Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

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.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 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

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 [1] What are your thoughts on this matter? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

might be worth keeping per [2] [3]inverse psoriasis...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

To address what WAID said above, this page [4] and this page [5] 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 [6] 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)

don't see anything else [7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:17, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Major expansion at Fetal rights - NPOV?

A recent major expansion of Fetal rights was performed [8], 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)

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)

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)

As seen here and here, I was briefly involved with that article back in 2011. It used to be on my WP:Watchlist. I took it off at some point. And because that article is a magnet for the abortion debate, I'd prefer not to get back involved with it. I have enough contentious articles to worry about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

To me it is unclear how I would be advocating for an edit-war WhatamIdoing. All I've done is comment that a user with self-expressed strong anti-abortion views expanded the article with what has been identified by what now is a few editors as questionable content - while at the same time getting rid of POV-tags. CFCF 💌 📧 23:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that you're advocating for an edit war. I do disagree that this edit happened "under the radar", when it was out there for anyone to look at. Sure, it didn't get an immediate public response (which I grant is unfortunately unusual for abortion-related articles), but that doesn't mean that we should imply that anything secretive or underhanded. Removing the POV tags is completely appropriate whenever you believe that you have solved the problem. That's what you're supposed to do! (And harmless at worst, since four-year-old POV tags almost never produce any constructive behavior.)

If you have a problem with the article content – rather than the identity of the contributor – then I encourage you to improve it, or to post specific, actionable suggestions on the talk page. I didn't read the whole thing, but the parts I glanced at looked okay to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

article might need ce [9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

List of synonyms in lead

• [10]

What do people think of this method of removing synonyms from the lead? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If it said "known under several synonyms" in parenthesis or something like that after Geographic tongue I am okay with it, when an article has maybe 5+ synonyms in lead and the synonyms redirect to the article... but as it stands now the reader will not know what information is hidden in the note. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 15:45, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

It should be possible to create a template that utilised the information provided by a redirect to generate a synonym in the lead. The difficulty might be when a redirect wasn't followed. Essentially; if a visitor was redirected to an article that had multiple synonyms, the template would parse "Article name, also known as searched synonym (among others), [lead continues]...", If no redirect had been followed, the template would parse "Article name, also known by several synonyms, [lead continues]..." (where any italic text is injected by the template). Thinking about it more, this wouldn't be appropriate in cases where someone was redirected to a page for something other than a synonym Little pob (talk) 16:20, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I would say "Geographic tongue, also known by several other names,[note]...." Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah that's an improvement imo. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes I like Johnbod's suggestion. Okay to have a couple of names but not more than 3 or 4. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

agree (w/ Johnbod )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Tools for highlighting withdrawn academic papers on the talk pages of articles that cite them, etc.

There is a proposal here that WMF develops some tools for dealing with citations of withdrawn academic journal articles. This idea was discussed in this 2012 WT:MED thread. If you think this would be a good use of WMF's time, please let them know. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

The kind of sources that MEDRS prefers are virtually never withdrawn, so it shouldn't make much of a difference to this project -- at least, to the extent that we follow MEDRS. Now if we had a tool that would highlight primary sources . . . Looie496 (talk) 15:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

If we have a good list of withdrawn papers it would be easy to build a bot to tag them as retracted. Certain retracted papers may still be appropriate in certain places. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:21, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

seems like a good proposal--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month

First off I want to apologize. When I relaunched the MCOTM I really did want to stick with it but some personnel family matters came up right after it began. That said, for those who participated, what are your thoughts? Did you think the MCOTM was beneficial to the Transverse myelitis article as a whole? [Here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transverse_myelitis&oldid=673477707] is the before and [here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transverse_myelitis&oldid=688582387] is it today. Overall, I think the article was improved very much, but still needs more work before it can be considered for a good article nomination. My thought is we should discuss what went wrong and what went right to determine if MCOTM is something we should keep doing. Until then, I think we should keep transverse myelitis as the article as the article of the month. So, what are your thoughts, questions, and concerns? Peter.C • talk • contribs 17:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

the pathophysiology section could have used more work (text/references)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:34, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

It's too rare a condition to justify more collaboration when there are articles about much more common conditions which could use attention. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 12:57, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, but very few suggestions were put forward when MCOTM asked for candidate articles in need of serious work. For MCOTM to function properly, it will require wider participation (at least for the suggestion process but hopefully in improving the article as well). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:55, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Might be better to have that conversation thread on this page rather than on the MCOTM page. More people read here and more likely to get opinions. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 04:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable to me. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• more opinions encouraged (for a topic/article)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Paracetamol - Alzheimer's disease

Paracetamol

Paracetamol#Alzheimer appears to be a paste of the abstract of the Jones article that it cites.[11] It does seem like a summary of the Jones article should be in paracetamol--could someone from here fix it? I'd probably mess it up if I tried. Thanks. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 03:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I removed it. A summary might be WP:UNDUE. The paper only seems to have one citation, a very anti-paracetamol review that nonetheless dismisses it: "relating the ubiquitous paracetamol (Modick et al., 2014) to the worldwide increase of Alzheimer’s disease (Jones, 2014) appears somewhat far-fetched". KateWishing (talk) 03:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I defer to your knowledge on this matter. 173.228.123.101 (talk) 06:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

A template for non-evidence based healing modalities?

Over at Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard I have proposed that we make some kind of template that will allow us to indicate non-evidence-based therapeutic modalities in a more consistent way. [12]. This follows a concern that the way that we indicate lack of evidence is inconsistent and may ultimately lead to confusion. --Salimfadhley (talk) 18:10, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Clitoral Erection and Clitoral Erectile Dysfunction

I recently edited the article on Clitoral Erection by adding a sentence about Clitoral Erectile Dysfunction. Specifically, I stated there is a hypothesis that lack of stimulation during early brain development may cause atrophy of the relative brain areas that control clitoral erectile function, resulting in permanent clitoral erectile dysfunction, although empirical research is necessary for confirmation. I also included a reference to a paper on academia.edu (https://www.academia.edu/s/559e1d73ea) that describes the hypothesis in more detail and offers some documentation. I made no other claims except that the hypothesis exists and its existence may be verified outside Wikipedia.

My contribution was quickly deleted by an editor who referred me to Wikipedia's Medical Source Guidelines, WP:MED I asked on that persons Talk page why my contribution had been deleted, and the person stated "...the source you added is not up to medical standards." I disputed that criticism and then my contribution was also called "Fringe" and "Editorializing," even though my contribution contained no claims of certainty or even probability, and included no words like "clearly" etc. WP:MED Guidelines do also say: "Neither of these pages are 'laws', but are intended to give, inspire, and organize our contributions. They should never prevent anyone from writing and improving medical articles!"

So why wasn't my contribution modified for improvement instead of completely erased without warning? Newnamenow (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Very likely because it was from a unusable source, and there are no reliable sources that would support your statement. CFCF 💌 📧 18:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

CFCF Thanks for your input. But the content I added didn't make any assertions of fact other than to report that there is a hypothesis, and I provided a reference that anyone can check to verify that the hypothesis exists. If the reference was the real issue, then why wasn't my edit marked or modified (e.g. remove the reference and note "needs citation") rather than deleted completely and as quickly as possible? Wikipedia encourages contributors to "be bold." If someone objects to a particular edit by modifying it, that's editing. But if someone responds to a potentially controversial topic by silencing the whole topic, that's not editing - it's censorship. Newnamenow (talk) 12:07, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Boldness is only part of Wikipedia's guideline. The more complete guideline is WP:BRD: bold-revert-discuss. In other words, be bold, but be prepared for your edit to be reverted, and be ready to discuss whether it is appropriate. In this case the issue is whether the hypothesis is notable enough to justify covering it in our article. The best evidence for notability is attention paid to it by other reputable published sources. It's very unlikely that a forum discussion on a web site will be considered notable. See WP:MEDRS for the general policy on sources for medical articles. Looie496 (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Technically, BRD is an optional essay, not a guideline. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: I am the editor Newnamenow is referring to, if you don't already know; see User talk:Flyer22 Reborn#Clitoral erection article. A WP:Permalink for it is here. SMcCandlish stepped in to discuss the matter with Newnamenow at my talk page, and Doc James addressed Newnamenow at User talk:Newnamenow. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Looie496 This discussion here has the appearance of being a technical question concerning Wikipedia policy, and despite the potentially controversial nature of the hypothesis of clitoral erectile dysfunction and its possible cause - if it becomes widely known the careers of some political opportunists and profiteers in the child sex abuse prevention and rescue business would be in jeopardy, as well as casting doubt on the traditional and cherished practice of anti-sex education in early childhood - I will give critics the benefit of the doubt by assuming their intentions are constructive and impartial and their statements of their motives for deleting my edit are sincere. However, I will note that Drcrazy102 has suggested that I should have initiated a discussion on the Clitoral Erection Talk page (which I had already done), but Flyer22 Reborn and other supporters of the deletion have largely confined their comments to Flyer22 Reborn's Talk page (or attempted to redirect the discussion to that page) rather than defending the deletion on the Clitoral Erection Talk page. Newnamenow (talk) 10:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. Without a proper source the material can't go into the article, regardless of how important it is and how obvious it is to you that it is correct. Looie496 (talk) 13:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Newnamenow, unless a person supports child sexual abuse, I don't see how this bit would "put the careers of some political opportunists and profiteers in the child sex abuse prevention and rescue business" in jeopardy "if it becomes widely known." First, "it won't become widely known" because, from what I see, it's not given any serious academic attention. And very likely won't ever be given it. Second, while I am one of the editors who seek to keep pro-child sexual abusers off Wikipedia (WP:Child protection), I was not thinking of a child sexual abuse angle when you added that. And it's suspicious to me that you would jump to a child sexual abuse angle, rather than a masturbation angle. After all, boys generally learn to masturbate before girls, and do it more often than girls. Third, you've been given ample reason for why your content should not be added. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I also already explained in great policy detail to to Newnamenow, in the user-talk thread referred to, why "But the content I added didn't make any assertions of fact other than to report that there is a hypothesis" doesn't cut it. The fact that some idea exists does not make it an encyclopedic topic, not even as a subtopic of another article. If there are no reliable sources indicating that the idea has been backed by real research, or that it has attracted noteworthy commentary or controversy, in independent, high-quality, reliable sources, then it's not encyclopedic information; it's no better than a random blog post. Even if some new idea appears in a refereed journal, if it's a primary research/hypothesis paper that attracts no coverage in followup research or in literature reviews, it's basically just noise. There are literally tens of thousands of academic journals. Nowhere near every single hypothesis that passes just enough peer-review sanity checking to see print in one of them is magically transformed into something that must be included in Wikipedia, and certainly not an idea that warrants a new article (for which we have a particularly high standard covered at WP:NOTABILITY) on this alleged dysfunction. I'm skeptical that this "why oh why can't I include pointers to wacky ideas about ladyparts?" complaint needs to be shopped around from page to page when the question has already been answered, in multiple places, multiple times, by multiple editors. @Newnamenow:, please see WP:IDHT and WP:1AM in addition to the policies and guidelines to which you've been referred many times.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Typology at the Intimate partner violence article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Intimate partner violence#Michael P Johnson's Typology Theory. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:56, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:RfC at the Domestic violence article regarding WP:Alternative names

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Domestic violence#WP:RfC: Is the current lead sentence best for the article?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

RfC closed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Abundant primary sources in Regeneration in humans

I've stumbled upon yet another overlooked corner of Wikipedia – the field of gerontology and regenerative medicine. The article on regeneration in humans may include some of the most egregious examples, but the following articles could do with a good looking over:

• Neuropreservation
• Regenomics
• Life extension
• Regenerative medicine
• Rejuvenation (aging)

Thanks, CFCF 💌 📧 20:22, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

To those add:

• Aubrey de Grey
• Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence
• SENS Research Foundation

Blast! another walled garden. And just when I was thinking we'd nearly finished ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

And geroscience. CFCF 💌 📧 20:32, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, lets make a list:

CFCF 💌 📧 21:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

List

(See Index of topics related to life extension) Please, anyone feel free to add to this list without signing

3

Comments

User:The Transhumanist probably knows a lot about the articles related to this subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Determining most edits to project-included articles by user

Hello - I was informed at the WikiProject Council that WP Medicine at some point determined who made the most edits to your included articles. Can someone please direct me to how I can do that for another WikiProject? I would like to analyze who to invite to join WP Louisville. By the way, I really admire how active and well-structured WP Medicine is. Thanks for any leads! Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 22:35, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what you're looking for, but have you seen Wikipedia:WikiProject Directory/Description/WikiProject Louisville? It shows all recent contributors to articles tagged by the project. Sizeofint (talk) 06:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

It's close to what I'm looking for, thanks. Maybe I can get them to show the number of edits next to each entry. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 12:20, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

We have specific data here for WikiProject Med. It was developed using tools to handle large data sets. If you are a programmer would be possible to duplicate what was done. It was based off the very large data files. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:00, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Party and play

HIV

I've added the Party and play article to WikiProject Medicine because of the public health risk through unprotected sex with large numbers of sexual partners: see this BMJ editorial. I'd greatly appreciate any help editors on this project could bring to bringing this article up-to-date and improving the number and quality of citations. -- The Anome (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

• more editors are encouraged to help--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
• oh yes indeed. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Access Donation: AnnualReviews.Com

Annual Reviews is a publisher of review articles in the sciences and social sciences. Its articles cover major topics in each subject area every few years, with other special topics appearing occasionally. For more information see their website. This partnership provides access to their entire Biomedical Life collection. There are up to 100 one-year accounts available to Wikipedians through this partnership. Please sign up at WP:Annual Reviews!

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi (WMF) (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I really like these. Anyone who doesn't have access should really apply. CFCF 💌 📧 22:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

So far, only two of us seem to have signed up for this. That means that there are 98 slots open – well, 97, because I'm going to be #3. If you were thinking about it, please sign up now. The requirements are 500 (just five hundred!) edits and to have an account that is more than six months old. I don't want any publisher to decide that our interest in review articles is merely lip service, so there's no point in offering us free access to reviews. This is a fabulous opportunity for any content creator. If you don't already have this through work or school, and you have any interest at all in improving articles instead of talking about them, then please sign up. If you use it to make one solid improvement during the next year, then it was worth the cost. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Question about requested edits

Hello,

I am an employee at Manifest, a marketing agency representing Abbott Vascular. Last month I requested edits on Talk pages of several Wikipedia pages: Percutaneous coronary intervention, Coronary stent, Bare-metal stent, Drug-eluting stent, and Bioresorbable stents.

So far, there has been one response, which was on the Drug-eluting stent page, and we are working on requested adjustments for the requests for that page.

Would someone be able to let me know how I may go about having the other requested changes reviewed/made?

Thank you for any input in this regard.

Tom at Manifest (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:35, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

please take to talk pages/articles in question--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

It is completely appropriate for Tom to ask for attention here, and important for us to respond. Our COI policy will not work if properly made requests are not acted on. I have responded at Talk:Percutaneous coronary intervention and will look at the other pages; more input would be useful. Looie496 (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

thank you Louie496--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Looie496 and Ozzie10aaaa. I appreciate your responses and help on this. I will respond to your comments at Talk:Percutaneous coronary intervention. I'll stay posted for comments on the other articles as well. For the other articles, if you believe that I should proceed as you recommend on the Percutaneous coronary intervention page (i.e. make the edits myself with the idea that copy-editing would then take place after that), please let me know. Otherwise, I will await comments on the other pages. Thank you again for your input. Tom at Manifest (talk) 21:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Fatigue = exhaustion?

Was this edit appropriate? My medical English isn't good enough to tell whether "exhaustion" is a synonym for "fatigue". Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:15, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

alternate names:Tiredness; Weariness; Exhaustion; Lethargy [13]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:26, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit to sexual obsessions

Some of the sources added in this edit don't seem to meet MEDRS, but I am posting here to ask if others agree or not. Everymorning (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sexual obsessions#Recently added material. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:40, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: Since Everymorning beat me to posting, I've merged the section I created with this one. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:42, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Non-celiac gluten sensitivity

There have been a number of edits by an editor relating to gluten currently at wheat and earlier at non-celiac gluten sensitivity, such as disputes over this edit (prevalence of it, what is is, etc.). [14]. Could use some eyes from members here, especially since this topic can get into WP:FRINGE territory sometimes. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

This was recently talked here and archived [15].

It seems that there is an interest from some users to delete, modify or "hide" information about non-celiac gluten sensitivity... I can only repeat my same words: "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."

And I would add that it is unfortunate that there is only "one" editor working in this direction, considering the amount of outdated information that exists in Wikipedia.

Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (talk) 06:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Stem cell content

Comments appreciated here Talk:Chronic_obstructive_pulmonary_disease#Stem_cells Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Post-Finasteride Syndrome Foundation

Editors here may remember that the "post-finasteride syndrome" article was deleted as non-notable. It appears that there is an attempt at coatracking the legitimacy of this "syndrome" on this foundation webpage, more eyes would be appreciated. Not sure that this foundation webpage meets WP:N criteria, either. Yobol (talk) 18:09, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Will more editors please take a look to give their opinion? AlexBRN's most recent reversion merely says " Rv. to good, this ain't encyclopedic this stuff" which is a very unhelpful comment. The article is being accused of coatracking because many editors here don't want to acknowledge anything about post finasteride syndrome however when you have a foundation that's main purpose is dedicated to researching the syndrome the matter is nearly one in the same. Thanks. Doors22 (talk) 13:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I did expand on my comment on the Talk page. Yeah, this is yet another attempt by you to coatrack your agenda into Wikipedia. I think what "many editors here" are really thinking is that their patience with this campaign is getting exhausted. Alexbrn (talk) 14:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Sodium_picosulfate

Hi, I've added a bit of mechanism info to the Sodium_picosulfate article. I don't typically edit medical articles, so it'd be useful if someone from this Wikiproject could cast their eye over it to check if I've made any errors. Thanks! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 22:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

That looks pretty good overall, but I suspect that you are used to real-world ideas about sourcing. We usually prefer recent secondary sources (e.g., review articles or book chapters) instead of the original or canonical sources, especially when the original sources are from the previous century. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Speaking generally, I would be inclined to argue that in situations where we have both 'canonical', 'landmark', or 'original' historical studies and recent reviews which support/endorse the earlier work, we ought to be citing both. It's good to give credit to original discoverers and to provide historical context, instead of just a single present-day snapshot.

In the case of this particular article, one could reiterate the citation of reference 6 (Adamcewicz et al., 2011) to support the 'historical' references 7 (Forth et al., 1972), 8 (Jauch et al., 1975), and 9 (Regev et al., 1998)—at least if refs 7, 8, or 9 are original sources for those facts, or if they represent highly-cited 'landmark' works in the literature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, the open-access review (Adamcewicz et al., 2011) was the first thing that I found and was thinking of just using it for the whole section. The reason that I added the primary literature was for a bit more detail on e.g. the prodrug metabolism or formulation (e.g. the review is actually a bit vague on the prodrug aspect). I'll double up for now, but I'm happy to drop the primaries if it turns out I'm in the minority opinion. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 09:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. While I've always been a staunch advocate of robust and up-to-date sourcing, I've also always pushed back against the particularly militant down-the-memory-hole editors who try to prevent Wikipedia from acknowledging the existence of pre-2010 (in two weeks, pre-2011) scientific literature. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:31, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Updated offline app

We have an updated offline medical app [16]. Now includes all of pharmacology and anatomy. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

page looks great[17]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

That one User:Ozzie10aaaa is the wrong one and not made by use. You need to pay for the files for it to work. And we are working to force them to change their name as they are infringing on our trademark. Our is here and completely free [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

thanks for pointing it out,(it is infringement..)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• I set up a project page at Wikipedia:Medical Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:54, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Further details here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/App Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I merged content into the established article and deleted the new one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Rfc can use your input

Feel free to participate | on this Rfc your opinion is most welcome! KoshVorlon 13:33, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

• RfC closed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:15, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• The RfC was closed a couple of days after it started, over the objections of the original poster. I have recommended that the closer revert himself. In the meantime, feel free to share your views anyway if you're interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Protein losing enteropathy

would appreciate any help with this important article/stub, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:08, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Model release - medical photos and more - legal review - WMF grant proposal

I am seeking comments and hopefully endorsements on a draft request to the Wikimedia Foundation for grant funds. If you like, please comment at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Legal review and templates for model release.

For some time I have been collecting examples in Wikimedia projects in which there is some disagreement about whether an image violates personality right and would require a model release to host in Wikimedia Commons. See examples in the discussion sections at

• meta:Grants talk:IdeaLab/Development of a model release process for photos and video

For context on Wikimedia Commons policy, see

• Commons:Commons:Photographs of identifiable people
• Commons:Commons:Country specific consent requirements

Currently, the major criteria for determining if an image is appropriate for inclusion in Commons is whether it has a free copyright license. Some other criteria, including personality rights, are discussed sometimes. My expectation is that Wikimedia Commons will continue to consider only copyright, but in some cases, when someone voluntarily seeks a model release and the photographer and model together agree to post their release in Wikimedia Commons, then I would like for such contributors to have access to a standard model release form which has legal review and is backed by community input.

I found a nonprofit organization with expertise in model releases. They are the Fashion Law Institute and are based in New York City. Among other things, they provide curricula to law schools and fashion schools which want to present classes on fashion law. They also help fashion, advertising, and media companies set policy regarding fashion and communication. I have assisted them in partnering with meta:Wikimedia New York City in drafting an application for a Wikimedia Foundation grant (meta:Grants:Start) to do legal review on the issue, provide expert opinions about when a model release may be used and should not be used, and to draft both a model release document and summary templates to apply to Commons uploads. In my opinion, this kind of legal research can only be done with some payment, and this is an appropriate organization to do this. One of their lawyers has had a Wikipedia account for some years as Fashionethics, and he is my point of contact.

This relates to WikiProject Medicine for several reasons, including the following:

• Some of our contributors take photos while using their own model releases, and it would be good to give them a reviewed standard model release
• It happens that sometimes we face trouble for using photos without model releases
• It might be nice to continue to confirm last year's US Copyright Office Decision that medical imaging is in the public domain as non-creative data

Again, comment at meta:Grants:PEG/Wikimedia New York City/Legal review and templates for model release if you will. I am showing this to WikiProject Medicine participants before I show this more generally around Wikimedia projects. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

You've clearly put a lot of work in to this project, and it is commendable. I would use a standardized release form were one available, because the survival of images is more guaranteed than at present, when it seems that any image can be removed by overzealous deletionists on commons at any time. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The release would be different between health care providers and non health care providers I image? Health care providers need to keep image release forms for their licensing body.

The Wikimedia Movement should not be handling these release forms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:15, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Doc James My expectation is that consent forms will never be managed in a Wikimedia project or in OTRS, which would make this process different from the copyright release. I would like Wikimedia projects to provide a CC-By text of a sample model release, then offer this to institutions or individuals who could use it. The validity of the text would come from its recognition in the Wikimedia community and also from the legal opinion of the Fashion Law Institute, who will endorse at least the initial version and perhaps later versions also. There might be an OTRS process in which an institution can say, "We confirm that we hold the model release" but I would not want them to actually share the model release.

If the release is used then I would expect local institutions to keep the document and information like the model's name. The host institution or individual uploader of the image would confirm "The subject in this photo agreed to this model release" and the template confirmation on Commons would only say that the uploader claimed to have the release. We would WP:AGF from there just as we do now.

I am not yet sure whether the form would need to be different for patients modeling for medical journals versus models posing for fashion magazines. If there is reason to differentiate then multiple versions could be produced. Fashionethics anticipated that perhaps one form and one release could be used in most cases. The nature of the release would be that the model confirms understanding of free licensing and distribution of their photo generally on the Internet, and not only in Wikimedia projects. Personality rights are a separate but related issue - I am not sure how those would be addressed in this system but Fashion Law Institute might be able to say what is and is not generally appropriate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia Clinic Open!

"In a response to rampant poor patient satisfaction scores and an overall demand of patients for more autonomy in their care, a group of internet start-ups have decided to open a network of hospitals where no physicians are required, where patients can receive care they are comfortable with based on their Google searches.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this for real? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it's from a popular medical satire site. :) Keilana (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh =) Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Harry Glicken

Please see Talk:Harry Glicken#Hair pulling. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

[19]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

New image, a painting by Edvard Munch in Borderline personality disorder

Unfortunately, a user reverted the inclusion (as seen here) of the image. After that there was a discussion on the talk page. However, the controversy could not be resolved. Therefore, third opinions would be most welcome. Thanks to all.--Saidmann (talk) 15:30, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:42, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Index of medicine articles

...needs some TLC or LCP. Bazj (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Category:Cancer deaths by country

Category:Cancer deaths by country, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Big_iron (talk) 12:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine

Additional eyes would be appreciated on this article. Old material from QW is being edit warred back in after being removed [20] (by same editor who was correct to initially remove it since it's over ten years old and newer sources are available) in the absence of consensus and in violation of WP:BRD and has removed well-sourced content. Thanks everyone! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 14:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

have commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Getting rid of MEDRS safety information when merging articles?

The articles E-liquid and Electronic cigarette aerosol were merged recently following a inconclusive discussion at [21], but with the removal of nearly all safety information from the articles. The following edit gets rid of several sections concerning the safety and health effects of the substances [22]. CFCF 💌 📧 21:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That is incorrect. The information that replaced it was from the "Safety" page. Its all "safety" information. Chemical claims were moved to the Safety page, they were not simply removed. Though most of it didnt need to be moved because the article as it sat was not a daughter page, but simply a copy and paste coatrack. This was done in accordance of consensus at a merge discussion.[23] Unilaterally replacing things you fought against in that closed discussion but were not found in your favor isnt how things should be done. Opening a discussion on the page and finding if there is consensus to have the material in the page is the way, not running to a wikiproject first before discussion on the articles talk page. AlbinoFerret 22:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Patent nonsense from the editor who deleted the information – despite intense criticism and lack of any support for getting rid of the edits. The merge itself was premature, and was performed to the horribly named new article Electronic cigarette aerosol and e-liquid. The problem with these articles is that they are overlooked by the majority of medical editors, and this needs more eyes'. It should not be possible to avoid scrutiny by removing content in a questionable merge that would never have removed through ordinary editing process on an article. WP:COATRACK is an essay, while the section WP:SYNC "Keeping summary sections and detailed articles synchronized" is an editing guideline! CFCF 💌 📧 07:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Synonyms in infobox?

Not sure if this has been suggested before but could be a solution for dealing with a list of synonyms. Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I like it for when their are lots. We have one or two in the lead and than others in the infobox.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)