Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia talk:MED)
Jump to: navigation, search
Announcements [edit]
Wikimania Montreal logo path.svg

Wikimania 2017 will be held August 9-13, 2017 in Montréal, Canada.
A day dedicated to medicine will be held on Aug 10th, 2017

List of archives

Sea buckthorn oil & cancer[edit]

The fruit of the sea-buckthorn

Some disagreement on how/whether a source should be used to describe the "potential medicinal properties" of sea buckthorn oil. More eyes welcome! Alexbrn (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Yeah, there seems to be a feeling that animal and cell line studies cannot even be mentioned in an article, which I find deeply troubling. I'm also quite concerned about Alexbrn using a buddy to circumvent WP:3RR, but that's possibly another discussion -Kieran (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
They shouldn't be mentioned to imply health benefits, especially when taken from a very poor source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
But that's what successful animal model and cell line studies do -- imply (potential) clinical benefits. They don't demonstrate those conclusively, or provide hard evidence of them, but they most certainly do suggest them. What you are saying is that we cannot ever mention them at all, which, again, I find deeply troubling (particularly as someone doing cancer research). -Kieran (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I say no such thing. Such research does not imply benefits; it implies rather "more research is needed". It is deeply ironic that the text you summarized from this article speculated that the "anti-cancer" potential of this oil was down to its vitamin E - which is perhaps the canonical example of how "promising" lab results do not translate into positive human health effects (quite the opposite). We shouldn't be using this old, rather silly source. Alexbrn (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
"More research is needed" is exactly the kind of thing that MEDMOS says that we should not be including in articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)


Here are the two versions that have been proposed:

(1) Several studies on rats, mice, and human cancer cell lines have shown that buckthorn oil can have anti-carcinogenic properties, but no human clinical trials have been undertaken to confirm these.[1] Reviewers have suggested that the apparent anti-carcinogenic properties may be due to the presence of compounds, such as vitamin E, with known anti-cancer activity.[1]

(2) Laboratory work is examining sea buckthorn oil for its potential properties, although there is no evidence as of 2017 that it has any effect on human health.[2]

In (1), I like the idea of saying that the effects are probably due to already known compounds. For editors who are inclined to cry "PROMO!", I think that this will actually discourage people from buying it. (Why buy that? You could just get some Vitamin E instead.) Also, note the "Reviewers have suggested" line: This is not a primary source.

In (1), I also like specifying the "rates, mice, and cell lines", since I think that more clearly indicates the early-stage nature of the research than the generic "lab work". Assuming it's factual, then I'd prefer "basic research" to either of these. If this has transitioned into applied research, then we could fairly summarize this stage as "early pre-clinical research" if people don't like mentioning rodents and cell lines.

In (2), I kind of like the vagueness of "potential properties", although I might specify "medical". (It is presumably not being investigated as for its nutritional properties or its lubricating properties.)

In (2), I don't believe that the line if "no evidence that it has any effect on human health" is actually true. If it contains Vitamin E, then we actually do have evidence that it has "effects" (many of them bad) on human health. It would probably be more accurate to say "no evidence that it prevents or cures cancer in humans". It would unfortunately by too SYNTHy to then add "and Vitamin E, which this oil contains, might cause cancers", unless we can find a source that explicitly says that in the context of buckthorn oil. (Also, it cites a 2006 source while saying "as of 2017").

I think we could probably find a compromise between these two, but overall I think that (1) is somewhat better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Concerning #2a, sea buckthorn oil is available as a dietary supplement and as either a whole oil product or ingredient in skin care products, so there are potentially different effects and clinical studies possible on various body functions, but there have been no such studies on what is a rather rare botanical source notoriously discouraging to cultivate and harvest. For #2b, the current statement represents the vagueness of the one source: sea buckthorn pulp and seeds both contain oil and vitamin E in amounts not yet defined quantitatively for their compartmental differences. Interpreting the sentence specifically for the article topic, it is true that "there is no evidence that it (sea buckthorn oil) has any effect on human health." --Zefr (talk) 16:39, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I've found and added a review that says cosmetic/skin care uses are the primary market.
That source additionally contains these sentences: "Sea-buckthorn berries have an impressive vitamin content [12, 24, 25]. They contain mainly vitamin C [11–14, 20] (approximately 900 mg%, depending on the variety), but also vitamin A, that is alpha- and beta-carotene (up to 60 mg%) and a mixture of other carotenoids (up to 180 mg% in total). Moreover, the berries contain tocopherols, that is vitamin E (110 to 160 mg%), folic acid (up to 0.79 mg%) and vitamin B complex group, i.e. B1 (0.035 mg%), B2 (up to 0.056 mg%) and B6"...
That looks like enough quantitative information for even someone like me to be able to figure out some unsafe consumption levels, using nothing more than information contained in Wikipedia at mg% and Hypervitaminosis E, and overdosing is certainly "an effect on human health". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
  • I cannot believe that PMC 5438513 made it through peer review. Full of woo and promotional language about these berries like: The oil is used as a soothing agent after cosmetic procedures e.g. peelings, baths, masks, hair removal. Its presence in shampoos, hair conditioners or preparations used after dying or permanent wave treatment guarantees recovery, supports regeneration of damaged hair, restores its elasticity and ensures smoothness. Due to a high content of unsaturated fatty acids and related fast rancidity process of sea-buckthorn oil is recommended that it is used in the form of capsules for cosmetic products. It is also significant that sea-buckthorn oil, thanks to its intensive colour, improves skin tone after direct application on skin, giving it a fresh and healthy appearance Snake oil much? The authors disclose no COI. If that is the case, this is clearly an example of overenthusiastic academics.
The journal is Lipids in Health and Disease (about page) published by biomed central. The editor in chief of the journal is Undurti Narasimha Das (article created just this March, single editor, promotional) has been trying to develop PUFAs as cancer drugs since the late 1980s' (see here) and the journal lists his current affiliation as UND Life Sciences, a zombie startup company (been around a while, no evidence it has gotten funding or gotten anything done) trying to develop PUFAs as cancer drugs.
The journal has an impact factor of just around 2.
It obviously has very bad peer review, and we should treat articles published by this journal with caution, and use them only as back-up when we have strong sources supporting content.
Unsurprisingly this piece is cited on the websites of companies selling woo-driven cosmetics, like this one.
Gah. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
"Anything above 1" is our usual hope for impact factors, so two's not that bad.
I'm not the least bit surprised by the claim that it "improves skin tone": putting any orange dye on your skin would do the same, and outside of Western cultures, that's generally considered a positive quality. (For white people, "orange" means "you need a different spray-on fake tan".)
I think that there's nothing quite so reliable for saying that this is basically cosmetics than a recent review from two women from a reputable Polish university extolling its many virtues for cosmetics. "This is makeup (makeup is not chemotherapy)" is IMO an excellent basic POV for this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Agree with Jytdog. IMO extra ordinary claims require extra ordinary evidence. Looking at the refs supporting some of the claims in that paper and they simple do not.
What this paper proves is that peer review does not mean much. But than we already knew that. It also explains how the Wikipedia article on mitochondria when mixed with Star Wars was publishable. Added comments to pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
WAID I realized that here, as you have elsewhere, you are just trolling. I tend to be too earnest and take other people at face value, and completely missed that you do this. I will stop taking the bait. Jytdog (talk) 21:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
No, I'm not trolling. This stuff – even if some shyster is trying to add it to the nearly endless list of Stuff Sold To Desperate Cancer Patients – is actually used in cosmetics. I firmly disagree with your POV that this is a "bad ref". Sure, they're enthusiastic about it, but they also provide details about chemical analysis, extraction methods, and actual, legitimate commercial uses. I realize that the US $200,000,000,000+ cosmetics industry is of little interest to you or the average WPMED editor, but that actually is what this stuff is used for. EWG's database lists almost 200 different cosmetics products containing this oil. It's incomplete (doesn't include this $1-per-mL moisturizer, for example), but there's nothing about cancer in there.
I understand the initial reaction to some of the enthusiasm in that report. "The oil is used as a soothing agent" – sure, but any GRAS vegetable oil is going to be soothing to irritated skin after a chemical peel. Or butter, if you like that better. However, the fact that this isn't a unique quality to this particular oil doesn't change the fact that this oil is one of several oils that is actually used in that setting.
But I do not see any reason to believe that this source is wrong in saying that this product is primarily used in cosmetic skin care, or that it has a poor shelf life, or that the oil is used in shampoo (such as one or this one) or any of the other non-medical facts that you reverted here. What makes a source reliable isn't that it is unenthusiastic about a product. What makes a source reliable is that we can rely on it to get it right for whatever points we're using it to support. In the end, I think that this source knows enough about the cosmetics industry that we can use it to talk about non-medical cosmetics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Zeb A (2006). "Anticarcinogenic potential of lipids from Hippophae--evidence from the recent literature". Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. (Review). 7 (1): 32–5. PMID 16629511. 
  2. ^ Zeb A (2006). "Anticarcinogenic potential of lipids from Hippophae--evidence from the recent literature". Asian Pac. J. Cancer Prev. (Review). 7 (1): 32–5. PMID 16629511. 
I am sorry you do not see anything wrong with using a source that ~looks like~ it is a solid part of the biomedical literature but is a steaming pile of promotional woo. There were one or two editors who added promotional garbage to this article, the one about the plant species, and the article about the genus and i have gone all the way back to the genus article to rework this. I will end up back at the oil article later this week probably. There is actuallyl significant use of this plant and extract in China and Russia and other eastern european countries and significant agricultural production there, and many products on the market using it. That can all be made clear using sources that are not advertisements masquerading as scientific discussion. Jytdog (talk) 19:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
If a source mixes stuff that is clearly false unsupported with correct stuff unfortunately the false unsupported stuff tarnishes the entire source. It is sort of like plagiarism, if a source is plagiarism it sort of tarnishes everything within it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
That is the case for nutrient contents in separate compartments of the seed and pulp oils. Reputable sources have not published methods and results for such analyses, and where nutrient contents are described, such as in the source WAID found, other non-credible statements and claims contaminate credibility of the whole source. WP's usual source for reliable nutrient assays - the USDA National Nutrient Database - contains no entry for seabuckthorn fruit or its oil, probably because the crop was never successfully farmed in the USA or Canada. Even though seabuckthorn has cultivation success and many products and uses in Eastern Europe, Russia, and China, there appear to be no reliable sources for nutrient assays in these countries. --Zefr (talk) 20:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Zefr, it appears that that nutritional information was published in a Pakistani biology journal: Arif S, Ahmed SD, Shah AH, Hamid A, Batool F, et al. Determination of optimum harvesting time for Vitamin C, oil and mineral elements in berries sea buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) Pak J Bot. 2010;42(5):3561–3568.
As you noted, this is unlikely to be found in regions where the plant isn't grown/of commercial interest. If anyone's curious, then please note that the impact factor for that journal is almost exactly at the worldwide average for a crop sciences journal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Doc James, please name one fact – any one fact – in that source that is "clearly false". If you can relate to the content that Jytdog removed, which includes sentences such as "Sea buckthorn oil is used in shampoo and other hair care products" and "Sea buckthorn oil is frequently used in cosmetics products, especially topical products marketed for aging skin and dry skin.", then so much the better, but I'll settle for any single fact that is "clearly false", even if it isn't related to anything in the article.
Jytdog, the definition of woo can be found at wikt:woo woo, which defines it as a belief in "supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations." Do please tell me how "This is used in shampoo" is evidence of paranormal beliefs. If not, then I suggest that you might be better off trying sentences like "Parts of this source use language that is common in fashion magazines, such as 'recovering' from oil-stripping hair treatments by smearing a few drops of oil in your hair, and that jargon is completely unfamiliar to old white guys like me" instead of "a steaming pile of promotional woo". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
This bit "sea-buckthorn oil protects against infections, prevents allergies, eliminates inflammation and inhibits the aging process" is unsupported. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Doc James, "unsupported" does not mean "clearly false". I agree that no citations were included in the abstract, but there certainly are citations to support those statements elsewhere in the paper, so I can't even agree that this is "unsupported".
To their credit, they don't claim that these are truly unique qualities for this oil; most topically applied oils prevent some infections in certain situations (e.g., if moisturizer reduces the likelihood of the skin cracking), reduce skin inflammation, inhibit that aspect of the 'aging process' known as thin, dry skin, etc. They cite PMID 16870801 and PMID 22770766 (both reviews) for one particular mechanism that they mention briefly with respect to this sentence, so I think we can reasonably claim that these are "supported", even if we're personally skeptical of the effect size, the likelihood of significant benefit for the dose usually encountered, whether plain old vegetable oil would be just as good, etc. (Other mechanisms for these same effects cite other papers, of course; e.g., the first section after the abstract also deals with skin inflammation.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Generally it is the job of those proposing ideas to support them. If something is unsupported it is not appropriate here. Making health claims as definition as that needs an RCT and non are provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Please click the link to the PubMed abstract for the first review that this paper cites in support of this claim, and find the words "review of the voluminous literature, including randomized controlled trials" under the description of the methods. If this source actually needs RCTs for us to be able to cite it to say that one commercial application of the agricultural product is putting it in shampoo, then it apparently has met your standard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)


[1] [1]


  1. ^ a b Zielińska, Aleksandra; Nowak, Izabela (2017). "Abundance of active ingredients in sea-buckthorn oil". Lipids in Health and Disease. 16 (1). ISSN 1476-511X. PMC 5438513Freely accessible. PMID 28526097. doi:10.1186/s12944-017-0469-7.  This article incorporates text available under the CC0 license.

The 2017 review is in the public domain. QuackGuru (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

No, it's not. The review is CC-BY. Only the underlying data is CC-0. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, it is. See "This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated."[1] Just use the CC-notice. QuackGuru (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I read that earlier. I'm marking the key words for you. "This article" is CC-BY (see the /by/ in the URL?); "the data" is public domain (/zero/ in the URL).
Also, we don't use the {{cc-notice}} unless we have copied content (e.g., sentences) out of the source and directly into the Wikipedia article (as if the sentences from the source were written by a Wikipedia editor), so that template shouldn't be used like that anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That template must be used for copying content directly into the Wikipedia article. It must be used with the CC-notice like that when copying content. QuackGuru (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree that correct attribution must be given if you copy content directly into a Wikipedia article. However, "copying content directly into a Wikipedia article" is not the same as "citing the source to support a fact, at the end of a sentence that you wrote in your own words". When you are merely citing the source to support a fact, at the end of a sentence that you wrote in your own words, then you do not include a template that says you copied the sentence out of the source that you're citing.
  • The correct attribution for that source would be {{CC-notice|cc=by}}, not {{CC-notice|cc=zero}} – assuming that you were actually copying "text" (=exact word used in that template) out of the source, which nobody is planning to do.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • The correct attribution is {{CC-notice|cc=zero}}.
  •  This article incorporates text available under the CC0 license. Correct attribution. It matches the same attribution as the original source.
  •  This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 1.0 license. Incorrect attribution. The link leads to a different attribution.
  • This is the same link from the source, which is under the CC0 license. QuackGuru (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Those templates say "This article incorporates text..." from the source. Do you think that those templates should be used when "this article" does NOT "incoporate text" from the source? Don't you think that saying "this article incorporates text" from the source, when you know that the article does NOT incorporate any text at all from the source, is telling a lie, stating a deliberate untruth about whether "this article" actually "incorporates text" from the source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 This article incorporates text available under the CC BY 4.0 license. This is CC-notice 4. Is this the correct template? QuackGuru (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That is the correct template if and only if "this article" actually "incorporates text" from the source.
My question for you is: What is the correct template when you do NOT actually incorporate any text at all from the source? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
No template for attribution is needed if no content is copied. QuackGuru (talk) 22:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
That's true, but there's more to it than that. The template is not appropriate unless "this article" actually "incorporates" text from the source. Incorporating means that it's "mixed in the body" of "this article", e.g., without it being obvious to a potential re-user that any "text" in "this article" is licensed by someone other than the Wikipedia editor.
You should not use this template if you are merely citing or directly quoting a source (i.e., what we've done on this non-article page). You only use this template if you are actually incorporating text from the source into an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:50, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Where is the policy that illustrates when the  This article incorporates text by Aleksandra Zielińska and Izabela Nowak available under the CC BY 4.0 license. must be used and when it must not be used? The article also says "The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated."[2] When does the  This article incorporates text by Aleksandra Zielińska and Izabela Nowak available under the CC0 license. must be used instead of the  This article incorporates text by Aleksandra Zielińska and Izabela Nowak available under the CC BY 4.0 license. template? QuackGuru (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The policy is WP:COPYOTHERS. It mostly uses the word "importing" to describe the act of copying a source straight into Wikipedia.
I agree that the "the data" in this paper (i.e., not anything else) is CC-0. It's possible that the numbers in the handful of tables is meant to be considered "the data". However, as a general rule, narrative reviews have very little actual "data" generated by the authors, and this may simply be a license statement that the journal requires and which happens to be irrelevant for this particular paper.
On the question of which one to use, the answers are:
  • If you incorporate sentences and paragraphs from the source into an article, then you use CC-BY.
  • If you incorporate "the data" (only), then you use CC-0.
  • If you directly incorporate nothing (e.g., you cite it as a source, but write all the sentences and paragraphs yourself), then you use none of these templates. You cite a CC-BY or CC-0 article exactly like you cite a source with full copyright protection.
WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
The policy WP:COPYOTHERS did not explain things in detail as you have done so here. Policy can be explained better. Policy is too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
clarification of actual text WP:COPYOTHERScould be requestedWikipedia_talk:Copyrights since page is protected--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:49, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
WP:COMPLIC is not explained very well at Copyrights. {{PD-notice}} and {{CC-notice}} also needs more explanation. Mistakes will continue to happen. Someone can make a request to update Copyrights. QuackGuru (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Fissure of the nipple[edit]

Proj Med editors are invited to participate in discussing the possible deletion of this article. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   10:17, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

more opinions please(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:08, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

I really don't see that this needs to be its own Wikipedia article. WP:Stub articles are not ideal. Until this topic has enough content to be more than a stub, it should reside at the Nipple article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:29, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I think that depends on whether you think that the subject of the article includes or excludes the same skin condition when it is caused by breastfeeding (i.e., Cracked nipple). The ICD-10 category includes both fissues and fistulas. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't see why that would prevent the fissure of the nipple topic from validly residing at the Nipple article. If we want to have a comprehensive Nipple article, both fissure of the nipple and cracked nipple should be mentioned in the Nipple article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I guess that the reason why one should read about nipple fissures/crackles is either breastfeeding difficulties or breast disease, not that one just wonder about nipples. Suggest that fissures/crackles could be mentioned in "Other breast conditions" section in breast disease and "Breastfeeding problems" section of the breastfeeding difficulties article. Dr Curat (talk) 21:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


I have just put up the Hilotherapy page for deletion (AFD). I considered rapid deletion but as I only consider it self promotion I felt that this was the appropriate method. If you agree with my view, or not I would appreciate you having a lookHaraldW1954 (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Couple of decent sources. It is a thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
We have a hodgepodge of coverage under Heat therapy, Hyperthermia therapy, Diathermy, Cryotherapy, Cold compression therapy, Ice bath, Contrast bath therapy, and no doubt others. All are Start-class except Cryotherapy and Ice bath, which are C-class. The whole suite could use a thorough scrub-down. The evidence base in any case seems at best shaky for their use in many indications: PMID 25526231, PMID 28194375, PMID 24547600. There are a few good uses, such as jellyfish stings,PMID 27043628 and of course first-aid for burns,PMID 25820085 (though even for that the evidence seems somewhat less than convincing). Double blind studies are of course impossible for conscious subjects, except perhaps those with some degree of paralysis, so one doubts the evidence will ever be very good. "Hilo"therapy seems to just be a brand named dry equivalent to Contrast bath therapy. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft at Articles for Creation[edit]

Hello, folks. We have a draft at Articles for Creation that addresses a newly-defined type of language disorder. The draft is at User:Deevybee/sandbox. My particular concern is that virtually all of the draft is being sourced to journal articles -- some of them quite recent -- so it seems that there might be some question as to whether all of its statements are widely accepted as correct.

Thank you for any assistance that you can provide. If this topic is outside the scope of your project, please let me know and I'll seek assistance elsewhere. NewYorkActuary (talk) 11:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

there is a redirect already which goes to Specific language impairment (on article 'title'...Developmental language disorder )--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for following up on this. The draft's creator is seeking to replace that redirect with the material in her sandbox. And the issue we face at Articles for Creation is whether that material is appropriate for Main space. NewYorkActuary (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
so,[3] there are two subsections 1.2.1 and 1,2.2 on that topic, anything additional can be added there...IMO, however more opinions should be sought for consensus{BTW...[4]per MEDMOS)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:24, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the copy edit work on the draft. Thank you also for the observation about seeking consensus for the best location of the material. That's good advice and we'll be sure to follow it.

But I'm still left uncertain as to the issue that prompted my original posting. I was under the impression that WP:MEDRS discouraged the use of recent journal articles as sources, preferring textbooks and the like. Has this changed? Or are the journal articles being used in this particular draft not a concern under WP:MEDRS? Your thoughts on this will be appreciated.

NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
User:Deevybee/sandbox#References..ive not looked at all the refs, but obviously many are beyond 5 years and/or primary per Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)..some such as:
Thank you. NewYorkActuary (talk) 15:34, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
In answer to your question about sources, MEDRS encourages recent review articles from peer-reviewed academic journals, and discourages recent primary sources from peer-reviewed academic journals. In simpler terms, if the article says that the author read a hundred articles and is summarizing them, than that's usually good, but if the article is about research personally performed by the authors, then that's usually bad (except when it's not). Recent textbooks are good, but they tend to be a bit out of date, so they're probably not so helpful in this particular instance. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. NewYorkActuary (talk) 13:19, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Acute radiation syndrome[edit]

Haematopoietic syndrome of radiation sickness

the above article could use some help(edits), thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Lysergic acid diethylamide listed at Requested moves[edit]


A requested move discussion has been initiated for Lysergic acid diethylamide to be moved to LSD. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. SparklingPessimist Scream at me! 03:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)



I was wondering if editors with more medical knowledge and Wiki experience could have a look at this article about anti-cancer virotherapy drug Rigvir ( It has been discussed before and nominated for deletion due to lack of references and poor quality. At that time there were almost no sources in English available and there is still no new medical research that would match MEDRS, but in the past year Latvian media has written extensively and critically about Rigvir, so I've tried to reflect this in Wikipedia.

The new sources are the following: Extensive overview of Rigvir history, problematic advertising and evidence level, article in a pharmaceutical magazine, translated with the help of Latvian Skeptics Association

Public broadcasting service article - Rigvir registration and compensation status to be reviewed

Article from the main investigative magazine in Latvia - 3 Latvian medical associatons request to remove Rigvir from Latvian drug register due to insufficient evidence of efficacy, to review clinical guidelines and to evaluate conflicts of interest (Google Translate version)

Extensive story with more details about registration and status, in Russian, from main news portal, Google Translate version

There are quite a few more articles in Latvian and Russian from trustworthy media sources in Latvia, but, since I'm a Wiki newbie, I am not certain these would be accepted, unless translated? I would really appreciate some comments from experienced medical editors - how could the article be improved and are these new sources OK?--KC LV (talk) 10:07, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

commented at article/talk[6]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Any language is good. (Here's the policy, in case anyone asks you about it.) Sources do not need to be translated. If another Wikipedia editor needs to check the source, and does not read Russian or Latvian, then they can use machine translation or ask one of the many multilingual editors for help. (The same general idea applies to sources that aren't free to read on the internet: if someone needs to check a page in an expensive book, then we can figure out how to get it, through WP:RX or WP:TWL or old-fashioned methods, like interlibrary loan.)
News articles are usually weak sources for biomedical information, but they can be very good sources for business information (e.g., patents, sales, profits, manufacturing locations, etc.). An article about a drug should contain both medical and non-medical information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

If your watchlist is blank[edit]

Heads up on a technical change: if your watchlist looks blank, then go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist and make sure that the number is not set to zero. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

thank you WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Would this technical change be the reason why I no longer have little green triangle which used to expand a group of edits to an article when clicked? My watchlist seems to be behaving rather erratically recently. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:16, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's the same change. Several things are moving around with watchlists. Peter, can you tell me what your watchlist settings are? Your settings for "Expand watchlist to show all changes, not just the most recent" and "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist" are probably the most important. I'll try to find out what's going on, but a lot of devs are traveling for Wikimania and its hackathon, so it may take a bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:33, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Last time I looked it was working again. It seems to be an intermittent problem. Could this happen with slow internet? • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 20:05, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
"Javascript that hasn't finished loading" seems to be a popular explanation for problems like that. Are you using Firefox? (It seems to have more problems along those lines than the other popular web browsers.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Firefox on desktop, Chrome on laptop. Seem to have much the same problem on both. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 10:45, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Free access to sources[edit]

See Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#The Wikipedia Library Card platform if you have access to WP:TWL resources. Also, if you don't have access to a huge university research library, but you'd like to have access to good, expensive sources, then do please sign up through WP:TWL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:31, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

great info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:45, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Which medical sources available through TWL would be best for discussing disability? I had a brief look at the ScienceDirect sources and it seems to split the social stuff (which would be useful for discussing the social model of disability) and the purely medical stuff (which would be useful for discussing symptoms, onset, prevalence, etc.) and you can only sign up for one. I know I'm not eligible at present, but this would be an incentive to me to sign up, if I could get uni research library-level sources that would be useful for my projects on WP. -- (talk) 22:46, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Van Goethem syndrome[edit]

opinions needed at article/talk (what to do about this 'article'),thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:03, 13 August 2017 (UTC)


Please review the change here. This change appears to be within the scope of this WikiProject and can be altered once accepted. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

I might be missing out on something here, but was this, perhaps, intended to be posted in a different WikiProject? --a u t a c o i d (stalk) 11:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
The link provided shows no difference between the two versions. (There are several intermediate versions.) Also, the article itself is certainly not in the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the clarification. I thought the connection was something very obscure I must have missed. --a u t a c o i d (stalk) 13:38, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Muscle response testing[edit]

Muscle response testing once was on WP:FTN (thread), where a merge/redirect was proposed and attempted, but reverted. Input/care welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 10:29, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

it should be merged to Applied kinesiology...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
(Re)done, thanks. —PaleoNeonate – 14:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Williamtown chemical contamination[edit]

I have started this article on a significant emerging contamination issue in Australia. Any help from other experienced editors would be most appreciated. AusLondonder (talk) 09:36, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

[7]ref--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:02, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It is a legitimate article. I have added a reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Systemic lupus erythematosus[edit]

Hello again. Please review the semi-protected edit request over at Talk:Systemic lupus erythematosus. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

[8]...--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:50, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Recruit new editors for the project?[edit]

Hi! We have our system ready, and we can start recommending editors to your project now. We'd like to invite some of project organizers to our study. Participants will receive two batches of recommendations. If you think the recommended editors are good candidates for your project, we'd like you to invite them to the project.

Please let me know if you'd be interested in participating, add your WikiProject and username to the table on my user talk page. Thanks! Bobo.03 (talk) 00:40, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

thanks for post--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Sure! I am pulling out the previous discussion threads here for reference: thread1, thread2. Bobo.03 (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

MEDMOS question - effect on family/caregivers[edit]

VSD image

So, a chunk of content was added to the Congenital heart defect article about effects on the parents and family. I have moved it to Talk for now, but you can see it here.

This is not about the disease per se... is kind of a "Society and culture" thing... but the content is WP:Biomedical information in my view as there is epidemiology about what the effects on the family are and about treatment of the family per se.

Where should this kind of content go, in an article about a disease or condition? Jytdog (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Diseases or disorders or syndromes I would agree...society and culture section...IMO(an alternate possibility is a 'subsection' of prognosis section as caregivers would be relevant in CHD)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I think it depends upon the specific content. "You can't manage diabetes in a young child without active monitoring by family and caregivers" belongs in ==Management==. "Desperate parents waste whole fortunes on ineffective treatments for kids with autism" probably belongs in ==Society and culture== (but could also go in ==Treatment==, if ineffective treatments are being discussed there). "Family support correlates with positive outcomes for people with alcoholism" belongs in ==Prognosis==.
For some things, such as caregiver burnout in Alzheimer's, I think that content could reasonably be placed in several locations, and the main thing is to make sure that it's somewhere in the article (and probably infused throughout the article, in that example). In a few cases, social/emotional factors (that's the individual's own social history (medicine) and emotional fallout, not societal factors) may need their own sections (e.g., schizophrenia, infertility, abuse, and any condition likely to provoke the process of adjustment to disability).
I am concerned about relegating everything about family to ==Society and culture==. For some conditions, family and social support is a key factor in survival, and it wouldn't be appropriate to bury that in a section with popular culture references, laws, activism, and religious POVs. It wouldn't be neutral to treat the parents of a child with a devastating congenital heart condition as if they were of no more relevance than an awareness advertisement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
I hear that. I brought this here because it is a real question - chronic disease in an individual does affect and is affected by environment (eg family) a great deal and it seems to me that the literature is dealing with this kind of stuff more and more. (and with respect to affecting, the literature often deals with managing those effects) I am unsure how we should handle this kind of content, generally. This content is a good case study - children with congenital heart problems. Jytdog (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Using this as a case study (I agree with you that it's likely to be a good one), the first paragraph makes me think: Where do you put "People freak out when they hear the 'C-word'"? I think I'd put "Parents are frightened when they learn that their children have a potentially life-threatening heart condition" in the same section as "Patients are frightened when they learn that they have cancer". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Failed merger proposals[edit]

I have been looking at merger proposals recently and I made a list of merger proposals that come under the scope of WikiProject medicine. I then looked at all the proposals and tried to determine if consensus was reached. Guidlines state that a merge tag should be placed on the source and destination page and also a merge proposal discussion should be started on only one of the talk pages to prevent having two separate discussions. You can see many articles where I found that the procedure wasn't observed correctly. I think it would be a good idea for me to de-list (detag) as appropriate since many of these are stale anyway, but others might have different suggestions to make about that. Notice the proposals where there was support but didn't get merged, most likely because there are several thousand articles in general, waiting to be merged. Quite a few articles didn't generate any discussion; I have been guilty myself of making minor edits to articles whilst turning a blind eye to the merge banner. At a minimum it would be good if we could have some kind of buddy check to ensure a merge proposal was made correctly, although it would appear to me that one should propose a merge only if they are prepared to carry it out themselves. CV9933 (talk) 09:58, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

[9]some definitely should be detagged--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
CV9933, the main reason why merge proposals hang around forever is because we don't have enough editors who like organizing/curating content this way. The exact process is relatively unimportant, because everything done during a merge can be undone just like any other edit.
Please, if you're interested in this, please go through the ones that were tagged more than a few months ago, and either remove the tags (if nobody's particularly interested in the merge and you personally don't think it's a good idea), or merge the articles yourself (if nobody's particularly opposed to the merge and you personally support it – just follow the steps at WP:MERGETEXT). Feel free to skip the ones that you don't have an opinion about. Even if you only process a few of them, it will be an important contribution to the project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
This is interesting to me because I often find enough sourcing for a separate article based upon the content in an existing article. Usually I can turn four sentences into a brand new article that has enough references to stand on its own. I suppose this could be regarded as the 'opposite' of a merge since there is more information on a topic in the new article than can fit into the paragraph of an existing article. Another editing activity I engage in is to fill out a redirect to a full fledged article on the actual topic of the redirect. Frankly, there are probably not enough editors to even become involved in merge discussions. Besides, I have had the content removed and merged into existing articles with no notification to me as the article creator, no discussion and no consensus many times. I guess that is being bold on the part of the editor doing the merging. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)   20:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
If you think that a tagged article shouldn't be merged, and nobody's commented after a reasonable time, then please take the tags off. Even if you don't have time to adding the sources and expand it, just getting it off the list of potential merges is an improvement. A note on the talk page to explain why is nice, but not strictly necessary. If we can focus attention on the things that actually need attention, that really is helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
WAID, I am not referring to any tags, I am referring to a merge being done without tagging and without discussion and without consensus. My point is - since performing the merger without discussions seems to be OK, There might be a different problem in addition to this one. Barbara (WVS)   13:00, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Curiously, when I look at the merger proposal for Hemorrhagic smallpox, at first sight the destination seems pretty obvious. On the other hand if one considers the point Barbara made, there would be a case for stripping that section out of smallpox and letting it stand on it's own. CV9933 (talk) 21:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Broken image rotation[edit]

Here [10] the image is off by 90 degrees. Anyone know how to fix this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Something looks broken in the image thumbnailer. It's also 90° off in the commons info page and image-history on that page, but the full-sized original image is correct. I tried resizing the thumbnail and that did not fix it, so it's something currently broken not something cached. DMacks (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
It looks like editor Utcursch has just an hour ago marked the image to be rotated into correct position by Rotatebot -- this will probably fix the problem once it happens. (Problems of this sort can easily be caused by incorrect use of image-editing programs, by the way.) Looie496 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Seems to have been fixed. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:55, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Knowledge and verification[edit]

These two links may interest some of our Wikipedians in Residence and others who are interested in the process of identifying good information: and m:Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Sources/Considering 2030: Misinformation, verification, and propaganda (July 2017). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

[11]very informative, thank you WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Classifying pedophilia as a mental (psychiatric) disorder, and questioning the number of pedophiles who molest children[edit]

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Pedophilia#Moving "mental disorder" out of the lead sentence, etc.. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Racial content at Depression (mood) article[edit]

If anyone here has any thoughts on racial content regarding the Depression (mood) article, see this section of the article and the following discussion: Talk:Depression (mood)#Possible additions related to epidemiology/race. A permalink is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Ay caramba. I moved it to the talk page. I had unwatched that article a while ago for some reason. Jytdog (talk) 00:58, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you accidentally unwatched it? It happens. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Hydrogen therapy[edit]

Hope someone will write an article on hydrogen therapy (see also here etc. It is not the same as hydrogen peroxide therapy!) Boris Tsirelson (talk) 05:52, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

The first source is unsuitable as a reference, but it does allude to some interesting findings. The second source is a thinly veiled advertisement. It is completely unreliable.
On PubMed, I found papers that suggest possible benefit in stroke and myocardial infarction reperfusion. However the studies are at a very early stage and the evidence is limited. I don't think that there are enough suitable reliable sources to justify writing a Wikipedia article at the moment. (This could well change in the future.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:28, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I see, thank you. Boris Tsirelson (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

COI at Immunoglobulin M[edit]

This series of edits has mostly been made by Marc Shulman (talk · contribs), which also happens to be the name of an author of several sources added to this.

I'm not saying those are wrong/bad sources necessarily (the editor added 28 sources, with only 4 of them to his own work), Shulman does seem to be a rather prolific expert author in this field, but if someone could review them as appropriate and unbiased additions, that would be great. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 11:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

left note[12]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I had already left them a note, what's really needed is a review of the content in the article. If it's all good, great. If not, then some things might need to be updated. I know nothing of the field, so I couldn't even begin to have an opinion. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
Would support going through the article and removing all primary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Veganism and vitamin B12 deficiency[edit]

More opinions here, please. Best. --BallenaBlanca BallenaBlanca.jpg Blue Mars symbol.svg (Talk) 10:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)