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 4 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

Recent changes in WP:Medicine

Articles and their talkpages:

• In all Medicine articles (not talks)
• In articles with Top-, High-importance
• In articles with Mid-importance
• In articles with Low-importance
• In pages with NA, ???=unknown importance
• In the 1000 most popular articles (source)

Not mainspace:

• In all non-articles
• In all templates
• In Medicine navigation templates

Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
99	1,109	11,526	38,649	19,905	1,090	72,378

List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

Is Scientific American crappy as a medical source... ?

I remember seeing Sci Am slamming WP by referring to a crappy study that was discussed previously. Well, here is an example where they use a Wikipedia image I created and say it is something different: NFLD - America's Greatest Health Risk (scientificamerican.com)

The picture of cirrhosis Sci Am used is due to alcohol!

How could anyone know? It is stated right in the image notes - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cirrhosis_high_mag.jpg Above said, the image isn't suggestive of NAFLD. It isn't fatty.

The really unfortunate thing is... I created an image of NAFLD that they could have used. It is right here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Non-alcoholic_fatty_liver_disease1.jpg and it is on the fatty liver page and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease page. Sheesh! Nephron  T|C 06:34, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've always regarded SciAm as a fairly entertaining pop-sci source, a sort of light bed-time reading. It's decent, but I'm not surprised they make this type of error. That said, it clearly fails WP:MEDRS. Just out of curiousity, is it possible to differentiate NAFLD from alcohol induced cirrhosis through morphology alone? I was under the impression they look the same?

Also the article they're referring to has been discussed a lot here, and it's down to very poor methodology of the original article. SciAm just report it, and let's face it they're also interested in selling magazines – slamming Wikipedia is popular among some academics, even if the study cited is objectionable. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

The distinction between ASH and NASH is essentially clinical. Abundant neutrophils slightly favour ASH -- but this is a soft finding. The cirrhosis picture is really end-stage -- the etiology cannot be ascertained from it. NAFLD usually has fat in it... so, I think the end-stage cirrhosis picture is a bad one for an article about NAFLD. Speaking more generally, the same applies for lung and kidney pathology... if it is really end-stage, it is (with few exceptions) hard or impossible to ascertain the underlying cause from a pathologic perspective. Nephron  T|C 16:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup Sci Am is not a very good source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

We currently allow Scientific American for some medical aspects; see this section of WP:MEDRS, which certainly permits its use. But, as noted above, it is not a good medical source; unless restricted to non-medical cultural material or historical medical material, it's rather a decent or poor medical source, depending on the topic at hand. Flyer22 (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Nephron, I'm happy to hear from you. I wish I saw your name more often.

Have you written to SciAm to request a correction? What makes a source reliable isn't a belief that they're 100% right, but a reputation for prudent editorial control, including correcting their mistakes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I wrote them. I guess we'll see if things change. I would like to be around more... but another project and personal circumstances are currently limiting the time I have. I am still uploading things to the WikiCommons every once in a while. Nephron  T|C 23:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note that this was a "guest blog" post. Those would not be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes, because Scientific American disavows responsibility for their contents. In other words they have basically the same status as a post on somebody's personal blog. Their articles and news pieces are much more thoroughly checked, as I know from experience, having written for them. Even so, I have sent an email to Curtis Brainard, Scientific American's blog editor, explaining the issue and giving a pointer to this page. Looie496 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

a very logical idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

A related question. Where would the mag Nature fit in here? Gandydancer (talk) 17:10, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Nature is a top-quality source. Most of their "letters" and "articles" constitute primary sources in the sense of WP:MEDRS, but when they publish reviews or perspectives, we can't ask for anything better. Looie496 (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Generally we expect Nature to hold to a higher standard, being a publisher of peer-reviewed scientific research, rather than a newsstand popular science magazine. That said, it depends where in Nature (articles? editorials? in-the-news blurbs?), the type of article (primary research articles versus review articles, etc.), and of course the nature of the claim. I've said it a million times—'reliability' (on Wikipedia or anywhere else) isn't a magic, binary property that a particular publication has or doesn't have; it is assessed on a case-by-case basis based on the source, the particular claims in question, and the overall context. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

maybe this[1] and this which uses NYT as a source for its graph[2] --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Scientific American is about as reliable as a newspaper. Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Scientific American (informally abbreviated SciAm) is an American popular science magazine. It has a long history of presenting scientific information on a monthly basis to the general educated public, with careful attention to the clarity of its text and the quality of its specially commissioned color graphics... Many famous scientists, including Albert Einstein, have contributed articles in the past 168 years[3]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS is clear on this, in the Popular Press section. SciAm is not an RS for health-related content per se but is OK for "social, biographical, current-affairs, financial, and historical information in a medical article." If folks want to change MEDRS, the place to do that is on its Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie, you forgot to mention the "citation needed" tag. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

nice...perhaps Jytdog is correct if one (pro/con) wants or doesn't want it, the discussion should be taken to the talk page for MEDRS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks to Looie496 for bringing this to my attention. The mistake with the image was mine. As Nephron points out, I should've caught the distinction in the image notes. My apologies. I've now swapped out the image for the one showing NAFLD. Accuracy is incredibly important to us at Scientific American, and when errors are made we try to correct them as quickly as possible. To that end, I would encourage all of you reach to out to me or my colleagues whenever you spot something that's amiss. I think you'll find that we're quite responsive. As far this conversation about MEDRS is concerned, while we strive to produce content that is reliable and trustworthy, we are a news outlet, not a scholarly journal or medical publication, and when it comes to medical advice, people should rely on the primary literature or qualified medical professionals, just as we and other journalists do in the course of reporting. Curtis Brainard (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Input requested

Dear colleagues, could I request some input here: Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Phocomelia.jpg.

PS: The doctor's mess seems to have been cleaned up? Well, guess that's what happens when you stay away for too long...

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 07:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I did not notice that either. What happened to the doctor's mess? --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 13:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it was just renamed to be more including to the nurses, dentists, physical therapists, non-clinicians and members of the lay public who are interested in helping improve Wikipedia's medical content. So in essence you're here, and very welcome to partake in the discussions. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

As for the image in question I support deleting it, and there should any number of similar images. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 20:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "there should any number of similar images" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I could provide a number from older books if it needs to be replaced. Although they are noticeably old there are a number of decent ones. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It must be reunion week, Steven! User:Nephron posted above, too. The image was removed here, but the total overhaul of color scheme came after that.

My Core Competency, how is Wikipedia:Today's featured list/submissions#Cutaneous conditions coming along? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Great to see you active as well! Not much attention has been paid to the submission yet, but hopefully it reaches the main page someday! --My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The phocomelia image is in use on a whole host of WMF sites. As I suggested, it might be worth trying a switch. Delete the image and then almost immediately load a picture of someone else with phocomelia -- as the prominence of the image in searches is dependent in part of non-WMF sites that re-use the image from Wikipedia. Nephron  T|C 05:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation

Would any of you gals/guys want to comment on Draft:Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation? -- Sam ^Sing! 14:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ay that was one big coatrack. I've edited it. Jytdog (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I reviewed it. Please post here anytime. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. -- Sam ^Sing! 15:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

YES thank you for bringing this to our attention! Jytdog (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

right, so theres one clinical study, I believe it needs review articles,here is a review you might use[4] I did not see any (the history section goes into detail about founding board members?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ozzie thanks for fixing the link. :) Jytdog (talk) 16:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

anytime--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note - the editor who created this, went ahead and created the new article, after the draft was declined. Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation. i have no idea if that is kosher or not. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's a hopeless poorly-sourced coatrack. What's the best way to deal with it? AfD? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

probably...AfD--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

This article clearly meets notability requirements per WP:ORG and WP:NONPROFIT. It is both international in scope and has been cited in multiple reliable sources, one of which is Bloomberg News. Doors22 (talk) 05:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It was declined here but the person tried to create it anyway. So deleted it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

An article on the putative syndrome was deleted at AFD here in 2012. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

An article on the syndrome is not the same thing as an article about a foundation designed to research the syndrome. I think this decision should be appealed, especially since a single user's opinion does not make a consensus to reject a draft. Will somebody help me figure out how to appeal this? Regardless, the page is an article about a non-profit and really any discussion of the science behind it is not relevant. It meets both standards of notability - it has been involved in scientific research in both Europe and North America and garnered sufficient interest in sources like Bloomberg and other newspapers. @Bluerasberry:, you did not actually provide any explanation for why you did not think it is notable other than state your conclusion. Would you care to elaborate? Doors22 (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Might be good to review WP:NONPROFIT. The organization itself appears to lack notability in addition to the fact that the article served mainly as a WP:COATRACK for the subject matter of a previously deleted article. Formerly 98 (talk) 01:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Your commentary is very much off point. If you look at the WP:NONPROFIT page it meets both criteria. It is not a coatrack as the article only contains factual information about the foundation leaving no room for biased material. The post finasteride syndrome page is not very relevant to this discussion so I suggest you take your agenda elsewhere.Doors22 (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

NONPROFIT says nothing about "being cited in multiple reliable sources". If you've gotten that impression, then I obviously need to re-write the guideline. What you need is a source that is talking about the organization. Something like "Foo Foundation, which was founded in 2006, has 10 paid staff and a thousand volunteers working to raise money for research" is good. "According to Joe at the Foo Foundation, more research is needed" is not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Candidal vulvovaginitis

I'll be working on the above article, seeking other editors for collaboration, ty. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Research protocols are not review articles and thus not suitable sources per WP:MEDRS IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I am aware the literature review is the same in the protocol as in the finished cochrane review. If there is a consensus against the use of these protocol then I will revert them. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 21:58, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Here is what we are discussing [5]. They do start with a mini overview. Not sure if a standard peer review has occured. Might be okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

And to be responsible about this, I have used a Cochrane research protocol as a source on at least one other article, patellofemoral pain syndrome. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 09:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Braverman

The Eric R. Braverman article needs attention. The hagiography was written by a research assistant at his "PATH Foundation".

Braverman is a fringe doctor with many issues: unscientific and unethical practices, questionable claims and testing methods, seriously misleading billing methods, exorbitant fees, disciplinary issues involving medical boards and state Attorney General, lawsuits by patients, Better Business Bureau rating of "F", recent arrest, etc..

The current hagiography needs to be worked over and balanced with other aspects about his career and practices, per NPOV, which requires that documented controversies and criticism are included. Barrett has recently done a thorough in-depth investigation, using many RS which we can also use: Some Notes on Dr. Eric Braverman and his PATH Medical Clinic. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Hushe A-CES

Earlier today I rejected the submission of Draft:Hushe A-CES, a cranial electrotherapy stimulator, as it is solely referenced by two primary sources

• "Hushe A-CES Owner's Manual" (PDF). http://www.cranialelectrotherapy.co.uk. Hushe Limited. Retrieved 20 February 2015. {{cite web}}: External link in |website= (help) - the product manual, and
• James, C. D. (27 November 2014). "Cranial Electrotherapy Stimulation as an Aid for Relaxation, Stress Relief, Mood Improvement and Improving Sleep Quality" (PDF). Retrieved 20 February 2015. - a "research paper" hosted on the manufacturers web page; a 10 sec glance reveals that it just tries to look like a study, it has not been published, and the author, Christopher D. James, appears to be the designer of the product.

The submitter, Friendlymilk, has left the following message on my talk page:

Double standards re notability

Hello Wikipedia Editor,

I should like to highlight a glaring disparity in the way, for example, a film due for release in the coming year, with no independent reviews as yet, is able to make it onto the pages of Wikipedia and yet another product that is not a film but has beneficial applications to mental health is not.

I refer of course to your disapproval of the page for the Hushe A-CES, a device which I used last year as part of a research study and found to be exceptionally good at alleviating my insomnia. As with anything that is relatively new, is it not a surprise there exists little third party subject matter on it? And yet a future release of a film is allowable by mere mention by the producer?

One feels a tiny bit like a character in George Orwell's 1984, with knowledge being controlled by the whim of those in control. The article I submitted about the Hushe A-CES cranial electrotherapy stimulator manufactured by Hushe Limited in the United Kingdom should not be suppressed just because it is little known of. As with a future film, or a past event, these are all real things. The mere fact that I have not identified a third party as a source of information should not be ground for exclusion and smacks of pedantry. If you look at the research study cited in my article you will find references to comments I and other third parties gave to the study administrator. Am I to infer from your stance that you do not regard this as third party material? If so, do you therefore agree that this implies falsification on the part of the author of that study? I am sure you appreciate the gravity of such an implied statement.

I would therefore encourage you to suggest a review of Wikipedia's notability policy and look forward to my article's equal treatment to the countless others which are permitted merely for adhering to cultural precepts of acceptability.

Kind regards

Paul
— User:Friendlymilk

— Preceding text originally posted on User talk:Sam Sailor (diff) by Friendlymilk (talk⋅contribs) 15:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I am of course as always ready to hear the opinions of my fellow editors in an important matter like this. Your comments here or in Draft:Hushe A-CES using {{Afc comment}} are welcomed. -- Sam ^Sing! 16:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this with your fellow editors. I'm uncertain of your intended meaning in the words "tries to look like a study". One might reasonably infer an insinuation of fraud, in which case it may be pertinent for me to contact the author of that study to see what he thinks about that. Kind regards, Paul Friendlymilk (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Friendlymilk

The draft clearly does not meet Wikipedia's sourcing standards as expressed in WP:RS, much less the higher standards for health-related articles expressed in WP:MEDRS. The fact that poorly sourced articles make it into other parts of Wikipedia doesn't imply that this one should go in; see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Looie496 (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

no sources that comply with WP:MEDRS and nothing to show WP:NOTABILITY. Good call, Sam. Thanks for keeping your eye out. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The following comment was deleted but has been reinstated to allow freedom of expression. The censors remark has itself been censored so he may feel treated equally:

Original comment:

I would disagree. This absolutely smacks of the censorship this foundation was originally set up to overcome, so I congratulate you on stifling freedom of information. The chap who produces this device is not deserving of such disparaging remarks as have been implied. He has overcome a great deal of upset in his life from what I gather and now to have his work referred to as "tries to look like a study" would be quite unkind for him to know.

By all means, continue your locked-down attitude to your principles and ignore the blatant hypocrisy of having an "other stuff exists" get-out clause. In our reality there is such a thing as precedent, and without it you have a dictatorship.

−

Friendlymilk (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Friendlymilk

Friendly has just left an unfriendly note on User talk:Jytdog. [6] Friendly, please review WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Whatever may or may not occur on film pages isn't relevant to this particular AFC. Also, please review WP:BATTLEGROUND; I think you will find that approaching other editors with a better attitude will yield better results. Particularly, if there are secondary sources supporting the text you want to add, others will be more likely to collaborate if you are more ... well ... friendly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Sandy, I am happy to be friendly when my comments are not get ng removed. The above comment was a complaint at what I see as an implied allegation of fraud levelled at a third party who happens to be an upstanding person, so you may appreciate my concern. Defamation and censorship are more unnacepatable than the grumblings (with perfectly decent language) of someone like me, I'm sure you would agree. Friendlymilk (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Friendly it is a common misconception that Wikipedia is a forum for freedom of information or free speech, we are not. We strive for a neutral point of view and that means that scientific articles need sources that meet scientific standards. All of our articles need independent reliable coverage, primary sources are not enough.

The difference between us and the Ministry of Truth is that we don't try to control all information, just the information we choose to publish.

Censorship is when somebody says that you cannot publish something, not when they refuse to publish something for you. When someone refuses to publish something for you it is not censorship, it is editorial discretion. There are plenty of web hosts out there where you can express your freedom of speech but Wikipedia is a project to build an encyclopedia and you cannot expect you have freedom to post whatever you want.

Your topic may deserve coverage but that must be demonstrated through the standards of the project, claiming you are being censored or that you are suffering a dictatorship will not help your case. If you remain civil and present proper sources for your article then you will make much better progress. Chillum 18:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe you should take SandyGeorgia advice (see above), and follow WP rules, finally this[7] is in poor taste please refrain from that type of behavior. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! -- Brangifer (talk) 20:03, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, well, now we're getting somewhere! It appears that "Participants' Commentaries" are considered "third party sources" (see edit summary). I don't think the editor or the creator of that study understand what a real, published, peer reviewed scientific study entails. Need I say more?! -- Brangifer (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Why exactly are some of you so condescending? What exactly are your qualifications if you don't mind my asking?Friendlymilk (talk) 22:05, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Their relevant qualification is that they understand the policies governing editing Wikipedia. In this case WP:SELFPUB which says:

“ Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

• the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
• it does not involve claims about third parties;
• it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source;
• there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
• the article is not based primarily on such sources.

”

The article you wanted published was based solely on self-published sources and that disqualifies it immediately. You need to find reliable sources published by people other than the manufacturer. Check WP:RS for tips on identifying reliable sources. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Not that it makes any difference, but I'm a health care professional, but the ONLY qualification that is relevant here is that I know the rules here better than you. We all do. You're new here and we're all trying to educate you. Instead of taking our advice, you're getting offended. That's too bad. Was my comment above a bit impatient? Yes, it was. You come here making demands without knowing the policies and rules. We have provided you with information and links to them, but you show no evidence that you have read those rules or intend to follow them. When that happens, we tend you lose patience. "Participants' commentaries" are not third party sources. They barely even fit the lowest grade of evidence. They are merely anecdotes and we can't use them for anything, and any website which uses them is skirting the limits of what's ethically allowable. It's VERY poor practice. We are asking for secondary and tertiary sources which show the notability of the subject. Without that, there will be no article. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:23, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

RexxS and BullRangifer (Brangifer) have explained the matter well. Friendlymilk, no one here is trying to be unwelcoming to you; they are trying to guide you toward the correct way to edit Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 22:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Friendlymilk, this kind if thing is complicated. There are two things that need to be considered. The first is whether it gets its own, separate article. To do that, it needs to meet the "notability" standards for being a manufactured product. For that purpose, it needs to meet the same requirements as, say, a new type of mobile phone. (There aren't special rules for medical devices.) You can read about those at WP:CORP. The most important and usually most difficult requirement is a couple of independent source – nothing written by anyone involved in the organization. A few regular magazine articles talking about its invention, manufacturing, marketing style, last year's sales, or things like that will do.

Once you know whether a separate article is possible, or whether this might be better briefly mentioned in a list of similar products or in a larger article, then you can contemplate what to say about it. Claims about sales need good sources; claims about WP:Biomedical information need good medical sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I was noticing your contributionsFriendlymilk, might there be any COI youd like to disclose?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Friendlymilk already said that s/he was a patient in a clinical trial for the product. That creates exactly as much "conflict of interest" as someone who has high cholesterol editing articles about drugs they happen to take (=none). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Cough

• Cranial electrotherapy stimulation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

That was a wreck. I did some cleanup, but I suspect plagiarism, and I don't have journal access. A lot of the English was unintelligible, and the sources were very old. Could someone else have a crack at what's still there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

PTSD moved with no discussion

With no discussion or notice, and by request at WP:RM of one editor, posttraumatic stress disorder (the DSM name) was moved to post-traumatic stress disorder. See talk page. It is listed as a "non-controversial" requested move, when it clearly is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I've dropped a note to Anthony Appleyard, who carried out the RM, and asked him to restore the original name, pending discussion on the talk page. I'll start a discussion there. --RexxS (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, RexxS -- I already started a discussion, but what is most frustrating is that there was absolutely no notice anywhere. How does one editor decide something is "non-controversial"? It's no skin off my back where the article ends up, but sheesh already with the wasted time ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Anthony lives in the UK so probably won't see my request until the morning. On the plus side, if we have a discussion that reaches a stable conclusion, we'll save future editors from the same frustration. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:11, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Not if one editor can go around willy-nilly claiming moves are non-controversial, without noticing talk, and then removing the text at the top of the article that shows it was controversial! If people don't read, they don't read ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The alternative to "one editor going around willy-nilly claiming moves are non-controversial" is setting up a bureaucracy. Perhaps a committee should vote every time? It's just not workable. Punctuation normally does represent a non-controversial page move, and it can be reverted when someone really cares. In this case, liberal use of hyphenation is recommended in professional guidelines about writing for international audiences, and the ICD-10 use the hyphenated version. The DSM's style guide avoids hyphenatation. It is not entirely unreasonable for editors to assume that the general rule is "follow the international spelling, not the American one", since that is the general rule (just not one that we apply very often to psychiatric conditions).

If you (like me) really didn't care where it ends up, then why are choosing to spend so much time and energy contesting the move? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It's very easy to do an "uncontroversial" move. Fortunately it's also very easy to get it put back. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Moral Reconation Therapy

Draft:Moral Reconation Therapy: plenty of web hits and c. 500 Google Scholar hits. As usual you people are in a better position to give guidance on the work needed for the current stub. (Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in draft.) -- Sam ^Sing! 11:53, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Have merged the bit of good content here [8]. Does not need its own page. Would simply redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Free access Women's health textbook from International Federation of Gyn/Obs

here I am going to ask if they would consider going to a CC BY or CC BY SA license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

This is wonderful news! :D (if only I had time to write about ob/gyn...hopefully in 6 weeks.) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:49, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

CarpalRx - another product in Drafts

Your comments on Draft:CarpalRx are welcommed. Use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam ^Sing! 00:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

I find zero pubmed sources. The review mentioned does not mention the topic in question. Delete. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Agree that no RS's can be found, much less MEDRS level sources. Looie496 (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, declined accordingly. -- Sam ^Sing! 03:19, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Draft:BVA-100

Your comments on Draft:BVA-100, an FDA approved semi-automated Blood Volume Analyzer, are welcommed. Use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam ^Sing! 03:21, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Zero reviews from the past five years. A few primary sources. Maybe the topic could exist at Blood volume analysis or Blood volume determination for which there are reviews. This one needs to have the commercial issues trimmed along with the primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:20, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Sleep_apnea#Alternative_treatments

Can someone please look at this section? I noticed more studies being added [9] but Somazx rightly pointed out there seems to be primary sources already present. User_talk:NeilN#Sleep_Apnea_.26_Acupuncture --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

it needs reviews[10] this could help (no primary ref)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to project members for the clean up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:23, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

World Health Organization textbook "borrows" from Wikipedia

I was happily updating our cardiovascular disease articles today when I came across a picture of mine in a WHO textbook.[11] There are about 11 images in the book taken from Wikipedia and thus they make up an integral part of the total. Attribution is not of great quality.

I am currently requesting that the WHO consider release the entire book under a CC BY SA license. User:Moonriddengirl are the maps in this document copyrightable by WHO? Or do they not contain enough originality to be copyrightable? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Everybody "borrows" from Wikipedia, even the ones who claim they don't. Flyer22 (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Unless I've missed it the only Wikipedia attribution they make is for figure 1, and they managed to get that wrong. WP:REUSE isn't that difficult to grasp, is it? LeadSongDog come howl! 07:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

It's being used in a similar way to references, so each entry in the "figure reference" list can be used multiple times. Ctrl+F or Cmd+F for "(i)" finds what looks like other uses (though it catches a few false positives as well). Of course, even if all the uses are marked, it's still insufficient citation. Sunrise (talk) 08:17, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree, very insufficient citation--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:53, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Another Wikimania Talk

For all who are going to be Mexico here is another exciting talk submitted by our Argentinean collaborator at TWB [12] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:36, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alan Ebringer

Dear medical experts: I have removed the large section of original research from this draft article because it wasn't clear what Mr. Ebringer's role was, and I have added some book sources. On finding that this scientist is being heavily cited in books about alternative medicine, I am bringing the result here for a checkup by someone more medically knowledgeable. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Paid editing

Interesting case of this company Premia Spine Limited paying this Wikipedian User:Ctg4Rahat to write content about them and their products.

Have already deleted the worst of it that was here [13] as it was it copyright violation.

Device manufacturers appear to be much more aggressive than pharmaceutical companies. We had two top advertising executives at Medtronic not to long ago trying to alter our content. Does anyone know what help the European Commission or FDA will provide? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

With respect to EU law it states "Member States must prohibit the advertising to the general public of medicinal products which are not intended for use without the intervention of a medical practitioner."

"All advertising to the general public of a medicinal product must be clearly identifiable as such"

"The Directive bans the inclusion in advertising of medicinal products to the general public of any information which compares the medicinal product with other treatments or products" so it appears this company may be breaking EU law [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Ctg4Rahat seems to have some genuine contributions in the past (though that's not an excuse)...unfortunately s/he seems to have been "turned" for profit--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes they are likely an experienced editor now selling their services. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm betting that wasn't actually a copyvio. It still would have been a violation of the Wikipedia policy, because we require proof via an OTRS ticket that the company intends to release the material under CC-BY-SA, but there's a difference between what we choose to accept and what's actually legal. Generally the company, and therefore its agents, has the right to use its own copyrighted material however it wants (including posting it to Wikipedia), and that would make it a WP:COPYVIO problem but not actually (legally) a copyright violation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes thanks for the clarification WAID. As this was likely an agenda of the company writing the article in question it was more likely undisclosed paid advocacy editing / spam.

If the person is not paid by the company than it is a copyright violation. Definitely two possibilities. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:31, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Alexandre Kalache

Dear medical experts: This draft seems medical-related, and the subject seems to have a lot of accomplishments. Is this notable, and should it be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

He is a busy fellow, isn't he? I wonder when he last wrote a prescription, if ever. I think he has to be notable, and the reasons for holding up the draft are rather flimsy, though it is very puffy in tone. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod, I have removed some of the promotional language, and also some excessive detail and opinion. I'm not sure how much of the content in the extensive lists is appropriate. Anyway, since I've edited it, it won't be deleted any time soon.—Anne Delong (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Medical input needed on GA review

Is anyone able to give a second opinion on the medical aspects of Black mamba which is currently going through GA review. The discussion can be found at Talk:Black mamba/GA5. Thanks. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 15:19, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Primary/Secondary sources

I would like some more guidance on the use of primary/secondary sources. In Geophagia I have been trying to improve the Geophagia#Health risks section. I thought it would be a good idea to give some examples of reports of roundworm ova in the soil samples, and so referenced some papers (two found the ova present, one found none). Another editor removed the refs citing WP:MEDRS. So the question I would like help with is this: is it really better to find a review article which cites these findings than the papers reporting the findings themselves? Does WP:MEDRS apply in this case - ie that of giving examples of particular descriptive situations? JMWt (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Does WP:MEDRS apply in this case - yes, it does. You might be able to cite findings about the prevalence of eggs in soil to primary studies, as these are not strictly medical claims. But these are old papers (that's also a problem) and there should be secondary coverage of the matter. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

OK thanks for your help. JMWt (talk) 18:10, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Erotic electrostimulation

I stumbled onto the Erotic electrostimulation article minutes ago, and the Template:Medref tag on that article is spot-on. I know that I edit sexual and medical articles on Wikipedia, or ones that are a combination of both, but this article is very medical and I'm not sure how I should organize it. It's a mess of an article about a sexual practice that is far from standard. Flyer22 (talk) 01:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox medical condition

Template:Infobox medical condition has been nominated for merging with Template:Authority control. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 01:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The proposal appears to be to delete the "infobox disease template" and instead have a different template at the bottom of the article. This would affect about 5000 of our most read articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Dead" link ref spam

We are having an issue with spamming. It is partly from this business [15] and people at Elance. Basically an SEO tactic is to replace dead links with a spam link such as here [16] Please all keep an eye out for it and report to me for blocking of the account. Am going to try to get a SPI here [17] to see if we can round up a larger number. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow, shocking. And stupidly overpriced. I wonder if the author of arthritis home remedy will get their money back once the link is reverted? Unsurprisingly "Wikilinkpro" doesn't list any physical address on its website. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 10:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

ive been looking for such articles for some time, they're easy to spot(the dead/spam links will take a little more patience)...another possibility is to go after wikilinkpro perhaps some sort of complaint, " your business activities are detrimental to the quality, rules and regulations of Wikipedia, please notify us of those editors/companies you have business relations with prior to completion of any service "? --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:47, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

As they use domainsbyproxy.com to mask this illegal activity, another approach is to take it up with their domain registrar at abuse@godaddy.com (who should, one hopes, see the wisdom in intervening).

Legal at the WMF is aware. Not sure what they have tried so far. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

your idea might be better--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Quinnipiac University working on evolutionary medicine

Am trying to figure out the instructor. Students need more guidance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion regarding the WP:Overlinking guideline

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking#Relax duplicate linking rule. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. You might also want to check out the Comments please on avoidable links and Nested links sections lower on that talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 21:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

No strong feelings one way of the other. People sometimes try to use overlinking to give one topic undue weight. But other times it deserves being linked more than once Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:22, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine

Hello again med people. Here's yet another old AfC submission about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable journal? Should the page be kept and improved?—Anne Delong (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Usage of Wikipedia by Med Students in Nigeria

92% [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment on Draft:Cyanocobalamin - The Origin of Diseases

Your comments on Draft:Cyanocobalamin - The Origin of Diseases are welcomed. Use Preferences → Gadgets → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|your comment here}} directly in the draft. -- Sam Sailor ^Talk! 10:45, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

so as opposed to making a point (journal/project), it should be written a bit more objectively, with appropriate sources[19][20].B12 ability to help the human body (though not produced in it) could be a point to cover, however origin of diseases seems to be giving a non-neutral point of view IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:17, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

We are an encyclopedia not a term paper. All refs are bar urls. Needs wikification Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Violence against men deletion discussion

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence against men (4th nomination). Concerns of WP:Canvassing from men's rights editors have been expressed in the deletion debate. Those unfamiliar with the big deal about that, see Talk:Men's rights movement/Article probation and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#Discretionary sanctions Flyer22 (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)