no significance in Macaque sociocultural structure? Or if they do hold some significance, then this is of lesser conceptual importance than grass. As to scope, I think all members of this wikiproject could learn a lot by meditating a while on the many issues raised in this image, indeed all wikipedia editors. Lesion (talk) 13:20, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ref styles

As most are aware I am collaborating with TWB to improve and translate key medical articles into as many other languages as possible. Right now we are working on about 50 lanaguages per here [1]. One issue is reference styles. I consistently use what the cite template gives use and which is used across most/all languages versions of Wikipedia. This user in this edit [2] change the style to <ref name=NEJM2012>[[Template:cite|{{cite ]]pmid|22494122|noedit}}</ref>. This style is not supported by Panjabi Wikipedia for example [3]. What are peoples thoughts? Is there support for using the cite ref formatting style as created by the ref toolbar for medical article ( or at least for the 80 I am working on )? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I think I've long made known the reasons for my distrust for cite pmid, cite doi, etc. They bury crucial information (needed for wp:V) in obscure template-space subpages of en watched by no human editor, just some bots. In this example, the template did not exist on .pa, but of course all the subpages are also missing. They could, I suppose have templates which access the .en subpages, but that's even more perverse. There is however some prospect of the problem being impacted by porting the data from those subpages to wikidata. While it will be just as obscure, it should at least be usable in all wikis. This isn't going to happen overnight, but it is certainly being discussed. In the meantime, it might be safer to simply use <ref>PMID 1234567</ref> and leave it at that. A determined reader can still click through to the .en article to find further detail on that source. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:55, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

An additional personal preference is that I very much like seeing all the details in the article text. I find that it makes editing much easier for me as I can see the year and title without have to click a bunch. Hopefully if we move to Wikidata we can set it so these details are still visible to those who want to see them. Or maybe it could be a preference setting so that everyone can get what they want. This could allow setting the refs over many lines or over a single line as each desires. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:02, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I also prefer the basic cite templates, although as the lesser of eighteen evils -- I often run into trouble editing because all the clutter makes it impossible to parse a paragraph without previewing constantly, but after trying a bunch of things I haven't found any better alternative. Still, I don't think we should be dictatorial about citation methods. We can express a preference, but I don't think we can forbid people to use other methods, as long as enough information is present to enable the source to be located. (Note that regardless of what method you use you're going to have a lot of <ref name=Foo/>-type references, where you have to look elsewhere anyhow.) Looie496 (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Give User:PleaseStand/References_segregator a shot - it really seems to help sort out the clutter (changing my comment because I haven't used it for long). I agree with Doc about these templates; perhaps an (optional) best practices guide could be drafted. II | (t - c) 04:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:CITEVAR, any change to the style at an article requires a separate discussion at that article.

Personally, I'm not fond of {cite pmid} and the like. I do like WP:List-defined references, especially for articles built around a handful of good sources, and have used the script that II recommends.

Given that WP:VisualEditor just introduced refs, and its limited, although growing, capabilities are going to have a significant effect on what happens for the next couple of months, I'm not sure that it's worth trying to find a solution right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes with VE coming it is probably best to see where things stand after the dust settles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

For anyone interested, the cite template integration is tracked in bugzilla here. I have been using the visualeditor for the past two weeks or so, and it makes editing much easier and enjoyable, but adding references is still one of the things I use the source editor for for now. --WS (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Most of what I do is add references so not ready for me yet than :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Erection#Requested move

Opinions are needed on whether or not to move the Erection article to Penile erection. I ask that any of you weigh in on this matter when you get a good chance to do so. I already have. Flyer22 (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

What to do? The sources "copy and pasting" from us are getting to be of higher quality

Was working on our article on baby colic as it was a disaster. Was happily using this July 2012 review article to update and improve our content http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411470/. Came to the "5S" approach and they are word for word the same as us except that we had the content first being added in this massive edit [4] in 2010. Look back further this seems to have been a merge from here [5]. Which was than added in this massive edit here [6] by the same user in May 2010. Do we trust the peer review of this journal and can we simply use this paper to improve our summary of the "5S's" technique? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like XKCD's prediction has come true [7]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The rest of the 2012 paper is copied verbatim from this 2004 paper in AFP. Do journal not check for plagarism? http://www.aafp.org/afp/2004/0815/p735.html It does not appear that what we have was plagiarized but I am not definitive. Anyway have reported it to the journal in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

The only pay-to-play journals I consider reputable are the PLoS group. I don't trust the BioMed Central journals (of which the Italian Journal of Pediatrics is one), particularly when the authors come from third world countries, which are notorious for plagiarism. They are supposedly peer-reviewed, but who is doing those reviews? Looie496 (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Peer-review is supposed to look at content, not at writing. Plain old editors are supposed to be checking for plagiarism. In this case, it ought to be as simple and as cheap as using one of those plagiarism detection programs that so many schools are depending on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

in the news: diclofenac

"The [UK] medicines regulator said painkiller diclofenac could significantly increase the risk of a heart attack or stroke for some patients. The advice has been updated [8] after a European review [9] of the risks." [10]
86.161.251.139 (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes all NSAIDs other than ASA appear to do so to some extent. The COX2 inhibitors do more than most. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think Diclofenac#Cardiac may need some tlc, but I don't feel confident to do it myself. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Adding: The European Medicines Agency committee is recommending (by majority vote) "that the same precautions already in place to minimise the risks of blood clots in the arteries with selective COX-2 inhibitors should be applied to diclofenac." [11] Apparently, a legally-binding EU-wide decision will be taken. 86.161.251.139 (talk) 10:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes much of Wikipedia's medical content needs a great deal of TLC. We need more people who care about there being high quality freely available health care content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:04, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Omalizumab section on History

I think the History section, in particular this addition, might benefit from more eyes. I have started a discussion on the Talk page. Thanks to any who have a moment to comment. -- Scray (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

suspention of the marketing authorisations for Tetrazepam

FYI the marketing license for Tetrazepam ( Musaril, Spasmolex) has been revoked in Europe effective 01.08.13. I have added the information to the article. Ochiwar (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Inclined Bed Therapy for AfD

AfD discussion for above article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inclined Bed Therapy. Your input would be highly appreciated. Ochiwar (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Cruciferous vegetables#Weasel_words

I would appreciate some eyes on the above talk page. Note that this is a continuation of the issues that were started with the Vitamin U article. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 23:52, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and watched. Agree huge issues with undue weight and inappropriate use of primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:02, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor

Just a reminder that you are going to have two options for editing pages in about eight hours: the new WP:VisualEditor under "[Edit]" and the old (2002) wikicode system under "[Edit source]". The new system will only work in articles and userspace (no talk pages or project pages.)

A lot of you have tried it out, but both will be available for all registered accounts before long. (Unregistered users/IPs will still be using the old system for at least another week.)

There are a few thing that the new system can't do yet, such as editing templates that are nested within other templates or adding rows to tables, but most of the basic work, such as:

• adding, removing, or changing text,
• adding inline citations using <ref> tags, and
• adding images

should all be working at a basic level. Some templates also work. There is information at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/TemplateData about how to tell VisualEditor about our templates, and I think it would be good to have someone do that for {{Infobox disease}} and the like. (I haven't figured it out myself yet, though.)

I think most of you will like the new system, and I think that in the long run we'll see good edits from professionals who are too busy to learn wikicode just to provide updates, but you are not required to use it. You can easily click [Edit source] to get to the old one. For those who can't stand to even see that the new system exists, there is a plan for an 'opt-out' switch, but last I heard, there were unexpected technical problems with it (something about the opt-out script loading before VisualEditor loads, and thus being unable to affect VisualEditor), so it may be delayed, but it's on its way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Although I have have used the visual editor for the past few weeks and find it a great improvement for editing in many ways, I am a bit troubled by it going live without proper referencing support, especially with regard to medical articles. The VE implementation with just an empty textbox is a big step backwards from the current system where you can easily fill out templates and automatically look up parameters with just a isbn/doi/pmid. --WS (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

You can use citation templates, but they are not currently auto-filling, and {{cite journal}}, at least, doesn't seem to be reading the TemplateData yet, so you have to add each parameter, one at a time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, big step backwards. Don't understand why introduction wasn't delayed a few weeks or so until at least the basic functionality was fully ready. --WS (talk) 11:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion the TemplateData system is not yet usable. If you make the slightest mistake in setting it up, you will be unable to save your edit, and all you get is a message saying "JSON syntax error". I have created TemplateData for Infobox Disease, but I had to save it inside comment tags in Template:Infobox disease/doc because there's an error in it somewhere that I am unable to spot. I won't be using that system until it gives better assistance with debugging. (I left a message about this issue at Wikipedia talk:VisualEditor/TemplateData tutorial.) Looie496 (talk) 16:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like it has been fixed now, with the addition of a missing quotation mark. (Perhaps someday it will be less brittle.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

We need an opt out method now. Grrr Have stated a weight in here [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

One has been added here [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

So to clarify there is no way to autofill in references based on the PMID or ISBN with this new VE? What a lot of clicks this new VE requires? What a lot of steps it takes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:18, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Unless you have something set up differently from me, you now have two "edit" buttons for articles, one that uses VE and an "edit source" button that allows you to edit in exactly the same way that you have always done. So there's really no need for a preference. Looie496 (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, most people are just clicking the [Edit source] button when they want to use the old editor. It's available on every page, and requires no extra hassle or time spent with scripts or switches.

As for autofill: not yet, but those weren't working for me anyway (the last time I checked, which was a while ago). The URL-based one worked for me, but for PMIDs and ISBNs, I've been going to Diberri's website. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Always worked for me. --WS (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes the edit tool in the edit box doesn't work that consistently. Would be nice if the WMF put some effort into it. I am just concerned with VE rolling out to all new editors as default before it can properly handle references. That is all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Products of conception

I started the article a while ago. It is now being dragged into the abortion debate... as a hand full of pro-lifers don't seem to grasp how the term is used.

I reworked it a bit. I could probably use some more eyes... also, it needs some references. Nephron  T|C 03:02, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The entire Criticism of the term section needs to be removed. The criticism sentence is sourced to a blog post of a non-notable individual and it inappropriately generalizes that one individual's criticism of the use of the term. The other paragraph is unsourced. Zad68 03:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Adding - not sure why you are saying it's being 'dragged into' anything by a handful of anything... I see just one edit by an IP from a few weeks ago, hasn't edited since, nothing on the Talk page. Zad68 03:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Article needing attention from someone familiar with the subject

Giant cell requires a great deal of attention. Few citations, zero inline citations, prose that is mixed with personal address, etc. I'd work on it, but it's outside of my knowledge area.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The article was greatly expanded back in March as part of a class project by a high school student. It's actually better than a lot of the things we've seen from university class projects, but it does need quite a bit of work to be a decent article. Looie496 (talk) 04:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Linking to article search results

From my understanding we do not usually do this [14]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely not, seems WP:ELNEVER #1 would apply. Zad68 01:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if it violates copyright. Simply looks similar to adding a link to a pubmed search.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

The link described it as a research paper sharing group. That rings copyright violation bells. Is that description not accurate? If it's just a discussion group I still would oppose listing as EL, no value over PubMed and the site itself isn't the cite-able resource, only the underlying papers are. We're supposed to be selecting the sources. Don't see the value in linking to a bucket of them with no editorial control. Zad68 02:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:ELNO#EL9 is against linking to search results. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:50, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

From CiteUlike FAQ: CiteULike is a free service to help you to store, organise and share the scholarly papers you are reading. When you see a paper on the web that interests you, you can click one button and have it added to your personal library. CiteULike automatically extracts the citation details, so there's no need to type them in yourself, so it is not a link to a search result, but to a list of articles that an individual or group created on a topic. In this case the group on "Autism" is the work of a single individual who is also a Wikipedian (User:Dolfrog). In this case hence, I do not think it merits inclussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrondo (talk • contribs)

Agree, the link has now been reverted back a third time, and Autism is a featured article, this is a problem that needs to go to the Talk page of that article for discussion. Zad68 13:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This user seems to be adding his collections of sources to a bunch of articles. [15], [16], [17], [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

What you fail to understand is that these are not my collections, anyone can contribute, my collection is here. My be you should join and create your own collection and contribute to many of the various sharing groups. dolfrog (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not a question of whose collections we link to. The community has simply decided that we do not generally link to collections of research sources. Wikipedia is not appropriate for these links. I would not have any issue with you adding these links to the talk pages of the articles to help other editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:34, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Dolfrog, the issue is that the document collection is essentially a Wiki, where any individual with or without credentials can add and comment on individual sources. This looks like a great resource for individuals with a keen interest in various medical topics but it's not an appropriate resource to link from articles. The selection of articles is not being done by recognized experts, and the comments are not being fact-checked. This clearly fails WP:ELNO #1, "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." Zad68 13:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

We should be using high quality sources to write Wikipedia articles not simply collecting them for the purpose of collection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

AS I have explained before due to my auditory processing disorder disability, I have limited copy editing skills, which prevent me from writing Wikipedia articles, but htis does not prevent me from reading research, understanding issues, and collecting research. So please try to avoid disability discrimination in your comments dolfrog (talk) 13:51, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Due to my poor copy editing skills some of my contributions here are not getting throuhg as others post before i can complete my own new posts. dolfrog (talk) 13:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

As I stated these links can be put on talk pages. I add link to research to talk pages as well for example Talk:Croup but not to the main space. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to come to this late, but I edited in this area a while back, and I share Doc James's concerns. I have long-standing doubts about the research paper citations Dolfrog is adding to articles - both in collections and individually. They appear to be chosen on entirely subjective grounds, leaving sourcing for some articles an obfuscated mess with no clear basis in consensus for inclusion, nor in solid secondary sources. Without that, we have no way of knowing if these sources are being selected neutrally. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There are some who confuse consensus with meeting their own private agendas, and the agendas of their own group of lobbyists, and the information they prefer others to read, as opposed to waht is happening in international research to help enlighten and improve the global understanding of of complex issues. From my experiences GordonofCartoon has his own agenda and prefers to block a glabal perspective of research and understanding. dolfrog (talk) 14:49, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think ad hominem attacks are going to advance your goals. Please stick to commenting on edits. -- Scray (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

We have clear instructions on what sort of references are preferred and these are high quality secondary sources WP:MEDRS. I have not looked through the edits added but will take a look when I have time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:01, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And that's the problem: they're almost always individual primary papers, or personally-selected collections of individual primary papers. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:08, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes than will need reviewing and fixing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The only additions of Research paper collections I have added to articles have been CiteULike research paper sharing libraries that have multiple contributors, and which any one can join and add research papers that they believe will improve the understanding of a specific topic. I have over the years compiled various PubMed research paper collections to help both me and others learn more detail regarding various medical issues, and sometimes this has been done to help editors who have been editing a specific Wikipedia article, or help resolve a wiki dispute. All issues are somehow inter-related as part of the bigger picture of life and human evolution, unfortunately some prefer to only focus on a single aspect on an issue. dolfrog (talk) 15:27, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's look at an example, then. Here's the CiteULike library in the Auditory processing disorder article: Audiology and Auditory Processing Disorder. As far as I can see, all of the 744 papers in it are listed as "posted by Dolfrog". That anyone else could add papers is irrelevant; since they haven't, it's a one-person compilation. As others have said, the consensus is not to link to research collections anyway; and it's even more beyond the pale when it's an editor's personally-selected linkfarm.. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 05:42, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think the issue here should really be whether the link has encyclopedic value. A collection of papers put together by a random person generally doesn't, but a collection put together by a recognized authority might well. Looie496 (talk) 15:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why we would link to collections of papers, even if put together by an authority? We use high quality papers as references not as lists. I guess there could be exceptions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean that collections could be used as references; that wouldn't make sense. I meant that they might sometimes be usable in an external links section, if they are particularly useful resources for a reader who wants to know more about the topic. Apologies if I misunderstood the topic here. Looie496 (talk) 16:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Looie I tend to agree, but you have to be sceptical of recognmisd bodies who tend to have their own agendas usually of some financial nature, and individuals, like me, tend to be somewhere on a learning curve. There needs to be some form of mix to discover where research from all sources has discovered, and continues to follow all related developments to help improve the various Wikipedia articles as research improves our understanding of various issues. dolfrog (talk) 15:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)An exception is a systematic review, which will routinely have a companion list of publications included - linking to that would have encyclopedic value (these are accompanied by a Methods section that explains the criteria for inclusion and exclusion). This exception contrasts with a CiteULike collection, the latter being appropriate, perhaps, for a Talk page discussion. -- Scray (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

you have to be sceptical of recognmisd bodies ... There needs to be some form of mix to discover where research from all sources has discovered, and continues to follow all related developments

It's not our job to do that. Wikipedia is by definition an encyclopedia based on reliable secondary sources, and that roots medical articles firmly in sources considered well-established. If there's a review article summarising where research is going, that's fine - but it's not the job of individual editors to trawl primary research papers and make that analysis (whether overtly, or via choice for inclusion as sources). For instance, what's the consensus or secondary validation for including this obscure primary paper [19] as further reading? Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Re-naming habitual abortion

I've left a note like this on the talk page there, too. The language of abortion is not regarded as patient-centered, is advised against and slowly going out of use - see also the discussion of the use of the word abortion in relation to miscarriage on the miscarriage page. This should be named recurrent miscarriage, with habitual abortion & early pregnancy loss re-directing to it. You can see in a search in PubMed that the accepted nomenclature is now recurrent miscarriage. Hildabast (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:47, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! Hildabast (talk) 03:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't early pregnancy loss cover one-time miscarriages? I think that should continue continue to redirect to the plain miscarriage article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree and it does. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Great - thanks for not letting my slip-up lead you astray! I'm going to tackle that bit about the language today - although it's totally right and important that this is the language convention now, what's written about it doesn't reflect the range of women's views on this, and the discussion about this issue, which is nuanced and important. I'll write the general one on the miscarriage page first.Hildabast (talk) 15:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've made major changes to this section, and left a note on the talk page. There's a thread going through the termination of pregnancy language at each stage of pregnancy loss/induced termination that's problematic. I don't want to start on any other sections until I see how this one goes. There's a table in there that is problematic and contradicted what was in the text (and does even more now that the text is more detailed and sourced to formal definitions - it was rather unsourced before). But a lot of work and discussion seemed to go into it, so I was reluctant to delete. It's also totally unsourced. I had to figure out on the talk page where it came from - it's original WP work, but to the reader it would give the impression of coming from an official source I think. I think it would really be better for this original work not to be included.Hildabast (talk) 20:58, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific - for example, the table states a survival rate for 24-25 weeks' gestation - that's what I mean by things in there that aren't sourced - not in the table and not in the text. Can't throw around stats like that without source, especially not in something this sensitive. Hildabast (talk) 21:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

AfD

Albert Laszlo Haines is in Afd. Notability is the main issue. Medicine is my strong field so I am leaving this note here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Menstrual cycle and Menstrual synchrony articles

The former is more of a medical article; the latter is more of a theory-based article, but also deals with reporting information about current medical thoughts with regard to the menstrual cycle. I pointed out here and here to Altg20April2nd (talk · contribs) why he or she should not be adding medical information based on such old sources. The editor is using sources as old as 1937, when pubertal timing (including menarche), for example, generally isn't even the same as it was that long ago. On his or her talk page, I stated, "You should read WP:MEDRS and follow it. Using such old sources for historical information and theories, such as what is included at some parts of the Menstrual synchrony article, is fine. But not when it comes to asserting what the average menstrual length is in human females these days. Because you have not listened to, or rather have not heeded, my concerns about this, I am about to ask members of WP:MED to review your edits to the Menstrual cycle‎ article and to review any problematic additions to the Menstrual synchrony article."

So, yes, now I bring this matter to you all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I see Danielkueh, who has been recently working on the Menstrual cycle article, reverted Altg20April2nd at the Menstrual cycle article here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:MEDDATE is a good rule of thumb, especially for rapidly developing areas of science, but studies on menstrual cycle length isn't one of them. If you do know of any studies that have found that menstrual-cycle length has recently lengthened, shortened, become more regular or less regular (independent of birth control), please let me know.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The more recent sources, like Danielkueh stated, report 28 days while the sources that Altg20April2nd was adding report 29.1 or 29.5 days. Flyer22 (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

And even if both groups of sources were reporting the same number of days, or are when comparing some other relatively new sources to the ones Altg20April2nd was adding, WP:MEDRS is clear that we should use the more recent sources. Flyer22 (talk) 22:02, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I just saw this edit by you there. Flyer22 (talk) 22:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

One of the references inserted by Atlg20April2nd was a study by Chiazze et al. (1968). I just downloaded and looked through (briefly) this article. I won't go into too much detail except to say that the quantitative results from this study needs to be presented and interpreted with caution as it is very context specific. On. p. 379 for example, the authors state "When only those cycles between 15 and 45 days are considered.... the average length drops to 28.1 days...." In any event, this would too long and unnecessarily complex for the lead (WP:lead). Plus, WP recommends the use of secondary sources WP:V as the use of primary sources often results in original research WP:OR. So I am reverting it to 28 days unless there is a broad consensus to change it to 29.1 days. danielkueh (talk) 22:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that 28-day cycles is not the average length, so you are citing a source that does not support what is in the article. So, there is no source for it, so I suggest the article should say the length of the cycle is unknown or simply state what is in the scientific literature. Actually, the way to do it is to cite the three main studies in this area, which were added, and report the range of results.--I am One of Many (talk) 22:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I will respond on the article main page. And no, we don't rely on the primary sources. We rely on secondary sources so as to avoid original research. Please read WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:V carefully. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 22:40, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Apparently, Atlg20April2nd has been adding the 29.5 days information since 2010; obviously, it was removed before recently as well. Flyer22 (talk) 23:06, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

As a passing note, I think you will all have a more productive conversation if you stop using the word "average" and start saying "mean" and "median". The two aren't going to be the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Dynamic dictionaries

Editors might find these dictionaries to be useful when they read medical information on the World Wide Web.

• Set 1
  • VoyCabulary.com - Online web dictionary & thesaurus word linking lookup reference tool. (Enter a web address or paste text.)
  • POPjisyo.com - Dictionary Translation Japanese/Chinese/Korean/Kanji/Hanzi (Enter a web address or paste text.)
  • Welcome to Doroja online dictionary : Double click on any word in any site to get English to Bengali and English to English meaning (Enter a web address.)
  • lingro: The coolest dictionary known to hombre! (Enter a web address.)

• Set 2
  • ProfessorWord: Improve your vocabulary while you surf the web (Drag the button to the bookmarks bar.)
  • Dictionary Bookmarklet: popup a definition of any word in your browser - Peter Coles (Drag the button to the bookmarks bar.)

—Wavelength (talk) 01:15, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Signpost coverage

Efforts a number of us at WikiProject Med Foundation have been working on were discussed in this week Signpost. We of course would love to have more people join WikiProject Med Foudantion Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that Louis Pasteur, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 07:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Treatment of Tourette syndrome

Will some uninvolved editors please look at the recent IP edits to Treatment of Tourette syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted and watchlisted. Looie496 (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Looie ... both of those IPs resolve to Brisbane, Australia, so a note about 3RR applying to an individual, not an account, might be in order. I was thinking a COI note might also be needed, but http://www.drbarbarablume.com is in Ventura, California, not Australia. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

The IP has reinstated drbarbarablume.com sourced text after a note on its talk and 3RR notice ... perhaps semi-protection will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! (Very busy summer ahead, so I appreciate the help and extra eyes.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:16, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Watching. Graham Colm (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced brand names for pharmaceuticals

I've just noticed at Fluoxetine#Other brand names that we have long list of names for the product as used in different countries, almost all of which are unsourced. Clearly this is less than ideal. Is there any general policy regarding how this should be handled? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:09, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. I guess one could either add a tag or find a ref to support. This is the sort of info that should go in Wikidata but of course with references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:17, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

"Unacceptable Levels" (film)

Someone may wish to start a Wikipedia article "Unacceptable Levels" about the documentary film of the same name.

• Unacceptable Levels - Pollution just got personal: a new movie | Jennifer Sass's Blog | Switchboard, from NRDC (June 18, 2013)
• About | Unacceptable Levels
• Unacceptable Levels

—Wavelength (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2013 (UTC)