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 81.157.7.7 (talk) at 10:05, 25 June 2013 (→‎Apparently encouraging misuse of medically-prescribed Adderall: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


WikiProject Medicine


Project Page
WPMED Newsletter and signup
Manual of style (medicine)
Identifying reliable sources (medicine)
List of participants
Popular pages
Assessment (Log)

How to help:
Article alerts and resources for editors
Articles for cleanup, deletion, and orphaned
Patrol recent changes and sort stubs
Requested articles

Categories:
Project
Articles by quality and importance

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:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Lorcainide article -- copy and paste/possible copyright matter

Judging by the text references (references that are in text-form and can't be clicked on) in the Lorcainide article, a copy and paste job has obviously been done to this article; this makes it also likely that it's copyrighted material. Flyer22 (talk) 12:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the person who made this edit [1] simply did not know how the wiki markup worked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The text references are still a copy and paste job (copied and pasted with the rest of the text, whether the person's own words or someone else's). Flyer22 (talk) 13:15, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That material was added by Jessicagubernat (talk · contribs) in a single edit. This has the look of a student assignment to me. It's quite possible that she wrote it in an external editor and then pasted it in. The inserted material does have quite a bit of wikimarkup, so it isn't just a straight-up copy-paste. Looie496 (talk) 14:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically the way the referencing is done isn't "illegal" but it does need to be Wikified. I did a little spot-checking and I did find one probable copyvio problem: Article content Arrhythmias can be caused by various conditions including ischemia, hypoxia, pH disruptions, B adrenergic activation, drug interactions or the presence of diseased tissue. appears verbatim here. I did check more and didn't find further problems. I think this just needs cleanup and checking but doesn't need to be thrown away. Zad68 18:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have proposed a change to the citation style at Talk:Lorcainide#Citation style per WP:CITEVAR. I'm not really expecting any opposition, but there should be an opportunity to form a consensus before changing an article's style. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may be waiting a long time to form a consensus by discussion on the talk page. I'm a big fan of establishing consensus by editing per WP:CONACHIEVE, so I'd recommend you go ahead and do it rather than wait. --RexxS (talk) 22:13, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neurocritical Care - Critical Care Nursing

Looking for any projects on neurocritical care and critical care nursing. Currently working on improving the External ventricular drain page. Thanks - joe412 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe412 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's not many editors with a specific interest in neurocritical care and critical care nursing, so feel free to attack any article you like and kick it into shape. Take a moment to read WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, which govern medical content. JFW | T@lk 12:07, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A new (and "orphaned") category at commons:Category:Neurointensive care might interest you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We had quite a lot of articles categorized as stubs among the 1500 most popular articles, which was a bit odd IMO. I have gone one by one and in most cases I have updated the categorization to start class.--Garrondo (talk) 21:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, well done. Following from the above, please everyone remember to update the article status (if appropriate) on the talk page after finishing any major expansion. Lesion (talk) 21:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a question about this: we had just decided to prioritize stubs in the most popular articles to improve. Does this mean they have all been improved to start class status, or that they were incorrectly labeled as stubs? Does it mean that any remaining stubs are the worst ones - or does it mean that there is no difference between stub and start class? Hildabast (talk) 17:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is a bit of a judgement call. Often improvements are made and the class is not changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:23, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to my judgement none of those articles met the criterium for "stub" (A very basic description of the topic.Provides very little meaningful content; may be little more than a dictionary definition.) They were all IMO incorrectly labeled as stubs, since they all had several sections and quite a lot of references. The ones I left as stubs were those with the poorest quality. It is true that most probably a similar thing would happen with many of the start-class articles since few people update the articles quality categorizations and many of them might already be C-class. Thing is that those 1500 articles are the ones that receive more visits and hence also are the most probably updated, so quality is overall much higher than over the other 20k articles in medicine, so at this point we have very few stubs among the most popular pages (even the ones I left could hardly be considered stubs). --Garrondo (talk) 10:50, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have an astonishing amount of what might be called "legacy tagging" in all projects - articles are stub-tagged and later expanded incrementally without removing the tag, or the talkpage rating is set but never updated. This can persist for years even in well-read articles covered by active wikiprojects. I strongly suspect that well over a quarter - perhaps as many as half - of Wikipedia's nominal stubs really aren't. 11:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
...and if anyone wants to clean up some more of these, User:Andrew Gray/med-stubs has a report showing anything with a stub-template and more than 5k of wikitext. The largest is (currently) a staggering 20k+ of well-written well-sourced text... Andrew Gray (talk) 11:20, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much everyone: this was very helpful. So what we'll do is go through a big bunch of start & stubs - and take it from there. If we see any we think really don't fit their label, we'll bring some here to ask till we get the hang of it. And hopefully, we'll be able to add content along the way. Thanks! Hildabast (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus sucks...

Based upon the consensus decision for a recent article I put for AfD, I have now merged the following content to leukoplakia:

In 1988, a case report used the term "acquired dyskeratotic leukoplakia" to describe an acquired condition in a female where dyskeratotic cells were present in the epithelia of the mouth and genitalia.[1][2]

If you agree that this was not a great consensus: to merge a descriptive term used in a single case report from 1988 rather than delete the single sentence stub article, then please feel free to comment more in AfD's... =D Lesion (talk) 09:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Medicine to get involved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a curiosity: Importance of visibility

As a curiosity have you noticed that Ricin jumped from 50000 montly visits to 1300000 (most viewed medicine article and 38 of wikipedia) visits in April and May due to news of the a poisonous letters sent to US politicians?... Similarly it has been edited in the following two months as much as the 3 previous years, with huge improvements all over the article (See here for a comparison). Terrorism may have unexpected positive effects. :-) --Garrondo (talk) 10:40, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Company promoting their own products?

InDevR is a company that makes different instruments used for the study and identification of viruses. They seem to have three different products, each with their own article: AmpliPHOX, FluChip and Virus Counter. The issue here is that the creators of these four articles and the subsequent primary contributors (three user accounts in total) are all employees at the company (company website). More than that, many of the references for each of these articles are papers published by the people at the company, including the CEO. Is this okay? ComfyKem (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:MEDCOI and WP:CITESELF. There may be WP:Notability problems, if there are very few publications written by people unconnected to the company. --WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Referred_pain Additional Data

I'm not a medical professional, but was researching referred pain and found a common example that was not yet on the Examples chart on the Referred_pain article. I think someone other than me who can be a bit more authoritative might want to add this to the Examples chart:

Another Example of Referred Pain

Location: Palm of Hand

Description: Possibly originates from palmaris longus which runs up the forearm


Megapod (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion. When you believe an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the edit this page link at the top.
The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to).. Also, two of us are talking at Talk:Radiculopathy about how we can explain the difference between radicular pain and referred pain in plain English. If you're interested, then please join us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename "Amphetamine mixed salts (medication)" back to "Adderall"

A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 13:05, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mononucleosis vs. Infectious Mononucleosis

Hi - Can I elicit some feedback to this Merger proposal made by DocJames last year? I've just taken a glance at the page-view numbers: At the time of writing, Mononucleosis got 201,634 hits in the past 90 days [2], as against 286,663 for Infectious mononucleosis [3]. Put simply, around 4 out of 10 searches for information on this popular topic currently either go to or somehow encounter Mononucleosis. Of course, many of the people looking at Mononucleosis may also find the other article (eg via the banner!), and some may even have come from it. Nevertheless, the duplication seems to me to serve no good purpose. Thanks in advance, 86.171.162.156 (talk) 18:15, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes agree merging is a good idea. I will do so unless people object in a week or so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That was quick - thanks! 86.171.162.156 (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bupropion FAR

This featured article was nominated for a review on May 27. Over the following couple of days I completely reworked it, cleaning up the prose, making the sources MEDRS-compatible, fixing incorrect statements, removing material supported only by primary sources, and adding some material that was missing. So far there has been no response whatsoever. My understanding is that if there are no comments at the review, the article will automatically progress toward removal of its featured status -- in fact it's theoretically overdue for moving to the next stage. So, it would be nice if anybody who has time could look it over and express an opinion. Looie496 (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization consisting of over 28,000 volunteers in more than 100 countries. The collaboration was formed to organize medical scholarship in a systematic way in the interests of evidence-based research. The group conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.

Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. (Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account).

Thank you Cochrane! If you are an active medical editor, come and sign up!

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 19:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

50 images from the Science Museum collection

Hi

The Science Museum in London have agreed to release 50 of it's images (at a medium resolution) under a Wikimedia compatible license. Do you have anything in particular you need that they have? Feel free to give me a list if you like. The 2 websites that the images would be available from are:

I'm hoping this is the start of something larger but could just be a one off so am trying to come up with a most wanted list.

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get an error ("Can't connect to MySQL server on 'localhost' (10061)") when trying to use the first of those links. On the second one, I see a number of things that would be useful for neuroscience articles. I don't want to clutter this page with a list -- how should we proceed with this? Looie496 (talk) 15:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This image would be useful for the history section of our article on birth control [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think the server is down, hopefully it's very temporary, feel free to clutter my talk page (I've made a section). --Mrjohncummings (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion

This article has been AfD'd for a while now with minimal interest from this project. Whilst I understand the title may put members here off, it is tagged with WPMED and the neurology task force, and also WPDENT is essentially inactive. This article, far from being about "dentistry", refers to a (non mainstream) treatment approach to temporomandibular joint dysfunction (or what ever you want to call it) including (i) TENS and (ii) occlusal adjustment. TENS is rarely used for TMD, and the sources that do discuss TENS do not use the term "neuromuscular dentistry". The vast majority of sources also agree that occlusal adjustment should not be carried out for TMD. Also, this page is not entirely focused on an explanation of what "neuromuscluar dentistry" is. The article goes into depth about TMD itself, in a very weird, non mainstream and unsourced way.

There are 3 sources. 2 are linking to private physician/dentists websites with links to book an appointment. The other does not meet WPMEDDATE, and importantly does not even use the term "neuromuscular dentistry". PubMed yields only 3 results for this term, and none are marked as review, but I can't access the text to assess whether they are suitable sources.

Please note that the TMD page discusses already TENS and occlusal adjustment with more appropriate weight, and with MEDRS sources too I might add. I am still working on that page, so I would be happy with a merge, but realistically, there's nothing we can keep imo.

Summary: non neutral POV, promotional article about a minor "gimmick" term used by some dentists/physicians to advertise a non mainstream treatment approach for TMD. Comments appreciated here please, thanks. Lesion (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CANVASS re: neutral notification, which the above isn't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't heard of that policy before, thanks for pointing it out. I felt some justification was needed to explain to members here why this article falls within the scope of WPMED, when the title probably put many off even visiting the AfD page for all the time it has been up. Lesion (talk) 18:32, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HIV/AIDS

User is attempting to emphasis 22 cases of HIV that occurred in the porn industry over 5 years in LA per here [5]. The topic is already dealt with on a subpage. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge needed

We have these two articles

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:46, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the short-dash version is another class project. Looie496 (talk) 23:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and than as these articles are orphans we get good faith editors trying to add them to "see also" sections of our most read work. There are so many like articles like this. I think we need to strengthen our "Wikipedia is not a collection of internal links" policy Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
anyone who creates a em-dash version of an article without creating a hyphen redirect should be taken to the woodshed. What a waste - two whole articles that never knew of the other's existence b/c of typography geeks. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I wonder if there is a technical way to keep this from happening again? Maybe space/en dash/short dash should all be viewed the same when a title.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:32, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A simpler solution would be to have a bot create redirects from en- and em-dashed article titles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't actually think this happens all that often. The usual situation is that an editor creates the article with a short-dash title, and then somebody moves it to a long-dash title leaving a redirect behind (which is the default behavior). For some reason when Bender235 (talk · contribs) renamed this article to the long-dash title in November 2011, he must have turned off the option to leave a redirect. Looie496 (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it out. The redirect does exist. They just capitalized the second word differently. Arg.
I was about to say I did not turn anything off. But per naming conventions, the en dash versions is the correct name, while the hyphen (or em dash) is not. --bender235 (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Aha. My apologies for falsely accusing you. Looie496 (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:29, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed at AFC

Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/DASK Syndrome and express an opinion on the notability of the subject. Is this a real medical condition or a load of bovine excreta? If it is a real condition, is the name legitimate? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Executive summary: a couple of doctors from India had a patient with a pair of extra vestigial riblets that were causing pain, wrote a paper about the condition calling it a syndrome and naming it after themselves (DASK is their initials), and published it in the unindexed pay-to-play Romanian Journal of Physical Therapy. I will deal with the AFC entry. Looie496 (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Medpedia

There used to be a "Wikipedia for Medicine" project called Medpedia, which didn't gain traction and whose domain now expired. However, the content is still in the Internet Archive, and it is under CC-BY-SA, so if the quality is there it could be used in Wikipedia Wikipedia. MichaK (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly it was more or less copied from Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:34, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only some is from Wikipedia. It is Wikidocs that is more or less wikipedia article with news around it. Most of the articles on medpedia are unreferenced.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of medical wikis

There is a list of medical wikis at http://davidrothman.net/about/list-of-medical-wikis/.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Has not been updated since 2009 and many are no longer in existence or have no recent edits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all 69 entries on the list, and I found 46 apparently active web resources, but I have not checked for recent edits.
—Wavelength (talk) 04:32, 19 June 2013 (UTC) and 04:49, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting thing would be to know which have a compatible license with wikipedia.--Garrondo (talk) 07:44, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And which ones are primarily copied and pasted from Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and Wikipedia:CC-BY-SA Compliance can be useful for finding both types of information.
—Wavelength (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
11 of the above sites are from Wikibooks. The couple of decent sites listed above which include: ECGepedia and Radiopedia, we are already collaborating with. Though we have received many thousands of ECG from ECGepedia we need more volunteers to integrate the content here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neural accommodation

I have been reviewing the above named newly created article, but I think it could do with the help of some more experienced editors. Thanks. Ochiwar (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2013 (UTC) Please see also the talkpage. Ochiwar (talk) 15:42, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded on the article's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BigBrain

Something tells me we're going to need an article on BigBrain. Anyone want to tackle it?

  • Amunts K, Lepage C, Borgeat L; et al. (21 June 2013). "BigBrain: an ultrahigh-resolution 3D human brain model". Science. 340 (6139): 1472–1475. doi:10.1126/science.1235381. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

LeadSongDog come howl! 20:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should start with a generic article about models of the brain, and this could be a section in it. The closest I found is Computational neurogenetic modeling. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have a few articles on large-scale computational neuroscience modeling projects: Blue Brain Project, Human Brain Project (EU), BRAIN Initiative and the amusing Mind uploading. --Mark viking (talk) 04:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, this is not a computational model, it's an anatomical model -- basically an ultra-high-resolution 3D brain atlas. Looie496 (talk) 14:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not even a model - it is an actual 3D atlas of high resolution images compiled from mechanical slices of an actual human brain in a paraffin matrix. Further information is then overlayed onto this core data. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The BigBrain project was created as part of a larger computational neuroscience initiative, the Human Brain Project (EU). I don't know any details, but no doubt the BRAIN Initiative will need a similar high-resolution model. --Mark viking (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-nasal drip

This article is need of attention. It is largely unreferenced, and some of the listed symptoms sound a bit iffy (Cobblestoning of mucosa?, fatigue?, ... ). A quick pubmed search suggests that the syndrome is controversial, so I added a section to the lead to try and balance things a bit, and some drive-by tagging. Still many problems if anyone is interested, Lesion (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article and interested medical organization

Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Wiki Internet Site for Medical Topics and their website to encourage Wikipedia editing: HandWiki. Biosthmors (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The authors call for hand surgeons to contribute to wikipedia, stating that it has the potential to be a useful source of information for patients. Whilst they state that contributors should make themselves familiar with wikipedia's policies, they also suggest that a lower reading level (Flesch-Kincade grade for articles is beneficial. In a way, their aims are divergent to Wikipedia's aims, to have its medical content converted to patient information sources is not the same as encyclopedic, and the targeted audience is not necessarily a patient. Lesion (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Pages get read by both professionals and patients, sometimes together in a doctor's studio. Writing key clinical sections of articles in a way that is amenable to everyone is a real challenge (one that WP:MEDMOS attempts to address in various ways, including use of simple language, broadly per Flesch-Kincaid, and subpages). I feel that general lay readability needs to combine with ease (and rapidity) of professional information retrieval. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 13:24, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing up a merge tagged article from 2010

Hi all, while exploring random pages I stumbled upon the Ectrodactyly article which has been tagged for a merge discussion since 2010. I just thought I would bring it up to you folks since I know practically nothing about the medical field and thought this would be the proper forum for me "bringing it to light" for lack of a better term. Cheers, — -dainomite   22:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and done. Wonder if the article should be at cleft hand instead of ectrodactyly? Cleft hand being the more common term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:09, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vinegar and tear gas

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

Gave tear gas page a little first aid, but it still needs lot of work - couldn't work out how to fix a reference mess I inadvertently added. Second reference to Hu - if anyone fixes, please don't just stick in the PMID without keeping the link to the free full text which is not available through PubMed. I'd appreciate a pointer to where I can learn to fix references myself. Hildabast (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On a related matter, shouldn't Pepper spray, CS gas and (perhaps) CR gas be WP:MED? —81.157.7.7 (talk) 13:51, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's also a page on Mace (spray). Hildabast (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The criteria for deciding what's in our scope is at WP:MEDA. Generally, we keep things that are primarily medical, not things that have medical implications if humans are exposed to them. Anyone can assess articles, so just read the criteria and use youre judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you WAID. I can see it's a pragmatic judgement issue. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image at smallpox

My position regarding the image at smallpox may be controversial. Thus I have begun a RfC asking for wider community input here Talk:Smallpox#Info_boxes_and_Sick_Child_image. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Health claims cleanup

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

I won't vouch for the quality of the article, but those claims are not all that much of a stretch. The plant (illegal in Thailand) apparently contains pretty high levels of chemicals that function as opiate agonists, and could be expected to have the usual effects of opiates. Looie496 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more concerned with our article's assertion that it doesn't have any side effects, when even the cited source (from a pro-legalization advocacy group) notes that it does. MastCell Talk 19:01, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Removing medical claims based on primary sources would be a good place to begin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:18, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hemp seed oil and atopic dermatitis

We have a user repeatedly adding a primary research study[6] to the article on eczema about the supposed benefits of hempseed oil. Have started discussion on the talk page. Talk:Eczema Additional comments welcome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently encouraging misuse of medically-prescribed Adderall

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

I've made a start. 81.157.7.7 (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: Content now reframed/edited (medical claims based on primary research deleted). 81.157.7.7 (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Weedon D (2010). Weedon's skin pathology (3rd ed. ed.). [Edinburgh]: Churchill Livingstone/Elsevier. ISBN 978-0702034855. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ James, William D.; Berger, Timothy G.; et al. (2006). Andrews' Diseases of the Skin: Clinical Dermatology. Saunders Elsevier. ISBN 0-7216-2921-0. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=561493105"