Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 108: Line 108:
== [[Domestic violence]] article -- whether or not females are affected by domestic violence more than males are ==
== [[Domestic violence]] article -- whether or not females are affected by domestic violence more than males are ==


Eyes and assistance are needed at the Domestic violence article from WP:MED editors. The preponderance [[WP:Reliable sources]] on the topic indicate that females are affected by domestic violence far more than males are. I stated at the article's talk page that per the [[WP:Due weight]] policy, we go by what the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources state; in other words, we give far more weight to what the majority of sources state than we do to what the minority of sources state. We also adhere to [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]] (WP:MEDRS) on medical topics -- what high-quality sources state. If [[men's rights]] editors (MRAs) are editing that article, that also needs attention, per [[Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation]]
Eyes and assistance are needed at the Domestic violence article from WP:MED editors. The preponderance [[WP:Reliable sources]] on the topic indicate that females are affected by domestic violence far more than males are. I stated at the article's talk page that per the [[WP:Due weight]] policy, we go by what the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources state; in other words, we give far more weight to what the majority of sources state than we do to what the minority of sources state. We also adhere to [[Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)]] (WP:MEDRS) on medical topics -- what high-quality sources state. If [[men's rights]] editors (MRAs) are editing that article, that also needs attention, per [[Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation]].


See [[Talk:Domestic violence#The gendered nature of DV (and editors who seek to change this in the article)]] and [[Talk:Domestic violence#Neutrality Issue in Gender Aspects of Abuse Section]] for discussions on this matter. Below the latter discussion, an editor also created a "Gender Symmetry and IPV" discussion. [[WP:Permalinks]] are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Domestic_violence&diff=620239349&oldid=620239031#The_gendered_nature_of_DV_.28and_editors_who_seek_to_change_this_in_the_article.29 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Domestic_violence&diff=620239349&oldid=620239031#Neutrality_Issue_in_Gender_Aspects_of_Abuse_Section here.] [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 14:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
See [[Talk:Domestic violence#The gendered nature of DV (and editors who seek to change this in the article)]] and [[Talk:Domestic violence#Neutrality Issue in Gender Aspects of Abuse Section]] for discussions on this matter. Below the latter discussion, an editor also created a "Gender Symmetry and IPV" discussion. [[WP:Permalinks]] are [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Domestic_violence&diff=620239349&oldid=620239031#The_gendered_nature_of_DV_.28and_editors_who_seek_to_change_this_in_the_article.29 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Domestic_violence&diff=620239349&oldid=620239031#Neutrality_Issue_in_Gender_Aspects_of_Abuse_Section here.] [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 14:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:40, 7 August 2014

Shortcut

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.

List of archives
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
Recent changes in WP:Medicine
Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

 Top  High  Mid  Low  NA  ??? Total
 99  1,062  11,549  38,869  20,084 1,170  72,833 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:


Cancer Research UK images

Diagram showing how the oesophagus, duodenum and small bowel are reconnected after Roux-en-y surgery for stomach cancer

Wiki CRUK John What is this?

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hot from the upload - these are all the 390-odd body diagrams promised from CRUK. Please use them, and also help add more categories, or more precise ones. Some of them have a font issue - if you see any that don't look right please add https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Cancer_Research_UK_(check_needed) to it, and they will be sorted out. Other types of images (infographics, lab shots, scientists...) will follow in due course (probably rather slowly). The OTRS ticket is being sorted out and will be added later. Thanks. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:38, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
W00t. This is fabulous - truly thrilled that this is working out! Well done Wiki CRUK John JFW | T@lk 20:16, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing, and especially great seeing as they are in svg format so they can be edited easily. Very clear and precise images! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:13, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as WP:COI is concerned, how do people feel about me adding these to articles? So far I have only done this twice, and I'm unlikely to have the time to do anything like as fully as they deserve, but I would like to do more of this. I'm listing the ones I do at: User:Wiki_CRUK_John#COI_corner. Some of the series showing the different T stages etc should probably get a mini-gallery. I am spending time adding more categories on Commons to the images, which I don't think involves COI. Let me know if you disagree. When I remember I will do this as User:Cancer_Research_UK_uploader (me again) which is the corporate upload account whose actions the OTRS ticket authorizes, and which is intended to outlast my time at CRUK (on Commons "role accounts" are ok). Anyway, comments on adding images would be welcome, whichever way. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy for you to add these images to articles. However if you are adding more than one image to an article, it may be better to use a gallery at the end of the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can't see any individual COI at all there. 31.48.175.145 (talk) 08:46, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a related point, if you find an image and no article for it (we are still missing some articles on diseases), then you can list it at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Images and at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences/Medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:Muffinator's edits on sex differences in medicine etc.

This user continues to try to adjust all autism related articles to fit his own world view of the condition.[1] I guess the question is what should we do about them? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:24, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autism is medically categorized as a neuro-developmental disorder, not an illness. There is nothing about the edit you've cited that violates medical consensus or Wikipedia policy. If you have a reliable source saying otherwise, then by all means keep that articles as is. I am operating as an agent of Wikipedia's policies. If there is any real issue here, it is on the part of User:Jmh649, who is being disruptive by obsessively reverting edits for the irrelevant reason that he lacks education in the field they pertain to. If you want to follow Wikipedia's policies, add a section to the article declaring a content dispute; neither this WikiProject page nor the administrative noticeboard are appropriate places to harass me. I'm editing the section header to reflect the nature of the content dispute, since it is exactly that and not about me personally. Muffinator (talk) 02:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the text I wrote. Please do not edit it. Disorder and illness are used interchangeably. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to have solved this issue [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
...and without any inquisition as to what we should "do about" you. That wasn't so hard, was it? Muffinator (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Muffinator You aren't gaining in popularity for insulting people. Your previous edits were controversial and in defiance of the consensus, I suggest you refrain from any large-scale terminology change. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't high school; it's based on facts and relevance, not popularity. I don't go out of my way to insult people, nor do I care about being popular. Muffinator (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article should follow mainstream scientific opinion and terminology. 188.30.202.183 (talk) 07:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RM is for articles, not categories. That's WP:CFD. Autism comes under the medical project, obviously. And, whatever you may think, the proposed change does not meet the narrow definition used there of "uncontroversial" & should get a full CFD nom, per the instructions. Johnbod (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the technical correction. A notice on my talk page would have been more appropriate than this one since autism has nothing to do with medicine, obviously (you may have noticed that my use of the word "obviously" is similarly not an actual argument.) You seem to be attempting to recruit editors of a specific viewpoint. Muffinator (talk) 11:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And what exactly is my "specific viewpoint"? I haven't a clue, and haven't actually looked at the pages. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most opinions about autism can be categorized as either pathology(typically uses medical model) or neurodiversity(typically uses social model). By coming to a medicine-related forum and telling people to "watchlist the current category name" you are attempting to weigh discussions in favor of pathology. Muffinator (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
!! Trust me, I have no favourite model of autism. But the subject has always been in the scope of this project. Johnbod (talk) 21:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Autism comes under the medical project, obviously." indicating that you have a medical view of the neurotype. That's okay; you're allowed to have opinions. No editor is free of bias, recognizing that is a vital step towards the neutrality. Muffinator (talk) 22:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this section of this talk page should be relabeled as "Sex differences in medicine", or "Wikipedian categories", or basically anything but "User:Muffinator". This discussion is NOT about User:Muffinator. It is about an particular article edit, and more recently, a misplaced requested move, both of which happen to have been executed by Muffinator. There is no attempt to identify a pattern, nor has Muffinator even been accused of violating a particular Wikipedia policy, and even if they were, the appropriate place to address the issue would be Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, not WikiProject Medicine. Muffinator has not shown a particular interest in medicine-related articles and is not a member of the project. To continue to label discussions of a user's edits as discussions about the user constitutes harassment. Muffinator (talk) 12:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, we are discussing your edits and nothing else. I've removed the RfC and relabeled the heading. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MEDRS difference of opinion at SSRI discontinuation syndrome

Would appreciate input on the discussion on the talk page of SSRI discontinuation syndrome. Mainly sourcing issues. Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are new sources and discussion and one of the sources was incorrectly listed. The correct source #7 is now up for review. Thanks! Alatari (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ketamine

A COI editor Geraldwgaines has expressed concern about this article. This editor feels that ketamine is a promising treatment for mental health conditions and the article is likely to receive a high number of views. I have formatted the references providing free links to everything I could. I have identified possible additions on the talk page of the article. The article could use some work. If there is/are an editor(s) who can give the article some attention it is probably worthwhile. A higher quality article could withstand efforts to promote The Truth™ and attempts to right a great wrong better. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to find some time to join in on this one. I don't think he's completely out of the mainstream on the potential of the approach, there was a tremendous amount of enthusiasm for this at the NCDEU and other psychiatry meetings I attended in 2012. My database shows 5 ketamine products in development by 4 different companies, mainly involving different modes of administration. That in itself speaks volumes about how promising people see the approach, as pharma obviouly doesn't like to spend money running trials on generic drugs Formerly 98 (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copy and pasting

This user User:Nnayak83 appears to be copy and pasting from sources in this article Quinvaxem . Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:15, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have deleted Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:34, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Recent blog post about efforts to improve Wikipedia

[3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:02, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff James! I do have one concern, regarding the public reiteration of the WP:VnT concept as such, simply stated. Both technically, because VnT is not now part of policy (cf the historical footnote in the first paragraph of WP:V) and from a communication angle, because I'm not so sure what the general public may make of a bare statement like that. 31.48.175.145 (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As much as the general public en masse may hate to admit it—especially since science is supposed to be objective—I think most individuals understand that my truth isn't always the same as your truth. I suspect that "Oh, that's how they do it," won't be an uncommon reaction to James' summary of VnT. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 12:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:First Nations nutrition experiments / Lionel Bradley Pett

I have begun these two articles which are on the fringes of Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Draft:First Nations nutrition experiments still has a LONG way to go. I'd appreciate eyes, and advice on the name of the Draft: Stuartyeates (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FRINGE and alt med (i know, i know) - seeking the messy middle

For those of you who are familiar with me, you know that I generally work on health and science related topics, and strongly uphold use of secondary, independent sources to determine what mainstream science/medicine has to say. I have been reflecting a lot on application of WP:FRINGE in alt med topics. I am coming to a conclusion that there are specific applications of specific alt med modalities, specifically as complementary medicine, that have become mainstream. For example, acupuncture as a field is (in my view) pseudoscience, since its notions of the body are pre-scientific. However, some applications of acupuncture have been more or less empirically validated enough that they have become widely accepted and are used in major medical centers as adjuncts for treating conditions like pain, some side effects of chemo, and some psychosomatic-like disorders... and are discussed in major medical textbooks. That is ~about~ as mainstream as it gets. So... my questions are, how do we discuss and source mainstream applications of alt med? I very much don't want to open the door to a) pro-acu folks rushing in to say things like "see, acupuncture (as in "all applications of acupuncture and the foundations of acupuncture") is not pseudoscience so stop treating it all under WP:FRINGE!" and b) more broadly, all altmed folks banging open the barndoors and pouring crap content into WP. It is hard to have a nuanced discussion about this, as POV-pushers from both sides render it more bitter & extreme than it needs to be, but I thought I would try to see if we can find the messy middle on this, which surely not satisfy purists on either side. Again, my questions are 1) how do we discuss and source the narrow applications of acupuncture that are relatively mainstream (using acu as a complementrary approach for pain, some side effects of chemo, and some psychosomatic-like conditions), and separate them from the FRINGEy stuff (like using acu to actually treat cancer)? 2) How do we do that, with the fierceness of POV on either wing? Thanks Jytdog (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For homeopathy, also a WP:FRINGE thing which nevertheless has popular acceptance and which is used in "mainstream" medicine, there is a separate article, Regulation and prevalence of homeopathy which is summarized in the main article. Could a similar approach work for acu*? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 20:36, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, there is much too much time and energy spent trying to label (or unlabel) something as WP:FRINGE or pseudoscience. There are plenty of "mainstream" (i.e. widely prescribed/performed) treatments that have no evidence for them (or have good evidence against their use), as there are alt med treatments. If they are widely used, we state that. If those widely used treatments have not been shown to be effective, we state that too, and this should apply to all medical treatments, "alt-med" or not. How to deal with POV pushing, however, has been a chronic issue that we will not likely solve on this talk page. Yobol (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I second what Yobol said. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for these initial answers. Alexbrn, this to me, is not "messy middle" that is mainstream, but rather tells the story of government after government not funding it. I don't think homeopathy has the same kind prevalence as CAM does in the US. (I am using CAM to mean the set of stuff that has semi-mainsteam accept as adjunct to medicine for certain uses). Yobol I hear you, but my purpose in raising was exactly to begin asking, how to do we achieve this? If not here, then where do you think the most fruitful general conversation this can be had? I chose to open this here, because any solution that is figured out without including WikiProject Medicine will not hold. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Taking a global view, it seems I think that homeopathy is more mainstream in Europe/Asia, not so much in America; acu* is more mainstream in Asia/America and not so much in Europe? In any case there are many meta-similarities between these topics and it's interesting that our homeopathy article is generally more quiet and stable (and better written) than our acupuncture/chiropractic articles. I suspect this may simply be down to there being more editors active on homeopathy and clearer sourcing. I suspect also than many of the WikiProject members here judge they have better uses for their time than engaging in the endless to-and-fro over certain aspects of these few contentious altmed articles (and I think they'd be right!). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 04:48, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't ever followed that article, but I've heard that the primary reason it's in such good shape is because of the efforts of one pro-homeopathy editor, back in the early days (before FRINGE was written). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: I think that POV pushing has been an ongoing and troubling pattern since the start of Wikipedia, and infects every controversial area, not just alt-med. I'm not sure where a discussion of this would start, but I know controversial topics like alt med is why certain subject areas are under discretionary sanctions. How to fix the problem is way above my pay grade, unfortunately. Yobol (talk) 21:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A rapid glance at the Wikimania presentation titles seems to suggest that POV pushing doesn't garner much attention there. Yet the problem must surely be a priority for the WMF as well as the community, both as an intrinsic concern and because of its attritional effects on long-term content editors. 86.157.144.73 (talk) 08:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nestle Nutrition Workshop series

For COI reasons, I am contributing towards an article on A2 milk via the talk page. The discussion is at the talk page and my proposed edit, because of its length, is currently at my sandbox. The proposed edit comprises two sections: one on the health concerns that led to the creation and commercialisation of a range of milk products free of the A1 beta-casein, and one on scientific reviews—the independent analyses of that science. I have included two major reviews by food safety authorities (2004, 2009) and two other reviews (2005, 2007). An editor has suggested that WP:MEDDATE would dictate that all but the 2009 review are outdated. He has suggested this source, a paper called "Milk A1 and A2 Peptides and Diabetes" included in a Nestle Nutrition Institute Workshop series pediatric program. All the papers at that workshop were edited by Roger A. Clemens (also the author of this paper) and were published by Karger and available through PubMed. Clemens' paper is nine pages long and cites and discusses 12 papers including some of the early New Zealand research and two of the reviews I propose using.

Two questions: (1) Given its method of publication, is this paper acceptable as a source for this purpose? (2) And because it focuses only on the possible links between milk and diabetes, does it in fact supplant those older reviews, which take a broader look at diabetes, coronary heart disease, atherosclerosis, schizophrenia and autism and their possible links to milk proteins? BlackCab (TALK) 03:25, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky one, imo, especially given a general lack of recent candidate MEDRS in a topic area with some (though not very much) relatively little recent primary research, coupled with a potential conflict of interest in the single author of the secondary source you're proposing proposed (PMID 21335999), given his strong links to Nestle. Maybe someone else can come up with something more substantial than an invitation to cautious wording and, perhaps, brevity in the light of the sourcing difficulties. 31.48.175.145 (talk) 18:59, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another look at the source from the publisher; it looks to have 3 editors (two other than the article), and published by Karger. Yobol (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When there are so few reliable independent secondary sources I feel caution and concision in any redrafting or eventual changes should be priorities here. Just my 2c, 31.48.175.145 (talk) 08:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic violence article -- whether or not females are affected by domestic violence more than males are

Eyes and assistance are needed at the Domestic violence article from WP:MED editors. The preponderance WP:Reliable sources on the topic indicate that females are affected by domestic violence far more than males are. I stated at the article's talk page that per the WP:Due weight policy, we go by what the preponderance of WP:Reliable sources state; in other words, we give far more weight to what the majority of sources state than we do to what the minority of sources state. We also adhere to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS) on medical topics -- what high-quality sources state. If men's rights editors (MRAs) are editing that article, that also needs attention, per Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation.

See Talk:Domestic violence#The gendered nature of DV (and editors who seek to change this in the article) and Talk:Domestic violence#Neutrality Issue in Gender Aspects of Abuse Section for discussions on this matter. Below the latter discussion, an editor also created a "Gender Symmetry and IPV" discussion. WP:Permalinks are here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=620241442"