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 240: Line 240:


[[User:Stephanie Bowman|Stephanie Bowman]] ([[User talk:Stephanie Bowman|talk]]) 03:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
[[User:Stephanie Bowman|Stephanie Bowman]] ([[User talk:Stephanie Bowman|talk]]) 03:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
:That's not what he said... [[Special:Contributions/194.42.240.60|194.42.240.60]] ([[User talk:194.42.240.60|talk]]) 06:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:24, 23 June 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  1,067  11,549  38,893  20,122 1,260  72,990 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:


I am leaving

There is a toxic atmosphere on WP in which bullying and name-calling are accepted and sanctioned in the name of factual integrity. I have seen too many times instances where editors are willing to disagree instead of compromise, and very few instances where editors themselves intercede when arguments become too heated. In order to defend myself at any instance I am expected to master the hundreds of guidelines and guideline subsections and trawl through hundreds of diffs. WP is biased towards users who have developed relationships outside of article space, including on WPocracy, email, or by meeting in person. These methods circumvent the principles of openness and collaboration and make it hard for users such as myself who just want to 'get by'. WP has an atmosphere built around confrontation and the only groups this suit are young and middle-aged white men. I don't want to be part of this culture, and I certainly wouldn't recommend anybody I know participating on Wikipedia.

Goodbye to WPMED. I have the utmost respect for many members of this project and have had the pleasure of working with some really wonderful Wikipedians. I wish you all well. --LT910001 (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

LT, I hope you change your mind and perhaps consider not leaving on a permanent basis. I think Wikipedia is better for having you as one of its editors but I can certainly sympathize with your frustration. Whatever you decide to do, I wish you the best (but I hope you come back in time). Know that I'll be here waiting to work with you if you choose to return. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. Unfortunate to see another great editor leaving in less than two months. This being our last editor who left [1]
It is unfortunate that one needs such a thick skin to edit Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have tried clearing the air. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really sorry to hear this, and I feel this is a great loss to WP:ANAT as well as WP:MED. I understand your frustration, although I did not know it was so severe. I'm hoping that you won't give up on Wikipedia indefinitely, and hopefully this can be a wake-up call to those who criticize and condemn without contributing anything major themselves. Not pointing any fingers, but I think we need to work on our attitude, and medical editors may be less accepting of this type of arguing, being used to a professional atmosphere of mutual respect between contributors. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As James says, "It is unfortunate that one needs such a thick skin to edit Wikipedia." I think WMF needs to take a strong lead in viewing Wikipedia as a real, if in many ways unusual, work environment. Many of the processes can feel like booby traps. Irrespective of innate skin type and all our many contingent life factors, everyone who commits energies here is ultimately vulnerable on an individual level. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is that we are a self governing project. The WMF has little authority over the community. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I realise that and also realise that the WMF is aware of the issues. I believe our self-governing community needs, collectively, to get the message that occupational health (in the broadest sense of the term) needs to be a priority here. Not easy... But prevention can be more than just cuddly cats and cookies. One thing I feel the WMF might try is to encourage academic OH research groups and peer-review journals to take an interest and start out on independent study of Wikipedia as an online volunteer work environment. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know anything about it myself, but I've heard that the Dutch Wikipedia made this kind of a cultural change a few years back, I believe it involved a series of conversations, a decision that they wanted to be more welcoming, and a decision to kick out some editors who were unable or unwilling to be kind to other editors, even if they were "good content contributors". Maintaining that culture requires a lot of community policing: you can't have that unless people are willing to publicly speak their disapproval of unfriendly comments, and it can't always be the same person.
Strangely, this probably is the cause of the dispute over our efforts to improve their articles: their community norms seem to care more than ours about respecting other people's contributions, even to the point of not replacing someone else's mediocre efforts with a better version overnight. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. The suggestion I'm trying to make is different though, and is very much geared to the medium-/long-term. Backpedalling a bit... OH research is a multidisciplinary field which looks at many jobs, but may miss some relevant ones (for instance, I haven't encountered anyone who disputes that housework is highly relevant but very little studied). Given broad the social impact of Wikipedia today, I don't see why the voluntary work conducted online by Wikipedia contributors shouldn't be a legitimate, and perhaps even appetizing, topic of study. But looking at PubMed, there appears to be next to no occupational health peer-review publications dedicated to Wikipedia as such. I realise that a lot of work goes on internally on Meta and elsewhere. But I feel that WMF could be encouraging, or even commissioning, research from university groups off-wiki (while of course also providing the appropriate background support in clarifying our many quirky ways). 86.128.169.211 (talk) 16:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to the toxic atmosphere notion. I hope LT910001 has a well earned-break, and then may choose to return as a dynamic IP. This is a most effective measure against WP's bullshit, since activity is reduced to just occasional relaxed editing (a bit like how most editors started perhaps). You are insulated from confrontation by essentially opting out of the bullying culture. If you find as an IP you cannot edit certain pages, well then ask yourself it is worth the stress to work on a controversial topic anyway? You can always keep a manual watchlist (i.e. a list of articles outside wikipedia), and check in on them every once in a while if you feel the need.

With regards the whole "wikipedia is broken" thing, IMO, the bureaucracy needs to be rigorously de-bloated, and there needs to be much condensing of the 100s of rules into a realistic, approachable and unified editing rulebook. Not to mention getting rid of those admins who really should not be admins, etc. 92.40.91.103 (talk) 13:28, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some pages are protected due to issues around sockpuppetry, others are protected due to issues around school children rather than being particularly controversial. If it is the latter (like STIs) and you wish to work on them drop me a note and I can unprotect them for you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, when pointing to the relevance of studying the "work environment" here from an occupational health perspective I'm not sure I was specifically intending any prior restriction to "toxic atmosphere" notions. OH research that is ultimately geared to prevention has a big methodological toolkit, but takes time, specialist knowledge, human resources, and, perhaps ultimately, funding.

Adverse outcomes can happen even when, as in this case I think, committed editors with varying backgrounds and individual characteristics are all striving to improve Wikipedia content in what they each believe is the most appropriate way, doing their best to follow due process. I suspect FA and GA nominations are particularly susceptible venues for such grief, but there are many other at-risk processes too, including ANI (as in the recent loss to the project James mentioned above)... Or even, as you imply just working on controversial topics.

Fwiw, I too have found an IP strategy to be a useful expedient to survive in the environment. And, damn it, what was that essay called about bloat? Oh, and btw, you can tell I don't really belong or I would have found that WP:CREEP link immediately... and known the best ANI tactics... and how to survive GAN/FAN... and a whole load of other esoteric WP:LORE. ...ranting away into the distance... 86.128.169.211 (talk) 14:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(You've established a clear identity and good reputation here, 86, without having to assume a nom de plume. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:44, 17 June 2014 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks Anthony. I think you've actually provided a rather nice illustration of how the Wikipedia environment is far from just "toxic". Are there real issues for those who try to do gf work within this environment, though...? I think it's clear to pretty much all of us here that the answer is yes. (And I'm just trying to suggest that OH may provide relevant tools for the study and, ultimately, the prevention of undesirable outcomes in our work environment.) 86.128.169.211 (talk) 17:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think taking advice from good expert OH consultants would be money well-spent. If you have the competence, time and energy to drive a project like this, you would have my 100% moral support, but I have no time, energy or expertise to contribute. WhatamIdoing, James and Bluerasberry all have a good grasp of the grant-making process at WMF, and WMF is very keen to throw money at worthy projects. If you're in the UK (or even if you're not) Wikimedia UK has a budget for supporting worthy projects - and this looks like something they'd consider. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, that wasn't really quite what I was intending to suggest... Rather, perhaps for WMF to put the word around to academic OH research groups that we and our work environment are here to be studied from various inter/disciplinary perspectives (e.g. epidemiological, social, psychological, engineering, etc). That despite the apparent dearth of outside academic interest hitherto, we do actually constitute a legitimate and potentially worthwhile area of study. For example, information (including that already accrued) on "who we are" may be highly relevant. And how about our processes, culture, etc, etc? What sort of interventions might be identified acceptable and feasible within the context of our self-governing community? Which interventions are effective?

I realise that people within the WMF are probably addressing some of these questions already in their own ways, and I certainly wouldn't want to belittle their work. But I can't see any reason not to encourage outside research with an occupational focus (as distinct, for example from study primarily focused on content/quality). My thought was that WMF might eventually want to commission specific work, as and when the Foundation identifies particular areas for specific in-depth study. But a first step might be to invite interest more generally. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just proposed meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Victim_support_services - I will be talking with others about what other nonprofit organizations do when their volunteers are harassed. I think I would like to have professional counseling services available for Wikipedians because too many people are helpless to respond meaningfully to their attackers. Also, someone should document these problems so that we can address them more fully. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with James that victim is not an ideal word in this context (and for that matter, tend to think it's not the best word in most contexts where it's used.) Sumana's keynote from Wikiconference USA is relevant to a good chunk of this discussion - and although practices from either organization would be hard to directly adapt to ENWP, the practices of both Hacker School and the Ada Initiative are probably worth examining. WMDE's community grant program had a proposal accepted a couple of years ago to hire professional facilitators to handle some of the emotional labor involved in settling on-wiki disputes - it ended up falling through when the volunteer involved had to pull out, but struck me as quite interesting. As mentioned by Whatamidoing someone above, this is an area that would likely not be hard to find WMF grant funding for useful ideas for - I know I'd endorse pretty much any well thought out grant in this area proposed to the project and events grants program. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
First, I want to say that no one ever wants to see a good productive editor leave the project because of an unfriendly environment, and I would love to see the problematic editors removed as much as the rest of you. I acknowledge I don't edit much in the way of the sciences (although I did minor in and get a foundation scholarship for astronomy in college) because of the obvious difficulties I see in the more subjective humanities articles. The support services project strikes me as a great idea and to the degree I can be useful there (which probably isn't much) I will try to help. Specifically regarding OH, WorlCat has several reference books here dealing with the subject and I think at least a few of them might be available to me. I will try to get together some listing of what they cover in the next few months, which I think might be as useful in getting a sort of prospectus for OH content together. It might take a few months though, and the lists of articles and subarticles will almost certainly be somewhat outdated, but it might be at least a point to start from. John Carter (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) While putting in another (perhaps superfluous) voice in favour of replacing "victim support" with "editor support", "contributor support" or somesuch, I'd also like to say that this seems to me to be an interesting proposal. On a somewhat related topic, I've always been a bit perplexed by the quasi-disciplinary associations that mentoring seems to acquire on Wikipedia. Imo, most of us here may stand to benefit at some time from thoughtful informal mentoring, at least in particular areas we find more tricky... as well as from some plain Jane human support. Best, 86.128.169.211 (talk) 23:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is unfortunate to work hard to attract / develop high quality editors just to have someone make their work here unfun and have them leave.
To get our organization to change direction will be hard. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While this is an interesting and worthwhile conversation to have, I think perhaps we have strayed from the original topic of this section. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, I think this discussion has been attempting to address some (though admittedly not all) of the deeply felt complaints made in the initial post. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 08:34, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I changed it to "community support services" because I love that word. I did not mean to go astray. I like the idea of connecting this to Occupational medicine or Occupational safety and health, and maybe we can find some precedent in business practices and research for retaining people in any position prone to high stress. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:57, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In the novel Food of the Gods HGWells describes the appearance of a nest of giant wasps outside a small English countryside town. The villagers are terrorized by the wasps, and after some weeks send a message to the Royal Society requesting help. The society sends out a team of scientists who spend the next several months documenting various aspects of the wasps' physiology and behavior while they continue to terrorize the village. Frustrated, the mayor requests assistance from the Royal Academy of Engineers. The engineers pile wood around the nest, set the wood on fire, and return to London the same day with the problem solved. Similarly, I wonder if we need to study this problem further, or simply enforce the rules. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err, enforce which rules? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:19, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I thought we had some rules on civility, if we don't, maybe we should. There are editors here that have long track records of responding to nearly every disagreement with personal attacks, accusations of bad faith editing, etc. They wouldn't last a month with that sort of behavior in a corporate environment. I realize I'm oversimplifying the situation a bit, but as a relative newcomer, I don't understand the extent to which the senior people here tolerate that sort of behavior while wringing their hands about the low female participation and general exodus of editors. I wouldn't work at a company that tolerated such behavior. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The line between uncivil and just rough around the edges is like the one that divides tadpoles and frogs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely, but we clearly have a healthy population of fully differentiated versions of both phenotypes. Why is it so difficult to deal with those who are clearly frogs? I was involved in a discussion on the Admin's notice board a few weeks back in which the subject was engaging in clear cut personal attacks of a very personal sort right there on the board and daring the admins to block him. Outcome: no consensus for any action. Sometimes its like a party that anyone can attend, and no one can be asked to leave no matter how obnoxiously they behave. You end up with beer cans all over the neighbor's years, broken furniture, and fistfights breaking out in the back yard. Having rules and enforcing them just makes a better environment for everyone. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:43, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I had someone threatening legal action against me yesterday. This was after calling another editor a psychopath. Sometimes this place just seems too dangerous to edit openly. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:47, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@LT910001: sad to hear that. I haven't really worked with you all that much, but it still feels like a friend is leaving. May you find peace, wherever you go. I do believe these cases constitute very real cyberbullying that has gone unchecked for far too long. I hope someone comes up with a good solution to fix this toxic work environment, and that they implement the solution soon. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 06:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WPMED A-class article?

My 2 cents is that GAN/FAN process creates significant conflict. I know that I've found it an unpleasant side of WP - not sure what others think. Few medical editors seem to take issue with having academic debates or building consensus around content. But you can put tens or hundreds of hours into an article to have it sit for months on the list, only to be reviewed by someone that is largely disengaged with the actual content of the article. If we're to make a change in the near term, my suggestion would be in the GAN/FAN process (which seems unlikely) or to de-emphasize it's importance to the medical community. Ian Furst (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are about providing high quality medical content to the world. The GA and FA process are not that important in doing this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree. However, many of us look for validation of the effort, and quality assurance. How do you systematically recognize effort and provide feedback when requested? It seems that the quality of the articles has increased over the years (e.g. FA articles from years ago that would never make it now), what (if anything) could the community replace it with? Peer review? Ian Furst (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, WP:MILHIST makes extensive use of its pretty much exclusively internal A-Class rating. I suppose it would be possible for the medicine projects to develop a similar system. John Carter (talk) 01:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A scale for the project alone, judged by the people of the project. Imo, it might be worth transitioning to that. For those who like the challenge of FA/GA, it looks like they can still do it. There project page has some good ideas Ian Furst (talk) 02:14, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do MilHist's A-class criteria and process differ from GA and FA? Ah. I see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review. This proposal makes a lot of sense to me. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We got rid of A class a while ago as we did not really feel like we were active enough to manage it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We have existing processes of Peer Review and FAC - both are helpful and complement each other. FA status can be used as a consensus/stable version to refer back to after articles undergo (inevitable) article erosion. GA is pot luck - if an article is reviewed by an inexperienced reviewer then articles with glaring errors or gaps can easily be listed. My preference in the first instance is use existing processes and (1) be on the watch for GA nominations of medical articles at WP:GAN, (2) make generous use of Peer Review - it has been very fruitful for cervix, (3) this then maximises chance of success at a rigorous review place like FAC, which then gives us a stable version. I agree that we don't have enough activity to warrant A-class review, which seems to be bureaucracy-creep anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one is maintaining all these assessment projects. It could happen that all WP:MED assessment could be condensed from considering GA and FA and only do in-house assessments of A with judgments on quality of health information and supporting our community of editors rather than sending people into GA and FA reviews where there could be more conflict. Even if we did this, it is not certain that we have enough people on hand to give reviews when requested. I do not know what the solution is to this except that it would be nice if there were same way that WikiProject Medicine contributors could get their content reviewed for medical accuracy on request. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about scheduling volunteers for a month at a time (or 1 week or 2 weeks, depending on workload/number of volunteers) to do the reviews? If you know you're only on for a week or two at a time, the workload seems less daunting. How many active editors participate at WP:MED projects? 30 or so? Ian Furst (talk) 18:48, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Part of my pitch to mid-career scientists and medics, too busy to get in to serious editing (or that's what they think, heh heh) is to encourage them to keep an eye on here (or their appropriate project talk - eg molecular biology) and to do FA & GA reviews from a content point of view. I haven't done this sort of presentation to medics yet. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 19:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Back in the old stone knives and bearskins days of the project I used to do some Biography A-class review although I acknowledge that I know damn little about medicine and almost certainly wouldn't be useful here. One thing that might be useful though might be trying to get together some lists of recent specialist reference books like I've started for some of the humanities projects at Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles and what topics are covered substantially in which books to use as a baseline indicator for which content types to include in which articles here. Those sources might tyhen be used by even someone like me in the "first stage of A-class review" or rough review and then maybe getting someone other than the article writers/developers who knows the field in for a "second stage of A-class review" to determine how current the specific details included in the articles are? John Carter (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's not being used for anything, perhaps we could use A-class to denote articles that have passed review for accuracy and completeness by named subject-matter experts (with a prominent link to the version that passed review) - sort of Wiki CRUK John's suggestion, above, but without having to meet the other criteria for FA. This way, interested experts could comment on (and hopefully eventually pass) any article that takes their fancy and not be limited to just the tiny few that make their way to FA nomination ... more like John Carter's second stage. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is an excellent suggestion, and it might be easier to get reviewers than editors (as for reviewers of publications many see it as an obligation, and rarely say no). And once word gets out there we have high quality content more reviewers might start editing? Thoughts?-- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I suspect there is no harm in it.....so part of me thinks why not.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the more I think about it the more I think it is a good idea - it could be a platform that we can invite medical experts to opine in/on when articles are nominated there. Looking at the milhist process though, it looks like we'll need a WP:MED coordinator.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As an update, I've started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment/A-Class_review borrowing from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class review, though I doubt we need quite so many templates. It is sort of bold except that (1) A-class review is an existing process so we're not doing anything not covered by existing policy and (2) it isn't compusory, so folks can ignore if they wish. The more I think about it the more I think that this creates or facilitates some platform for medical experts to engage with content here. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

brevity of sentences in lead....

Right, cervix is undergoing alot of editing and heading towards FAC - Jmh649 and I are having a difference of opinion over prose - see here. Essentially I would say that these two pairs of sentences are too short to flow smoothly whereas he says they should be as short as possible. Opinions invited...if anyone wants to offer opinions on the rest of the article that's fine/great/appreciated but its a looooong page....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion is that the lead should be written in as simple of English as possible without making the content in question wrong. I beleive that easy understanding is more important than brilliant prose. This requires us using short sentences and simpler words. The body of the text can be more written with more complicated language. We need to keep in mind our readers and that many of our readers do not speak English as a first language. Those who love and excel at complicated language usually have excellent access to high quality medical content / advice and do not need us anyway.
I guess this is why I do not write featured articles :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
James a sentence with two short clauses is not complicated language. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure about all the differences, but I do agree with this simplification and the accompanying edit summary. Yes, editorial context does matter. Imo, emphasis on the need for "brilliant prose" throughout FA could be contrary to Wikipedia's core values of providing reliable information that is freely available to everyone. Especially so in topics that may be of practical use in the real world to people who aren't native speakers of English. Per James's remarks above, it's hard enough to work up a lead that is both technically correct and comprehensible to our rather broad general readership, without being micromanaged into brilliance. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is, with all respect, a stupid thing for two such wonderful editors as you (both of you) to get excited about. Since it is purely a stylistic issue with no effect on the validity of the article, both of you should step back and allow other editors to choose which variant to use. Looie496 (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this one sentence is a minor issue as both versions are fairly simple. But the issue of simplification generally I view as exceedingly important, especially with respect to the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Looie496 - yes, that's why I have circulated it for additional opinions and am happy to abide by the result. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't follow who's on which side of the argument, so if I offend either James or Cas Liber - sorry. I'm a strong believer that the articles should be written in simple english with short sentences. I've written articles that I thought were simple only to have my non-medical (university educated) friends tell me they are unreadable. With respect to the opening sentence, the "...and hence..." is cumbersome in my opinion. My preference is for 2 sentences. Ian Furst (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to say I think the "hence" is unnecessary. Personally, I'd contextualise first, thus: "In the female reproductive system, the cervix (Template:Lang-la) or cervix uteri is the lower part of the uterus." Just my 2c. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I like that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be better to think about the entire first paragraph, rather than just trying to rearrange this line as presented as the question here. I would start the introduction with an anatomical statement something like; "The uterus consists of two parts; its lower tubular part is the called the cervix (cervix uteri) and its upper and broader part is called the body of the uterus (corpus uteri)." I think that this first line will orientate readers about the anatomy especially as the cavity of the body of the uterus is included in the introduction after this. There are many right ways of writing a clear line about the anatomy, not only my suggestion, including dividing my suggestion into three sentences. The fact about the cervix being part of the female reproductive system should be easy to write into the introduction elsewhere, and need not be part of an orientating line about the anatomy. Actually, it the cervix is a fascinating medical topic and I am sure that many WP Med editors would find it interesting, even if the peer review page is getting rather long. Snowman (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am of the opinion that the bolded text / topic of the article should usually begin the first sentence to key the reader that they are indeed on the right page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What about: "The cervix (cervix uteri) is the lower part of the uterus and the body of the uterus (corpus uteri) is the upper part of the uterus. A slight narrowing of the circumference of the uterus at the base of the cervix demarcates the junction of these two parts." Wordsmiths will be able to enhance this. Some extra referenced text would be needed in the article to support this. It is perhaps a little to soon to refine the introduction, at this juncture. Snowman (talk) 08:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It takes some WP:COMPETENCE to be able to understand when to step back, instead of offering what biologists call display behavior. I think most of us edit here to relax or rest. --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 13:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, I think I'm leaving too...! Just watching this is painful. We really need to consider Wikipedia's core priorities here as an encyclopedia that's open to all. In my understanding at least, that doesn't include systematically obsessing other writers and contributors with "wordsmithing" in homage to certain FA ideals. (And for the record, I speak as someone with a decades-long background in language editing.) 86.128.169.211 (talk) 09:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aaawww, don't sweat it - jus' trying to get a feel for what folks reckon is best. @Snowman, general consensus is that the article should star "The X..." where "X" is the article title. I think I've had this conversation a few times over the years and that is what it's boiled down to. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Focusing on the issue that User:Casliber raised; personally speaking, I would support User:Casliber's preference a logical joined up sentence at the beginning of the cervix article. Snowman (talk) 07:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that reams of personal preferences for things like "a logical joined up sentence" should be allowed to hamper the development and maintenance of Wikipedia's best work. I suspect this is a flaw in the current FA/PR processes. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't care less, personally, about FA or GA. Though they matter, compared with accuracy, clarity and completeness, beauty of expression, punctuation, spelling and even the manual of style are utterly inconsequential. Neither GA nor FA is any guarantee of an article's accuracy or completeness. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against discreet and judicious copyediting. Everyone likes clean and readable text (and James always invites people to feel free to fix his typos, etc). But surely there's always a delicate relation of respect between editor and writer? James's preference for simple but correct language in the lead is a reasoned editorial choice that is broadly in line with WP:LEAD. And, fwiw, I think Casliber was right to bring the question here in a respectful way. 86.128.169.211 (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthonyhcole - almost every single article I've taken to GAN or FAC has been improved in some way by the process (I think maybe one passed GAN without any suggestions). And the way they were improved was by accuracy, clarity and completeness, beauty of expression, punctuation and spelling. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I could have phrased that better. My only GA was vastly improved by the process. But if the process is toxic, and it can sometimes be toxic at both FA and GA, then I think having a distinct process that just focusses on an article's accuracy and completeness - involving genuine subject-matter experts - may be a useful one for those who feel they are (or actually are) being bullied and harassed over beauty of prose, MOS and other less-critical elements of quality. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have found GA to be mostly useful but it is variable. Found FA to be too nitpicky. And often one needs to inform the reviewers about WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. Sometimes not all suggestions are improvements. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invite review prominently on each medical article

What if we put something like this at the top of each medical article?:

We would appreciate your thoughts on this article. Click here.

This could take them to a brief form where they may identify themselves, if they wish, giving a university or other professional email address (kept confidential), and add comments - maybe with a toggle button so they can easily flip between the article and their comments. Their comments and name would appear as a new thread on the article's talk page and they would receive an email with a link to that thread. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan. Would support this.Docsim (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like the Wikipedia:Article feedback version 5 that was killed. I thought it was a good idea. Spoke up in its support and was sad to see it go. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any real technical issues against us setting up such a system for our articles on our own? -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not, but I suspect it might get relegated to the talk page, which is really little use, and both the quantity and quality of the feedback received in the general excercise were pretty dire, so much so that people stopped bothering to read it. I think it's more productive to seek out medics on their own ground, as Bluerasberry did with the BMJ, the various Education projects do with medical schools, & I am working on doing through other channels, including online communities. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improve readability and information on Desiccated thyroid extract wikipedia page

I would like to make improvements to the desiccated thyroid extract wikipedia page Desiccated_thyroid_extract. From using the product and surface level research, I would like to work on the following: 1) restructuring the page 2) adding additional information, 3) adding/finding citations to support new and existing information and 4) rewriting content for readability and clarification. Since I am new to making these types of edits, I would appreciate any assistance with any of the above. Would anyone be willing to collaborate with the research? Thank you!

Presto808 (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have three main pages to help you get started:
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have reorganized per WP:MEDMOS. Work is needed on the reference as most of them are not of great quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Presto. With large projects like this, please don't make a great many changes in one single edit. Then it will be easier if someone wants to discuss one of your edits. Good luck. --Hordaland (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a medical article

Could someone tell me what constitutes a medical article or topic. Would physical therapy or podiatry fit the bill.Docsim (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sort of. User:WhatamIdoing may be best to answer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are two typical reasons to ask this question: one is about WP:MEDA and the other about WP:MEDRS.
Both of these are "medical" articles in the sense that people here are willing to support the articles. They should therefore be tagged with {{WPMED}} (on the talk page) as being within our scope.
Some parts of these articles are "medical" in the sense that they make statements about biomedical information. Those particular statements should be supported by reliable sources as described in WP:MEDRS. However, other statements (for example, about training, licensing, history, etc.) just need normal WP:Reliable sources.
Feel free to ask more questions about this if you want more information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ayurveda

On Ayurveda. A view of charity is being over used and overrated. A edit from 1 June[2] adds it on lead that "There is no scientific evidence to prove that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer or any other disease", Although many other organizations, ahead of charity view differently.. And this same thing is added on the subsection on subsection but without any quotes, thus violating copyright. Previously, it was only on the subsection as "According to Cancer Research UK, "there is no scientific evidence that Ayurvedic medicine can treat or cure cancer any other disease." Because it is the view of only one "Charity". Discussion has been opened there. To me this whole edit seems like a WP:WEASEL and non-neutral POV, other 2 editors have objected too Talk:Ayurveda#Cancer_UK_foundation_on_Lead. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This focusses on the use of the quote from CRUK. I've expanded the intro to the Efficacy section to give more of a flavour of what the CRUK statement says and eliminate the over-close paraphrasing. The CRUK source is MEDRS-compliant ("position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies") and seems to represent the mainstream scientific view, so there cannot be any doubt that its inclusion is justified. In my humble opinion, the quote used in the lead is due weight and needs to be there so that the mainstream view is properly represented. Perhaps a few more eyes on the disagreement would be useful. --RexxS (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The American Cancer Society says, "There is no convincing clinical evidence so far to suggest that traditional Ayurvedic treatments can have a substantial impact on the growth and spread of cancer"[3], so it doesn't sound to me like the view of just one charity. (They also outline some of the studies that are being done on drugs derived from Ayurvedic herbal treatments; it looks like an Ayurvedic laxative works [as a laxative, not as a cancer treatment].) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chuen Yan Cheng

Please would someone check the sourcing and medical claims in Chuen Yan Cheng? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a BLP stub about the inventor of a contraceptive drug for men. It claims that there are no side effects. It may be significantly outdated. User:Flyer22, do you have an interest in this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foot ailment name

Editors are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Name of foot ailment. (version of 21:15, 20 June 2014). (Also, they are invited to consider watchlisting that page.)
—Wavelength (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are looking for something a little different to do, then you might have some fun by taking a look at voy:Stay healthy and related pages over at Wikivoyage. Wikivoyage is a travel wiki. I'm just getting started there, but the rules are a bit different (they really are trying to give advice, and nothing gets cited), and it seems to be a bit more low-key and friendly. There's a page at voy:Wikivoyage:Welcome, Wikipedians that outlines some of the differences. Your Wikipedia username and password should work as usual. Feel free to stop by and say hello to me if you decide to look around over there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great to see you joining. They are a good group and agree it is fun to write about travelling. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol (drug) importance

Can someone please take a look at the alcohol (drug) article and tell me where it rates on the importance scale? --David Hedlund (talk) 05:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

plus Added it for you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Seppi333: Thank you. Also, which template should be set in articles so I do not have to ask like this? --David Hedlund (talk) 02:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a drug, just paste this code at the top of the talkpage.
{{talk header}}
{{WPBS | 1=
{{WPPHARM | class =  | importance =  }}
{{WPMED | class =  | importance =  }}
}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
If it's another form of medical article, use
{{talk header}}
{{WPBS | 1=
{{WPMED | class =  | importance =  }}
}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 12:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had communicated with eMedicine and they have reactivated the links bearing the form subj|ID. Therefore the technical glitch that sparked multiple discussions, has been resolved. As of now, till patient.co.uk links appear in the infoboxes, should the eMedicine links be reactivated in the infobox? DiptanshuTalk 10:07, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's okay with me. (If there's a page that we don't like, then we're not required to add the links to the infobox anyway.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
patient.co.uk should be ready in a couple of days. I guess we could. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic routes in drug articles - style guide?

I've noted the recent addition of detailed chemical synthetic routes to many of the drug articles in Wikipedia. I don't see this as a positive thing, as it is difficult for me to imagine that more than 1-2% of our readers is able to understand and appreciate this content. In most cases the synthetic route provided is a randomly selected procedure from among many published in the literature, and there is no citation showing that the particular route illustrated is used for production.

Also, without meaning to be a prude, I note that the proliferation of synthetic routes and references to detailed synthetic procedures has been particularly rapid for drugs of recreational interest. We have detailed synthetic routes and literature references now for many drugs that are rarely if ever used therapeutically, including Fencamfamine, bromadol, metenolone, MDMA, methamphetamine, and mescaline among many, many others.

I would like to propose adding to both the medicine and pharmacology style guides a statement along the line of "Detailed information regarding the method of chemical synthesis of pharmacologically active substances should not normally be included in articles, as it is outside the scope of a general interest encyclopedia. The inclusion of references and detailed schemes for the synthesis of psychotropic drugs with high abuse potential is particularly discouraged".

Most importantly, I think the inclusion of synthetic routes is out of scope and too specialized. Secondarily, while the synthetic routes for drugs of abuse are widely available on the web, I don't see any reason for Wikipedia to participate in its dissemination. The routes are really outside our usual scope in any case.

Just my POV. Any thoughts from others? Formerly 98 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the community will agree to this. The first objection will be that Wikipedia is not meant to be an encyclopedia solely for general interest. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:19, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, off to a poor start. By "general interest" I'm referring to non-specialist. I see a lot of articles with commentary pointing out that the level of technical detail should be reduced to an appropriate level for a general audience. Formerly 98 (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
were these added recently? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summary style might help here. 194.42.240.60 (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have mixed feelings about this. I agree that including an arbitrarily chosen synthesis of a drug is not appropriate. If included, the synthesis should be how it is produced industrially or perhaps how it was first synthesized, but certainly not the 10th "novel route to drug X" synthesis. In these cases, a separate article on "synthetic routes to drug X" might be appropriate. Concerning illicit synthesis, Wikipedia is neither a how to guide nor is it censored. Furthermore if the illicit synthesis of a drug is wide spread, that increases the notability and therefore the justification for its inclusion. IMHO including a general description of the synthesis is fair game, but regardless if the synthesis were ethical or illicit, it would not be appropriate to include experimental details. Finally, wouldn't it be more appropriate to have this discussion here? Boghog (talk) 08:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a compound article is tagged with WP:MED+WP:PHARM and WP:CHEM, then the MOS layout for that page needs to include all relevant sections laid out in the MOS for those projects. MOS:CHEM indicates including a synthesis section. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 12:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm supportive of this - WP:UNDUE is one applicable policy, perhaps the main one. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seppi333 makes an interesting point about the chemistry style guide. But I wonder if the synthesis section is intended to include the detailed synthetic schemes becoming commonplace in these articles. I'm a PhD chemist, and I routinely blow past these detailed synthetic schemes. Which makes me wonder how many of our readers find them of interest (or comprehensible). Formerly 98 (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
BogHog, I agree that probably should have been posted over at Pharmacology, but in the summer its hard to get eyes on things over there. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@ Formerly, just because yourself or even the vast majority of other readers do not find some info useful is no credible reason to delete it. Just put it into a sub article which is linked from the main page if you don't think it is part of the main topic. WP:Summary style lays this concept out exactly. 194.42.240.60 (talk) 22:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AfC submission - 22/06

Should the fibrinogen section be made into a separate article? See Draft:Factor I Deficiency. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse anesthetist

I believe this article should have its name changed to Nurse anesthetist (United States) because of the lack of worldwide view of the subject. A separate article on this would be notable and have sufficient information to have independent from a Nurse anesthetist (if it was made). What do you Wikipedians think? Robert4565 (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the title should indicate what belongs on the page, not merely what someone has already added to the page. If you think it needs non-American information (and almost every article about any occupation does), then WP:Be bold and expand it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

toxic

I agree with LT. Wp has full of bullies, some are not admins and a few are. WP is dangerous because its medical articles are unregulated and people are even opposed to disclaimers because they want to pretend WP is a medical textbook even though people could die as a result.

This is really bad.

Stephanie Bowman (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what he said... 194.42.240.60 (talk) 06:24, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=614055043"