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 Doc James (talk | contribs) at 19:16, 30 May 2018 (→Big change of infant massage). 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

    MicroDNA

    MicroDNA{enlarge image as the contrast in color is not easily seen)

    One of your knowledgely folks may want to have a look at this new article. For my own part, at a certain level or ignorance, a notable topic is indistinguishable from a hoax. GMGtalk 17:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    actually falls underWikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:52, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to exist, but should probably be merged to Extrachromosomal Circular DNA. Natureium (talk) 17:06, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And here I thought it was a misspelling of microRNA, like FOXO is sometimes misinterpreted as "Forkhead homeobox" (FOXO transcription factors are a different protein family from Homeodomain transcription factors). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:46, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like the creator of the article is also the author of the paper linked in external links. I don't know whether to call this a COI or just personal promotion. Natureium (talk) 13:52, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Extrachromosomal Circular DNA is certainly sufficiently notable. I've been bold and done the merger, since MicroDNA on its own is too limited I think. I've checked the external link paper (now inline ref) and it is relevant enough to keep. The editor has written sufficiently neutrally that I don't think the COI is an issue in this case. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:10, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Health care ratings tagged as medical expert required, but that seems a misuse of the tag

    The tag says " The specific problem is: Neutrality of the article concerning the financial incentives linked to funding qualifications of healthcare institutes based on greater positive ratings."

    I don't think the tag is appropriate, but as I've already been struggling to explain to this editor that adding NPOV tags without specifics is a bad idea (please do see if you can make sense of Talk:Steven Emerson#Consistent total-reversion by a particular ECU . I'm not a medical expert, I'm not going to touch this one! Doug Weller talk 08:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    i worked it over. Yes the tag was bogus. Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It's my experience that many of these tags have been placed inappropriately, and that almost none of them result in any practical improvements to an article. For example, Criticism of fast food#Food poisoning risk doesn't need an expert, and it's been patiently waiting for someone to fix it for more than five years. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, and it's been suffering from {{POV}} for six years. But we have it easy: there's an article in Category:Articles needing expert attention from March 2006 for the experts at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing to sort out. --RexxS (talk) 19:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Although, I just spotted Caplan's syndrome ... --RexxS (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I pulled the tag off that one: the article looks reasonable at a first glance, and there's no way to know what the tagger wanted.
    A lot of Category:Medicine articles needing expert attention probably needs the same treatment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:14, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:19, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidata now showing more "appropriately" in watchlists

    Change on Wikidata
    Wikidata showing up in the watchlist on EN WP

    The way changes to Wikidata show up in your watchlist on English Wikipedia has recently been improved. Previously if a Wikidata property was used within a Wikipedia page any change to any property in the entire item on Wikidata would create a line in your watchlist.

    Now only if changes occur to that specific property used (or the aliases) will a line appear in your watch list. In my opinion this is a significant step forwards so congrats to the Wikidata team. I have requested the option not to show changes to "aliases". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    very good change!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Still no way to tell, in that image, if the edit is constructive or not. Having to go to a different site with a different UI to figure out whether the infobox has been made inaccurate, or vandalized, is far from ideal. To me, it's against the spirit of this wiki, where changes that are made to the article are recorded here. Outriggr (talk) 02:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, you have to change the default of OFF for "Show Wikidata edits in your watchlist" at Preferences, Watchlist. I'd bet very, very few normal editors have that turned on - I certainly didn't. I've now turned it on, but with a watchlist of over 24k articles, I'm rather dreading the result. Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are still improvements needed. It still shows some stuff it shouldn't. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, but it's better than it was. I'm working on our templates and Lua modules to minimise the number of different items that an article reads from Wikidata, which will allow the watchlist to be more specific. We also have very good relations with the folks doing development on this part of the MediaWiki software, and I'm optimistic that further improvements are possible in the near future. --RexxS (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Just picked up my first bit of WD vandalism via this new watchlist.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    therefore it is useful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:03, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Electrotherapy - Medical device problem - electricity or EMR in medicine

    This will not interest folks mostly interested in drugs, but we have a bit of a problem with our article structures about use of electrical or electromagnetic radiation (EMR) used therapeutically (this is not getting into the whole imaging thing)

    There are multiple branchings. Electricity or EMR can be used to stimulate or ablate, for therapeutic purposes.

    We have (listed roughly from most general to most specific)

    Going down the stimulation with electricity pathway
    going down the stimulation or other "therapy" with EMR pathway.
    ablation with electricity
    ablation with EMR
    mess around Hyperthermia aka Heat therapy (two articles on the same thing?)

    I am hanging my head over this thicket. This is not even all of it.

    But to focus, what should we do with Electrotherapy? Jytdog (talk) 05:22, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (fixed "EMF" thing without redacting Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]

    Could I ask, please, for you to check what abbreviations you're using above, because I'm finding it confusing. EMF is 'electromotive force', i.e. voltage, which implies moving electrons through the body. EMR is 'electomagnetic radiation', which implies bombarding the body with photons of some wavelength. Magnetism is a different phenomenon again. Lasers won't be based on EMF, for example, nor is magnetic stimulation EMR. If the articles are that confused, they need taking to AfD. --RexxS (talk) 13:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm pretty sure EMF is being used to mean "electromagnetic fields". Looie496 (talk) 14:26, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Which would add to the confusion as EMF would then be synonymous with EMR, and if so, then Electrosurgery, for example, wouldn't fit as it relies on an electric current, not an electromagnetic field. There is a huge difference in the mechanisms. But I don't suppose that worries the quacks who are looking for a novelty cure for everything. How long before mesmerism makes a comeback? --RexxS (talk) 18:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    i made it consistent, without redaction to avoid clutter.Jytdog (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    I think I can resolve one of the smaller questions: Heat stroke is a type of Hyperthermia. The proper subject of the Hyperthermia article is a potentially fatal medical condition, not the treatment category that sometimes uses the same name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    good idea, more concise--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Was the article just moved or has it always been titled that way? It seems fine how it is now. Hyperthermia is a condition and heat therapy is a treatment. Natureium (talk) 17:00, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Now I think Jytdog may have meant to link to Hyperthermia therapy instead of Hyperthermia. As written, Hyperthermia therapy and Heat therapy are 2 different things. Hyperthermia therapy uses excessive heat to induce cell death, whereas heat therapy is using warmth to sooth sore muscles... or something like that. Natureium (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I merged magnetic hyperthermia into Hyperthermia therapy since it's been over a year since it was proposed and no one has given a good argument not to. Natureium (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    How about a broad-concept article? We could keep the history section by moving it to History of electrotherapy. Little pob (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I would first suggest removing the Muscle stimulation and Cancer treatment sections, as well everything from the Modern use up to, but not including, the Effectiveness for particular indications section. Those are stuffed full of biomedical claims without a MEDRS source, and in many cases without any source at all. Next rewrite the lead to accurately summarise the lack of evidence for any significant effects at all.
    Then have a competition to find the worst bit of woo in the present version of the article and preserve it in formaldehyde somewhere on the talk page as a grisly reminder of the amount of complete bollocks there was in the article. My current favourite is "The free-radical (unpaired electron) containing active-site of enzyme Ribonucleotide Reductase, RnR—which controls the rate-limiting step in the synthesis of DNA—can be disabled by a stream of passing electrons." --RexxS (talk) 22:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a meta-editing, structural element to my question about Electrotherapy... i put that at the top because as near as I can tell, it is the closest thing we have to a "head" article in Wikipedia about "therapeutic use of electricity and EMR". (not even saying "medical use of electricity and EMR" because then we would have to pull in all the imaging). Should it just be a sort of disambig page and outline for the rest of our content about these things? Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    btw I went and looked at MESH headers on this stuff hoping I would use them as a guide... but they are woefully messy. I was going to present all that mess but it would have been just another bewildering pile for people to sort thru. Jytdog (talk) 22:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Some sort of "Ways people use (and have used) electricity to treat diseases" articles could be encyclopedic. I'm not sure that would be called "electrotherapy", since presumably that article would include pacemakers and deep brain stimulation and defibrillators. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Another bolus of student editing

    May 2018 (UTC)

    Worked on the SID article a bit more. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:37, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    -- Jytdog (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    yes, thank you Jyt--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Cranial nerve examination

    WP:NOTMANUAL? Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    might be best to dispense with wikitable just leave the text, as it would give a less WP:NOTMANUAL impression(and tweak the wording a bit)..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:39, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing the middle section may make it less manual-like, just leaving the associated conditions, which could be expanded with the purpose of cranial nerve examination. Natureium (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Help needed with "expanded access", "managed access", "early access", "compassionate use", etc.

    Hi all, I've been trying to add a helpful link for "early access" in the context of drug trials, disambiguating it to expanded access. I find, though, that the multiple terms are quite difficult to sort out, particularly from a world-wide perspective. Another page, managed access program clearly overlaps in content, but I suspect that there are multiple meanings for that term: (1) free access to drugs that normally cost a lot and (2) access to drugs that are not yet approved for the particular use. Can anyone help to polish this material to a point where patients can understand it more readily? (For example, I was asked by a very ill person whether "early access" would involve the possibility of being given a placebo only.) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    According to these two papers, these programs are all the same thing, just with different names, and they all involve getting the "real" drug (with all of its very real and possibly still unknown side effects and limitations) before the drug regulatory agency has approved it for sale. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, and to others who stepped in to improve the material. It is a huge help to seeing a way through the morass. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I did some stuff there. Jytdog (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Be careful in this field. The lobbyist groups frame this as compassion for sick people. At the same time, they make $$$$$ ridiculous money by doing experimentation on people outside the bounds of what would normally be safe in medical research. I am not saying that this is good or bad, but only that the pharma companies have extreme incentive to get the data from people who take the non-approved drugs.
    In a clinical trial there is never a promise that the drug will treat a condition. A lot of the literature talks about the efficacy of early access drugs in a way that breaks from the norm of how anyone discusses typical clinical trials. The money invested in community outreach to get people to talk about this in a positive way is huge. There is no such thing as early access to drugs without the patient / research subject agreeing to give the pharma company data. The terminology here is confusing because the entire discussion conflates treatment and research and downplays norms of patient safety. I have looked into this articles on wiki and it gets confusing quickly. The voices advocating for the patient, like accepting a condition and not spending one's last days in research, are a lot quieter than the pharma-sponsored papers and books.
    In answer to your question - early access almost never includes placebo controlled trials. The metabolites are money.
    Research is good but this body of literature and the outreach and publishing campaign creeps me out a bit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with that. There is lots of noise, from many sides.Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMhle1409465 says that most American manufacturers charge nothing for expanded access programs, because they'd have to disclose their direct manufacturing costs (resulting in "it only cost you $1.50 to make this, and you're charging how much now??!!!").
    OTOH, it seems to me that I had heard that a few disreputable places were using expanded access as a way of selling unapproved (and probably unapprovable) drugs, probably in the general vein of alternative cancer treatments. (Maybe in that long news story on the German clinics?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    PMID 26955570 is a review by a consultant person (Tata, the Indian equivalent of McKinsey) and he is quite frank about the benefits of selling through EA programs before approval. No, they do not have to price at cost. They don't have to make it available at all. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The NEJM paper says that within the US, the choices are not offering it at all, offering it at a price that is no higher than direct costs, or offering it for free. The consultant's paper indicates that some countries allow higher prices (I wish the paper named a few examples). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    yes it does! added to the article. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking for community feedback: WP:MEDRS talk page comment

    Hello, I posted a question on the talk page of WP:MEDRS to get community feedback on a clinician/patient guideline publication shared on PCORI's website. If you have any feedback or suggestions, please comment.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#PCORI_(Patient_Centered_Outcomes_Research_Institute):_Evidence_update_for_clinicians_and_patients

    Thank you,

    JenOttawa (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Young blood transfusion

    This article is going to be on the main page as a DYK and the author twice removed a tag asking for medical references, saying that "I don't believe that it does need such references". The article is on supposed life extension through blood transfusion, which is surely a medical concept.

    Additionally, the DYK hook is "... that the blood of young people may extend your life?" Is this really a claim wikipedia wants to be making?

    I've been looking on pubmed for actual sources of information on this in humans, and the first paper I found was [2], and the most most recent article from this journal indexed on pubmed is advocating the use of curcumin as a treatment of Alzheimers, so I'm not sure if the research published here should be taken with more than a single grain of salt. Natureium (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is certainly within the scope of MEDRS. The question is whether using "may" and the fact that the claim isn't describing an actual medical-biological process (is it a transfusion? Touching the blood? Inhaling it?) lowers the bar of evidence. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:39, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    See also Betteridge's law of headlines. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see MEDRS compliance. The article is about human health and is on the fringe of research. Any support for the procedure should be MEDRS compliant. And definitely not ready for Main Page.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:19, 22 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    I agree with Olive about it not being ready for Main Page. Using "may" and "So-and-so claimed that ..." are not get-out-of-jail-free cards to circumvent MEDRS. I've just given several examples of unsupported biomedical statements on the talk page of the article. I expect them to be contested and would naturally appreciate more eyes on the issue. --RexxS (talk) 20:56, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm mightily impressed that this was taken care of before I could even get back from work. Cheers to everyone who contributed. Natureium (talk) 23:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The article has compliant RS for the content so no reason to delete. We do include stubs and shorter articles on Wikipedia.(Littleolive oil (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
    Article now accurately says this is little more than a fad. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Removing list of medical conditions section from Placebo article

    Placebo effect can be produced by inert tablet(sugar pills)

    I believe the section Placebo#List of medical conditions should be removed. Since placebo effects are noted in basically all clinical trials (as mentioned with citations elsewhere in the article), the section effectively amounts to a list of medical conditions that have been studied in a clinical setting, which does not belong on an article specifically on placebos.

    I haven't been able to get any engagement on Talk:Placebo#Removal of section List of medical conditions, apart from a suggestion that I post here, so here I am! Any thoughts (and especially reasons to keep the section?)

    Kavigupta 04:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavigupta (talk • contribs)


    give opinion(gave mine[3])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Another textbook copy and pasting from Wikipedia

    Per Talk:Akathisia#Copyright_issues

    This case is interesting as the book is published by Academic Press / Elsevier in 2010. There was an effort to use the book as a reference to support the text. But we had the text first and it had changed over time on Wikipedia.

    Found a few spots of copy and pasting. Have not looked at further articles this section may have lifted from. Book in question:

    Encyclopedia of movement disorders (1st ed. ed.). Oxford, UK: Academic Press. 2010. ISBN 9780123741059. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    And here it appears Cambridge University Press is copy and pasting from Wikipedia.
    Talk:Alcohol_intoxication#Copy_and_paste
    Zeller, Scott L.; Nordstrom, Kimberly D.; Wilson, Michael P. (2017). The Diagnosis and Management of Agitation. Cambridge University Press. p. 35. ISBN 9781107148123.
    This one is notable as they are the oldest publisher in the world. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Carolina Reaper

    There is a disagreement regarding this set of edits [4] to article as per the discussion: [5] as to whether or not MEDRS applies to the case/claims. Falconjh (talk) 04:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    PubMed reviews are always a good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an interesting dispute for medical editors and WP content because the topic concerns ingestion of a particularly hot (high capsaicin content) chili pepper that resulted in hospitalization of the consumer experiencing "thunderclap" headaches, concurrent with vasospasm of major intracerebral arteries, shown in CT images here as a single BMJ case report. Dispute issues: 1) the pepper is among the hottest known chilis, raising its profile about what might happen in chili-eating contests, but the actual mechanism of arterial spasm is unknown and contrary to what one might expect of capsaicin as a vasodilator, 2) one person eating it experienced a severe medical emergency, 3) which generated news hype and an entry in the Carolina Reaper article of a section entitled, "Health effects" here, 4) Talk page consensus among non-medical editors is that this one case, sensationalized news story is article-worthy, ignoring OR (inferred by the defending editors insisting this one event is encyclopedic), NOTNEWS, RECENTISM, notability and weight, WP:V, MEDRS confirmation, etc. --Zefr (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The key point of the issue is the inference that eating a chilli pepper caused reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome. The plural of anecdote is not data, and a single incident is certainly far too little for it to imply a medical fact. If the article can dispassionately summarise the actual facts (a man ate a very hot chilli pepper in a contest; a few days later he was hospitalised with thunderclap headaches; the neurologists eventually diagnosed RCVS, "probably as a result of eating the chilli"; this was sensationally reported in the popular press), then an argument can be made that it's sufficiently of interest to merit mention in the article. But I find it very difficult to find a form of words that doesn't leave the reader with the impression that eating a chilli caused RCVS, for which there is no significant medical evidence as far as I can see. In fact, the active chemicals are normally considered vasodilators, so any suggestion of causality must be very questionable. --RexxS (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that despite its name (reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome), our article states that the condition can be caused by vasodilation as well as vasoconstriction. Looie496 (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed it does, although it never mentions the word 'vasodilation'. But the actual sources it cites are not so certain. The first source,pmid:25138149, is clear that the symptoms are of vasoconstriction, and that "Many conditions and exposures have been linked to RCVS, including vasoactive drugs ...". The other source is equally clear that "The pathophysiology of reversible cerebral vasoconstriction syndrome is unknown." I still think we're better off not giving the impression that there's any respectable evidence that eating a chilli can cause RCVS. YMMV. --RexxS (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Young blood transfusion 2

    This page could use the attention of experienced medical editors. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Sigh. Not only is the article debate a mess, but the topic of young blood transfusion itself is. Natureium (talk) 00:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice writeup on editing to Circadian rhythm and Circadian clock in journal

    Was cited in the signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2018-05-24/Recent_research. Mentions @Looie496:.

    • Benjakob, O; Aviram, R (June 2018). "A Clockwork Wikipedia: From a Broad Perspective to a Case Study". Journal of biological rhythms. 33 (3): 233–244. doi:10.1177/0748730418768120. PMID 29665713. Open access icon Published April 17, 2018.

    -- Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    The authors of the paper were interested in feedback here. Boghog (talk) 07:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    They really only mentioned me because my identity is public knowledge. My activities in this article have pretty much been confined to maintaining it. Looie496 (talk) 13:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    In my view maintaining pages is vital work. And one of the things that the paper focused on, was what a good job you all have done over time, updating the article as our knowledge of these systems has grown. It is so great that you all have done that, and also great that it was recognized by the authors of the paper. So thanks for that work! Jytdog (talk) 14:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    And I will add, that this is a particular ax of mine. In my view WMF marketing people generally, especially with regard to outreach, puts way too much emphasis on new page creation and not enough on maintenance, which is SO IMPORTANT but gets none of glamour that people put on new pages. It is one reason I am delighted that this paper a) focused on maintenance and b) found us not wanting. (We got lucky on the latter, as there are topics where we would be found very wanting, if anybody analyzed them this way.) Jytdog (talk) 14:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, you don't see these articles pop up on google news... Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    This paper unfortunately contains very sad news about a key editor in that area. I'm updating the relevant pages now.[6] WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I actually contacted arbcom about that before i posted anything as it is an OUTING thing but they said it is fine. I still wasn't going to mention it. But i am glad you did. Jytdog (talk) 04:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Monomelic amyotrophy

    I have completely revised Monomelic amyotrophy in my sandbox:

    revised Monomelic amyotrophy.

    In about 36 hours I'll replace the old page with my revision, as the new page -- and duck. In the meantime, I appreciate your feedback either on the talk page Talk:MMA Revised or alternately MY talk page User_talk:GeeBee60.

    Thanks GeeBee60 (talk) 08:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    commented at user/talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I've placed a Peer Review request. I think the article is good, in part because it has been further edited by 4 experienced editors. My dilemma is that I haven't figured out how best to cut and paste the revision from my sandbox (see above) without loosing all the history attributions of the work of the other editors. GeeBee60 (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you might want to talk to an admin about a WP:HISTMERGE. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks User talk:WhatamIdoing. I posted a summary and request for this in the Teahouse. Maybe not the right place, but it will at least break up their routine.

    peer review needed

    Wikipedia:Peer review/Monomelic amyotrophy/archive1 have done a few edits as well, needs someone else to look at it, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Calcification

    Cardiovascular calcification

    Just came across the article calcification and was shocked at what a giant mess it is...definitely needs a lot of improvement. Every morning (there's a halo...) 13:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems like it used to be alright, albeit short. Oldid here. Maybe restore to this version and work from here? BazinD (talk · contribs) seems to have done some copyvio and then added the current content after being reverted. --Treetear (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That lead! :O Natureium (talk) 20:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Permalink to that version, for those interested. --Treetear (talk) 22:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    will look[7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Honourable Mention

    Seems that we've been noticed. http://www.cancernetwork.com/news/misinformation-rampant-among-cancer-patients LeadSongDog come howl! 17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    LeadSongDog, its a good mention, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:10, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    *sigh* At least some people think that Wikipedia is somewhat reliable for medical information. (Thank you for posting the link, LeadSongDog.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:09, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Criticisms of medicine

    This article/essay came up in the new pages queue. Thoughts? Natureium (talk) 23:48, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    I smell a sock. Hm. This will take some looking into. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah and it's not a real topic (too vague/general for RS) - the article is full of WP:OR/WP:SYN; needs deleting. Alexbrn (talk) 06:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it's quite vague.. it seems like all the subheadings would really be better as their own pages (with better wording of course). For instance, he included a "Scandals" heading and included a handful of scandals, but if we had a "Scandals in medicine" article we could populate it with millions of bytes of information. How did they choose those specific examples? It reads more like an essay because the examples are seemingly arbitrary. The sources are pretty good, it looks like he's interfaced about this article with many members of this WP, as evident through his talk page. I don't think deletion is in order until we figure out which direction to take the article in. I also think each section needs to have a "main article" to direct to if they are going to remain brief. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There's some good material here. I'm not certain it all fits together under that WP:FORKy title. Better to integrate this content into other articles, I'd've thought. Bondegezou (talk) 15:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is unfortunately all over the place. It also fails to recognize that there is no such thing as "mainstream medicine", but only "medicine". Carl Fredrik talk 15:39, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    That's one POV, and it is not universally shared. And you know, there is actually value in being able to differentiate between different types of legally regulated behavior, e.g., the kind that involves setting broken bones vs. the kind that involves physicians prescribing cough syrup for a cold. I'm not sure what that POV calls prescribing useless stuff, but the law calls it "practicing medicine". WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    RSN - Bullet wounds

    Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: Wound characteristics of military-style rifles might be interest to this community vis-a-vis WP:MEDRS and otherwise.Icewhiz (talk) 11:17, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    FA

    Seppi's page is on the front page today. Congrats! Jytdog (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    awesome!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

    The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

    Portals are being redesigned.

    The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

    At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

    The discussion about this can be found here.

    Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

    Background

    On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

    There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

    Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

    So far, 84 editors have joined.

    If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

    If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

    Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:47, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    HIV/Aids (capitalization)

    If a news source has a title with HIV/Aids (lower case ids), should that be followed by {{sic}}?

    It depends on if you are quoting or paraphrasing said news source. This is obviously wrong and makes the source suspect for most stuff. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:02, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Big change of infant massage

    There was a big change in the leading section of infant massage [8] in 2016. The "though the scientific evidence supporting its use is limited" is changed to "though the scientific evidence supporting its use is growing". And the description of the research result is also changed.

    I would like to know whether there is any reliable medical source or scientific evidence supporting its use. Thanks

    --Wolfch (talk) 05:36, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Rewrote to reflect the sources provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=843683874"