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 Bluerasberry (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 30 November 2015 (→Hospital Acquired Infections: reply...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

Stuck Behind Paywall

Hi everyone, would anyone possibly have access to the following article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25474485)? If so, can someone please share it with me? I don't have access and it looks like it would be a good article to use for the acne article since the research section is a bit sparse at this time. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:52, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mail me :) CFCF 💌 📧 20:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
YGM TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry TylerDurden8823, but I can't find the mail. Could you maybe send it again? CFCF 💌 📧 00:12, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I resent it. Did you receive it this time CFCF? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to try meditation or something. Nursing resentment corrodes the soul. EEng (talk) 15:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone else have access to this particular paper? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@TylerDurden8823: I do, and I know my Wikipedia email is working. (FYI, there have been a lot of reports of problems with yahoo addresses and Wikipedia mail not getting delivered, if that helps debug the problem.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, does anyone have access to this paper? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25410148 If so, would someone please send me a copy? I'm working on improving the varenicline article. Thanks! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I have that one too, just sent you an email TylerDurden8823. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Terrific, thank you! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TylerDurden8823, good that you managed to get the article, but I checked and double-checked my inbox, and there is nothing there (not spam either). I've never known to have problems with Wikipedia e-mails before, but you can find my full address here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Translation_task_force/Sign_up#Contacts (don't want to plaster it all over for spam-bots). I'd be happy if you sent me a mail so that next time you're stuck I can try and help you at once. CFCF 💌 📧 06:51, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a stab at it. I have a University of Pittsburgh library card (the greatest benefit of being a Visiting Scholar!) Barbara (WVS) (talk) 14:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gluten-free diets and autism

Some discussion about how best to summarize a source at Talk:Gluten-free diet#Wording for autism. Would appreciate help in finding les mots justes. Alexbrn (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there's been a lot of committed activity on this topic and the NCGS material has now spread widely through some of our articles. The POV is being markedly recalibrated (e.g. in this lede to the edit). By my understanding NGCS is something of a controversial condition the classification, diagnosis and treatment of which is rather up in the air. By contrast it seems to me Wikipedia is now rather certain on the topic. Could probably do with a look from better-qualified editors than me to judge. Alexbrn (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is relatively easy to get an idea. Do a search (mark review) in PubMed about "non celiac gluten sensitivity" and check out the current medical literature. There are doubts about pathogenesis, diagnosis protocol, and treatment, but it doesn't mean that the disease doesn't exist. Wikipedia doesn't have "its own POV", Wikipedia must reflect the reality. If knowledge progresses, Wikipedia moves with it. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Libgen - article access?

Are you aware of Libgen? As a proponent of Academic journal publishing reform it is a source of journal articles which may not be available through university access. It may be good to make sure coverage of this topic is unbiased when it comes to information on medical publishing. (I've done my best to find high quality sources.) Distrait cognizance (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was not shutdown. Still hosted in Russia.--Kopiersperre (talk) 11:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LINKVIO is prohibited, as being possibly contributory copyright infringement. You all know that the community takes a very cautious stance with anything involving copyright concerns. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should block Distrait cognizance, because he is basically invoking copyright infringements through articles like ICanHazPDF or Sci-hub.--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gun control

I wanted to seek the opinion of other WPMED editors regarding whether claims about gun control being effective/ineffective at reducing gun deaths fall under the purview of MEDRS. If so, we should remove a fair number of the sources in the article gun control because they are primary. Everymorning (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a relative outsider I would think not. More a legal issue than a medical one. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is a good reason why MEDRS specifies biomedical. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As WhatamIdoing says (I think). Not covered by MEDRS, but secondary sources preferable. Everymorning, when adding material specific to the US, you need to make that clear. Johnbod (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MEDRS would seem to be a non-issue here. As Johnbod mentioned, a topic like this really should use secondary sources as it is a topic where we should raise source quality. I'd be concerned if the article mostly used primary sources without even thinking of MEDRS. That being said, I'd consider this under MEDRS in a similar fashion as I would to say an occupational hazard topic. In a statement like, "Does X affect the rate of Y?" when Y is something clearly medical related such as death, it's a medical topic whether it's dealing with a pathogen, physical hazard, or something with a social mix. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm - follow that logic too far & most military histry would be under MEDRS. Something like the effect of different types of bullet is under MEDRS, but otherwise that people die when shot is not, nor are medical sources generally going to be the most appropriate for covering the issues. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with using MEDRS compliant sources in the article on gun control. Added on here [7] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
seems like a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
...except Doc James moved the goalposts. The original question was abut removing sources from articles about gun control if they did not meet the MEDRS standard -- a very controversial and contentious idea. Doc James changed it to using sources that meet the MEDRS standard where such sources exist, which everyone agrees is a good thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:08, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing wrong with using MEDRS-compliant sources in that article. There is, however, a problem with using exclusively medical sources when the subject is multi-disciplinary. "A neutral, balanced article" does not result from using solely "medical journals" (and MEDRS is explicit that non-medical academic journals are not "ideal") when the subject is legal, social, and philosophical, in addition to being medical. I don't think that Doc James meant to imply that solely medical sources should be used in such an article. Instead, I believe that he meant to say only that there is nothing wrong with using up-to-date, reputable, scholarly, secondary sources—from all the relevant disciplines, not just from medicine—in that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, let's hope so! Johnbod (talk) 03:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • So to reiterate: Obviously, as WAID said, the subject of gun control is not solely medical but multi-disciplinary. But as far as claims like "a study in Social Science & Medicine found that gun ownership was more strongly associated with gun suicides than with gun homicides." are concerned, do these types of claims qualify as medical enough to be required to pass MEDRS? That is the only question I want to hear answers to here. Thanks. Everymorning (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Technically, "Study X" is always reliable for a statement that (accurately) says "Study X found _____". What you really need here is WP:MEDDUE, which hasn't been written yet. That's one of MEDRS' structural problems: we aren't recommending independent-secondary-reputable-journal-etc. sources to determine whether or not the statement is verified by the cited source; we're recommending these to avoid providing undue emphasis to tiny minority POVs or results that may have been due to chance (p=0.05 = 5% chance that the study results were random—or higher, if the lab quietly did the study several times until they got the results that they expected). WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
would agree w/ WAID's general statement on MEDRS--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Omeprazole

Omeprazole

 Done Can someone with experience at moving pages and protection please look at what has happened again with Omeprazole, where this has been moved to Omez. This is just one proprietary name for this drug. Perhaps we do need a little more though in the omeprazole page on trade names to prevent this SPA returning. Thanks! (No time today) Jrfw51 (talk) 12:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the page back, reverted the edits User:Zemocaps made to the article, and blocked him as an advertising-only account. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ack. A bot came through and "fixed" all the redirects to omeprazole by retargeting them to Wikipedia:Omez (see Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Omez). I fixed a few dozen but there are dozens more. I don't have time to get to the rest now, so maybe someone can help out. Thanks. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ed thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:03, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And thanks to User:CFCF for fixing most of the redirects. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you everyone! Sorry you had to waste your time on this. Seems to be a recurring pattern. Can we maintain protection? ... Jrfw51 (talk) 21:08, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Gynecomastia

Do people agree that this is photoshopped or do you think it is real?

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

this seems to go back here[11] (per [12])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very reluctant to use any (purported) medical image that had so little information about its provenance or veracity. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:09, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with TenOfAllTrades the following web-app which analyzes for image manipulation http://29a.ch/sandbox/2012/imageerrorlevelanalysis/ doesn't show anything that indicates photoshop use. Either someone who is very professional at what they do changed this image as a raw, but the low resolution/quality seems to indicate a consumer camera was used to take this image – why it likely is real. CFCF 💌 📧 21:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of analysis, while very helpful if it detects a problem, is much less robust if it doesn't detect one. While the low resolution/quality certainly could suggest a poorly-operated consumer camera, low-end phone camera, or webcam, it's not necessarily a mark of veracity. A competent digital faker would start with a high resolution image, make whatever changes they wished to that original image, then add a bit of blur, a bit of noise, and downsample their image to a lower resolution before jpeg compressing it. All of those steps are easy to do using widely-available, widely-used, free tools – or Photoshop – and taken together they do a very good job of hiding the variations in background noise that would normally be a signature of a pasted-together image. I fear that you significantly overestimate the difficulty of carrying out such manipulations.
Of course, that's not the only way to do it. You wouldn't see any sign of digital manipulation if the appearance were created with, say, stage makeup. It would be a 'real' photo of fake anatomy. (I'm always a little bit...disappointed?...when I see biochemistry and molecular biology papers retracted because the author got caught digitally cut-and-pasting bands in a Western blot. Any halfway competent scientific fraud should be smart enough to just spike their experimental samples with a little bit of their positive control; the result would be utterly indistinguishable from the real result, and they could produce all the fake results they needed in a day's work.)
All that said, in a case like this I actually get stuck long before I even get to the question of photo manipulation or fakery. The image purports to show an atypical unilateral presentation, which may or may not be a good thing for a Wikipedia article. Because the image uploader has no other contributions and provides no information whatsoever about the image beyond the bare claim that it represents gynecomastia (and has even lost any useful EXIF data from the image), we don't have any supporting documentation about how the patient was diagnosed or how the image was produced. The uploader may have uploaded the image entirely in good faith and still gotten the diagnosis wrong. (I note that the only practising physician who has commented on this image – Doc James – has expressed strong reservations about it.)
As a further aside, I wonder about whether appropriate consent was obtained to submit this image to Commons; the original uploader described the subject as a "young male", and it makes me very twitchy indeed when I see poorly-documented photos of (likely) minors with medical conditions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:07, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I said nothing to the effect of it being a good image, representative of the condition, or even appropriate for Wikipedia - all I expressed was that the image is less likely to have been photoshopped - noting that the image may have been altered, just not by a novice. CFCF 💌 📧 12:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was not photoshopped it looks fake. QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Retronasal Olfaction

Dear medical experts: This isn't about a disease, but I'm not sure where to report it. There seem to be plenty of books which talk about this subject. Should I add some references? Should I report it at the Anatomy wikiproject?—Anne Delong (talk) 11:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would classify the topic as either neuroscience or psychology, but there's no need to report it elsewhere. There is certainly a lot more that could be said about the topic, but in my opinion it would be okay to publish the draft as a stub. Looie496 (talk) 12:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[13] reference could be useful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Delong – WP:Neuroscience is reasonable active, at least Tryptofish is and he posts there. :) CFCF 💌 📧 18:33, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only intermittently looking in here, and by the time I saw the ping, it appears that the draft has gone red. It strikes me as an interesting topic, somewhere in the range of neuroscience and physiology. Maybe it could be added as an expansion of Olfaction#Olfaction and taste. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Tryptofish , I have restored the draft for your consideration. If you don't find any thing useful, I can always delete it again as long as no one edits it.—Anne Delong (talk) 02:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reading the replies more carefully, I see that Looie496 and Ozzie10aaaa are speaking in favour of keeping this. (Sorry, a little groggy after jamming all night at the Central Canadian Bluegrass Awards.) Unless someone beats me to it I will work on the draft tomorrow after I get some sleep.—Anne Delong (talk) 07:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pinging me (and please continue to do so, as I am not watching), and for restoring the draft. I just read it. My reaction on reading it is to oppose a standalone page, not because it fails notability, but because it would work much better as part of a larger page. I strongly support making it a new second paragraph of Olfaction#Olfaction and taste. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:13, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Tryptofish. Matthew Ferguson 57 has been improving the draft. Perhaps he has an opinion about this? If it's to be merged it would be better done by someone more knowledgeable (I'm a musician), with an edit summary crediting the two editors who've worked on it. I can help with the attribution templates afterwards.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If, as I urge, you go the way of a merge, it really would just be a matter of copy and paste to the end of the section to which I linked. Nothing fancy needed. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support that, but not too keen on the direct quote in the content. There is not enough content in the draft to justify a standalone article currenlty. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I had been thinking the same thing about the quote. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, it looks like merging is the way to go. One of you could just move appropriate material, rewording or shortening to avoid the quote. If Matthew does it, he will only have to credit Jdori in the edit summary, since the rest is his own work which he can move if he wants to. The draft can be moved to mainspace as a redirect to the appropriate section.—Anne Delong (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could be tidied a bit more. Have removed the direct quote and added a few other refs. Will merge later if no-one else does it first. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Subcutaneous Immunoglobulin

Hi all - we have an article about IVIG (and several individual brands of it,) but we don't seem to have an article about sub-cutaneous immunoglobulin. Would anyone be interested in drafting such an article with me? I should have all the necessary journal access, and any that I don't should be coming up in the next couple weeks. I admit that I do have a bit of a direct personal interest in the matter as I have CVID and am on igg infusions myself, but in any case view this as a pretty big article set to be missing. Many newly diagnosed patients turn to Wikipedia for guidance (whether or not they necessarily should,) and IVIG vs SCIG is one of the bigger choices a newly diagnosed patient in need of some form of IGG will have to make. Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from mode of delivery and pharmacokinetics, IVIG and SCIG are quite similar. Perhaps they should be subsections of an article about immunoglobulin supplementation? Otherwise, there will be substantial duplication; the juxtaposition will improve understanding, IMHO. — soupvector (talk) 01:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with you, and will probably start a draft (which I'll link here) of such an article in my userspace tomorrow. SCIG and IVIG are two subsets of immmunoglobulin supplementation, and that commonality is more significant than the mode of administration. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Immunoglobulin supplementation is also a redlink. Is that the ideal name? (Also, keep WP:DYK in mind. It's nice to have some solid med stuff there when we can.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was debating between Immunoglobulin supplementation and Immunoglobulin therapy. I have the very beginnings of a draft started here - feel free to poke at it as you please. the article about IVIG wasn't in very good shape to begin with, so it will likely take me some time to get the draft in to such shape that it wouldn't embarrass me to make this article live, heh. I also still lack access to a few journal networks (UpToDate full access + Dynamed + Elsevier would all be nice - at least a couple of those are coming - but having access to EBSCO etc at least gives me decent access.) I'd like to get a reasonably comprehensive and medrs compliant article up before I move it in to livespace. Our IVIG article isn't exactly stellar, and we had no mention of SCIG or IMIG anywhere pretty much. Kevin Gorman (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've made a good choice in the title, as it's more inclusive of both supplementation and other therapeutics (e.g. immunomodulation). This will be a busy week for me, but I'll return when I can. Also, I have access to just about everything, so while I cannot share the copyrighted papers with you, I am happy to paraphrase and discuss sources. — soupvector (talk) 04:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've gotten a good start to the article (which is saying something, because bluntly, IVIG sucks.) Once I've rewritten another section or four, I'll probably put it live and redirect IVIG to it. And, why not, DYK it - I don't think I've even bothered to DYK enough stuff to hit the QPQ requirement yet, lol (though I shall certainly QPQ anyway.) Kevin Gorman (talk)

Merge?

Facet joint arthrosis and facet syndrome? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:26, 20 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Agree that this would be reasonable. — soupvector (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can I haz Science pdf?

Resolved

Is there anybody with access to Science who would be willing to email me a pdf of this article which has just appeared online? My email address is weskaggs(AT)gmail.com. Thanks if you can. Looie496 (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

noted[15]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, thanks for filing the request. Looie496 (talk) 18:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rhonda_Patrick

Thought someone here might be interested in this AfD discussion Rhonda_Patrick relating to a question of notability of a medic. This is purely for information, I am not canvassing support for my favoured outcome. JMWt (talk) 16:47, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:42, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate

The majority of the text in the new article Calcipotriene/betamethasone dipropionate has been copied directly or altered slightly from the published prescribing information. (http://enstilar.com/pdf/enstilar-pi.pdf) This isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia article, but I wanted to ask here what should be done. I think the topic is notable, as an approved drug combination, but is there is anything salvageable in the current text of the article? If not, should it just be stubbed? Also, I don't know if this constitutes a copyright violation or not. Finally, the pages appears to be the work of a marketing agency, so there is an apparent COI as well. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:17, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • (your asking several valid questions at once) ...however, at the root of any article are the references, there are only two and I would use better references (per MEDRS[16]) where applicable .........[17][18]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject is legitimate. The problem was that all the information was only about a single formulation/brand (Enstilar). There are several other approved formulations/brands. By my count, there are at least 6 high quality reviews that cover this fixed combination medication. I have edited the article to make it less brand/formulation specific and included better sources. Boghog (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Boghog and Anypodetos, for the great work cleaning up the article. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:23, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sexuality after spinal cord injury at Peer Review

I've requested Peer Review for Sexuality after spinal cord injury in hopes of getting it ready for an eventual FAC. If anyone can spare the time I'd love to get any feedback at Wikipedia:Peer review/Sexuality after spinal cord injury/archive1.

Thank you! delldot ∇. 21:29, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Currently discussion is ongoing about allowing popular press through MEDRS at: Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Popular_press & Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#This_Is_Why_You_Have_No_Business_Challenging_Scientific_Experts. This needs more input as changes to the guideline are being made without apparent consensus. [19][20][21][22] CFCF 💌 📧 21:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:13, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

False credential claims.

Seeking some info and advice from WPMED regarding some fishy business - at Talk:Doctor_of_Medicine#Advertising_and_license_verification. Also, see the section above that one re fishy sources. --Elvey(t•c) 08:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dextrocardia

would appreciate any help with this important article, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This rare condition is tagged as low-importance for the project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
true...though PubMed [23] shows several articles for 2015 (and about 140 pages in total)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The frequency of a disease is not the only measure of importance. IMHO the link (e.g. PMID 25589952) between situs inversus and primary ciliary dyskinesia is among the most fascinating in medicine, because of the mechanistic relationships among molecular machines, embryology, anatomy, and physiology. Anatomy goes from being a black box to something dynamic and understandable. Just my $0.02. — soupvector (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Public health

Template:Public health needs some TLC and general improvement. Please help. Bazj (talk) 20:41, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Aortopulmonary stuff

Are Aortopulmonary septal defect and Aortopulmonary window the same thing? (Don't rely too strongly on the current article contents; I started editing it before I got confused by the sources, and it might be all wrong.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not the same. The former is a defect in the anatomical septum between roots of the pulmonary artery and the aorta; the latter is a radiographic space observed between the arch of the aorta and the pulmonary artery (when we're reading chest radiographs, we call it the "AP window", and worry about enlarged lymph nodes - among other things - when it's obscured). — soupvector (talk) 04:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hypokalemic sensory overstimulation

This article was recently brought to my attention. Based upon a simple pubmed search of the name – [24] (1 primary source journal article found) – I'm inclined to delete the Wikipedia article. Does anyone have any input/objection to this before I go ahead and WP:PROD the article? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar has a few more hits but still only 12. It also seems to me like one hit is about a legit medical thing.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:54, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest deleting it or potentially merging any relevant content to hypokalemia. G-scholar includes a number of questionably related sources, so I think we can discount those hits. CFCF 💌 📧 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We have this ref [25] so it has got some notice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For non-Signpost readers

http://www.cracked.com/blog/8-things-that-made-my-hospital-stay-weird-as-hell/ - see #7. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

interesting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reflux nephropathy

Hello all. Reflux nephropathy has quite a complicated and dense wp:first sentence when the lead is supposed to be accessible, unfortunately: "Reflux nephropathy, RN is a term applied when small and scarred kidneys (chronic pyelonephritis, CPN) are associated with vesico-ureteric reflux (VUR)." Meanwhile, google pops up "is a condition in which the kidneys are damaged by the backward flow of urine into the kidney" from [26]. So if someone has the time (I do not at the moment) to address this, I think it would benefit the readers. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 00:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fiddled a bit - needs more work. — soupvector (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post-flu enteropathy?

Do we have an article for post-influenza enteropathy under some other name? Should we, or is it basically the same as Enteropathy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think a redirect would be fine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:10, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not any different from post-infective irritable bowel syndrome it really doesn't need its own article. I suspect it isn't actually an enteropathy but a functional condition. JFW | T@lk 12:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine participants may be good administrators

Participants here often create a lot of content and have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable. I can imagine that the pharmaceuticals area may have issues with undeclared paid editing and sockpuppetery. Detecting and handling this must give you good experience. Well, these are considerations at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and maybe even find out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for information--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possible ref spamming, more scrutiny of contribs probably warranted

This diff showed up on my watchlist, and a review of that diff and their contribs going back to 2008 shows that they appear to be adding material related to one particular author. I don't know enough about this area to know what's what, but I thought I'd bring it up here for a little more scrutiny from those who might. For example, the page N-localizer seems largely devoted to this author, and the use of this particular technique/device has been added by this particular user across a number of pages related to radiology; oddly, a pubmed search for N-localizer only brings up two articles, written by this author, one of which appears to be trying to push against what they feel are "misconceptions" about who actually invented the technique/device... Yobol (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N-localizer some references are not MEDRS[27] compliant (irrespective of author)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In what way are the references (and which references?) not MEDRS compliant? Did you just look at the publication date? Are the references primary publications making claims that should be supported by secondary sources? (Heck, do the particular claims in the article fall squarely within MEDRS?) Did you review the article content at all, or are you just mechanically applying the MEDRS' rules of thumb as a checklist—again? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:27, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you need to read Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)... again... and compare to the references available on the article N-localizer,( an example would be [28] which could be more recent) ...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:12, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So yes, blindly applying MEDRS' rules of thumb to all the sources as a checklist, rather than performing and reporting a useful analysis. That's all you had to tell us. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
refer to prior answer(read carefully)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, you could refer to the multiple times people have criticized your excessive and largely unhelpful comments. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
continued at article talk[29]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A few thoughts.
  • It's a bit troubling that the only three recent – and by "recent", I mean "from within the last decade" – sources used for the article are authored by Russell (R.A.) Brown (once as sole author (2013) and twice with J.A. Nelson), the individual who really sdeems to want to have his contribution to this invention recognized. Two of those papers are in Cureus, which has its own issues with a dubiously-speedy peer review process and generally poor reputation for quality control (see, for example, Jeffrey Beall's blog, and note that Cureus is not MEDLINE indexed and does not have an impact factor).
  • Without being an expert in this area, it's not immediately obvious whether this Wikipedia article represents a useful, primarily-historical perspective on the development of an important medical device, or whether it is a selective retelling which over-emphasizes the importance of (mostly) one individual. Our articlee on the N-localizer is extremely light on information about current use of the device.
  • With respect to MEDRS and sourcing, much of the sourcing in the article should be looked at with respect to whether or not it provides useful and balanced historical context, rather than whether or not it represents MEDRS-checklist-compliant current health information. The near-exclusive reliance on Russell Brown's publications is likely problematic from the standpoint of assessing NPOV. Current textbooks in stereotactic surgery would probably be very helpful to provide context.
  • While the term N-localizer is seldom used in PubMed-indexed articles and abstracts, it appears that devices of which it forms a part get better coverage; see Brown-Roberts-Wells: a type of stereotactic frame. (Compare roughly similar number of cites for Leksell frame, another type of stereotactic frame.) I haven't investigated whether or not the term N-localizer is widely employed in these articles.
  • One wonders if this information should be merged (very selectively and briefly) to another article, perhaps stereotactic surgery or (eventually) a new article on stereotactic frames.
  • It seems likely that Kirigiri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) – who has contributed extensively to Russell A. Brown and added many citations to his work in this and other articles over the last couple of years – is somehow related to Brown.
Overall, I can't tell for certain if this is a case of someone who wants to right great wrongs and seeks more recognition for a relatively minor invention, or if this is a genuinely major but overlooked development—but I have suspicions. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:14, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mindyskim

Hello again, editors. Here's another old draft on a medical topic. If this is a potential article, it will need to be moved off the user page and into Draft space. If not, it can be deleted under db-g13, as long as no one edits it.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ref might be useful in Reproductive toxicity article...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Cock and ball torture"

I believe the article Cock and ball torture, and in particular the section Cock and ball torture#Safety, could do with some attention from medical editors, as I think parts of it are definitely matters of medical concern. Given the wide variety of sex-problem-related human experience that is observed in emergency rooms worldwide every day (for example, the extraction of rectal foreign bodies, the emergency removal of metal cock rings, or even more exotic things like damage due to scrotal infusion) I think it's likely that there is relevant medical literature in this area. -- The Anome (talk) 11:05, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean help for editors at the page, or help for persons undergoing the procedure? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:48, 27 November 2015 (UTC) [reply]
nice one--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe editors could work in Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators somehow. EEng (talk) 00:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "Work in" -- get it?[reply]

Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome

An editor on Reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome wants to add information about "research that is currently being conducted on me and several other patients", first without a source and now with a book of case studies that I've questioned. KateWishing (talk) 00:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

commented on talk page--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Skulls

Human skull

Are any of you interested in WP:WikiProject Death? There's a discussion about whether the photo of a human skull in their WikiProject banner should be removed on the grounds that it is "tasteless" or "offensive". The discussion is centralized at Template talk:WikiProject Death#Images. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:12, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Draft:Flublok influenza vaccine

Dear medical experts: Here's another old draft about a medical topic. Promotional aspects can be removed if this is a notable topic. Should the page be kept and improved, or should it be redirected to Protein Sciences?—Anne Delong (talk) 22:15, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anything notable can go at influenza vaccine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone with medical knowledge can pick out what's notable, and add it to the suggested article with an appropriate edit summary crediting the draft's creator. The article seems to indicate that the vaccine is created using a different and faster method from traditional vaccines; that may be of interest.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Infant vision

Please join a requested move talk there...more eyes needed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History of Medicine

Can you add epidemics to the Category of History of medicine? I made a page on the Cocoliztli epidemic of 1576 and am not sure if I can. JerrySa1 (talk) 14:38, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

its there [30] under [31]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the right answer Ozzie! I have added it to Category:Epidemics, which, via Category:Medical outbreaks, is part of the History of medicine category tree. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
your right ("List of Epidemics" mentions the Cocoliztli epidemic of 1576, but has no link),thanks John--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if every epidemic belongs under the History of Medicine category. Some epidemics have not had a measurable impact of medical care as a whole, while some others have. It would rather clutter the category. JFW | T@lk 11:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You misunderstand what I said, or how category trees work (like so many). Category:Epidemics is in Category:Medical outbreaks, which is in Category:History of medicine. No clutter, but you have to dig down to find things. Johnbod (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital Acquired Infections

There is some very strange content in this article. It seems like someone with an ax to grind wrote it and so its POV is very bad. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 15:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Something else weird about this article - someone called World Heritage Encyclopedia claims to have written it. They applied their own free license to it and a lot of Wikipedia's health content. Then they got it mirrored on Gutenberg.
What are they doing? Why are they claiming copyright of so much Wikimedia content? Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is their own website's entry. [32] Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, both pages are tagged CC BY-SA 3.0. EEng (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng Creative Commons attribution requirements are not fulfilled by stating "CC By-SA". See Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content. Wikipedia content including text is submitted under the CC-By-SA 3.0 license, which says, "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner". This encyclopedia is making no attempt to give credit to the copyright holders and is instead claiming to be the copyright holder. They seem to be violating the terms of the license. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both pages say "Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0", with the link to the license. Now, at the very bottom there's a copyright notice too, but I suspect that would be considered a nullity, as to the material taken from a CC source, under the circumstances. The copyright notice at the bottom is appropriate because WHE holds copyright on its version of the material (i.e. a derivative work of the Wikipedia version). EEng (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng What do you mean "both pages"? Do you mean that the Wikipedia article somewhere says that it was taken from World Heritage Encyclopedia? I am imagining that WHE copied its content from Wikipedia. Do you have reason to believe that Wikipedia copied from WHE? WHE has a lot of articles which seem to be copied exactly from Wikipedia without attribution and which claim copyright ownership. I do not know what you mean to say by talking about a link to the license or noting that there is a CC-source. What I am expecting to see is a notice on WHE that the content was taken from Wikipedia and that the copyright holders are the Wikipedia contributors. Instead, WHE is saying that they are the copyright holder and not acknowledging that they took the content from Wikipedia without complying with the terms of the CC license's requirement for attribution. Do you see something other than that? Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, small print at the bottom of the WHE page: "This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and USA.gov, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for USA.gov and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002." my bolds. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The two pages you linked in your first post above, [33] and [34], both say, "Sourced from World Heritage Encyclopedia™ licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0. Help to improve this article, make contributions at the Citational Source". The text CC BY-SA 3.0 links to the license, and Citational Source links to the Wikipedia edit history. That's both the license and attribution. The WHE is the copyright holder, on their version of the material. EEng (talk) 19:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It gets even stranger when you read the World Heritage website. Take a look at the name of the website: Project Gutenburg Self-Publishing Press. Not a good omen. Just pretend that there were no copyright confusion - the article on the page is basically one primary source. It is a journal article, potentially self-published. Editing is a hobby for me, but this fiasco of an article is making me queasy. If you look at the article's talk page, I have also described problems with the photo that is used in the article. I've no experience with this sort of thing, but it needs to be completely and totally redone. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I am not going to wait around to see what happens but I will begin working on this. Anyone else is welcome, of course. I will start by using med Mos headings and go from there. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng WHE is not the copyright holder on their version. They are one of the copyright holders of their version. Their content has multiple copyright licenses and theirs, the latest one, is only one of them. CC licenses are cumulative and later ones do not replace earlier ones. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so some webpage template sticks an incomplete copyright notice at the bottom of each page. All this matters exactly .... why? Will you be notifying WMF's lawyers, who will be taking swift and decisive action? EEng (talk) 15:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
EEng, no protocol is to list them. They are already listed at Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Vwxyz#Worldheritage.org. This matters because some people, maybe Barbara, were concerned that Wikipedia copied them, and it is nice to be able to quickly demonstrate the contrary. This is for the benefit of editors not the pirates. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Barbara (WVS) - I am not sure why you care that WHE is self published. It is a mirror of the Wikipedia article. You seem to be suggesting that Wikipedia copied them, when the evidence indicates they copied Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Psoriasis-Genitalia Pathology Examples Acceptable?

Hi everyone, there's been a bit of debate at psoriasis regarding whether or not a picture of genitalia affected by psoriasis is appropriate (or necessary). Please see diffs here [35] What are your thoughts on this matter? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

might be worth keeping per [36] [37]inverse psoriasis...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems appropriate given the source posted above ("psoriasis frequently affects the genital skin"). However, images could be better quality, there is shadow from presumably the camera. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything on the talk page at the moment. One potential issue is that the article says that the typical site is within skin folds, "around the genitals (between the thigh and groin)" rather than on non-folded skin, and that's not what's shown in the picture. Also, how certain are we that this looks like (reasonably typical) inverse psoriasis? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The user who removed the image (I think, it was originally an IP that removed it, but then I heard from User:Dat GuyWiki) left me a message on my talk page and I replied on his. You're right though that perhaps this should be moved to the talk page but I thought it would be good to get wider consensus. The question is more about whether a picture of genitalia demonstrating it being affected by psoriasis is appropriate/needed or not. If another image is better, that's definitely fine. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:01, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Various IP addresses keep trying to remove it so perhaps getting the article under semi-protection is in order? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is it appropriate? Maybe, although it does highlight the psoriasis, personally I couldn't see it very clearly. Also, the article is already thriving with images. If it would be an article with around 6-8 images or less, then I would surely keep the image, however there are 11 images. Dat GuyWiki (talk) 09:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Derm condition. Should be a fair number of images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:14, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have little medical expertise. I am the owner of a penis, to which I am attached, but that is as close as I come to knowledge, here.
All I can see on the image is a pale patch. Are there not many medical conditions that lead to skin looking like this? Is this a valuable image for this article, or is it merely useful for a more general article on skin/genital skin issues? Fiddle Faddle 19:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To address what WAID said above, this page [38] and this page [39] from the National Psoriasis Foundation and DermNetNZ do support the idea that inverse psoriasis is the form that most commonly affects the genital region (including (but not limited to) the inguinal region). However, it does sound like the lesions expected would probably be red rather than white (although I suppose either is possible), so perhaps a different image of penile psoriasis would be more representative. This article [40] also indicates that they would be expected to be red (erythematous) rather than white and does have one picture of psoriatic balanitis. I'm not sure how to go about obtaining the picture from the article though if we want that one instead. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CDC

There has been some vandalism here and I am not sure if I can catch it all, I could use some help. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 23:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that this was real, not vandalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You know...I know everyone is pretty busy but I would like to share with you what I just deleted from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention article:

some content from the CDC page

CDC zombie apocalypse outreach campaign

Main article: Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse

On May 16, 2011, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's blog published an article instructing the public on what to do to prepare for a zombie invasion. While the article did not claim that such a scenario was possible, it did use the popular culture appeal as a means of urging citizens to prepare for all potential hazards, such as earthquakes, tornadoes, and floods.[1]

According to David Daigle, the Associate Director for Communications, Public Health Preparedness and Response, the idea arose when his team was discussing their upcoming hurricane information campaign and Daigle mused that "we say pretty much the same things every year, in the same way, and I just wonder how many people are paying attention." A social media employee mentioned that the subject of zombies had come up a lot on Twitter when she had been tweeting about the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster and radiation. The team realized that a campaign like this would most likely reach a different audience from the one that normally pays attention to hurricane preparedness warnings and went to work on the zombie campaign, launching it right before hurricane season began. "The whole idea was, if you're prepared for a zombie apocalypse, you're prepared for pretty much anything," said Daigle.[2]

Once the blog article became popular, the CDC announced an open contest for YouTube submissions of the most creative and effective videos covering preparedness for a zombie apocalypse (or apocalypse of any kind), to be judged by the "CDC Zombie Task Force". Submissions were open until October 11, 2011.[3] They also released a zombie themed graphic novella available on their website.[4] Zombie-themed educational materials for teachers are available on the site.[5]

  1. ^ Khan, Ali S. (2011-05-16). "CDC Zombie Warning". "Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse". Retrieved 2014-03-08.
  2. ^ "Skepticality Podcast". Centers for Zombie Control and Prevention. 2011-10-25. Retrieved 2014-03-08.
  3. ^ "Are You Prepared? Video Contest". Prepare.challenge.gov. Retrieved 2012-04-16.
  4. ^ "Preparedness 101: Zombie Pandemic". 2012-07-16. Retrieved 2014-03-08.
  5. ^ "Zombie Preparedness". Retrieved 2014-03-08.
..pretty crazy, right? Can someone let me know just how long this section has been in the article?? I am not going to type in capital letters or anything but how is it that so many other editors were editing other articles but were not even remotely interested in collaborating in removing vandalism after I posted a request above? Are we perhaps overly-fascinated with solving the MEDRS crisis? It's things like this that will undo the good that we have done in donating our time in providing good medical content. We should all be a little concerned.
If you really want to see something fascinating, check out the fake CDC website these people set up. Check out their references at the bottom of this talk page.
Can I be quite frank, when I post to the Project Medicine talk page, I think I am just talking to myself half the time. This is about the most frustrated I have been since I started editing.
The Very Best of Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:30, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Barbara, this is actually a real thing that the CDC does. Their goal in this campaign is to cause people who wouldn't ordinarily pay attention to disaster preparedness information to hear about how to prepare in case of a real emergency. It looks like vandalism but it's definitely not. Keilana (talk) 02:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, very few WP talk pages are as much read as this one. There, that's three people responding. Shouldn't we put it back, maybe with a yet more explicit explanation of CDC's reasoning? Johnbod (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see, that article is a part of the actual CDC website, which is clear by clicking on the CDC logo while at that article. And as seen here, Fox News reported on it. As seen here, The Atlantic reported on it. As seen here, Forbes reported on it. So did other WP:Reliable sources. Whether or not a zombie apocalypse can happen is actually a common question, especially since the popularity of television series The Walking Dead, and some scientists think it could happen...though not exactly like it does in fiction. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've been talking with some administrators in the chat room and they confirmed what you have all posted above - it is a real thing. I'm thinking it had undue weight and needs to be put in a "in popular culture" section. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay let me just say....I'm a dork. Barbara (WVS) (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're a conscientious editor who doesn't happen to be omniscient. And instead of pretending that you hadn't seen something suspicious, you spoke up and tried to make it better. We'd be better off if more editors did the same. (Also, CDC [linked in the first message above] is a disambiguation page rather than your intended target.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As a CDC contractor I do not work on this particular program, but I can verify that Zombie Preparedness is a CDC initiative. "As it turns out what first began as a tongue in cheek campaign to engage new audiences with preparedness messages has proven to be a very effective platform." James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 14:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2014 study

Goniewicz, Maciej L.; Hajek, Peter; McRobbie, Hayden (2014). "Nicotine content of electronic cigarettes, its release in vapour and its consistency across batches: regulatory implications" (PDF). Addiction. 109 (3): 500–507. doi:10.1111/add.12410. ISSN 0965-2140. PMID 24345184.

Is this source unreliable or reliable? See Talk:Electronic_cigarette#2014_study. QuackGuru (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's really not the question. It is reliable but primary, but it is covered in this August's Public Health England report, and we should use that as a ref. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Passiflora incarnata

Several new editors have recently added extensive medical use information to Passiflora incarnata. It could probably use the review of medical experts. 72.94.61.22 (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

People with VS People diagnosed with

There is a discussion going on now re category naming:

This may apply also to many other categories of interest to WikiProject Medicine. See:

67.0.98.166 (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, all I wanted to do here was create a category for articles about people with dissociative disorders other than DID. Sigh. That category already has content, it just hasn't been created. It needs to be created so it can be included in broader categories. 67.0.98.166 (talk) 16:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Major expansion at Fetal rights - NPOV?

A recent major expansion of Fetal rights was performed [41], and subsequently hidden behind a m-tagged edit. I have not had time to go through the entire text. I am informing this page of it because it seems to have slipped under the radar, and especially the removal of tags marking issues with the page is troubling. I question that these were removed without discussion, and that the current edition really is without the following issues: 

{{Unbalanced|date=January 2011}}
{{POV-check|date=January 2011}}

CFCF 💌 📧 17:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick look at this mammoth edit, my concern would be that this makes the article more a secondary piece, rather than the tertiary one it should be. Alexbrn (talk) 17:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CFCF, I'm not sure what "under the radar means", unless it means that – for once – someone edited an abortion-related article without instantly creating an edit war, but are you aware that any NPOV-related tag can be removed by anyone unless there is an actual discussion going on about it? "In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor" is the formulation at Template:POV/doc, and it applies to all related ones. Also, one does hope that a major expansion (Look! An actual history section! Citing history sources from highly reputable university presses!) would have resolved any remaining problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Arvind Kumar

Hello again medical experts. I plan to accept this draft about a doctor, but I'm not sure what to do about the section titled "Education". It's likely that this material should be incorporated in sentence form into the other sections, but since it's acronyms and abbreviations I wouldn't know how to to this. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=693120643"