Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SandyGeorgia (talk | contribs) at 15:05, 15 April 2018 (→‎A list of featured medical articles?: grammar). 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

    WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Stats/Top medical editors 2016 (all) has statistics for 2016, but there is nothing for 2017. Has this effort been abandoned? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Guy Macon: The user who ran the script to scrape the data is too busy to carry on doing the work. We can't get hold of the script, so I'm in the process of trying to re-write the whole thing from scratch. That will take some considerable time unless somebody comes up with a better idea. --RexxS (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    per[1] sent email to analytics-owner@lists.wikimedia.org(no response yet/not sure it'll work)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @User:Guy Macon I would love this data. I have sent off dozens of emails trying to get this done aswell. Simple very hard to find someone. User:Ladsgroup and User:West.andrew.g ran the numbers in the past but as mentioned are busy with other things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    at least we tried(and RexxS is trying)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm. Sorry about my late response - I've been super busy lately. It's unfortunate that we don't have the old scripts for this to modify and use for 2017. I would've taken this on if we had those. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we can make a place where old scripts can be archived and maybe even make archiving a requirement for using a script? It seems strange that we keep every old article version yet keep losing important scripts and other tools. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    [2]maybe?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    *still ongoing(only en edits were solved, not across all languages)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Frontier journals

    https://www.frontiersin.org/

    What are peoples thoughts on these? They have been described as predatory here.

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    For those interested in some background that led to this question, I recommend seeing my talk page, wherein Doc James and I discussed this matter. It also includes my rationale for at least selectively using Frontiers journals as citations to articles so long as the article or study being cited is otherwise acceptable, as well as my stated concerns about considering Frontiers Media to be a predatory publisher. As I said in the aforementioned talk page discussion, I agree that there appear to be some problems with Frontiers journals, but I would nonetheless consider it a problematic publisher (like with Hindawi Publishing Corporation) rather a predatory one. This conclusion was primarily based on a review of sources mentioning or otherwise discussing the status of Frontiers journals as predatory, which I deemed mixed and overall inconclusive. Links to those sources can be found on my talk page, as well.
    I would also like to note Archive 78 § On the use of Frontiers journals as sources, whose consensus seemed likewise inconclusive but which appears to accept selective usage so long as that which is being cited is otherwise acceptable. If necessary, I would also support including a {{better source}} template along with any such citation, though I personally do not think that should be necessary. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 04:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    at the very least questionable[3] and [4]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:05, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it depends on the claim. Any exceptional claim (e.g. of treatment efficacy) which appears only in a Frontiers journal is a huge WP:REDFLAG, and as for the AIDS denialism &c. stuff they've run .... In general anything worth including that appears in a Frontiers journal will almost certainly be source-able to something more conspicuously reputable. Same goes for Hindawi journals, PLOS ONE, etc. Most of the times we see these sources being raised from WP:PROFRINGE editors banging an altmed drum. Alexbrn (talk) 13:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I definitely don't consider Frontiers journals to be predatory -- I have read dozens if not hundreds of useful articles in them. However, the fact that something is published in a Frontiers journal should not imply that it should be treated as a reliable source. They are better than things like Medical Hypotheses, but reliability is not their primary goal. Looie496 (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We should lean on the side of caution if as reported we shold error on the right side. They are by far not alone ...as there are thousands of other publishers we can use instead. Editors are expected to uphold the integrity of Wikipedia....thus simply avoid questionable sources if we want to look credible.--Moxy (talk) 23:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This was just added based on Frontier journal: "In vitro and in vivo studies found that methadone significantly inhibited the growth of human lung cancer cells"[5]
    An extraordinary claim IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup, and it's wacky articles like this that exemplify why Frontiers journals need to be treated with extreme caution. Alexbrn (talk) 16:19, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I actually think this Frontiers article is quite good, but the edit to the methadone article does not accurately reflect what it says. The Frontiers article notes that methadone has shown anti-tumor activity in preclinical studies, which is perfectly true; it also notes that these effects have not been tested at the clinical level. Looie496 (talk) 00:26, 1 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The specific subject of methadone as antineoplastic is reviewed in Int J Cancer at PMID 29516505. No need to use the primary source. More generally though, it's worth restating that no source is reliable (or unreliable) for all statements: one can cite an issue of Mad Magazine for a statement describing the cover of that particular issue. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears, at least to me, that the consensus (or lack thereof) on generally citing Frontiers journals has thus far remained the same as I described above. This discussion originated from my citation of two specific review articles, namely the following two: 1 and 2. Does anyone have any opinion on these two particular sources, especially as worthwhile additions to the Asperger syndrome, Autism, Autism spectrum, or other such article? I originally included it as another theory in Asperger syndrome § Mechanism and its reversion is what led to this. If any of you would like more context, I recommend reading the discussion on my talk page. Everything, including relevant diffs, is documented therein. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 08:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, both URLs you give caused my browser to raise a security alert - so I wouldn't include those links! Alexbrn (talk) 09:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It does for me, too, specifically SSL_ERROR_BAD_CERT_DOMAIN. This is because the certificate is not valid for the journal.frontiersin.org subdomain, only the www.frontiersin.org subdomain and the subdomain-free frontiersin.org. I have no clue why the website's certificate does not include the journal subdomain, even though it's just used as a hop to the www subdomain anyway (adding a temporary exception demonstrates as much). My guess is that someone misconfigured the certificate and nobody ever bothered to fix it. Regardless, the landing pages for each are as follows: 1 and 2. I was trying to include the original articles, but forgot about the subdomain nonsense. My apologies for not linking them initially, Alexbrn; it has been a long day for me.
    I might as well note that in my original edit (which Doc James had moved to Talk:Asperger syndrome § Frontier journals), those bad subdomain links are only available (unavoidably) in the DOI parameter of the citations. The URLs I included were PDF copies from ResearchGate, namely 1 and 2. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 09:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    So these sources are about the "Intense World Syndrome" which is the idea of a few researchers. The question is has this been picked up and discussed by decent secondary sources? If so, we can cite them; if not we ignore the topic as Wikipedia is meant to be a tertiary publication summarizing "accepted knowledge" (which is generally found only at the secondary level or deeper). Alexbrn (talk) 10:50, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I think that might be a secondary source. It's not labeled as a review article, which is a particular type of secondary source, but it synthesizes previous work into a coherent whole. Putting together puzzle pieces is pretty much the definition of secondary. (Maybe you meant that this idea needed to be picked up by someone independent of the original authors?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'm not sure what content the OP want to source, but if it's about the novel "hypothesis" of Intense World Syndrome so far as I can see these works are primary for that hypothesis. But yes coverage would need to be independent. Alexbrn (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    National Rifle Association Eddie Eagle a child safety program?

     You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:National Rifle Association#RfC: Should material stating the NRA operates gun safety and training programs be included in the NRA article?. An editor has requested comment on stating, in Wikipedia voice, that the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle firearms program for children is a "safety" program, contrary to WP:MEDRS. PeteW15 (talk) 22:45, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

    Review articles

    • Dowd, MD; Sege, RD; Council on Injury, Violence, and Poison Prevention Executive, Committee.; American Academy of, Pediatrics. (November 2012). "Firearm-related injuries affecting the pediatric population". Pediatrics. 130 (5): e1416-23. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2481. PMID 23080412. Gun avoidance programs are designed to educate children as a way of reducing firearm injury (eg, Eddie Eagle, STAR); however, several evaluation studies have demonstrated that such programs do not prevent risk behaviors.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    • Jackman, Geoffrey A.; Farah, Mirna M.; Kellermann, Arthur L.; Simon, Harold K. (June 2001). "Seeing Is Believing: What Do Boys Do When They Find a Real Gun?". Pediatrics. 107 (6). American Academy of Pediatrics: 1247–1250. doi:10.1542/peds.107.6.1247. [although the Eddie Eagle program] has been promoted heavily, it never has been evaluated formally to prove that it works. If gun safety education gives parents a sense of complacency without fundamentally altering child behavior, then it might do more harm than good.
    thanks for posting?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether the article about the (US) National Rifle Association should state that they sponsor safety programs or certify firearm instructors does not seem even remotely like biomedical information. Whether the safety programs produce safer behavior (their most famous likely doesn't) is not being discussed here. The statement being made is purely about organizational activities, not about whether those activities meet their stated goals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That turns out to be not the case. When the NRA baldly claim that they run safety programmes without further qualification, it gives the reader the impression that those safety programmes actually have a significant effect on safety - for which there is no evidence. It's called 'spin'. The misapplication of the label "safety" is the problem there, not the factual accuracy of these programmes' existence. --RexxS (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure not getting shot in the head is a medical issue as such. Johnbod (talk) 17:54, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Preventing (accidental and intentional) firearm injuries is a public health issue, but that's not really the point of the NRA article. The point of that article is pretty much "There's this org, which does lobbying and gives classes". The proposed sentence "The organization issues credentials and trains firearm instructors", OTOH, is unrelated to health.
    RexxS, I think it's fair to mention the existence of their programs (especially remembering that the proposed list includes programs with no clear connection to safety). The fact is that these programs exist, and it's one of the two main things that the org does. There'd be nothing wrong with saying "They offer a bunch of classes, including a safety class that has been criticized as ineffective", but there is something wrong with omitting the fact that they offer classes altogether. Eddie Eagle (their independently notable, largely ineffective safety program) needs to be mentioned somewhere in that article, and right now, there's no connection from the NRA to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: I like your wording! There certainly wouldn't be anything wrong with saying "They offer a bunch of classes, including a safety class that has been criticized as ineffective". Sadly, that alternative is not on the table as far as I can see. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    My impression of that discussion is that far too many editors have interpreted it as a Request For All-or-Nothing Votes, and what they needed was a Request for Help Finding a Compromise. (Feel free to dress up that idea in an encyclopedic tone and propose it as an alternative if you want to.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia voice in an article hat at Eddie Eagle says it is a "safety" program. Can someone familiar with WP:MEDRS please review this for compliance? 64.134.172.62 (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Eddie Eagle is a safety program. The fact that it is a safety program does not mean that it is an effective program, but the fact that it is ineffective at improving safety does not magically transform it into some other kind of program. It shouldn't be surprising that it's a failure; most Behavior-based safety programs are failures, and almost all one-off information sessions with children are doomed. (Need proof? Find the nearest parent and ask them how many years they spent saying things like "Don't run around in busy parking lots".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    We agree with the American Academy of Pediatrics and the review article that the Eddie Eagle program is ineffective. My understanding of WP:MEDRS is that we may no more say in Wikipedia voice that Eddie Eagle is a "firearms safety program for children," then we could for example describe apricot seeds as a cancer cure. What is your understanding? Better would be "This article is about the NRA's firearm program for children." 50.233.97.130 (talk) 22:29, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your metaphor fails: the primary purpose of apricot seeds is making more apricot trees, not treating disease.
    A more apt comparison would be to something like the US FAA's old Air Transportation Oversight System safety program. ATOS didn't work. It was still a safety program. It did not stop being a safety program even though everyone concluded (eventually) that it was ineffective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Copyvio source

    PMID 25337402 copies material word-for-word from this 2006 diff by User:Stevenfruitsmaak. Does anyone feel like getting in touch with the journal and/or updating that article, which has barely been touched since then? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL. I'm reminded of the hilarity with "glucojasinogen". ;) I can't believe nobody has made a bot to search all of PubMed abstracts, or at least new ones, vs. all of Wikipedia. Wnt (talk) 12:17, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is this journal Journal of Thoracic Disease based out of China. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, someone did something better than that: They wrote a bunch of missing encyclopedia articles, posted half on Wikipedia (and kept the others offline, as a control group), waited a while, and then checked a huge database to see how many had been plagiarized.
    I believe that the conclusion on their side was that plagiarism of Wikipedia articles was a serious problem in low-ranking journals (perhaps the lowest quartile as measured by WP:Impact factor; I believe that journals with a significant number of non-Western/non-native English-speaking authors was a particular risk), and the conclusion on our side was that newbies creating short articles on complex scientific subjects is an unreasonable burden on existing editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I will send them a serious letter... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:53, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. PS: WhatamIdoing thank you for clarifying that my early work as a med student qualifies as "newbies creating short articles on complex scientific subjects is an unreasonable burden on existing editors." :-) LOL !!
    On a side note I had to search >30min before finding some guidance on Wikipedia on how to deal with these kind of matters. James, what if we took an initiative to ask for corrections and/or retractions of all scholarly papers which contain medical backward copyvio? That would certainly discourage future "fake" OA journals to continue this practice... Do we know anyone who can make a bot for that? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The community has changed since 2005. Back when you were a newbie, everyone thought it was awesome that anyone who actually knew anything would help out. Now, I guess we think we're too good for grad students to try their best at expanding.  :-/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    2003 Union for Reform Judaism resolution on the medicinal use of marijuana

    Project members are invited to help improve the newly created 2003 Union for Reform Judaism resolution on the medicinal use of marijuana. By the way, WP:420, a campaign to create and improve cannabis-related content, runs during the month of April. You're more than welcome to help out, if interested. Thanks! ---Another Believer (Talk) 05:01, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    A whole article on one resolution from 2003? I doubt it's sufficiently notable for a standalone article. As for our our cannabis content - in general it's in pretty bad shape still: this list[6] from SandyGeorgia is still pertinent. Alexbrn (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I share Alex's skepticism about notability. It feels like a candidate for merging to Cannabis and Judaism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It passes GNG, so it can be kept -- though if no one lengthens the article it could still be merged if that is most convenient, without prejudice to future recreation and expansion. A comparable article is Matrimonial nullity trial reforms of Pope Francis. We must be careful not to let majoritarianism, under guise of "notability", turn into anti-Semitism. Wnt (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced that it passes GNG. I see no "significant coverage". The cited sources are mostly about something else and give only two or three sentences about the resolution. They all basically repeat the same simple facts (which probably explains why the article is only five sentences long: we can't verify anything else about it). There's no indication of any significance other than a disputed claim to being "first". There's no analysis of why the resolution matters (assuming it does, which I begin to doubt), no explanation of any effects produced by the resolution, or anything else. It's just "Hey, this woman wanted them to pass a resolution on this topic, and they did, and they might have been the first religious 'body' (but definitely not the first religious 'organization') to do that."
    AFAICT, URJ has an annual meeting whose main purpose seems to be passing resolutions. In 2003, they passed a dozen such resolutions. Neither the current stub nor any of the cited sources give any explanation why anyone should care about this resolution, much less why this one is worth attention and not the one congratulating the American Conference Of Cantors on their 50th anniversary, or their resolution in favor of stem cell research. We don't need an entire article to say "They might have been the first (or second, or fourth) religious body to pass a resolution on this subject." WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    "turn into anti-Semitism" ← in what has been a bad week at WT:MED, Wnt tops it off with the most fucking stupid contribution of all! Alexbrn (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not suggesting anyone here wanted to be anti-Semitic, but if we start deciding whether religious concepts and events are notable based on the proportional amount of publicity, we inevitably will end up with that result, regardless of initial intention, because there are fewer Jews and presumably fewer Jewish religious periodicals. We should look only whether we have multiple sources to make an article, which is a fixed threshold, and should be a low one -- I would abolish that threshold were it possible to make an article without any way to learn about the topic. I should also note that what any religion thinks about the use of medical marijuana, or any other therapy, is strictly a religious question, not a medical issue at all. There are not, nor ever have been, any medical claims in that article. Wnt (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The GNG requires more than multiple sources. It requires:
    • multiple –  got that
    • independent –  got that
    • secondary – Not sure Maybe we have that, and maybe we don't.
    • reliable sources –  got that
    • with significant coverage –  missing that
    The problem isn't getting two-sentence mentions in mainstream media. The problem is that nobody – not the pro-cannabis people, not the Jewish people, not the anti-marijuana people – during the last decade and a half seems to have thought that this vote was worth writing 500 words about it. We've got "multiple" sources. What we don't have is any hope of getting past the WP:PERMASTUB range or meeting the goals of WP:WHYN. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Diagram showing lobular carcinoma in situ

    I have just cleaned up the browser bookmarks folder where I had saved bad links to medicine-related topics. Four problems remain (search for "disam" on these pages):

    Thanks in advance if you can solve any of these problems. If you do solve one of them, mark it as {{done}}. Narky Blert (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    All are done, mostly by others. — soupvector (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I didn't think we should let you have all the fun this time... ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Hot tooth syndrome

    Project members might want to look at this. It seems not good from a WP:MEDRS point of view. --NeilN talk to me 03:31, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems not good from any point of view. Natureium (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Have redirected to pulpitis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Gaslighting

    Dear medical experts:

    Re Gaslighting

    A paragraph about self-help to combat the psychological effects of "gaslighting" has been added to the above article. I'm not sure that it's appropriate. Can someone take a look?—Anne Delong (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The citations in the paragraph added fail WP:MEDRS. The medical literature does discuss gaslighting. However, I am struggling to find anything that meets MEDRS that is suitable as a replacement here. It would seem worth citing Gass & Nichols (Contemp Fam Ther (1988) 10: 3. doi:10.1007/BF00922429) as a key early paper, but it doesn't help much in terms of treatment. There's a recent, non-systematic, kind-of review by Davendralingam (2018, doi:10.1177/0141076818763326) that may be of some use. Bondegezou (talk) 10:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the passages, not because they fail WP:MEDRS, but because they were either very poorly sourced according to WP:RS or just simply unsourced. Medium is not an acceptable source, neither is lonerwolf.com — and that is for any statement. Dbaechle, Anne Delong — I have no problem with the message conveyed, but you need to use better sources. Aslo, be careful when saying things about psychological health, you then need to adhere to MEDRS. Carl Fredrik talk 05:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Bondegezou and Carl Fredrik. I was worried about the sourcing, but since the information seemed to have been added in good faith, I wanted to check with more knowledgeable editors.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Medium.com actually would be an acceptable source if the author meets WP:SPS standards. It is certainly no worse than Facebook posts or Twitter links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but in the presence of other better sources I think we should prefer them. I do not feel Medium is acceptable in this case, especially as it straddles invoking MEDRS — where SPS is even less acceptable, nigh on forbidden. Carl Fredrik talk 20:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    What kind of paper is this?

    Somebody thought it was Very Important at Replication crisis, see diffs.

    -- Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    rather different[7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    In case anybody is curious the ten most-ever-cited clinical trial papers discussed in that paper (in chronological order) are the following:

    Extended content

    -- Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, those diffs might contain about three times as many paragraphs as is warranted, but it's probably reasonable to consider it reliable for some of the claims made, e.g., "This one paper suggested this as a problem, and that as a potential mitigation effort". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I seems like a fascinating paper, and I'll have to read it properly, but it does say "This study assesses the 10 most cited RCTs worldwide and shows that trials inevitably produce bias." which seems a stretch. You'd have to look at significantly more RCTs to come to this conclusion, even though it is quite notable. Carl Fredrik talk 08:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the examples given in the article suggest that it's formally impossible to remove all bias, in which case the findings aren't particularly interesting. — soupvector (talk) 23:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals

    Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals.Bermicourt (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Requests for approval

    Hello, I Running a bot for add {{WikiProject Medicine}} to redirects based on what articles that in Category:All WikiProject Medicine articles for example. Are there any notes? Or problems?. The bot made 20 edits for trial in this task Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/JarBot 3.--جار الله (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    they[8] seem fine but you need more opinions from other editors..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    As a new page patroller, I don't think I've ever seen a new redirect page created with a WikiProject tagged on it. The only redirect tags I see are on pages that were once filled with content but moved to another page at some later time (rather than submit an AfD, for instance). Then the old page gets the tag for historical purposes (and it shows we've been there before). Tagging every single redirect just for the heck of it will add tens of thousands of pages to this project's article count, and I don't really see the positive of doing so. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. Wikiproject tags seem to be only added to redirects that used to be pages. I don't see the value in adding them to thousands of redirects. Natureium (talk) 14:25, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Me too. Personally I remove them from the old name when a page is moved. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not familiar with this practice. The Wikipedia category system is for human browsing, and I cannot think of a reason why a human would want to have easy access to a list of redirects. If such a list existed, then it should be in its own category of redirects and not mixed with Wikipedia articles, because it would add a lot of text which most readers should not see. I do not know what guidelines exist for discussing categories for redirects. What is your motivation for doing this? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Bone Score

    Hello, the above article has recently come out of the Articles for Creation process; it could use some expert attention as it might be an advert for a particular device. Espresso Addict (talk) 11:10, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    editor Special:Contributions/Alexandermproctor edits are of 1. Paul K. Hansma who in turn had a hand in 2. (OsteoProbe)>>Bone Score...COI?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:28, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    "More video"

    If you're interested in the idea that (some) readers want "more video", then you might want to look at mw:User Interaction Consultation for some related ideas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    thanks WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Move request

    Talk:GBA_(disambiguation)#Requested_move_13_April_2018 Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    a little different--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Xezbeth: Didn't you read the dab page? Or did you miss Glucocerebrosidase, GBA2, GBA3? A cause of Gaucher's disease and an association with Parkinson's disease would indicate that WPMED is likely to have some interest. --RexxS (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sources

    Are these sources reliable to include information on Ayurveda#History, that "The origins of Ayurveda have been traced to around 6,000 BCE"? I am copying the most convincing texts from the discussion held on Talk:Ayurveda.

    JzG agreed with first source to be fine, but made no comments on other two.

    What do people think? I was going to post this on WP:RSN but that board is stale, and not really everyone there is familiar with medical subjects. My Lord (talk) 04:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a list of featured medical articles somewhere? I clicked on the link under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine#Metrics (tools.wmflabs.org) but it timed out. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    [11]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Ozzie. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:52, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Anthonyhcole: the list of FAs can be found at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Health and medicine.
    A problem though: the medical FAs are not being maintained and many of them would not survive WP:FAR. A particularly bad example right now is Alzheimer's disease, which I promoted TEN years ago. Both of the original FA writers are gone, and the article is in very bad shape. Just comparing the Table of Contents from the 2008 promoted version to the current Table of Contents gives you an idea of how much unreviewed text the article has taken on, and the field has certainly changed in 10 years.
    Same can be said for any of the medical FAs where the original authors have moved on.
    When I started working up dementia with Lewy bodies, I was surprised to find that not only was there no article on Parkinson's disease dementia, but it sure isn't linked at Parkinson's disease. But AD is in bad shape, and should either be rewritten or defeatured.
    I suspect you will find the same if you look closely at schizophrenia, autism, Asperger syndrome, and both of the multiple sclerosis articles. I have my doubts about Chagas disease, Dengue fever and Huntington's disease as well, but don't see anything obviously wrong. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Sandy. I just noticed the WMF (I presume) is paying Google to promote Wikipedia as "the fact-checked online encyclopedia" [12]. I'm looking for a group of articles to submit to independent experts for fact-checking, just to test how well fact-checked Wikipedia is, and thought all of our featured disease articles (as they stand today) might be an appropriate sample. Maybe those plus the same number of randomly-selected disease GAs, Bs and Cs. Not sure. Still thinking about the best approach. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost every one of our medical GAs is in serious trouble (GA has little meaning, one person review), but I think your best shot at fact checking to show the problem just now is the Alzheimer's article. I do wish there were some focus on keeping at least the FAs accurate, or submitting them to FAR, but not the case ... I found a number of deficiencies at attention deficit hyperactivity disorder last month, and that was based on only a quick scan of what I knew (tics). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The GAs are listed at Wikipedia:Good articles/Natural sciences#Medicine, but unlike the FA list, there is no person in charge of making sure that list is accurate, so I don't know what meaning that list has. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Answered that question myself: ADHD says it is a Good article, but it is not listed at the Good article page, so ... GA has no oversight, and is only one person's review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt the WMF is actually paying Google for that - in fact I think they sensibly avoid any "fact-checked" claim, which they certainly should. Does anyone know differently? Johnbod (talk) 15:03, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Same thinking here. Of more concern ... what do we have to do to get that to stop? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=836562423"