User talk:Doc James

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.
This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Doc_James.

Please click here to leave me a new message. Also neither I nor Wikipedia give medical advice online.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Avner Halperin

Hi, DocJames. I am wondering if you can respond to my questions and comments on the talk page of Avner Halperin. Thank you for your help so far. --BennettInCA (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is your relation to the subject in question User:BennettInCA? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, DocJames. I disclosed on the talk page that I work with him and he has tasked me to help with Wikipedia. I also just disclosed it on my userpage. Telling you my exact position would identify me by name which I do not want to do but I do not think it is a requirement; however, please correct me if I am wrong. I cannot see the original disclosure now as the page looks like it has been deleted. It says that it was deleted for being promotional which I am confused about because I believe the edit history showed people removing promotional content. Regardless, I agree the page needed a lot of work so it is probably better to start from the beginning. I went through and took all of my proposed edits and added additional changes I believe meets Wikipedia policies. I then submitted a new article for review instead of posting it directly. I also made the disclosure on that talk page that I am connected to him. Thank you for your help so far. Please let me know if I in any way have failed to adhere to policy so that I do not run afoul of editors.--BennettInCA (talk) 03:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:BennettInCA Okay thanks. Missed the original disclosure. On your talk page is good. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ozone therapy

I notice you are removing content that includes Medline-indexed journal articles on ozone and cancer, citing "higher quality sources" needed. I assume as a doctor you are familiar with the fact that PubMed contains only high quality peer-reviewed journals indexed by the National Library of Medicine. So it is a little concerning that you are removing valid scientific content. If you have a concern about the quality of a particular peer-reviewed published Medline-indexed study, you are certainly free to point that out by adding you analysis of the paper. However, you have removed the content thereby biasing the Wikipedia page with your obvious personal bias against ozone therapy for cancer. The rest of the world may not share your view. It is not your place to remove published peer-reviewed research. Are you going to remedy your personal bias, and abstain from removing valid content? A Khan, MD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.202.63 (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:MEDRS as mentioned on your talk page. Peer reviewed DOES NOT equal review article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just saying "it's on PubMed, therefore it's okay" is a rather low bar. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 12:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your question about sources (abortion)

Thank you, Doc James, for raising your question about sources with me directly rather than reverting my edits again. Is the book you're referring to "Sex and Herbs and Birth Control" by Ann Hibner Koblitz? From her Wikipedia page it's clear that the book is published by a foundation of which the author is director. It's not uncommon for a nonprofit to publish material authored by its staff and officials. The book won some university award for the quality of its research (link on the author's page). In any case, in response to your earlier criticism about insufficient sources on the scientific evidence for abortifacient properties of certain plants, I put in some additional references. I do not believe that this assertion is controversial, but please tell me if I'm wrong about that. If you wish to discuss this issue further, I'd be happy to.NightHeron (talk) 11:33, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had provided details regarding sourcing on your talk page.

I had also started a discussion on the Talk:abortion page

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:45, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussing sources

Thank you for sending the guidelines for medical sources. As a newcomer to editing, I have not yet adjusted to Wikipedia reference style and have been using standard scholarly style without the template (and without ISBN numbers, which are generally not used in scholarly style), but I'm of course willing to change and use whatever style is preferred. If you don't mind, I'd like to initiate a discussion of sources, since you have questioned the sourcing for my edits of the abortion and Margaret Sanger articles.

I understand the need for very strict and high standards for medical sources (described in the guidelines you sent me), because of the real harm that can come from outdated or poor sources if people consult Wikipedia for medical information (similar to Wikipedia's policy on potentially libelous edits). However, large parts of the two articles in discussion are not about medicine, but rather relate to history, history of medicine, sociology/psychology, etc. The standards in the non-sciences are not the same as in medicine. For example, sources need not be "recent" (and journal articles don't have PMIDs). Also, sources are often published by less established publishers (niche publishers, very small publishers, nonprofit organizations, small professional associations, etc.). There's also some flexibility in using online non-print sources. Sources should be judged on their own merits, sometimes on a case by case basis.

I do not have any medical background, and my edits are generally non-medical (except for the general assertion, which I didn't think was controversial and for which there are numerous sources, that some plants have been shown to have abortifacient properties). However, I have to question the statement in the form that you restored that "The use of herbs...is not recommended by physicians"[64]. The reference is a very interesting one: "A descriptive retrospective survey was conducted on the calls received by the Montevideo Poison Centre between 1986 and 1999 concerning the ingestion of herbal infusions with abortive intent" (from the abstract). The study is consistent with my edit, which concerns the indiscriminant use of those plants -- in this case in a country (Uruguay) which in those years banned abortion. The statement about "not recommended by physicians" suggests that no physician would ever recommend herbal abortifacients. Is this true? Even if it is true in North America, is it true internationally? In Cuba? In India? In China?

Sorry I've gone on at length. I'd welcome hearing your views. Thanks.NightHeron (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) NightHeron, you said you are familiar with "standard scholarly style" referencing, so you might be more comfortable with Wikipedia:Parenthetical referencing. Any citation style is allowed, while we do prefer consistency within an article. That said, there are plenty of fixer-uppers (WikiGnomes) who are happy to adjust things like this, so don't worry too much about style issues while getting started. Enjoy editing! ☆ Bri (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Expectation is to use the same style of referencing as the article in question.

WP:MEDHOW runs through some easy techniques for referencing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to your last message

Replying to: "Sources should generally be from the last 10 years. Doc James"

Please give me a Wikipedia reference for making that statement.

If that were true, it would certainly alter my opinion (and the opinion of many people) about Wikipedia. Just try telling a scholar in history, history of medicine, history of science, language and literatures, etc. that no source before 2008 should be used.NightHeron (talk) 04:18, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

Thank You For pointing out errors and wrong facts in editing articles. I'm really appreciate it! HtetPyae (talk) 04:27, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found this useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

herpangina photo

Dear Doc James,

I am currently authoring a chapter in the 7th edition of:

Cummings Otolaryngology 6th Edition Head and Neck Surgery, 3-Volume Set eBook ISBN: 9780323310703 eBook ISBN: 9780323278201 Hardcover ISBN: 9781455746965

It is challenging for me to find herpangina and other photos in my pediatric otolaryngology clinic. I wanted to ask if you would give permission to use your images, with full citation for you. I am also curious if you have, as an ED physician, images of the tonsils with mononucleosis.

Sincerely,

Anna K. Meyer, MD, FACS, FAAP Associate Professor Program Director-Pediatric Otolaryngology Fellowship Division of Pediatric Otolaryngology Department of Otolaryngology - Head & Neck Surgery Coach-UCSF School of Medicine University of California, San Francisco 550 4th Street, Station 6574, Box 3213 San Francisco, CA 94158 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annakmeyer (talk • contribs) 21:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Annakmeyer sure you may use my photos. Please attribute as "James Heilman, MD, Wikipedia"

You can see one of my photos of here of mononucleosis

Also if you have photos that you own and are willing to release under an open license than please upload to Wikimedia Commons.

Let me know if you need help with that :-) Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot

Thanks a lot for this image in the article of classification of obesity. Thanks once again. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 05:30, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is an old image :-) One of my first to Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But that tells the fact that you are able to understand important issues much earlier than many. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further to add, I learned from Mr. Asaf Bartov in a workshop that you are most read medical author on the entire planet! That is really a great achievement and I feel great that I know you. It is a huge responsibility as well, once I know you, but is it a great thing to realize it for sure. It is no coincidence that you are most read medical author on the entire planet. It is your ability to observe and address the issues. I am envious (not jealous because it is bad thing but being envious is not) of your this ability to observe! Thanks a lot. -- Abhijeet Safai (talk) 06:14, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James is indeed a very observant and extremely well read medical doctor :-)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 06:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you did take an active part in the discussion. I think you may have just been mentioned. However, to be sure, I have included you in my mail shot. SilkTork (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping User:SilkTork. Just got back from holidays. No thoughts on this at this point in time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:07, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

EDS vs EDSs

Hi, your opinion would be much appreciated here: Talk:Ehlers–Danlos syndromes#inconsistency in use of acronym. Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 14:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Replied there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:06, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this isn't getting you down

Hi James. Just wanted to say I hope the lack of AGF in the Osmosis discussions is not getting you down. As you know, I feel strongly about the content issues. And I do have concerns with the process as well. But I also believe you are one of our best, and you always do what you think is best for Wikipedia. Take care, Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Clayoquot thanks for the note. Yah a little depressing this all is. Could the videos be improved, sure. We can however either ask for improvements or make them ourselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Epilepsy

Your edit warring at Epilepsy is unacceptable. Your claim that the videos are leads is bogus. I have explained on the talk page that is is patently clear the video and article bear no resemblance whatsoever other than covering the topic "Epilepsy". Since your claims are false, you have an opportunity to correct your mistake by removing the video from Epilepsy. Repeatedly inserting material that fails WP:V will result in a block or worse.

Further I have asked at WP:MED for you to be topic banned from inserting these videos. You clearly have a COI and are unable to edit collaboratively. You needed consensus of the WP community to do this. You didn't ask for it and you haven't got it. -- Colin°^Talk 19:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Videos from Osmosis

I've edited the next five in c:Category:Videos from Osmosis this evening.

First one:

File:Abscesses 1.webm

Next five:

--RexxS (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:RexxS Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:34, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Grant

James, can you say what the $250,000 grant is for that Knowledge Diffusion Inc (operating as Osmosis) received in January 2017 in relation to WikiProject Medicine? The grant was from the Hewlett Foundation: "In collaboration with WikiProject Medicine and the UCSF-UCB Joint Masters Program, Osmosis will undertake a 12-month pilot project to help medical school faculty and students integrate OER [open educational resources] into their curriculum through a scalable approach combining technology and credit-bearing electives."

The videos were in 2016, so it can't be for them. The Osmosis account stopped editing in 2016 apart from one edit. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SlimVirgin part of it is to support this class at UCSF. Amin Azzam has received some funding for this work which includes out reach to other medical schools regarding the editing of Wikipedia. Wiki Project Med Foundation is supporting the teaching of these classes and have been since 2013. Wiki Project Med Foundation however is not receiving any money, nor am I. There was a write up about this class in the NYTs back in 2013 when it started.[1]

We are also hoping that this will support a "teaching assistant" and the development of a "userscript" to guide medical students who are editing Wikipedia. Will need to look at this once / if the dust settles.

With respect to Osmosis, most of their work with respect to us is uploading videos on Commons as you can see here and they have been active as of February 22 2018. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I can't see what Osmosis has to do with the student editing mentioned by the NYT. [2]

Knowledge Diffusion Inc, operating as Osmosis, received $150,000 in 2014 from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation "to help Osmosis make its platform accessible to all clinical students", [3] and I believe this led to the creation of the videos for those students; $250,000 in January 2017 from the Hewlett Foundation (touting their relationship with WikiProject Medicine); [4] $100,000 from TEDCO in December 2017 (again the relationship with Wikipedia is mentioned); [5] investment from Coverys, the insurance provider, in January 2018 (the relationship mentioned again); [6] and now they're applying for $100,000 from the Wikimedia Foundation (again mentioning WikiProject Medicine). [7]

That's $600,000 plus an unknown amount from Coverys, much or all of it connected to or mentioning WikiProject Medicine or Wiki Project Med Foundation. Which Wikipedians are involved in this? SarahSV ^(talk) 02:31, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "credit-bearing electives" refers to the elective for medical students at UCSF. The prof who leads efforts at UCSF has the folks from Osmosis give a talk during his Wikipedia editing class. He was interested in promoting Wikipedia editing to other schools so joined Osmosis on a grant application to help support these efforts.

Wiki Project Med Foundation through myself and others were collaborating with both Amin at UCSF and folks at Osmosis on the class. You can see the nine discussions about these efforts over the last few years on the WTMED pages.

It is additionally described in the reports from WPMEDF in both 2016 and 2017. They have also build us a video to help teach people how to edit Wikipedia's medical content.[8]

These organizations are also funding the creation of the videos we were using of course.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:48, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]