Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 03:28, 13 November 2021 (→‎Source of problem identified: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Skip to top
Skip to bottom

    Edit with VisualEditor

    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

    Frazier's point

    Hello friends, I come to you with another curious medical orphan stub: Frazier's point. Same questions as the last one: is it notable? Can it be merged, or should it be deleted? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I would say merged into VP shunting. I can find a few sources about it, more than others like that random anatomical variant ligament. At least everybody has one of these... [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 01:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    agree w/ Shibbolethink--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    ventriculoperitoneal shunt redirects to cerebral_shunt#Shunt_routing, which mentions the Peritoneal cavity as the drainage site. Would cerebral_shunt#Shunt_routing still be a good merge target? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah yes, I had only moused over, not even noticed the redirect. That is a perfectly fine merge, as VP shunting is just one type of cerebral shunt. Frazier's point should be merged into Cerebral shunt#Shunt location, in my opinion, though. That appears to me to be the most pertinent part of that article to anatomy and localization. — Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 13:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
     Done And expanded it a little bit. Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    And by the way, Frazier's point is NOT what the picture on the right is showing! Dr. Vogel (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    have left a message on talk(with above editor) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:01, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Ozzie, do you mean we should create an image for it? If so, that sounds like a great idea. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:21, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:05, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    but what did you mean? is that what you meant? Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:50, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Just started an article Medical volunteerism

    I am surprised this didn't exist. Setting aside how significant this is, it probably also describes what we do here at this project... btw, has there been any academic study about WP:MEDICINE? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:06, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Google scholar--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Question, is volunteerism a word you guys use in America? In the UK we definitely say volunteering. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Volunteerism might not quite have the same feeling as volunteering. IMO choosing that name slightly hints that there could be an ideological view underlying the decision: I am going to save the world, without wondering why the world is set up so that patients in poor countries see a different set of outsiders each week, instead of just hiring long-term residents to do this permanently. I know that it might make sense for a small country to have a visiting physician in an uncommon specialty, but it doesn't make sense to fly in someone to weigh children or to tell people that using condoms reduces HIV transmission (and these are typical activities, as many participants have no more qualifications than the hospital volunteer who delivers flowers to the rooms).
    There's a third word, voluntourism, that implies that the healthcare-related activities are secondary to the participant's desire to travel. It is more derogatory. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ozzie10aaaa Well, yes, I meant, beyond those easy pickigs (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_153#Is_this_WikiProject_notable? where I alraedy cited all of these). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Commons' Picture of the Year

    Voting is open for the final round of Commons' 2020 Picture of the Year. Almost everyone reading this page is eligible to vote. In this round, you get to vote for three pictures out of the 59 finalists. All of them are good, and a few are medicine-related this year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Sugar, literature reviews and reviews of reviews

    Likely of interest to this wikiproject: WP:RSN § Sugar, literature reviews and reviews of reviews —PaleoNeonate – 03:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Sacral fracture

    Pelvis

    I hadn't started a medical article in ages, but a case I saw the other day prompted me to read about this stuff again and I noticed there wasn't an article so I had a go. Feel free to edit :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    well done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You know, we don't seem to have an article on broken toes, even under foot fracture. Granted that definitive treatment for most is taping them together, which makes them a bit boring to medics, they are pretty common.
    This is a bit off-topic, but a while ago (pre-pandemic) I did a very informal haphazard survey of old people on medical information they thought everyone should be able to get from Wikipedia (like, chatting to people on transit and asking people I know). Preventative foot health was the most noticable favourite; a lot of older people seem to suffer a lot from painful feet, and feel that their foot conditions (bunions, overlapping toes, hammertoes, flat feet, pedal edema etc.) were preventable, if only they'd known information X. HLHJ (talk) 03:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @HLHJ, you're right. Foot health is important for maintaining independence and preventing falls in older/frailer people. Not wearing bad shoes your whole life probably reduces your risk of the fall→hip fracture→death process. A solid ==Prevention== section should exist in all of those articles.
    We usually put articles at the singular. Would you like to start Broken toe yourself? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:07, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Go for it! :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 16:37, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just seen what you made. Wow. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @HLHJ, this is really incredible work. Thank you so much. Have you considered sending it to Wikipedia:Did you know to be put on the Main Page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you both for your encouragement! Reportedly it accords with advice from British Columbian healthcare, too, which is reassuring (Quiddity has just had unfortunate occasion to learn about broken toes). I have a bit of a backlog of part-written articles, and I expect that most of the people who want to know about this topic will already know that they want to know, so I probably won't be sending this one to DYK. Would an article on shoe-fitting, to be linked to in Prevention sections, make sense? I think I have the sources. HLHJ (talk) 20:29, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds like a good idea. We have some information at Toe box#Fitting and an article on the Shoe-fitting fluoroscope, but Shoe fitting is a red link and Shoe barely mentions fitting at all. There should probably be a ==Section== on fitting, with a {{main|Shoe fitting}} link.
    I also noticed that there is nothing at broken finger. I wonder how many other common subjects are missing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for pointing that one out WAID! I've created a stub and plagiarised HLHJ's article as a template. Dr. Vogel (talk) 00:52, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you tried Wikipedia:Did you know before? Both of these articles could go in the same nomination. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No idea how it works. And I'm aware that this is not an acceptable reply, I should go look ip up. Dr. Vogel (talk) 18:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Follow the directions at Template talk:Did you know#Manual instructions. It's not as difficult as it looks. Name Broken toe as the main article (because it's longer).
    Think of a "hooky" (clickbait-y?) question, like "Did you know... that the main treatment for broken toes and broken fingers is the same?" or "Did you know... that the main treatment for broken toes is a piece of tape?" Make sure that whatever your question is that an almost word-for-word sentence is in the article, with a ref at the end of that exact sentence. (Doing this makes it easier for the reviewers to get through their reviewing checklists.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I should belatedly admit that I copied clavicle fracture as a template. Indeed, if you look at the first version of the article, I accidently left a bit of the clavicle content in for a minute! I should have credited it in the page-creation edit, as Dr. Vogel did. I've now template-credited it on the talk page. Thank you for making broken finger, that's one less article on my list! How to go about compiling a list of... iatroapathetic? iatroanaiac? medicotedious? topics... maybe some of the diagnostic code systems? Wikidata might be useful. HLHJ (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, so I've gone ahead and nominated HLHJ's article. I tried to make it clickbait-y through being humerus humorous. Never done this before, so hopefully I haven't made a mess of it. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I also think iatroapathetic should be added to the OED. I'm going to start using that word in hospital as of tonight. It'll raise a few eyebrows, but who knows, may be it'll stick. Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hallo. Late reply to HLHJ's comment, just in case of interest. I broke a toe last Monday. [Edit: Here's my experience!] I called the local 8-1-1 hotline on Tuesday, and whilst on hold for 45 mins - [Edit: Which was fine, as it was non-emergency! I just mention as stats are interesting. :> ] - I read the local BC Healthlink page, and grumbled to WAID [Edit: about my injury] who pointed me towards our new article! When I talked to the nurse, she gave me identical information to the website and our new page, but also offered to give me a virtual consult with a doctor - I was hesitant as I didn't want to waste anyone's time, but accepted the offer just in case they had unique tips. After saying hello, the doctor started off with "I'm sorry to say, but we just don't care!" which amused me greatly! She then went on to reiterate the standard advice, but also mentioned: (A) the importance of wearing a shoe with a stiff sole and square toebox, if I need to walk anywhere, and (B) that when she had broken her own toe in the past, she found buddy-taping to be more painful/uncomfortable than just leaving it alone, so she suggested it was very optional. -- That's it. Thanks again for this, and for all you all do! Quiddity (talk) 21:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC) [and then edited once] but after 1 comment below: Quiddity (talk) 04:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Quiddity! I mentioned you mostly because I thought some collegial commiseration and distraction might be in order; I didn't expect a reply! I've expanded broken toe with that information, (except for the structured toebox, haven't got a cite for that yet) citing BC Health. Interestingly, they say buddy taping is also not used if someone has diabetes or peripheral areterial disease; I'm guessing this is circulation problems, but it seems a bit general. Any views, anyone?
    Thank you, Dr. Vogel! It's rare for people to nominate articles they haven't written, and I can't imagine you'll make a mess of it. I like WAID's idea of doing a two-in-one nom; I've expanded broken finger a bit, though it's still far from ready.
    I also made List of fracture patterns; can anyone tell me if greenstick fractures belong and whether they are a splintery fracture only seen in children or any fracture that does not go all the way through the bone? An image of an impacted fractuer is also still lacking.
    I have written Metal allergy; it needs more and more diverse sources, and a mechanisms section on the immunology, but it's a start. Checks and edits very welcome. We had nickel allergy, which may still have some concealed COI sources (bleah US laws letting people fund stuff anonymously, it has one looking skeptically at anyone putting up a decent page online with no visible means of support...), and we have MELISA, which really does seem a bit promotional.
    Might we want an article on vaccines specifically developed to improve vaccine equity by being easier to administer (less cold chain, longer shelf life, administered as drops not an injection, administered all at once rather than over five precisely-spaced visits, etc.)? MSF calls these adapted vaccines, a term unfortunately also used for vaccines adapted to new variants of diseases and some live vaccines (see "The Right Shot: Extending the reach of affordable and adapted vaccines". Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) International.). "Accessible vaccines"? are there any other terms? HLHJ (talk) 03:33, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    These two images seem to me to show two different things; an avulsion fracture and a tendon tear, both causing mallet finger. But the tendon-tear one is catted on Commons as a Busch fracture, and the other one I made myself by modding the first. Can anyone tell me which is right? The tendon-tear image is currently on broken finger. Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vaccine equity

    We need more MEDRS information on the public-health effects of vaccine inequity, especially at the high-traffic COVID-19 vaccine#Access, and at Deployment of COVID-19 vaccines#Equitable access. The information looks generally sound, but is sometimes cited to news media citing the WHO etc., and it could really benefit from being clearer, more comprehensive, better organized, and expertly integrated with the related non-medrs-needing information (who is doing what with vaccines where etc.). Thanks! HLHJ (talk) 03:29, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    several editors are apparently already working on the article[7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Ozzie10aaaa. I've linked to it from the other articles now; hopefully that'll help. HLHJ (talk) 21:07, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Adventist diet and health

    The third paragraph of Seventh-day_Adventist_Church#Health_and_diet makes health claims based on news articles, not medical reviews. The related Adventist Health Studies cites a lot of publications from Loma Linda University (a Seventh-Day Adventist institution), and only one scientific article, all of whose authors are at Loma Linda. I'd think that the strong claims made here should require, like other medical claims on WP, third-party reviews published in reputable journals, not individual research studies published by advocates. --Macrakis (talk) 16:56, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Discussing articles WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Health effects of chocolate

    New editor here with a question. Health effects of chocolate states that there are essentially no positive health effects of chocolate. I found a recent review article that lists lots of cardiovascular benefits to chocolate. This is a review article, which is what is needed under WP:MEDRS. I edited the article to insert these findings and delete the statement in the lede that there are no positive effects. An existing editor immediately reverted my edits. Here is our discussion about it: [8] He seems unwilling to admit that there are legitimate studies showing a health benefit.

    Am I in the wrong? Why? How am I wrong? If I am not wrong, how do I handle this? --Isabela31 (talk) 01:06, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak reference. A big problem in this area of research is evidence for biomarkers, but not for clinical outcomes. A PubMed search on cocoa and cardiovascular, limited to meta-analyses, yielded what appeared to be better quality refs. David notMD (talk) 01:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that chocolate is a good thing, and I am sure that this is The One True™ Belief That All Good Editors Hold. However, the little things I've read in the past feel like those "red wine is good for the heart" claims: what most people actually eat (high-sugar candy that contains a small amount of chocolate) isn't what the lab test studied (sugarless, low-fat, high-fiber cocoa powder, various purified phytochemicals), and the studies in humans are textbook examples of correlation not proving causation. If you are the kind of person whose health and socioeconomic situation means you could eat chocolate (or drink alcoholic beverages) regularly, then you are automatically going to be healthier than the kind of person who can't make that choice.
    @Isabela31, I don't think you're wrong, and I'm sure that the article could be improved, especially by updating it to sources from the last few years. However, I think you find that it's more complicated than saying that chocolate has health benefits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:33, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing "chocolate has health benefits in humans" is the conclusion is two different recent review articles, one of them from a couple of months ago. Do the articles really rely on correlation? Where? Even if they do (which they don't), saying that for this reason they are invalid is WP:OR.
    I have a different theory. Some people have studied the topic in depth and have concluded that chocolate has no health benefits. They are against any edits that contradict this conclusion. That's WP:OR and is not allowed in Wikipedia. --Isabela31 (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    When you cut to the chase, pmid:31064163 says "there are limitations in the available data that make it difficult to draw firm conclusions". So the use of this source to assert firm conclusions in Wikipedia's voice would appear problematic. Alexbrn (talk) 13:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That same review article also says that "consumption of cocoa, particularly rich in flavanols, is beneficial to promote cardiovascular health". We can't cherry-pick the caveat while ignoring the plainly and directly stated conclusion.
    Isabela, I don't doubt that there are editors who are more interested in their personal opinions, or the level of evidence that would personally convince them to start eating chocolate. Personally, I am more concerned about the difference between "cocoa" (what's studied) and Candy bar (what's eaten). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If the evidence is described as all weak, that's a governing consideration that affects how the paper must be read (and reported). The text you quote is what studies apparently demonstrated, but the review goes on in conclusion to discuss many limitations with the findings. Alexbrn (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely someone has studied the psychological benefits? There has to be a reason that every introduction to mindfulness involves chocolate. -- Colin°Talk 08:12, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I had a past COI on this topic, because as employee and later science consultant, I worked for/advised several food companies on how to conduct research and make Structure:Function health claims for foods that contained proanthocyanidins and other polyphenols. For the (unnamed) chocolate company, I was paid money and briefcasefulls of chocolate! Foods in this constellation of polyphenol health claims include the well-known red wine, dark chocolate (for higher cocoa content) and green tea, but also Concord grape juice, hazelnuts, almonds, dark-colored berries and fruits, etc. For a while, an extract of hazelnut skins looked promising. Claims need to be tempered, because most of the evidence is biomarkers and putative biomarkers (flow-mediated dilation as an indicator of arterial stiffness) versus disease endpoints. I do believe the article can be improved, but with better refs than the one Isabela31 added. David notMD (talk) 11:31, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    To summarize, this is the section currently in the article, while this is my proposed rewrite. Going through the discussions has helped me see some of the points of favor of the current section, and has even lead me to rewrite and improve the proposed section, though I still disagree with some of the arguments made in favor of the current section. I will take a step back from this for now. If any of you good people would like to take a stab at it, please go ahead. @David notMD, @WhatamIdoing, @Alexbrn, @Colin --Isabela31 (talk) 14:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic

    Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic is a controversial subject and it would be nice to have some more eyes on it. CaffeinAddict (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    will watch(have edited)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Case study = Case report?

    Just to confirm I'm not running into a jargon issue here... should journals like Clinical Case Studies be categorized in Category:Case report journals? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I think so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. And case report is definitely the term we use in the UK. I don't know about other countries, but I'm glad that's the one used in the category :) Dr. Vogel (talk) 15:45, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Added, if anyone objects they can always revert. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:48, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Improving access to Wikipedia Library search results

    Tracked in Phabricator
    Task T294919

    A new development at WMF should improve access to Wikipedia Library search results for a given query. If and when completed, this would make results instantly available from the "WP Library" link included among the "find-sources" links in Talk page headers (along with Google, JStor, NYT, etc.) so that clicking the WP Lib link would act more like all the others. The way it is now, you have to click through the WP lib link, from there to the search page, re-enter the article title or other query, and submit the query. The new feature would return search results directly from clicking the link. This is currently being tracked in T294919. Previous discussion of this feature can be found at Module talk:Find sources#Wikipedia library. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    continues below Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Automatic 'medical sources' links in Talk page headers is now live: your feedback is needed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliable sources

    I'm a new editor, trying to learn about reliable sources. I read Wikipedia:MEDRS and related pages, and just trying to understand what all of that means in practical terms. Check these 3 references, based on this.

    The first one is clearly bad. Not in MEDLINE, no JIF, very low Scopus. The second one has positives and negatives. In AIM, good Scopus, but low JIF. Do you consider it reliable? The third one is in MEDLINE (but not AIM), good JIF, good Scopus. What is your opinion?

    Citation Journal MEDLINE JIF Scopus
    PMID 34485569 Journal of Education and Health Promotion no NA 24 percentile (bad)
    PMID 33549287 The Nursing Clinics of North America AIM 1.208 (low) 68 percentile (good)
    PMID 34405933 Phytotherapy Research yes 5.878 (good!) 84 percentile (very good)

    --Isabela31 (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    as inPremenstrual_syndrome#Alternative_medicine your going to find that even when you follow MEDRS, you need to build consensus with other editors on the article/talk as to what is the best option(IMO, I'd say #3) good luck--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Some editors are very strongly biased against what they call "SCAM" information ("Supplements, Complementary and Alternative Medicine"). We do see knee-jerk reactions against sources that fully comply with the guidelines. I once had a couple of men objecting to a source that claimed a reddish berry "improved skin tone". The problem, it turned out, was that they thought skin tone was a medical thing, similar to muscle tone. It's not. (A much more reasonable objection would have been that making skin redder by smearing red stuff on it is not always considered "an improvement", especially if you have rosacea.)
    I agree with you here that the first source is poor and the other two are likely to be acceptable – within the usual limits (e.g., not overstating things). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The first question to answer is 'reliable for what'? doi:10.1016/j.cnur.2020.10.006 would be enough to establish that X is used, but probably not to establish that X is effective. Also, there's often an incestuous relationship in SCAM-fields. Without taking any stance on whether or not Phytotherapy Research is reliable (I have literally no expertise in that field), it might be in the 84% percentile because its category is silly '84% in complementary medicine' would be pretty meaningless, but 84% in pharmacology would be a lot better. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    That journal is in the 84th percentile for the category "Pharmacology".[9] It ranks in between Wolters Kluwer's Journal of Immunotherapy and Elsevier's Progress in Medicinal Chemistry.
    Review articles in top-quintile pharmacology journals should be accepted even when the subject can be derided as "SCAM". We do not maintain neutrality by setting forth rules that say to use review articles in well-ranked journals and then acting like there's a secret exception that means only regulated pharmaceutical products can be written about. There is no secret exception.
    Obviously, in all cases, editors need to be careful not to exceed the sources. That is true whether the subject is a drug with FDA approval, or those useless knee surgeries, or Grandpa's belief that a hot toddy is a good treatment for a cold. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Welcome to WikiProject Medicine Isabela31! :0) Conscientious, thoughtful editors like you are our most valuable resource. // In addition to the excellent advice you have already received, keep in mind that (1) in the context of applying WP:MEDRS to Wikipedia articles, we define "biomedical" broadly, i.e., "human health" (contrast that definition with the article, Biomedical sciences); and (2) most health-related articles include discussion of topics such as etiology, assessment, diagnosis, treatment (management), etc., that, in many instances, require literature searches in the social and behavioral sciences and subsequent citations to journal articles published in psychology (and other social science) journals. In my field (clinical psychology), most of the top journals are indexed in MEDLINE, and are included in Index Medicus, but most reputable psychology journals are not included in the much shorter list of core journals. Some new editors assume that only National Library of Medicine core journals (Abridged Index Medicus), or only journals indexed in MEDLINE constitute reliable sources, which is not true. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 06:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Idea: study of WPMED, from the social movement scholarship perspective

    I am playing around with an idea for my next academic article: a study of WPMED (context: in addition of being a rather active volunteer around here, I am a sociologist studying Wikipedia, see my user page). Few days ago I've written up what I could about WPMED at WikiProject#WikiProject_Medicine (do let me know if I missed anything in my litrev), but I think your efforts deserve more of a spotlight, in the form of a dedicated article (in a peer reviewed journal, maybe with a side article in something for the masses). Per best practices, besides having an article padding my CV, I'd like it to be of interest/use to you, so I'd be happy to consider comments along the line of what you, WPMED members, would like to know about yourself. Here are my early ideas of what could be interesting to research:

      • Demographics (age, gender, education, are you a medical professional, type of professional; the latter is particularly interesting in the context of amateurs vs experts debates)
      • Why volunteer on Wikipedia at all (Wikipedia_community#Motivation)? --> are (motivations of) medical volunteers different from those of regular Wikipedians?
      • Did you volunteer before Wikipedia? and Did volunteering on Wikipedia encouraged you to volunteer somewhere else? --> about volunteering paths/ecosystem
      • Why volunteer on Wikipedia rather than somewhere else? --> about best practices in medical volunteering
      • What is the biggest hurdle to improving Wikipedia medical content?
        • Is there a voluntourism problem on Wikipedia? Are drive-by edits by a problem?
        • Is there a growing problem with fake news, COI, advertising in medical topics? Are we handling those issues or are they a growing danger?
      • Is volunteering on Wikipedia satisfying? Stressful? Would you recommend it to a colleague?
      • Do you edit anonymously, or not, and why? Are you afraid that if your peers would find out you edit Wikipeida, you'd lose reputation?
      • What are WPMED biggest strengths/successes/weaknesses/failures?
      • Why are so few people volunteering to help at WPMED? Lack of awareness? Not understanding Wikipedia? Lack of impact? Other?
      • How to make more people volunteer at WPMED?

    If all goes well, based on your feedback, in a few months I would make a survey that WPMED volunteers could take. Cheers, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:06, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    These seem like a good start for questions. The one thing else might add would be beliefs and attitudes about amateurs vs. professionals editing in this space: does it really help to have physicians, for example, and is Wikipedia a good use of their time? Jclemens (talk) 16:54, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You should have more on the questions arising from the global nature of both our editors and our readers (and our subjects). Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We looked at some of these issues a few years ago in doi:10.2196/jmir.3569, although I think the community has evolved in its practices significantly since then. Bondegezou (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I missed that one, a must read - will do soon! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:47, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting stuff. It's worth nothing that there is already some research (some of it more philosophical or ethnographic in nature) on wikipedia. There's a book on the ethnography of wikipedia. I'm mostly at the fringes of MEDRS, so take this with a pinch of salt, but from a "theoretic" basis, I'd might add some observations: Wikipedia is not part of the medical community, and has slightly different views and motivations, so volunteering might not be the correct motivation. If you find something wrong on the internet, and correct it by finding the best sources following a set of rules, you aren't necessarily "volunteering" as such, nor is wikipedia so much a social movement as a "civic process" like a freedom of information request, or a court case.
    Another topic I would add is that wikipedia is quite famous for being quite hostile to new editors. The sample you get from editors might be rather unrepresented of the group of *potential*.
    Walking into addressing you questions themselves... which I probably shouldn't, I think that one's capacity for impact for wikipedia is very high, but recognition within the medical community is rather lower. Talpedia (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    > Why are so few people volunteering to help at WPMED?
    Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Medicine, I'm not so sure that we should begin with a premise that so few people are volunteering. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    New editor retention is a difficult, especially in a topic like medicine, where everyone wants to know stuff and the best sources are often hard to read. Disclaimer: I substantially re-wrote this essay, but WP:Encourage the newcomers. Being nice to editors doesn't really suffice, you have to help them actually contribute, or they tend to go away (example). HLHJ (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Automatic 'medical sources' links in Talk page headers is now live: your feedback is needed

    Announcement: the {{Talk header}} template now incorporates the medical sourcing links from template {{find medical sources}} automatically, whenever a Talk page header is found on an article belonging to WP:WikiProject Medicine. The Talk header template generates the box you see at the top of some Talk pages.

    When conditions are met, you will see the following section included in the box generated by the Talk header template, just above the archive links and search box (example shown is for "Premenstrual syndrome"):

    This feature has now been released. On Talk pages belonging to WikiProject Medicine, you should now see source links like the ones illustrated above if the page contains a Talk page header. Some examples of these, and some control examples:

    Note that in case #2, you can force the header to output medical links by adding the |domain= parameter: {{Talk header|domain=medical}}, and in case #3, you can add them separately (since there is no header) by adding template {{Medical sources notice}} to the page. One other case worth noting, is a page like Talk:Medtronic which belongs to the project, but for which the medical source links may be "too strict" for the page; in this case, you can force a different set of links using the |domain= parameter, like this: {{Talk header|domain=general}}, and the general "find sources" will be displayed instead of the medical links. For details, see template documentation.

    You are the first to hear about this launch, and we could really use your feedback before making a more general announcement about it. Please try out the new "find sources" links that you find in the Talk page headers, and leave your feedback about bugs, feature requests, or general questions at Template talk:Find sources; or, if you prefer, below. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting... probably a good idea. It comes to mind that this can "encourage" people to complex with MEDRS. Some thoughts:
    1. Do we want to link to guideline search tools as well as papers. I don't know if they exist. I sometimes search NICE for stuff.
    2. We could filter google scholar search to reviews (they have this feature). This might do another piece of nudges
    3. For *some* topics (though not all). There are a few books that comprise most of the literature on the topic. This doesn't work too well for high-level articles that completely summarize a topic, but for others there are literally three reviews that do the bulk of the work. I wonder whether keeping track of *these* sources is
    4. I heard that sci-hub implemented full text search recently.... Talpedia (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Talpedia, and thanks for your comments. I edited your comment to add numbers to your points so I could respond in kind; hope you don't mind. (Feel free to revert, if you do.)
    1. Not quite sure I understand. Are you talking about searching Wikipedia guideline pages?
    2. Do you know what the url query string parameter is for google scholar reviews?
    3. I'm aware that some niche topics have narrow sourcing, but not sure what you are suggesting we do in those cases. Can you give a concrete example?
    4. My understanding is that Sci-Hub has copyright issues with their service, and I'm pretty sure Wikipedia's licensing requirements and U.S. copyright law would prevent us from using it. You could check with the legal department at WMF for guidance on this.
    Thanks again for your feedback! Encouraging people to interact with and employ MEDRS is what this was all about. Mathglot (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. There are two types of reliable sources in WP:MEDRS review papers and guidelines about how to treat people.

      Examples include literature reviews or systematic reviews found in medical journals, specialist academic or professional books, and medical guidelines or position statements published by major health organizations.

      (WP:MEDDEF). This is an example of a medical guideline: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng136 . The often quote research and have the "truth" associated with being read by medical practictioners when deciding how to treat people, but also often have lower standards of scholarship compared to systematic reviews.Talpedia (talk) 08:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Indeed, kind of a joke. But there is just a reality that sci-hub is being used by academics and PhD students for research even at universities in highly developed countries... Talpedia (talk) 08:36, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      I believe that Sci-Hub ended up on the global spam blacklist for copyright violations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    1. I don't know of a global blacklist, but yes some academic publishers have been going around the world getting court injunctions that ISPs are applying. The implementation of this blacklist by ISPs is not necessarily consistent however. Sci-hub have plans to create legal and political challenges - I'm not particularly hopeful, but it might get more attention and force change. There does seem to be a move to different funding models - where academics pay paper directly for publishing their articles, which feels a bit crazy, but is perhaps representative of the transaction that is actually doing on (academics publish in papers for reputation) - but that doesn't deal with all of the old papers Talpedia (talk) 10:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      This is our own global list, which is at m:Spam blacklist. It applies to all WMF-hosted wikis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]


    Thanks for sticking with this project, Mathglot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing:, thanks. It's been a labor of love, both functionally, and technically. I just hope it serves the purpose, and of course, suggestions are always welcome. One thing I wondered about, is whether we should add a link for the Wikipedia Library back in. The "regular" find-sources links you get on non-medical pages has one, so maybe this one should, too. Or, if medical editors are used to having the Wikipedia Library bookmarked in their browser, maybe it isn't necessary? Need some feedback from regulars, on whether they'd like to see a WP Library link or not. Mathglot (talk) 03:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the Wikipedia Library link, I should add that that link will soon become a lot more handy than it was; an upgrade is in the offing which will make clicking the link go straight to the search results, instead of making you go via the login page, retype your query, and submit it, the way it is now. For those who are interested, you can track this exciting development at Phabricator T294919. Mathglot (talk) 08:01, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm looking forward to that feature.
    I think that many qualifying editors don't know about Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library or haven't found it useful for locating sources. Some of the recent improvements make it much more useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:59, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    WhatamIdoing, this feature is now live. Scroll up or jump back to the top of this section, and try the 'WP Library' link now. I think this will really be a big help, and encourage more use of it. Mathglot (talk) 10:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    This looks great, it would be nice to highlight MEDRS sources rather than Newspapers etc when the template is shared on articles. For Guidelines, have you considered https://guidelines.ebmportal.com/ "The GIN international guideline library and registry of guidelines in development". I believe guideline groups have to pay to be shared in the this library, but it looks quite extensive. JenOttawa (talk) 13:28, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am very strongly opposed to this unfortunate development (see discussion below), and hope that this will be remedied ASAP by either incorporating text such as in the Ideal sources template, or removing this addition entirely. Why are we going backwards in making sure our editors can find and digest MEDRS? We are pushing inferior information to the top of talk pages, where editors will find it before they know what MEDRS is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    medref template

    Relatedly, the {{medref}} template suggests sources, but not of the right kind:

    wpuld be good to improve this too. Alexbrn (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Alexbrn:, indeed. Was not aware of that template, I’ll get back to this when I’m not mobile; it should be an easy fix. Mathglot (talk) 00:54, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I've responded at the template talk page (discussion). This needs feedback from the community, so members here are especially invited to have a look and share their thoughts. Mathglot (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Ideal sources is superior and is pushed down the page by this inferior template

    This is a move in the wrong direction (while appreciating the well-intended effort). The very editors we have problems with will see the find medical sources in the header, and think that primary sources that they find in most of those links are adequate. I believe that the current {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} is more in line with what is needed, and am concerned that this new template will trump that one. To offset the potential detrimental effect, we would have to place the better "Ideal sources" template above this on talk, which would mean placing it above the talk header!!! For example, right now at Talk:Autism, editors will encounter this template with no further explanation at the top of the page, and are unlikely to scroll all the way down to where the "Ideal sources" template is displayed. The very editors we have problems with are most unlikely to scroll through every talk page template, and will see this first, and continue applying primary sources incorrectly.

    I strongly encourage removing this from the talk header template, and instead incorporate the links into the superior template already at the Ideal sources template. My apologies for having (?apparently?} missed earlier discussion of this, and weighing in late, but please remove it now from talk headers until this can be sorted out. (Can someone please point me to the discussions where this was decided?) The "Ideal sources" wording is superior, and may now be lost in talk page clutter. {{Reliable sources for medical articles}}. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Funny that the "ideal sources" mentions review articles but not med school textbooks and major guidelines, which are also MEDRS' ideal sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Then we should fix it. Now we have template proliferation, and a clearly inferior one pushed to the top of talk pages. I believe merging the new one into the old one would address that ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that anybody reads the headers often enough for this to be a problem. This is more likely a hidden-in-plain-sight cheat code for experienced editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, this was an update to the {{findsources}} template, which has been on medical talk pages for a long time. It presents a standard interface that can be extended to other subject areas in the future. It didn't push down {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} (though perhaps this link list wraps to a second line on some screens where the prior one didn't). The template as of now includes no text regarding editorial policy or guidelines. If there's consensus that the "medical sources" label distacts from the more detailed WP:MEDRS text mentioned below, perhaps we can revert the label to "Find sources"? I think this was previously proposed by Mathglot and will help with line wrapping. In general, I believe that the templates can coexist or perhaps be merged in the future. It's possible that {{findsources}} could be expanded to display category-specific source guidelines (in this case WP:MEDRS and the explanation of ideal sources). However, I disagree that replacing general web search links with medical search links will result in the negative outcomes you describe. - Wikmoz (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) Sandy, maybe some clarification is needed here, as nothing is "pushed down" the page by this change. Perhaps you misunderstood what this feature is about. Everything is in the same position as it was before. The only difference now, is that for those Wikipedia articles on medical topics which have a Talk header template (which appears to be a small minority of them), where readers previously saw the "standard" Find sources links (i.e., Google, NY Times, FENS (English newspaper sources), JSTOR, etc.) they will now see the new ones (Cochrane, Gale, OpenMD, PubMed, etc.) instead. The majority of medical pages do not have a Talk header template on them, so will not be affected.
    For example: of those articles in Category:All WikiProject Medicine articles, I jumped to the letter 'S' and picked the first 20 articles beginning with 'S' and checked each one, and only two of them have a Talk header template; the other 18 do not, and thus are not affected by the new functionality. The remaining two articles do have a talk header template, and it is the same size now as previously, with all page elements in the same position as before. The only difference is, that now it shows the medical source links, whereas before it showed the standard links with New York Times, FENS, and all that. See Talk:Saaremaa virus for one of the two examples in the first 20 'S' articles in WikiProject Medicine where the Talk header template source links have changed over to the new style. That's too small (and not a random) sample of course to generalize from, but if that trend held for all articles in project Medicine, that would mean about 10% of them were affected by this change, hopefully in a positive direction.
    To answer your first question: yes, it is easily undone. That would put back the NY Times, FENS, and other links, in place of the Cochrane-Gale-PubMed links, on the minority of medical articles which have a talk page header, without moving anything up or down on the page, and without affecting the majority which don't contain the template. Does this clarify at all what this new functionality does?
    If you wanted to incorporate the links into the "ideal sources" template, that could of course be done, and is up to consensus; I have no opinion on that. That wouldn't change positioning of the Talk header template on pages where it appears, though. It has always been possible to suppress the "find sources" links so nobody sees them on a given page by means of a template parameter. It is also possible for a user to set a preference so that you don't see Talk page header templates at all, regardless what parameters it has, and that will affect just the user in question, and will move the "ideal sources" closer to the top of the page, for those pages which have both templates on them. That would be an "opt-in" type change to common.css, which very few users are likely to take advantage of, and almost no new users. Mathglot (talk) 09:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    See Talk:Autism. Readers will now encounter this (incomplete) information before they encounter the Ideal sources information, unless we breach talk page layout guidelines and put the ideal sources first. This needs urgent fixing, and will lead to problems. We can’t go about suppressing this incomplete info on every talk page. This has created an urgent problem everywhere. I disagree with WAID that new editors will not be misled; I’ve seen it too may times with my own eyes. WE should not have to suppress this (faulty, incomplete) information. If you can’t fix the bigger problem by incorporating the Ideal sources wording, then the default should be for this text to be off in the Talk header, requiring us to activate it if we want it. For now, this forces us to deal with faulty incomplete information being at the top of too many medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    In the meantime, please let me know how I can suppress this information from the talk headers on pages I watch. In Dummies101 language. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, I changed the links in Talk:Autism (diff ) so it's back the way it was before with the NY Times and other links by following the instructions at the last bullet below. Do you find the header better this way? Or are you saying you want all the "find sources" links gone entirely so the first links one encounters are the "ideal sources" lower down? The template documentation explains how to hide or change various features:
    The questions about "Ideal sources" wording or position, I see as a separate issue from this one, which was discussed in August I believe; I'll find the links and post them later for you. Anything *can* be done, it's a matter of finding out what the consensus is, and doing it. If the consensus is to go back to the way it was before with respect to the "find sources" links, then that can be done; and if the consensus is to consolidate the wording into either the "ideal sources" or the "find sources" sections, then that can be done; and if the consensus is to switch the position of the "ideal sources" links so they're on top, then that can be done, too. Meanwhile, there's always WP:BE BOLD; I've boldly moved the "ideal sources" links at Talk:Saaremaa virus to the top of the page, *above* the Talk header. How does this seem to you? Would it address your issue, if the "ideal sources" appeared on top, as in this example? Mathglot (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I am iPAd typing so can’t go searching for a link, but the adjustment made at Talk:Autism does not address the problem. We are still encouraging new or inexperienced editors to misinterpret MEDRS in the very first thing they see on talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remove this new content from the talk header ASAP, and re-add it only after these problems are sorted— we cannot and should not be making such broad changes across so many articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Sandy, I'm struggling to keep up with your concerns, and understand them. You said:

    the adjustment made at Talk:Autism does not address the problem. We are still encouraging new or inexperienced editors to misinterpret MEDRS in the very first thing they see on talk.

    Why doesn't it address the problem? Talk:Autism is back to exactly the way it was a couple of days ago; isn't that the way you wanted it? And what do you mean by the "very first thing they see on talk"?
    Regarding "ideal sources" and where they are positioned, can you respond to my question above about whether you like the way Talk:Saaremaa virus is now organized, with the "ideal sources" at the top? Is this what you prefer?
    As far as doing anything ASAP, with all due respect, this should be based on consensus; you are one editor, and if your view represents consensus, of course it will be removed, but as I said, I'm still struggling to understand what it is you want exactly. The change was discussed previously at the Village Pump, and advertised here, and there was sufficient approval to go ahead with the changes. All I understand for sure, is that you want everything put back the way it was, without understanding exactly what it is you don't like, which may be fixable. You want "ideal sources" always at the top of the Talk page for medical articles? That is eminently doable, although it is independent of this change. Is that what you want? Mathglot (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Found all of the discussions myself, and the discussion here on WT:MED that involved pretty much … no one. Very disappointed that such a major change can be made with such far-reaching consequences based on such little input. The generic “find medical sources” (with no link to WP:MEDRS) is unlikely to produce a good outcome on controversial medical articles, where we are now telling new editors that everything in those links might be useful, and providing no context indicating that, in the majority of cases, they may not be. I hope this will be rectified by at minimum providing a link to MEDRS somewhere in there. Meanwhile, this template is misleading on medical articles, and has been since this change was first initiated in November 2020. [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    No question that systematic reviews and guidelines are the ideal sources. Editors should be strongly encouraged to gain a basic understanding of the hierarchy of medical evidence and learn to check those sources to validate new findings.
    I do question whether the talk page heading sequence makes that much of a difference in visibility (the bottom position like this closest to the ToC may actually be more visible than anything in the middle). I also question the claim that improving access to medical sources is a negative (regardless of the page sequence).
    • If the vertical position of a header dramatically impacts its usage then WP:TALKLEAD should be immediately revised to move {{Reliable sources for medical articles}} up 10 positions to directly below {{talkheader}}, which would also make it immediately adjacent to {{findsources}}. So that's a possible solution pending consensus and presumably the higher priority.
    • If the "Find medical sources" label is the issue then changing the label to "Find sources" is another easy solution pending consensus.
    • If ensuring that category guidelines (in this case WP:MEDRS and text directing users to prioritize ideal sources) appear above the {{findsources}} links then the best solution may be to modify the {{findsources}} to accept a preamble text field where a block of HTML can be displayed above the links.
    All that said, just in terms of urgency and real world impact, we have no usage data so it's hard to tell what percentage of editors actually read or use any of the talk headers. I suspect that talk messages are helpful to experienced editors (particularly topic regulars). I also suspect that newcomers who post misinformation or poorly sourced information do so BEFORE visiting a topic's talk page, BEFORE reviewing the headers, and BEFORE determining that they need to respect any message in the headers. - Wikmoz (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed; there's such a thing as banner blindness, and we all have it. If I asked you to close your eyes and tell me what's in the top left portion of the Talk header box, could you do it?
    Answer to banner blindness quiz.
    If it becomes important enough, WMF personnel have access to logs that can show how often these links are actually being used. I suspect we are worrying about something that gets used hardly at all; which doesn't mean we shouldn't find the best way of presenting the headers, the links, and everything else on the page, but it does mean, I think, that we needn't have such a sense of urgency about this, and that a calm discussion will lead to the best result. Mathglot (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Source of problem identified

    … in a page very few editors follow, here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    That was a proposal to remove some wording from the Template documentation that currently discourages users from adding Talk header templates to empty pages, and instead, "[to allow] users to add the template to any talkpage, including new ones". I don't see a connection between that discussion and the issue we are talking about; they seem unrelated to me. What connection do you see? Mathglot (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don’t think we should be using the template anywhere now; it’s a misleading mess (and has been since Nov 2020). The default should be that none of that misleading info is included in a template that is widely used, and if someone wants find sources added, they can turn it on-- no one is going to turn on misleading info about sourcing on medical talk pages, and yet it was installed automatically anyway. The change I want to see is that a) regular editors should not be required to learn complex syntax to implement a basic talk header, and b) a link to MEDRS needs to be somewhere in the “find medical sources” line, which is now misleading, as most of what inexperienced editors will find there may not be usable. And finally, all template editors should be aware that broad changes like this should be broadly advertised; regular editors find out after the damage is implemented.
    Also, now that I have figured out where the problem originated, I don't think we should hold this discussion in two places; it looks like Template talk:Talk header is where this problem originated and was discussed among very few editors (similar to the very few who discussed it here). IF that kind of misinfo is to stand across all medical talk pages, we need a community-wide RFC to address the misleading MEDRS implications. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:18, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Just for reference, the proposal for this update was posted here with an invitation for WikiProject Medicine feedback posted here. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for that; most appreciated. (I took most of the middle part of the year off because of some other Wikipedia dysfunction, but had I been regularly editing, I doubt I would have seen those anyway; this kind of dysfunction will encourage me to take the rest of this year off, as it defeats everything we have worked for for years in one backchannel edit.). I see the same few editors weighing in there, so obviously it was not a very broad discussion. At any rate, that is water under the bridge, and I hope you all will fix the misleading implications so a community-wide RFC is not needed. A link to MEDRS should not be that difficult, is it ? Most of what is listed as “medical sources” will produce sources that won’t be useful, and new editors will find themselves reverted after following talk instructions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Melioidosis

    Hi all, I've put Melioidosis on my watchlist (not least so I don't have to remember how to spell it). The most recent addition is unsourced info on an outbreak linked to aromatherapy oils. I'm not even sure what counts as a good source for that sort of thing, so I am flagging it here. Red Fiona (talk) 20:59, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the IP's content, not least because it was jammed in in the refs section for some reason. Added a CDC ref to a sentence about the 2021 American outbreak. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you :) Red Fiona (talk) 22:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RFC on wheelchair-based language, which is about whether to recommend against describing people as being "wheelchair-bound" or "confined to a wheelchair". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety

    I have come across the journal Comprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety quite a few times and I wanted to ask if it is considered a reliable source or not. It is being cited on over 100 Wikipedia articles currently for many different foods and I have not seen it questioned before. I want to improve the avocado oil article and came across this paper in their journal [11]. Psychologist Guy (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @Psychologist Guy, that is one of the best-ranked journals in the entire Food science field.[12] Assuming you use it in sensible ways (e.g., that you don't write that avocado oil cures cancer, or even that it "might be a promising cancer treatment"), then it should be fine. If you run into a dispute, please come back here to get help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Disease ontology databases

    @Andrawaag removed some identifiers from about a thousand Wikidata entries yesterday (example). I don't think that Disease Ontology or the Monarch Disease Ontology numbers are currently linked in Template:Medical resources (although MeSH ids are). Is this removal likely to cause problems for anyone? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Wiki Loves Science

    c:COM:Wiki Loves Science is back. If you have anything science-related within reach, please consider taking a photo and uploading it to Commons. I specifically encourage WPMED folks to consider taking a picture of anything medical-ish they might use in the course of a day, whether that's vitamin pills or test tubes or million-dollar machinery. Just like HLHJ only recently realized that we didn't have an article on broken toes, we need more, and more variety, of photos.

    Please consider taking multiple photos. For example, if you decide that you want to improve the photos for syringes, then try: a syringe on a white background, on a black background, every different size or type of syringe separately, all the syringes you can get in one photo, a photo that zooms in on the business end, a photo with a needle attached, without a needle attached, with a tube attached, a photo showing it being held and filled, a photo showing it filled with a colored liquid, etc. We don't need just one photo for this common object; we need all the photos.

    Also, Colin once recommended to me that I put small objects on a shiny white surface and take the pictures in natural light. Since then, nearly every photo I've uploaded to Commons has featured the same white dinner plate as the background. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    COVID-19 misinformation

    COVID-19 misinformation currently lists Vitamin D and Ivermectin as misinformation. Let's think this through.

    Any statement has a degree of confidence associated with it. If this degree of confidence is very high, so much so that it's supported by WP:MEDRS, we put it into medical articles as true. Using my arbitrary confidence units, let's say that the threshold for this is being 90%+ confident. If the degree of confidence is low, then promoting a statement is clear misinformation. Using my arbitrary confidence scale, let's say below 20%, it's misinformation. What about if the confidence is in between? What if the confidence is 80%? We don't claim that it works because it doesn't meet WP:MEDRS. But do we really claim that it's misinformation? A claim of misinformation is a positive assertion that needs to be supported by WP:MEDRS. There might be a situation where lots of scientists say that it might work, there is some evidence that it works, but we still list it as misinformation?

    Example 1. Vitamin D. The evidence in favor of Vitamin D is so high, that it's listed in the article on COVID-19 as one way to prevent the disease. Using my arbitrary confidence scale, the confidence is clearly 90%+. Yet, it is still listed in COVID-19 misinformation.

    Example 2. Ivermectin. At this point, there is no WP:MEDRS evidence to support its use, so it is not listed in COVID-19, which is correct. However, there is legitimate evidence in favor of ivermectin. PMID 34650951 is one recent example, and there are many others. COVID-19 misinformation claims that all evidence in favor of ivermectin has been debunked, which is simply false. Given where we are now, it shouldn't be listed in COVID-19 but it also should not be listed in COVID-19 misinformation. --Isabela31 (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you expect people to engage with you when you give false statements? The Vitamin D article does not say it is a "way to prevent the disease". The COVID-19 misinformation article does not say "all evidence in favor of ivermectin has been debunked" (though much has, and this has fuelled the misinformation). Alexbrn (talk) 17:40, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    A meta-analysis, published online in October 2021, concluded that “Vitamin D supplementation in SARS-CoV-2 positive patients has the potential to positively impact patients with both mild and severe symptoms.”[212]

    Is that describing prevention? Treatment? It doesn't matter for my point to stand. --Isabela31 (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Seeing "has the potential to positively impact patient with [COVID]" and thinking that means "prevent COVID" is quite a surprising leap. Alexbrn (talk) 17:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    So what you are saying is that there is a vitamin, it's very safe (within sane limits of intake), you agree that it has the potential to positively impact patients with COVID, yet you're saying that promoting its use for COVID is misinformation. Is that correct? --Isabela31 (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's what the reliable sources say that matter. They reference a campaign in Thailand saying Vitamin D could prevent COVID infection, and some fraudulent research. Kinds of misinformation, the sources say. Alexbrn (talk) 18:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Prevention and treatment are not the same. The misinformation article is primarily talking about preventing the initial infection ("claims that Vitamin D pills could help prevent COVID-19"). I've seen no good evidence that taking Vitamin D pills stops SARS-CoV-2 from getting inside people. I have seen claims that once the virus has already infected you, then people who have normal Vitamin D levels are more likely to survive than people with vitamin deficiencies. "Less likely to get it in the first place" is just not the same as "less likely to die if you do get it". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=1054980290"