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

Sativex (1:1 CBD/THC formulation) at the CBD article

Cannabidiol

Hi all,

I'm having some disagreement with an editor at the Cannabidiol article. From my understanding of WP:MEDRS and WP:RS, we can't extrapolate beyond what the source tells us.

The first paragraph of the article is a section about Sativex (half THC) and its use for MS pain. It makes no mention of CBD other than the fact that it's included. We are giving the reader no information about the effect CBD has on MS pain. My removal of the (erroneous?) material was reverted. I'm hoping to get feedback from others here. The talk page section is here. I'm sure someone here can help. Thanks in advance, petrarchan47คุก 00:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Ozzie, as always. petrarchan47คุก 06:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

thank you for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• per [1]should be updated...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Jytdog

I'd really appreciate it if everyone would stop posting about this person on wiki. It's not seemly to talk about an individual editor in a highly public forum, when that editor can't join the discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
those who wish to leave a messageUser talk:Jytdog#That's all folks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC) As one of the most active medical editors and one of the few who dealt with COI here, this is a huge loss for the project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC) Yup: such was the volume of his work that, all other things being equal, his loss will mean that our medical content will improve significantly less quickly, and may even start to deteriorate. Alexbrn (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2018 (UTC) And as I guessed, over at Talk:Specific carbohydrate diet (the proximate cause of all this), we're getting renewed attacks on MEDRS now that Jytdog's not there to defend it.--RexxS (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC) FYI, Petrarchan47 just recently had to be topic-banned from GMOs (where they also had major problems with MEDRS) for ad-hominems like those you mentioned at the talk page. If that continues, a wider biomedical topic ban might need to be brought up at AE under alternative medicine DS. I don't see any edits being proposed currently though, so I'd be more apt to leave the page be for now unless things get worse. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Not what I wanted. I had posted in that user's support at special:diff/872116397#Statement_by_bluerasberry. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2018 (UTC) I love all the recognition he's gotten on his talk page in light of this development. Just shows how important his work was and still is and the positive impact he's had. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2018 (UTC) Well everyone agrees that what Jytdog did was inappropriate (including him), the reaction of arbcom was a little over the top. We need an arbcom that better reflects the positions of the editing community. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC) This is getting off-topic but ... my understanding is that Arbcom had received a lot of private information that they found compounded the offence. I suppose we'll never know what that was. I note that Jytdog had accumulated a lot of enemies among the paid-editing and quackery editing fraternities here, so I would not be surprised if some "evidence" offered to Arbcom would have been partial. Alexbrn (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2018 (UTC) While I did not support an indef based on Jytdog's usefulness and work on Wikipedia, I also have to trust and hope that multiple arbs when faced with further private information are not stupid enough to be duped. Respectfully, I disagree with Doc and others who assert the arbs should reflect the editing community. In fact the opposite is true; the Arbs should represent our overriding behavioral policies. Policy is how we represent the totality of the community as best we can and avoid being sucked into the ebb and flow of community position and ultimately bias. The end can never justify the means. Everyone must adhere to the rules. Everyone. When we allow the means to outstrip our own established policies our next step can be a combination of chaos, witch hunts and damage to individual editors. None of this provides a safe or even comfortable editing environment for WP editors and their ultimately, best work. Jytdog admits to making mistakes and he had the opportunity to face the arbs and discuss a way forward. He chose to leave. Even now, as very few editors are ever truly banned from editing, he likely has room to negotiate coming back. Littleolive oil (talk) 16:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC) If the arbs are detached from the editing coalface it's possible they have limited ability for cannily parsing submissions from opponents of Jytdog. One need only look at some of the statements during the case or some of the gleeful grave-dancing that's followed to appreciate that some of these opponents have a less than fulsome relationship with truth. Alexbrn (talk) 16:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC) If I read it correctly, the indef was issued pursuant to Jytdog's expressed wish, and should that wish eventually change then the door is not permanently closed, although it will go through the Arbcom passageway. In the meantime, there does need to be policy progress on resolving the intrinsic tension between wp:OUTING and wp:COI. The inability to act against problematic COI and paid editors has been allowed to fester far too long, to the point where it leads frustrated users such as Jytdog or OrangeMarlin into trouble. There must be a better way to deal with this.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC) Scapegoating Once again I find an odd disconnect between WP:MED and the wider WP community. The latter having a huge WTF and the former coalescing round one-of-their-own, protecting and praising them, trying their hardest to overlook the problems others see, viewing those that disagree as "opponents". You are kidding yourselves if you think Jtdog is gone just because he chose to. Taking an on-wiki dispute into "I know who you are, where you live/work" phone-call-out-of-the-blue territory, while retaining anonymity oneself, is a horrific power dynamic. But the issues with Jtdog's editing were not unique to him, and don't scapegoat him in order to avoid some WP:MED self reflection. One example at the Arb discussion stood out: this statement by User:Julia W. (I'm pinging Julia out of courtesy, but don't really want to drag her into anything she doesn't want to). I know Julia from featured pictures, and she's a very friendly sensible editor, and great photographer too. My guess is the dispute she refers to is at Osimertinib in January and later Rociletinib in March. On Osimertinib, Jytdog removed some text added by Julia about resistance developing, citing MEDRS. Jytdog then has an edit war over this text with another editor who is now blocked. Julia then restored the text citing a review article. This demonstrates that the information was never actually in dispute, and if Jytdog had either expert knowledge or bothered to do a search himself, he could have replaced the source. Further Jytdog didn't ask Julia to provide a better source, in a courteous and professional manner, but simply removed it all. I just googled "Osimertinib resistance" and my thoughts are that any editor modestly familiar with the article subject should know that resistance is an essential issue to note. Instead of regarding Julia as a valued editor who clearly has an interest in the topic and understands oncology research, he created conflict and vandalised her contributions. In March, Julia added some good extra information to Rociletinib. The issue Jytdog seemed to have with that, is that a section was titled "Medical uses" when the drug was never licenced. The conflict here is how to refer to experimental medicines? According to the linked papers, this drug was used by 456 patients who had specific mutations in their cancer that meant existing drugs were ineffective. These patients were given this drug by doctors in the hope it would treat their cancer. That's a medical use: the drug isn't cosmetic or a food supplement. It didn't reach routine clinical practice, though. Anyone with a rare or terminal disease will know that there are a number of treatment options only available as part of a clinical trial. These treatments are given by doctors to patients to make them better. Even approved, licenced drugs are often given to patients out of hope rather than confidence. Julia made several improvements to the short article over a few days. Jtdog's response was to remove the entire "Medical uses" section and another sentence, with the comment "there was never a clinical use - it was only in clinical research". This is a nuance that could have been dealt with with a small change to the section title, while retaining all that Julia had added. There followed an edit war where both parties reverted equally, though Jytdog got in first with the user page template to warn Julia for edit warring. He twice referred to Julia's additions as "spam". He even dumped a patronising "Welcome" section on her page -- an editor who has been here for 10 years. On the article talk page, he accused Julia of editing like a newbie, so deserving of the patronising response. Jytdog admitted following her from the other article, though doesn't seem to have noticed that the text he edit warred over there, and boasts about fighting a crazy banned user, was actually already restored by Julia with an acceptable ref. Julia writes "Rather than completely reverting me, pasting welcome templates, and calling me a "newbie", I would appreciate specific, helpful feedback in the future". I hope we can all see that is a complaint, and "in the future" is not a request for immediate paragraphs of mansplaining, but that's what she got. My point of adding this is example is that this style of battleground editing is typical of WP.MED. You all praise Jytdog for being thoroughly and dependably hostile to your "opponents". But not only is this editing disrespectful bullying, it also drives away experts and good faith knowledgable editors like Julia. My guess is Julia knows more about third-generation epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitors than most folk here. Perhaps anyone here. Wikipedia's loss. I think WP:MED editors should be careful editing subjects where they are not experts (and having MD or Dr in your name, doesn't make you an expert in all the medical sphere). They should take more care to collaborate than to fight. Accept and retain imperfect work knowing that WP is a work-in-progress and try to collaborate to polish rather than bin it. Reverting text with weak MEDRS sources should be a last resort, when you know the text is wrong or likely to be wrong. Don't go calling 10-year-WP editors "newbies". Recognise that if you revert work someone has spent several days on in good faith, then you are the vandal. And if you revert more than once without genuinely seeking and working towards consensus with a good-faith-editor, then you are an edit warrior. -- Colin°Talk 19:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC) @Colin:, I think everyone here recognizes that Jytdog wasn't a perfect editor. What people bemoan is that one of the most prolific predatory/crap/junk science/quack medicine fighter is gone. Jytdog was very, very, effective at finding and removing crap, even if his false positive rate was higher than desired when dealing with non-crap. The best analogy is Jytdog is to crap what radiation therapy is to cancer. It'll kill cancer cells very well, but will also kill some healthy cells as a collateral. Sure there are other ways to fight cancer, but losing access to that method of treatment would be a net negative. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC) Great analogy and Jytdog will be sorely missed, but moving forward, I think the entire project needs to move towards a more targeted therapy with an improved risk–benefit ratio. Boghog (talk) 20:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC) Agreed. WP:CRAPWATCH will help with that, once it's finalized. It's in a usable state now, just not very friendly, with some kinks still needing to sorted out. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC) The thing is I really don't want to make this just about Jytdog's failings, but there is something really weird about WP:MED's comments about him. I have looked at many posts about this incident. Two WP:MED editors have predicted or claimed there is much gravedancing, but I haven't found any at all. Perhaps it is on individual articles. I have found at Arb a truly shocked community but it stands out like a sore thumb when a WP:MED editor has posted there, because they have put their blinkers on. And Jytdog's talk page is nothing but eulogy. Contrary to views expressed above, it was not just COI editors and POV pushers that had a problem with Jytdog's bullying. I see no recognition of this. But also I see no recognition that the problem was not limited to Jytdog, hence the title of this section. It is institutional here: the revert warrior bully who thinks gaining consensus is something only other people need to do; the editor who applies the 3RR warning template to their "opponent"'s talk page just before reverting for themselves a second time; the editor who treats anti-vac loopies and PhD researchers with exactly the same contempt and patronising attitude; the editor who has no respect for topic experts; the editor who clearly knows absolutely nothing about an article topic but will revert-blank sections they are ignorant of just because of MEDRS and has to be tediously and slowly taught by their "opponent" about the subject before they gatekeep the content back again..... This is my experience of WP:MED and the experience of others I know here. I see it from multiple editors in 2018 and in the years before. Lots of WP:MED editors have expressed wishes for Jytdog to return. I don't share that view. Partly because what he did crossed a line we, and I hope WMF, would be unhappy with editors ever crossing, and is very scary, but also because he was a bully. Nobody is all bad, of course, as you have all recognised, but still. There are other bullies here. It isn't too late to examine whether your "cancer radiation therapy" mode of editing is where you want to be. What are you guys doing to spot experts making their first steps here and protecting rather than fighting them? Or the lay enthusiast who has a good knowledge of the subject, good indentions, but lacks article access. How about recognising this is a wiki and it is ok to keep imperfect material added in good faith, rather than always reverting back. A software analogy: Wikipedia should be like beta-quality software all the time -- the "pre-release" rather than the "stable" branch. What are you doing about calling each other out over bullying and stamping it out? Earlier this year I was contacted by several editors grateful that I had stood up to bullying from WP:MED, who felt very alone and powerless against this institution. These were not loopy anti-vacs or vandals but editors you want. JuliaW wasn't one of them (I just saw her post at Arb) but look at her user page. That's a Wikipedian you want working with you. What are you doing to make sure that doesn't happen again? Don't use Jytdog as a scapegoat. -- Colin°Talk 08:36, 12 December 2018 (UTC) "I see no recognition of this", if you want to ignore the part where I said "I think everyone here recognizes that Jytdog wasn't a perfect editor" or "his false positive rate was higher than desired when dealing with non-crap", that's on you. Jytdog was good at fighting crap. He was really good at it. He was bad at other things, including taking a more measured, nuanced approached in cornercases. If your goal is 'help to bring experts in', Jytdog wasn't the one to do that. Jytdog was a watchdog that prevented crap to get in. As for the gravedancing, it won't be so much reliable editors doing the grave-dancing, but rather unscrupulous shills and quacks that will be glad to see Wikipedia's immune system weakened. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:08, 12 December 2018 (UTC) Lovely gravedancing for all to see here. I thought this project immune, but you live and learn. -Roxy, the dog. wooF 13:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC) @Colin: "it stands out like a sore thumb when a WP:MED editor has posted there, because they have put their blinkers on": Had I got my blinkers on when I posted there, Colin? What had I missed? Inquiring minds want to know. "also I see no recognition that the problem was not limited to Jytdog": What problem was that, then, Colin? Who are these other editors who are displaying the same problem? Don't be coy. If it's important, then tell us (but you'd better have good evidence backed up with diffs, because unsubstantiated slurs on editors in good standing are not going to go down well). "What are you guys doing to spot experts": Which experts would those be, Colin? The ones who claim huge expertise (see WP:ESSJAY), but then repeatedly demonstrate a complete ignorance of the difference between a trial and a meta-analysis, or between a single study and and a review? How should we be protecting them? By accepting their edits that make an article worse? By doing nothing when they edit-war to repeatedly remove good quality secondary sources and replace them with a mishmash of primary sources, OR and editorialising? By shrugging our shoulders when they ignore advice for the sixth time to actually read MEDRS? Go ahead, feel free to give some practical advice for when those things happen. 'examine whether your "cancer radiation therapy" mode of editing is where you want to be': Nice analogy, but what's your implied alternative? Palliative care for Wikipedia until it finally passes away under the weight of undisclosed paid editing, pharma shills and single purpose accounts who know the Real Truth™ about medicine. Make no mistake, the editors here are able to hold back that tide only by maintaining a strict adherence to the principles that the community has agreed: WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEDRS. I understand what we will lose if we fail to do that, but I feel you should tell us what we will gain by not doing it. --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC) I'm not celebrating at at Jytdog's block at all. Your response fills me with despair for this project. This is exactly the kind of snarky childish abuse that Jytog gave to Julia in the example I gave. -- Colin°Talk 18:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC) I didn't say you were celebrating anybody's block. What I do say is that you are vindictively tarring other unnamed medical editors with the same brush as has been used. Those are cheap shots that reflect your disdain for MEDRS and for all the editors working so hard to maintain the quality of medical articles in the face of unending pressure. Julie is a friend of mine and I'm a damn sight more familiar with the troubles she's had from rogue editors and admins than you are, so I'll thank you not to blather about what you're ignorant of. Your contributions here are a disgrace and you should be ashamed of the smears you've made. --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

He Jiankui

need eyes on this article editors such as Special:Contributions/CRISPR_Editor and others are having 'field day' (Jyt use to edit this article and it is in the scope of Wikiproject Medicine)thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:53, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

This article is about someone who's been in the news. As usual for subjects of media attention, it'll probably be easier to clean up (and your improvements more likely to 'stick') if you wait for a week or so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, but the same tactic doesn't work for the requested move on the talk page. --RexxS (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

its been more than a week and still [2]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:38, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Need eyes on diabetes and related articles

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick has prompted an influx of medical SPAs, apparently; see for example Talk:George_D._Lundberg#Edits_by_Amandazz100. Eyes may be needed, for example, on Diabetes_mellitus and History of diabetes. I lack the background to help effectively. EEng 19:42, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The user Amandazz100 is a low-carb high-fat fanatic. Her edits have not been helpful, they ignore several Wikipedia policies. If her behaviour continues I will report. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 21:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Having looked at their contributions (and speaking as a fellow British skeptic), I can understand your frustration, Skeptic from Britain. Nevertheless, in these cases, I recommend avoiding making any statements prejudicial to the other editor, especially when their contributions are much more justifiable targets than the person anyway. You are likely to find that ANI reports are easy to derail if the other party can counter-claim by criticising your civility or complaining about personal attacks. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 00:04, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Good advice. Focus needs to stay on the content question, much as the desire to strangle people can become overwhelming at times. I didn't write the prior sentence, my evil twin did. Anyway, that's why I asked for eyes with knowledge in this domain to keep an eye, since I'm out of my depth. EEng 00:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Similar stuff is happening at Tim Noakes. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 00:38, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a general reminder for everyone: Please remember to only Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor when disputes like this come up. We'll probably see more enthusiastic newbies writing about diets for the next month or so, until they give up on their New Year's resolutions. Just hang in there with good sources and a healthy dose of realistic m:eventualism. This, too, shall pass. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately you are not informed about all of this, they are not "enthusiastic newbies". Go on twitter and search up LCHF and Wikipedia or Malcolm Kendrick, Tim Noakes etc. These conspiracy theorists are campaigning against Wikipedia, they are trying to boycott and cry "censorship" because a few articles were deleted for low-carb writers. They have also been sending spam emails and threatening emails to the WMF office. I have read multiple conservations on Reddit and Twitter and their warped idea is to send their proponents to Wikipedia and remove criticisms of low-carb dieting. The Tim Noakes article is just a start of this. I would suggest that all these articles need to be watched. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 13:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

You registered your account last February, right? So you probably don't know that every January, we get a lot of newbies (that is, new to Wikipedia, not newborns with no history elsewhere) signing up and trying to edit. You might have been the very tail-end of last year's crowd. ;-) Articles related to their New Year's resolutions seem to be a common thing for these enthusiastic newbies to edit. For example, we'll see newbies trying their best in diet and exercise articles, and an uptick in self-promotion by small business owners. But they go away again; it's just a matter of patiently explaining the concept of neutrality – that Wikipedia is neither "for" nor "against" low-carb diets (whatever that term means this week) – for a few weeks, until they either adapt or go away. Then things get back to normal until the September wave of students arrives. It's manageable, if you stick to basic principles. You'll just drive yourself crazy if you worry about trying to win a WP:BATTLE about which diet is The One True™ Scientific Diet For Everyone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

How to keep an eye on drafts at Articles for Creation

We sometimes have medical articles at AfC which languish for lack of expert reviewers. I see that you already have Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Article alerts linked at the bottom of the project page. The "Newly Created Article" service run by InceptionBot creates User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult, which lists two weeks worth of new articles that meet the criteria, including drafts. Please link to this on the main project page and consider encouraging editors to take a look at medical drafts. Thankyou. StarryGrandma (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:StarryGrandma appears to be a fairly non specific list. Most do not relate to WP medicine. A good underlying concept though and I would be happy to go through medicine specific ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James The rules used when parsing the articles are fairly wide-ranging (sensitivity rather than specificity). But they seem to have picked up all the new medical-related drafts in the last couple of weeks, so that makes it useful. I've accepted Hemodynamics of the aorta and rejected Draft:OCT blood glucose monitoring. It will be good to have medical eyes. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:16, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

User:EpochFail was going to work on extending ORES to do automatic 'suggestions' of relevant WikiProjects. I don't know what the status is, but I'm hopeful that it would be more effective than AlexNewArtBot's keyword-based system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Still no good implementations yet. But the "drafttopic" prediction system works really well for medical article drafts. E.g. take the first revision of "Maturity onset diabetes of the young" (revid: 7821351). If we ask ORES to predict what topics that article draft covers, it settles on "STEM.Medicine" with 99.3% confidence. I'm still pitching this routing technology to Wikimedia Product teams. As far as I know, there's nothing concrete on their road maps yet. I'd be happy to work with some bot/tool developers in the meantime. Maybe AlexNewArtBot could be adapted to use ORES. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 21:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It looks like User:Bamyers99 is the person to ask about that. Oooh, and he knows PHP, which is generally a good sign. Aaron, what kind of shape is the project in? I assume it's going to take more than a few minutes, but is this weeks/months/years? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

From an external perspective, it seems like it would pretty darn easy to apply ORES here. The greatest difficulty is in making an external call to the ORES service. E.g. https://ores.wikimedia.org/v3/scores/enwiki/<revision ID>/drafttopic will get you the prediction in a JSON format. Once you have that prediction, routing should be relatively straightforward. E.g. if score.probability["STEM.medicine"] > 0.5, route to WikiProject Medicine. --EpochFail (talk • contribs) 17:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

An ORES rule type has been added to InceptionBot. The Medicine rules have been updated to use this rule. You can see what pages matched the new rule in the Medicine log. The ORES topics that are available are listed at the end of the User:AlexNewArtBot#Create the rules section in a collapsed box. --Bamyers99 (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Antivax on Wiley

doi:10.1002/9781118663721 may be a source to keep an eye on: https://twitter.com/SmutClyde/status/1072564116550754305 Looks like it's been removed before from some articles like Immunologic adjuvant, judging from spam reports. Nemo 14:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Neuroscience of sex differences article

More eyes are needed at Neuroscience of sex differences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

On a side note: This is another article that Jytdog was concerned about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is currently undergoing WP:Student editing. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

will watch--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Multiple chemical sensitivity

A trio of new accounts making FRINGEy changes to Multiple chemical sensitivity. Please send reinforcements. Natureium (talk) 02:55, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked in on that article for two and a half years, and it looks like the people who used to follow it, such as User:Sciencewatcher are not very active right now. The traditional difficulty with that article is that new editors want to make it reflect the views of MCS-supportive clinicians, as opposed to reflecting the views of the average clinician.

The thing that always seems weird to me is that the more MCS-skeptical parts of the literature indicate that most people who show up in a doctor's office and say that 'chemicals' make them sick actually have anxiety or depression that can be treated, and that the 'chemical' symptoms go away when those conditions are treated. But the new editors who say that they (or their loved ones) "really" have MCS don't want to say that anyone might mistakenly self-diagnose themselves with MCS. It's weird: if you "really" have something (anything), what's the value to you in letting people who don't actually have it claim that they do? It'll just screw up research that could benefit you. (See: all the people who are tired all the time and claim that they have Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, because that the same thing, right?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how if they have that much of a plan re self-diagnosis, but in the realm of wikipedia, I have removed the new material and another account adds it back. Natureium (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Research project on wiki

Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 60#Heads-up: problematic survey research ongoing on English Wikipedia if you get an invitation to participate in a research study. Most are great, and apparently one of the recent ones isn't so great. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

thanks for info WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Request move

Health Centre

So far there is not much participation in the discussion whether or not to move Health care to Healthcare. Feel free to join if you wish. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Comment on draft

Your comments on Draft:Neuropelveology are welcomed. Please use either Yet Another Articles for Creation Helper Script by enabling Preferences → Gadgets → Editing → Yet Another AFC Helper Script, or use {{afc comment|Your comment here. ~~~~}} directly in the draft. Thank you. Sam Sailor 11:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

article/draft needs to follow MEDRS(secondary sources)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Summarizing new articles from ADA on low carb diet page

I am having an issue with updating the Low-carbohydrate diet#Diabetes entry.

Recently the ADA released the "2018 consensus report on Type 2 Diabetes by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD)"

The American Diabetes Association also released its "Professional Practice Committee: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2019."

These two documents mark a sea-change in ADA policy toward low carb diet. It is now included as an option for Medical Nutrition Therapy (MNT), which is recommended by the ADA.

What's happening is that any attempt to accurately summarize these articles as they relate to LC diets is being instantly reverted or edited in very biased and slanted manner. The editor I am having this disagreement with suggested I request help here.

Here is the talk page: Talk:Low-carbohydrate diet

Thank you, CarbShark (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Let me just say I admire the fact you are trying to update this article. But unfortunately I think you are taking out of context what is in these sources, I could be wrong about this but the user you talk about is an experienced editor and warned you about this [3]. I think the best thing to do would get the opinion of @Doc James:. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 22:25, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

So I had a look at these references and this is interesting:

Studies have demonstrated that a variety of eating plans, varying in macronutrient composition, can be used effectively and safely in the short term (1–2 years) to achieve weight loss in people with diabetes. This includes structured low-calorie meal plans that include meal replacements (72–74) and the Mediterranean eating pattern (75) as well as low-carbohydrate meal plans (62). However, no single approach has been proven to be consistently superior (76,77), and more data are needed to identify and validate those meal plans that are optimal with respect to long-term outcomes as well as patient acceptability.

(my bold). Can you explain how this fits your claim that there is "a sea-change in ADA policy toward low carb diet"? I am not seeing any long-term health benefits from this diet in relation to diabetes, and the ADA contrary to what you claim on the talk-page is not specifically recommending this diet. MatthewManchester1994 (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. First it is a sea-change in that prior to this release the ADA has regarded Low Carb diets as dangerous and promoted a low fat diet for years. In this paper, while they have not completely reversed course and recommended LC diets above all others (which I never claimed) they included low carb diets in the discussion of Medical Nutritional Therapy. And excluded the low fat diet.

In the section on diet where they make their recommendations they recommend diets or eating patterns that meet a set criteria. Then in the descriptions of those diets they indicate that LC diets (and others) meet the criteria they established. They added caveats for LC diets (which IMO are not justified, that's just me) and those should be mentioned in the article.

Do you agree that the edits and reverts following my summaries of these two papers were biased against LC diets?

I don't believe I'm being unreasonable nor am I insisting that it has to be my version. If there is an issue (for example, I didn't distinguish between T1 and T2 diabetes in part) then that can be collaboratively edited to correct that issue, rather than entirely discard the edit or replace it with something far more biased in the other direction. CarbShark (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

You are correct the user is an experienced editor, and yes, he has warned me. He suggested I bring this issue up here to get someone with medical expertise and fresh eyes to look at the page. That certainly seems reasonable.CarbShark (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Will look at this in more detail in a day or two when I get home. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

If you come to an agreement, I suggest using a more precise expression than "sea change" which may not be understood by all readers. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 04:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a truly major change for that organization, and we need to revise some articles in response. I think it will be important to present the information in context (e.g., "one of several acceptable diet plans", without implying that it's the best option or the only recommended option), but it should be added. The magnitude of the change for that org can be dealt with at the article about that org. Articles on Type 2 diabetes and low-carb diets need, at minimum, to be revised to remove any mention of their opposition, and some of them should probably be revised to say that the ADA accepts them. (Also: Note that their acceptance of low-carb diets in general is not the same thing as them supporting every single low-carb or no-carb diet that's ever been devised.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

That is reasonable. The ADA recommends MNT, and lists criteria for MNT eating plans, and then says LC diets (and other diets) meet those criteria. But, yes, they do not specifically say they "recommend low carb diets." It should also be mentioned that they have caveats for LC diets that they do not for other diets (although in my opinion those caveats also apply). It should also be pointed out the ADA indicates LC diets have shown the potential to reduce the need for medications for T2 diabetics, which they do not indicate for other diets. Finally the ADA link should be clearly identified as their Standard of Care document, not just "ADA says"CarbShark (talk) 18:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

User:WhatamIdoing what text at type 2 DM do you feel needs changing? It already say a low carbohydrate diet may improve BS control. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@CarbShark: Could you explain what difference you perceive between 'the ADA link should be clearly identified as their Standard of Care document' and 'just "ADA says"'? --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@RexxS:The ADA Standard of Care carries more weight than a simple ADA editorial or opinion. It's the guidance that is provided to caregivers (clinics; dietitians, etc.) and should be distinguished from the somewhat dismissive "ADA says".CarbShark (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing:, @Alexbrn: & @Doc James:Below is what I would replace the current text with.

Limiting carbohydrate consumption is a traditional treatment for diabetes – indeed, it was the only effective treatment before the development of insulin therapy – and when carefully adhered to, it generally results in improved glucose control, usually without long-term weight loss.

A 2018 consensus report on type 2 diabetes by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes (EASD) found that a low-carbohydrate diet was found to reduce requirements for medication and improve glycemic control while the Mediterranean diet and a low-carb version of the Mediterranean diet were found to have somewhat better glycemic control.

The ADA's Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes includes low-carbohydrate diet as a potential Medical Nutrition Therapy option for most patients with type 2 diabetes, along with Mediterranean, DASH and plant based diets. The ADA also noted there is confusion over the definition of what constitutes a low carbohydrate diet and that more longer term studies are needed.

CarbShark (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Major COI issues with Skeptic from Britain and diet articles, etc

As WAID says: 'tis the season for increased interest in our diet articles. It appears there is some kind of Facebook group coordinating an effort to change Low-carbohydrate diet, and Jimmy Wales is being petition on twitter in parallel to this. Apparently Wikipedia is controlled by vegans - who knew! More eyes on this and our other diet articles could be helpful over the festive season. Alexbrn (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I came here to warn that Skeptic from Britain, briefly MatthewManchester1994, seems like he may actually be more accurately named “Vegan only diet activist from USA” and was manipulating people on-Wiki that he was a skeptic to hide his agenda. Of course I cannot reveal any personally identifying information and won’t. Vegans are posting off-wiki that they will carry on from where Skeptic from Britain left off (after he was outed off-wiki and became a vanished user) and will wage a campaign on-wiki against all diets that involve killing/eating animals. This editor has caused several articles to be deleted and may have seriously biased a wide range of articles, which is why I raise this here.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:06, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

They are all conspiracy theories being circulated on social media. The Skeptic from Britain was not a vegan. 82.132.231.126 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect IP editor, the last message by now vanished user, formerly Skeptic from Britain, claims the outing was correct - he stated himself that his real life name has been posted on social media and so is leaving Wikipedia, thereby admitting that he is a USA based vegan anti-animal produce activist rather than a British based Skeptic. Why would he suddenly need to change username and then become a vanished user if the outing was false? I think any articles that were deleted should be restored and a second vote/discussion had.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 03:52, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

British sceptics spell sceptic with a letter ‘c’ whereas in the USA it is spelt with a K so even his username is a red flag.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:41, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the first I heard of any concerted effort to edit or manipulate wiki pages was after this dispute started and I followed links on talk pages. I am not part of any group or team. I used to be a regular contributor to the Medical Research into LC diets page, and stopped when that was being merged here. (although I did mention this dispute in a LC fb group) CarbShark (talk) 04:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

I am concerned he has Sockpuppet accounts. It does appear, from reading social media from the vegan community, he has meat puppet activists. I am also worried about the damage he has caused by his prolific editing as I saw many established editors backing him up again and again in content disputes (obviously thoroughly taken in by his presentation as a sceptic editor) rather than challenging him.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 04:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)