User talk:Doc James/Archive 49

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hi, I appreciate your reasons for removing my edit, and I now wish to address your concerns. A list of films featuring psychosis is notable and relevant as it helps to illustrate the condition in a way that is accessible by the general public. With respect to the references, the films listed exist on wikipedia, and the wiki pages describe the psychosis described in the film. TruthInfects (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Are their any refs. This seems to be OR or trivia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:28, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


The reference you've deleted was at the beginning of the article and was accepted by all those who had revised (Garrondo, James, etc.).I just moved it to pediatrics. This is a collective case of illness has been reported by different physicians. Please replace it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luis cerni (talkcontribs) 14:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear Doc.

Scissor-for-paper.jpg Silver Scissors
Please do not just cuts, also returns the erased by mistake, as were the risk factors (after I provided of secondary sources). We also need your constructive cooperation. Now you can reintegrate what cut of sick babies in Israel, it was just moved from one place to another at the botton.

regards Luis cerni (talk) 14:21, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Please use secondary sources. I have a great deal of difficulty understanding your English. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


Hi -- I'm starting to get the feeling that you're showing a few signs of incipient burnout, which would be a real tragedy. Let me gently urge you that you don't need to bear the weight of the world on your shoulders, and you're only responsible for the things that you do yourself, not for fixing the bad things that other people do. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:55, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The content on Wikipedia get fairly miserable when one looks at conditions of mid importance. No getting burned out, just looking at a few pages farther afield as I am updating some mortality data to 2010 by WHO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:03, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Articel changes: Candidal_vulvovaginitis#Lifestyle

Hello, I'd like You to elaborate on some edits to the article/section mentioned beforehand since they apear (at first sight) to stand in copmlete oposition to what can be found anywhere else. Like this source:

The text pice "Infections often occur without sex and cannot be related to frequency of intercourse". apears to be the only part where they agreen.

" Tight-fitting clothing, such as tights and thong underwear, do not appear to increase the risk." This is true as long we are talking about cotton NOT worn in multible layers or tight woven synthetics on top hindering heat disapation, absorbtion and evaportion of fluids. This is often a problem with synthetic lingery, covering the litle cotton patch on the inside. Same with tights in diffent combinations. The german version on "Gusset" is pretty much complete regarding this Synthetic hospital panties have a wide weave. So no problem there.

"Neither do personal hygiene methods." Well.... waht about the good old "wipeing from front to back" and remaing fluff from tampons?

GMLSX (talk) 04:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

NLM is not a very good source. Have you had a chance to read the references supporting the text in question? Lancet is a good journal and 2007 is fairly recent. Have you seen more recent reviews that contradict this? Additionally there is no reason that wiping another direction would affect the risk. We do not have candida in our rectum but E. Coli. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
No, I did not take the chance as the almost 30USD (I guess they don't take paypal?) apear not to be well spent on a single artikle if I can ask someone who allready has access to it. Note: I'm not asking for a free copy! The only articles I can compare in quality are from Dr. med. Iris Lipinska (Grützmacher) (Late 1980, about general vaginal health) and The Doctors Book of Home Remedies, Thousands of Tips and Techniques Anyone Can Use to Heal Everyday Health Problems. Bantam, USA 1991 ISBN 0553291564. Dr. Lipinska's work may be the reason why prevetion for candida and E. Coli is often confused as there is no differentitation on deases. Judgeing from serval entrys on todays forums, the given advise works most of the time. Speaking of todays forums: too small bicyle saddles can also couse the skin to crack in that aerea, providing weak spots for candida to thrive and hide. Both women changed to a wider saddle and the problem never reacured. GMLSX (talk) 06:04, 21 July 2013 (UTC) good night.
Will send you some stuff. WPMED tries hard to base the content on high quality sources per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerns raised

Moved from WP:MED. -- Scray (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

I have noticed on various edits on various articles by Doc James edits being described as "trimmed" which implies reduces or slimmed down to allow future growth, when the the actual edit is a complete DELETE of related content. This suggests the the editor is trying to avoid discussion regarding the content, and not willing to explain or discuss the reasons for the deletion. This could be interpreted as vandalism to have an article match your own particular point of view. dolfrog (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you referring to this removal of the one letter alternative spellings here? [1] I am of the opinion that we do not need all these slight variations of spelling to be listed in the lead. But have no strong feelings either way and thus have let your revert be.
Or are you referring to my deletion of these authors efforts to spam themselves into Wikipedia [2]
Or maybe these authors second attempt to spam all their papers into Wikipedia as removed here [3]
Or my moving of this way to technical text to a subpage and replacing it with a reasonable summary in these edit[4] as per the "this article may be too technical tag" Of which I started a discussion above.
Am happy to discuss. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:27, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I am now following up some of this users other efforts [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:31, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I am saying that you are using the term "trimming" in many articles without explaining what you have deleted and why, and not entering into a discussion if some of what you have deleted could be copy edited to be included in the article. [6] If you are deleting spam then state you are "deleting spam", not trimming it. You seem to want all article to only reflect the views of those who live in North America and your culture, and not a more universal or global and encyclopedic view dolfrog (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think this is the place to discuss one editor's behavior - their talk page would be more appropriate. Asking folks here to go there, if you want participants here to be aware, would be fine. I also don't see consistent evidence of all the things you are claiming. --Scray (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Disability-adjusted life year for schizophrenia per 100,000 inhabitants in 2004.
An interesting accusation seeing that I have adding huge amount of global disease prevalence statistics.[7] As well added all these maps looking at DALYS that I helped put together with a commons editor. I have added very little North American data on epidemiology. Dolfrog began this conversation without first using the talk page of the article in question. Anyway I am happy if anyone wishes to move this discussion to my talk page. I will refrain from doing so as I am involved. Doc James (talk ·contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:08, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I can confirm that Doc James regularly implements a global perspective for epidemiological data and encourages other editors to do the same. And he always encourages use of reliable medical sources, from whatever provenance. He also warns other editors that his contributions may need some clean-up. Unfortunately, there's no easy way of going back to fix an edit summary... Although I can see what he meant by "trim" within the context of an entire page, maybe that's a term best reserved for copyedits? 2c, (talk) 07:34, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not a good idea to simply judge an edit by its edit summary. People should be looking at the edits in question.
User dolfrong and I had a substantial disagreement regarding the use of lists of journal articles in the article space (not as references but just for the sake of listing). This can be read here [8]. Consensus was against their inclusion. Thus I trim them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Fwiw... just pointing out that, although lexically correct, "trim" (wikt:trim) may not be an ideal choice of word there; "remove spam" is crystal clear, imo. (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes but I was giving the user the benefit of the doubt. Maybe they are not the author of this papers and these were good faith edits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:40, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
When seeing spam and not wanting to label it spam lest some trigger-happy person come to my talk page to make spurious accusations, I tend towards edit summaries like "Remove WP:ELNO", or "Remove WP:NOTNEWS", or "Remove non-WP:MEDRS". Sometimes we just have to remove bullshit, though! Carry on, all the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy. We have a huge issues with people attempting to measure success by the volume of text created. An encyclopedia is not about volume. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
You can't get an impression of one person's biases from just looking at a few examples - especially when your own interests are involved. I think Doc James' bias is towards global issues, not against them. If I was being axed trimmed/reverted/whatever frequently by Doc James, I'd be doing some self-reflecting. (fyi re own position: I'm from the southern hemisphere, have lived in 3 continents.) Hildabast (talk) 18:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Dolfrog is correct to point out that the edit summary "trimmed" for this edit is misleading. "trimmed" implies basic copy-editing to remove redundant text, without any significant change in meaning to the text. SandyGeorgia's recommendation is a good one.
Regarding this edit to "Thalassemia", WP:TITLE states "By the design of Wikipedia's software, an article can only have one title. When this title is a name, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph." "Thalassaemia" is certainly a significant alternative name. Moreover, if a British reader arrived at the article expecting it to be spelt "thalassaemia", in the absence of such clarification he might believe that his own spelling was incorrect.
Dolfrog is entirely wrong with this veiled implication: "This could be interpreted as vandalism to have an article match your own particular point of view." It could only be interpreted as vandalism by someone who does not understand what vandalism (in the context of Wikipedia) is. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from DrMicro

It appears we have have differing opinions on what constitutes a review on WP.

However a second matter I will take issue with you over. Steatosis != steatohepatitis. These are histologically distinct entities. Normally steatosis preceeds the development of steatohepatitis. Steatosis is in general much more reversible than steatohepatitis and appears to have a much more benign course. Whether immunosuppresion should be used in the latter condition is debated. This is why I think that conflating the two conditions into a generic fatty change is a mistake. YMMV.DrMicro (talk) 00:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I typically go by the classification given by pubmed for those articles that are pubmed indexed.
I am happy to change the link to steatohepatitis and have done so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:06, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Respiratory system article classification

Your removal of {{WPMED}} from the article is interesting. I question how it's "WPAN sufficient", save for article quality issues. The only life form I'm aware of that does not concern itself with respiration is a virus, which capitalizes upon its host for its necessities. So, what is your rationale for lowering the importance of a vital cellular and organism level activity? Either I'm missing something or your decision makes no sense. As one assumes good faith, I ask, rather than edit war or some other inanity, as I'm honestly curious. That said, even money, it'll be a face palm or hair rake moment, when answered...Wzrd1 (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment#Is_WPMED_the_correct_WikiProject_to_support_this_article.3F comes my interpretation that boby systems fall under WPAN and thus I considered that project to be sufficient for them. I remember my anatomy texts being organized by body system. WPMED I see as being more disease / clinically oriented. The amount of disease related material in respiratory system is minimal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:42, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting! I considered it from a perspective, after your objection, to one of Chordata minimal, vertebrata minimal and hence, not highly relevant to any specific species from a medical standpoint. I honestly was curious on your perspective. That said, I learned a new reference for Wikipedia from you tonight and will read it in the morning, as it's close to midnight here and my father will arise at an unknown hour, courtesy of his vascular dementia. Needless to say, I shan't edit any article regarding caregiver stress, as I don't trust my neutrality.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The previews are in ....

Hey Doc, just thought you'd like to know that I've done a quick preview of the 24 TTF articles and their French equivalents. The details are at User:Djdubay/sandbox/TTF/Review, but to give a quick overview, the results are mixed. There has clearly been some borrowing of content from the English on all 24 articles. Some have been well maintained, and while not exactly the same, are functionally similar, and may need minimal to no revision. Other articles are okay, overall, but could use some updates in a section or two. Some articles are rather stale and minimal, compared to the English, and could genuinely benefit from a fresh translation. And then, there are a few that have developed unique content missing from the English articles, that may be worth translating into English, yet are also missing significant sections that would be worth translating into French. I describe these cases as needing to "exchange material".

A question before I start doing a detailed review of each article individually: I noticed under Group One, you specify a date of the revision to be used for translation. Some of these are up to a year and a half ago. I understand that we want to work off an approved version, and not the latest hack that some vandal or newbie may have marked up, but you seem to be keeping on top of these articles and keeping them in shape. So, does the date still apply, or should I go by the last revision with your username on it? Also, I noticed that only 3 articles have a permalink to the approved version. If you're still going by the approval date rather than a more recent version, would you like me to update the page with permalinks to all 24 articles' approved versions?

Also, as I was setting up my userspace on the French site, I came to realize that my username may be fine here on English, but I'm not comfortable with it on the French site. I've submitted a usurp request for the username "djd". I'll continue to work behind the scenes, but will wait for the request to complete before going public. Just giving you a heads up when you start seeing "djd", that's still me.

In the meantime, as part of the integration effort, I've been learning the meta-template syntax, and working on a project for assisting the process of porting of templates from one language to another. This will become a key tool in the MedNav project I mentioned before. For now, I'm trying to figure how I'm going to port the {{Translation attribution}} template, as the meta-template for it has no equivalent on the French site. I should have it figured out by the time my account rename is completed.

BTW, when you reply, could you please leave a talkback {{tb|Jmh649}} on my user talk page? Thanks!

Djdubay (talk) 09:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

So the way the process works is that I hand off the article to TWB and then they send it out to their translators. The date in question is the date the article was handed to TWB. We can use the more recent live version but the changes are often minimal.
With respect to content missing in English, a lot of the English pages have subpages that may potentially contain the content in question and it is on the subpage to keep the article a reasonable size. If there is missing content posting what is missing on the talk page of the English article could be useful.
Should we go ahead an try translating a single English article into French? You could then work on integrating it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Rheumatoid Arthritis

Doc James, a conflict about how much quoting and what parts of an article can and should be quoted is going on for the RA article. Yobol want so make two direct quotes from the article supporting his position and reject any other direct quotes from the article that disagree. His belief is that his quotes are required and any disagreeing quotes are "cherry picking".Sthubbar (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Quoting is not generally a good idea IMO. We should be paraphrasing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:59, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
James, thanks for the updates you made on the RA page. You did a quality and fair job. (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
That comment is mine.Sthubbar (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


You might be interested in talking to the people at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Prototype_for_a_new_referencing_tool..._what_do_you_think?. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:30, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks WAID will look. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 July 2013

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Chronic bronchitis may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • Other causes of chronic cough include: [[COPD]], [[asthma]], [[lung cancer]], tuberculosis]], [[bronchiectasis]], [[congestive heart failure]], [[cystic fibrosis]], [[post viral cough]],
  • > Acute Exacerbations of Chronic Bronchitis] Retrieved on 13 March 2010</ref>

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Doc James. You have new messages at Diptanshu.D's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DiptanshuTalk 13:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)


This editor that you blocked is back and vandalizing again. Capitalismojo (talk) 13:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

You've been mentioned by User:32cllou (again...)

Hi Doc, FYI you've been mentioned here. Zad68 01:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK-Good Article Request for Comment

References on prevelance

The prevalence and convertion rates are as far as I know presently unknown. How is it possible to provide references when these figure are unknown? Or perhaps you have these refs to hand and have simply forgotten to add them?

IMHO any "general audience" would like to know what these figure are. These figures are provided in the Epidemiology section for acute and chronic disease. Perhaps these should also be deleted then? Since it appears to be the concensus that these figure should be (and have been) provided for these forms of infection then it seems to be difficult to say that that these figures - or rather their current lack - are not of interest in the occult form. I think you should expand upon your logic here. DrMicro (talk) 18:05, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Do we have a ref saying that the rates of occult infections is unknown? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
As far as I can tell these rates have never been published - in any form - review or otherwise. In the absence of such publication(s) the current state of the art is that these rates are unknown. Unless of course you have one that has these rates? If so please include it. DrMicro (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
No one states the numbers are unknown? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
No one states that they are known. Are we trying to prove a negative here? DrMicro (talk) 18:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
No we are just trying to reflect the best available sources. If sources do not say something explicitly neither should we. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Never heard of the ref toobar. I suspect Im not alone. BTW the link is red.
The best available sources do not know what the prevalence rates are. Unless you have one that you are not adding.DrMicro (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)


'demonstrated' - 'found'

'lacking' - 'without'

These are considered to be virtually equivalent in a thesaurus. It's a matter of editor choice.DrMicro (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Some are easier to understand. By the way thanks for using review articles.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
You say tomato; I say tomaato. Its still a berry. DrMicro (talk) 18:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Simple English Wikipedia has a list of prefered terms which it is agreed are generally easier to understand.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Maybe I am editing the wrong WP. I thought I was editing the English Wikipedia rather than the Simple English WP. Was I editing the wrong WP? DrMicro (talk) 18:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
We are still a general encyclopedia and should try to write in simple language whenever possible to make this Wikipedia as accessible as possible as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a readability issue also here. Good writers do try to vary their verbs, nouns and adjectives to maintain the readers' interest. Excessive simplification makes text more difficult to read. Reptition of the same limited word set is very helpful to those for who English is not a first language. However this is the Englsih WP and the assumption of some miminal command of English is not unreasonable here. IMHO we might as well agree to disagree on this pretty trivial point.DrMicro (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Re definition

That is the standard definition of chronic hep C.DrMicro (talk) 19:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Great. Can you add a reference to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Its in the precceding ref.

Re formatting: Can I convince you to spend more time right now looing for more refs and worrying less about ref formats? When editing the articles the expanded form you seem to prefer seems to me just to add overhead and it makes it MUCH more difficult to edit the text.DrMicro (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I confess that I cannot see this article as GA or better until there is a lot more information on the occult infection. This is important section for a multitude of reasons. There is for example nothing on infection in the immunocomprised host where the manifestions are different. There is little on the rate of reinfection in the liver transplants. Coninfection with Hep B - rates and clinical releveance. Should I continue? This article IMHO has a LOT more problems than mere formatting of the refs. DrMicro (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is a general overview of hepatitis C. It is currently a GA. It would be much appreciated if you could format in the same style as the rest of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
If that is the case might I suggest that it currently does not meet the criteria. For a general overview it is missing vast swathes of important information. Occult infection was not even mentioned until recently despite being recogised as a clincial entity almost a decade ago. The difficulty with diagnosis in children was not mentioned despite the mention here of maternal transmission. While liver transplation is mentioned there is virtually nothing on the recurrence rate in transplants. There is nothing on this page on the differences in presentaion in the immunocompromised host. Might I suggest that its current status as a GA might be worth reviewing? DrMicro (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
From a quick glace at the article's talk page I see that reassesment is permitted. Mind you givne the amount of work being done on this article recently a immediate reassesment might be premature.DrMicro (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
The goal is to address the main aspects of the condition in question while giving different aspects proper weight. This 2011 review does not even mention occult hepatitis C [9]. IMO we currently are giving occult hep C to much weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you pls look up something

Hey Doc, in doing the review for the GA nom of ADHD, I see the article says ADHD "is diagnosed in about 2 to 16 percent of school-aged children", this is sourced to PMID 19405409, journal is American Family Physician. The article cites for the percentages. In my (limited) experience I've seen that when a country-specific journal like "American Family Physician" quotes a stat they imply it's specific to that country, but in this case I'm not sure. Is the underlying source saying those percentages are worldwide or just USA? I have access to the full journal article and it does not say. I don't have access to to check whether those stats are global or specific to USA. Can you please check? Thanks. Zad68 17:08, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The UpToDate article cites a wide range of publications spanning the past 15 years or so to support that prevalence number (actually, it says 2–18% overall, and 8–10% in school-age children). Most or all of the cited studies were U.S.-based. I would interpret those statistics as specific to the U.S. MastCell Talk 21:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Oh yeah, who asked you?? Face-smile.svg Thanks for that, will apply it to the GA writeup! The Am Fam Phys article says they accessed the uptodate article in 2008, it's possible uptodate has brought their article up to date since then with new research? Whatever, the numbers are close enough. Zad68 00:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Smallpox edit

Is it really notable or relevant the sex of the minor child with smallpox in the image? Medically, it is irrelevant, as both sexes are infected equally, death rate is parallel. Personally, I'd stick with child with smallpox, lest some consider one sex impacted more than another.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes sounds reasonable.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits - permissions

There is a release - all images were donated and uploaded with "This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license." What else are you referring to?

Blausenmedical (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks yes just noticed that. Why do you not upload the whole video to commons? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2013

Decreasing emphasis on USA in the Epidemiology of Hepatitis C - Two suggestions

Jmh649, I noticed you significantly reduced my edit contribution to the Epidemiology section of the Hepatitis C article. I accept your reason that you were decreased the USA emphasis. In my defence, my edit was made the day before World Hepatitis Day 2013 with its theme of education:

In 2013 the ‘This is hepatitis’ theme was evolved to ‘This is hepatitis… Know it. Confront it.’ The new slogan encourages people to recognise how prevalent the condition is.

However, I believe there is one "minor edit" error in the resultant text, and one small piece of text that I would like to reinstate in the article, as I feel the USA number gives a characterization that is similarly reflected throughout the developed world.

There is this subpage here Epidemiology_of_Hepatitis_C_virus were in depth country level data would fit well.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

overtaken? (minor edit)

After your edit, one sentence reads:

The number of deaths from hepatitis C has increased to 15,800 in 2008[82] overtaken HIV/AIDS as a cause of death in the USA.

I believe the word "overtaken" is grammatically incorrect here. It could be simply changed to "overtaking", or replaced by the pluperfect (past perfect) tense thus: "and had overtaken". This sentence is not incorrect, but it actually overtook HIV/AIDS in their annual totals for 2007 (and all subsequent years, at least to 2010), rather than 2008. I suggest that "overtaken: could more informatively be replaced with "and by 2007 had overtaken".

Agree good suggestion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Rate of new cases in the USA has stabilized since 2007

After your edit, the second half of one sentence reads:

with about 17,000 new cases a year as of 2010.[81]

Whilst respecting your observation of undue emphasis on the USA, I think it important on this general page to note that in the USA the number of new cases per year has stabilized. This is believed to reflect the maximum viral incubation period from the start of adequate blood screening, so this stabilization probably occurred in other developed nations at the same time (no reference, so no mention). This stabilization in the USA is best ascribed to the year 2007. I would prefer that the text indicate a stabilization of the new cases number. With very slight modification to my original text, I suggest something like:

[In the USA,] the number of new HCV cases per year has stabilized since 2007 at around 17,000.

Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I am asking for your opinion (and possibly your edit) rather than unilateral action because this article is so very important to me. I am a British long-time sufferer living in the USA. I recently lost my health insurance covering treatment for this disease because of my lay-off resulting from this disease. Please also feel free to make these edits yourself in a form you prefer, if you agree with my suggestion. With thanks from: ChrisJBenson (talk) 08:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

RE: Embryo edit

Hi Doc,

The address from which the Embryo edit was made is from a dynamic range provided by my ISP. I made no such edit and thus no one on my internet connection did; for that reason I doubt the person who did will see this message.

Thanks for your effort though :) (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes the difficulty with editing as an IP. I notice that the rest of the edits from you were good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Both are reliable secondary sources. The methodology used in the WHO estimate is not published which is why I prefer the other. As you know WHO can be very unclear where they get their figures from. Polio is a marked exception. However given the error bars on all the very large numbers I don't think it really matters. There are simply a LOT of hep C cases. DrMicro (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. WHO in 2013 says around 150 million, the other ref says 200 million. The third says more than 185 million. Writing 150-200 million should get them all in there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Sounds reasonable to me :) DrMicro (talk) 12:21, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Source Citation

Hi. Can you direct me to the particular policy you're referring to w.r.t. paraphrase vs copy/paste? The only policy I'm aware of, MEDRS#Definitions, just says: "All Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources. Reliable primary sources may occasionally be used with care as an adjunct to the secondary literature, but there remains potential for misuse. For that reason, edits that rely on primary sources should only describe the conclusions of the source, and should describe these findings clearly so the edit can be checked by editors with no specialist knowledge. In particular, this description should follow closely the interpretation of the data given by the authors, or by other reliable secondary sources."

Copying the appropriate sections of an abstract or text most closely satisfies that policy. I'll exclusively paraphrase material in the future provided there's another policy or medrs section that I misread and mandates that approach.

I'm also unsure of why you've deleted the primary sources considering there were multiple citations per claim written by unrelated authors; that greatly lessens the chance of a conclusion arising from erroneous statistical methodology, intentional fraud, and type I and type II errors. That's also, in a nutshell, what wp:MEDSCI says. Moreover, there's a clause prefacing the wp:meddate section stating, "these instructions are appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or few reviews are being published." There's literally no up-to-date research/citable material (primary or secondary) on PEA/amphetamine interactions, as I've looked extensively for it and found nothing. What do you suggest under those circumstances?

W.r.t. the Cochrane review, the only reason I removed it is that review stated there was a lack of evidence. A newer review stated there was sufficient evidence. Stating both of these conclusions together is both illogical and likely confusing to a reader. I don't see how else to reconcile that problem other than to delete the former. If you have another solution in regards to an issue like this, I'd appreciate it if you could let me know for future reference.

Thanks in advance. Seppi333 (talk) 03:15, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources are strongly recommended. Copy and pasting from sources is a copyright violation. See Wikipedia:Copyright violations Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:33, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I've edited the material that was a direct quotation without inline quotes - let me know what you think. I'd need more concrete feedback to finish editing the remaining content though; I've censored that material in the meantime.Seppi333 (talk) 07:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Please use secondary sources per WP:MEDRS. Adding long quotes is still not good practice. Please paraphrase content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The only primary sourced remaining content on that page, among the content you reverted that isn't currently censored via <'--!--'> operator (without the '), is a single sentence in the perf. enh. section on the effects of phenethylamine and its monomethylated derivatives on nociception. I would revert that as well, but it's almost common knowledge that amphetamines increase pain tolerance and/or reduce pain perception, so I left that in. Everything else has at least 1 secondary source corroborating it the primary sources. Some of the things you included in your revert are have left me a bit confused though. Why do you have an issue with the Merck manual for healthcare professionals (a secondary medical source) and/or the claim that amph overdose causes hyperthermia? That's mediated through its inhibition of SERT, the same way SSRI's cause serotonin toxidrome from overdose.

I'll go through the the secondary sources and clean it up more later today; I'll post again on your talk page when I'm done so you can check and give me feedback. Edit: There's another primary source on the long term effects of amph exposure on non-human primates, but I'll add a secondary source which references that paper later today when I make the other edits. Seppi333 (talk) 21:46, 7 August 2013 (UTC)Seppi333 (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I've made the edits - let me know what you think. Again, please don't completely revert a massive amount of text again - it doesn't help me discern the specific material you have issue with. Now, w.r.t. the content on phenethylamine and amphetamine/psychostimulants, to show you that there's really no recent secondary content on this material, running a query on "(amphetamine[Title/Abstract]) AND phenethylamine[Title/Abstract] Filters: Review; published in the last 5 years; Humans" in an NCBI search simply yields 2 completely unrelated papers on the topic: PMID 22374819 and PMID 22010464. I encourage you to run the same search just to see for yourself. In any event, since the information is both interesting and important to the neuropharmacology of amphetamines and relevant to ADHD, I think it's really worth mentioning in the article. As I mentioned before, I've made sure to include multiple sources for each of the claims (except one on methamphetamine and its lack of interaction with phenethylamine, which I don't mind deleting altogether if you wish), so as to ensure that the issues in WP:MEDSCI are addressed. Per WP:MEDDATE, this is one of those circumstances where there is no current secondary research, so the 5 year time period really should be relaxed under these circumstances, as it states in that policy. I can likely find some older secondary sources for the majority of that content, but I can't be certain of that.

That said, would it suffice for you if it that text reflected the conclusions of older secondary sources?Seppi333 (talk) 00:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources from the last 3-5 years are best. Out to 10 years is okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)