Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 14

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


Calling to all Active WPMED Contributors!

Globe-Star of life.svg

Calling all Active WPMED Contributors!

The Wikiversity School of Medicine has invited us to help and contribute to their articles pertaining to the Wikiversity School of Medicine!

You can meet the crew at the School of Medicine's talk page.

Have a look at School of Medicine task list to see where you can help.

Glance through Wikiversity Policy and Guidelines before contributing.

I saw they where looking for some experts in medicine and were lacking in participants, so I decided to go ahead and volunteer ourselves to go help them. Renaissancee (talk) 04:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to contribute.

Star of life caution.svg

Is tuition going to be free? :-) Fuzbaby (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hehe, I hope so. You'll just have to pay for boarding and necessities only. ;) Renaissancee (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it's accredited, but when has that ever stopped people from handing out medical degrees? :) MastCell Talk 04:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
citizendium could use some medical authors and editors too - can we make more recruitment flyers for this talk page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Every wiki thinks that it needs more editors. I don't think that we actually want to turn into a recruiting forum for any of them. More time spent at another wiki usually means less time spent here. I see no reason why Wikipedia would want to encourage its editor to do that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


This new article seems very problematic. It defines a syndrome that gets no hits on Google Scholar or Pubmed. A reference is given in the article which I can't check; the real source of the term seems to be an online petition at http : // (address munged to get around blacklist). I'm inclined to think the article should go where the woodbine twineth, and wonder if others have an opinion. Looie496 (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Cites editor's own wiki site and googling seems to provide just 2 doctors who mention term at all - fails even qualify as a trivial minority. I've tagged article and commented on talk page - I suspect it should be re-deleted (if I read the notes on WP:SPEEDY G4 should not be invoked twice and I'm unclear on the previous deletion process used) per WP:RECREATE (on basis of lack "Notability status has changed" and "Advertising, Self-promotion, Spam Pages intended to promote a person, company, organization, or cause" per "cause" as set out in editor's own blog). David Ruben Talk 00:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see anything to verify that the page was previously deleted? I have tagged the article for speedy deletion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Its shown for admins at the top of edit history to view or restore past edits. David Ruben Talk 01:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
You may want to have a look at this. LG, the prior deletion discussion is here. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
I've also removed {{db-hoax}} as it does not apply here—that's reserved for patently false content in the vein of "Jack B. Vandal will be the 134th president of the united states in 2014 when he leaves high school". This should probably be taken to AfD instead. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The term "corposcindosis" is mentioned in this ref.[1]. Perhaps it is noteworthy? I dunno, only one ref though but then again it isn't an official diagnostic term. Hmmm.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:52, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I did look at those links FV and they seemed to verify the term was original research but then I saw that ref in the article and thought hmmm. Thanks for removing the deletion tag.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:55, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the article should be deleted but the citation referencing and describing corposcindosis should be given a small mention in the Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy article? That is what I am leaning towards in opinion.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I striked out above comment as I see that there is already mention of this ref in the risks and controversy section of the Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy article. My twinkle tool has an option to request speedy deletion of content that was previously deleted.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

  • I see the article has been deleted by another admin per G4 recreation of a deleted page. David Ruben Talk 20:20, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Quad test

Please evaluate this: Quad test.RobSchop [just shout!] 08:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Congradulations to WikiProject Medicine!

Hey all, I was just about to assess some new pages when I noticed we now have over 18,000 articles within our scope. Woot! Does that make us the biggest WikiProject out there? :) Renaissancee (talk) 05:07, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Not even close. WP:MILHIST has five times that many. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Question re File:Endocarditis ultrasound.gif

Endocarditis ultrasound.gif

My echo-reading skills are pretty much nonexistent, what with my not being a doctor and all (or nurse, or radiology tech...). What am I seeing here—is this a parasternal short-axis view, as I presume? I haven't seen an annotated echo in years, and I'm having trouble correlating this to the anatomy. I could always Google "atlas of echocardiography" or something, but then what would be the use of having so many fine medical professionals on WP? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations - it's a boy! :) MastCell Talk 17:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Oh, OK then—but how far along is it? I swear, it's not mine... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Come on folks, you're missing the obvious point - its twins :-) David Ruben Talk 01:25, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
In that vein, I see male twins, each unfortunately appearing to have a cystic fetal tumor; likely a teratoma. --Una Smith (talk) 23:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Una, they are not in veins but rather amniotic sacs. David Ruben Talk 23:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
David, you jest in vain. --Una Smith (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

All joking aside, "parasternal short-axis" appears to mean simply that the sensor is above the sternum ("parasternal") and the plane of view is a transverse section ("short-axis"). (Anatomical terms of location could do with some expansion.) In addition, the view is toward the head. Imagine the patient lying before you face up with feet toward you. --Una Smith (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This is the funniest thing I've read today (granted, I've been reviewing grants today)Fuzbaby (talk) 03:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation please

"Panic attack and anxiety can occur, also delusional behavior, including somatoform delusions, sometimes accompanied by a depersonalization or derealization syndrome similar to what was seen in the past in the prodromal or early stages of general paresis.[1][2]"

From the Lyme disease article in Lyme_disease#Stage_3:_Late_persistent_infection. I'd like to put this in lay-friendly language, but I can't understand it to do so! Tim Vickers (talk) 20:05, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, "general paresis" is one of the manifestations of late-stage neurosyphilis, although I think it's a rather outdated term (or maybe it's just become a rare entity). Our article seems to be at General paresis of the insane (not sure if it's the same thing). I don't have access to those references, so any translation I offer could be inaccurate! Perhaps "depersonalization" and "derealization" could be described as a feeling of detachment from self or reality? Cas can probably help with that :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:13, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Redesign of FDA's website

Dear all!

Since mid-2008 FDA is redesigning their website. As of June 2009 practically all document names and paths were altered without automatic redirects. I would estimate that hundreds of reference links in WP are affected and lead to an HTTP-404 error page. Unfortunatelly if in the linked reference the title of the document is not given, any attempt to find the resource at FDA's site is futile. Sometimes even giving the exact title of the document FDA's search page lead to electronic nirvana. :-(

Accessibility of the site is poor, since previously many documents existed in two versions: HTML and PDF - HTML-versions were removed in the majority of cases. Documents' titles often contained information whether the version was a draft (XXXXdft.pdf) or final (XXXXfnl.pdf). Such an information is lost in the new system, where all documents are of the type ucmXXXXXX.yyy or UCMXXXXXX.yyy. XXXXXX is a six digit number, yyy is the file extension (pdf, rarely htm). Cave: ucm and UCM are case-sensitive.

Some (funny?) examples (no links, only to show differences):

Document title:


old URL:

new URL:

Formatting of Bioequivalence Summary Tables

old URLs:



new URLs: (notice the different XXXXXX and ucm vs. UCM)

It would be nice if we could start to update these references before a deadlink-bot removes them (would be terribly bad, because without the old title you have no chance locating the new one at FDA). Please see this as an invitation, but don't expect too much help from myself - I'm quite busy cleaning up articles at my home-wiki (German WP).

Heads up! -- Alfie±Talk 15:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

First a query - is ucm reserved for .doc format and UCM for .pdf as seems case in examples given above, or is it random ?
The pattern ucmXXXXX.yyy applies to virtually all files regardless the type (though there are some exceptions, especially in the dockets-area of the site). I guess the lower/upper cases are random (pros at work).
As a quick test, this did not seem case-sensitive to me.
SUPAC-IR: Immediate-Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms: Scale-Up and Post-Approval Changes: Chemistry, Manufacturing and Controls, In Vitro Dissolution Testing, and In Vivo Bioequivalence Documentation ucm070636.pdf (small letters), SUPAC-MR: Modified Release Solid Oral Dosage Forms UCM070640.pdf (capital letters). I used the links ‘as-is’ from FDA's site. But you are right, the call to the URL is not case-sensitive.
Perhaps a good moment to set up a {{FDAlink}} template to help with this and at least if in the future the FDA website folders are rearranged, then we can apply a quick fix (ie. apply single change to part of the template, but not if article XXXXXX numbers change).
I have no idea how the old 4-digit numbers relate to the new 6-digit numbers (I even tried to find a function whithout avail). Mainly older documents have lower numbers, but maybe they used a random generator in other cases. Example: the GLP-rules from Sept 1987 exist in two formats: UCM133730.pdf and ucm072706.htm… See the system?
I envisage {{FDAlink}} might take following 4/5 parameters:
  • Area - ie "Drug application" in above examples
  • Target - to specify ucm vs UCM if we must
  • Article - the XXXXXX bit
  • Display - for the article name we wish to show
  • accessdate - optional parameter
Hence in last example: {{FDAlink|Drug application|UCM|120957|DBE tables|2009-07-09}}
might be shown as: FDA DBE tables. Drug application. Accessed on 9 July 2009
David Ruben Talk 17:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Good idea. I'm only afraid if nobody starts editing the references, they will be removed. I think there's a bot for such cases, but since EN:WP is not my main wiki, I'm not sure. Right now there is still a chance for manual corrections. It will be a cumbersome job anyhow. - -Alfie±Talk 18:07, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that any "dead-link bot" removes references on the English Wikipedia. I think it's more common to tag it with {{deadlink}} instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Special:Linksearch showed me about 3,400 links to * My spot check of about 20 on the last page (i.e., not random) showed more than half were deadlinks. I wish there were a way to make Linksearch list links only in the main namespace. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
“about 3,400 links […] more than half were deadlinks.” Oh wow! Higher than my ‘guestimate’. I looked at the documentation of {{deadlink}}; the original link-text stays intact. So we have time to search FDA's site. I'll correct links time allowing, but I think that need we need some volunteers. -- Alfie±Talk 19:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
If it helps, -deadlink gives 139 pages result vice 19 pages for deadlink LeadSongDog come howl 19:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
It might take less time to write a petition to the FDA to revert back to their old network :-) Fuzbaby (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyone on speaking terms with a congresscritter? LeadSongDog come howl 20:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
This is probably a good job for a bot. The weblinkchecker script could probably be tweaked to check all of the article-space links to * and collect the dead ones. From there, they'd probably need to be replaced or redirected by hand, which would be faster than trying to code the logic necessary to find the new link. I can give this a shot, but it might be worth enlisting someone handier with Python and the MediaWiki API. MastCell Talk 21:49, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I think I can make headway on this tonight, hopefully without destroying Wikipedia via an accidental denial-of-service attack. It should be easy to pull all of the mainspace external links to *, check them for 404 errors, and throw the results into a tab-delimited text file or some sort of useful format. Depending on how many we're talking about, they could be split up among us and fixed pretty quickly. MastCell Talk 00:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me know how many different areas of the FDA website we're looking at - if a limited number then I can make that FDAlink template, but if folder/subfolder names are of a huge number then this will be one for hand coding/mrking up the links (which risks this all happening again at the next FDA website revamp) David Ruben Talk 00:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
If you want to read some Newspeak see FDA's statement about the redesign. They started with some cosmetics in mid-2008, but pushed the button on June 1st. And yes, I have already send e-mails asking for documents I could not find any more. Got a response of the type “Thank you for your inquiry to the Division of Drug Information in Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the Food and Drug Administration. We are aware of the problem and will forward your inquiry blabla”. I don't think they will change anything in the near future (the old system was in place for 15 years). Funny enough that all PDFs I've came across at the FDA were not updated, i.e. embedded links end up in Nirvana as well. For some further goodies see this post. -- Alfie±Talk 01:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I forgot: If you create a template {{FDAlink}}, please include another optional parameter 'documentdate' since some documents are legally binding. -- Alfie±Talk 10:57, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Update: list of broken links

OK, I've put together a list of broken links to * from articlespace. See User:MastCell/FDA links. There are a lot. Please feel free to jump in and fix or remove any (just cross them out and sign when you fix or verify them, so that your work isn't duplicated). Note that I wrote an automated tool to collect the links from Wikipedia and then test them - I haven't done it by hand - so it may be that some of the "broken" links actually "work". They may have been too complex for my Python script, but parse-able by the average browser. Most these seem well and truly broken, though. I also included a list of all of FDA weblinks that returned redirects - these probably don't need "fixing", because browsers handle them pretty seamlessly, but it may be worth verifying them as well. The broken links seem like the highest priority, though. MastCell Talk 00:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

What a great job! I checked some 301-redirects and quite often they lead to the wrong place. Examples are mainly deep links to the old filestructure, where the redirect leads to the top level category. So we have to check them also.
A funny story from the front-line. FDA's policies states: “FDA's preference is that people link to the material on the FDA site (rather than copying it to their personal Web sites) because the agency continuously updates the information on the Web site as better information becomes available.” I wanted to update a link on my site, but could not locate it in the file structure. I have the document on my HD, so had a lot of keywords available to feed the search page - but without success. On June 10th I asked for the new location. Yesterday I received an e-mail with the new resource and “As you may know, the agency is redesigning the website. We apologize for the inconvenience. The center is deligently working to fix and restore the broken and problem links, etc. etc.” Sneeking into the source code I found out that the entire section CDER Forum for International Drug Regulatory Authorities was created on June 16th (six days after my request). Only documents from the CDER Forum for International Drug Regulatory Authorities, April 14 - 18, 2008 are linked (I was asking for one of them). I have presentations from other years as well. Maybe FDA waits for other requests to fill up pages with content from their pile in the backyard. ;-) -- Alfie±Talk 15:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: template / bot

What do you think about creating a (small!) template to be placed in affected articles inviting users to check links and note the change at FDA links? I would guess that many users don't even know about the problems yet, since they don't read WT:MED. Though we could crate the template, we should leave the job of placing it in the articles to a silicon-based lifeform. ;-) -- Alfie±Talk 15:03, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help

I am looking for a few editors who would be willing to help me significantly expand the list of dermatologists. Would any of you consider working on this project? ---kilbad (talk) 15:42, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:MED comprehensiveness

Hi there, I'll be mentioning your project at a talk I'll be giving next week. In terms of comprehensiveness, does Wikipedia have an article on all the diseases that have been classified by ICD? If not, how would you describe where you are at presently? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

We are very close. If you click through the chapters linked at ICD-10#List, you will find very few redlinks and very few omitted codes. However, we can probably only approach comprehensiveness asymptotically, and there are some codes that will never align well with how we do things (for example, see how this requires two dimensions to code). --Arcadian (talk) 18:55, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll say about 60-70% complete, based on eyeballing those pages. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
I'd bet a rather large amount of these articles are, however, stub or start class in quality. We've got a long way to go before I'd consider this project's scope as actually comprehensive. We might have included most topics, but most are still significantly away from where we'd like them to be. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  22:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Let me start off by saying that I think there are so many editors doing a great job here at WikiProject Medicine. However, IMHO, I would rate the overall comprehensiveness of medicine-related content as poor. Taking my specific interest of skin conditions as an example, we are probably still missing articles on ~10% of the rarer cutaneous diseases, and of the articles we do have, many are merely stubs. ---kilbad (talk) 23:35, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
All of which is to say: We need more good editors! There's no shortage of useful work to be done, and much of it is still in the "low-hanging fruit" range. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
We definitely need more good editors. A lot of work goes into making an article comprehensive enough to be of actual use to the reader (not to mention making it accurate, using good references...) and many editors, myself included, are torn between making minor drive-by improvements to a bunch of (often random) content or choosing a particular article and developing it into maturity. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


... needs admin attention for IPs adding trivia and blogs to ELs. Semi-protection might help? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:39, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandy, semi-protected for one week. Graham, Graham Colm Talk 21:46, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

azo compound CA risk removed

i don't really agree with this edit. just because something isn't made doesnt mean that patients have not been exposed previously - also seems like historic info. Anyone else getting my monitored by drug companies suspicion? I mean, monitor the tylenol article's history... sigh - wp is far from perfect... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Not really, but I'm starting to suspect that you don't quite grasp the fact that there are different types of azo dyes. Just because "this" azo dye is associated with cancer doesn't mean that "all" azo dyes are. It's like saying that "drugs are bad, so I'll refuse everything to aspirin to anesthesia with the same vehemence that I would reject heroin and LSD." WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
surely one should at least state that some azo compounds have historically been not only associated but have been proven to cause cancer - to go further would be to specify which ones those are, state them, and state if they are still in use (off market in usa doesnt mean off market everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Well, the article does state "Azo dyes derived from benzidine are carcinogens". I would support reintroducing an explicit mention of the risk of bladder cancer, which has been well established for decades. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I was specifically taught in medical school that the relationship to azo dyes and bladder cancer was CLASSIC for board exams. I'd hate to see wikipedia not have things that are CLASSICALLY associated in medicine... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Even so, does it need to be on the page for every azo type drug, along with claims that those individual drugs cause the same cancers even when not having been shown to...Fuzbaby (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, although it really should be in the main article. I'll find a reference (shouldn't be hard) and reinstate it today. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I just reverted the most recent edit to the main article, which now states again: "some azo dyes are considered chemical carcinogens, and implicated in hepatocellular carcinoma and bladder cancer". Its not ref'd though at the moment.Fuzbaby (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
I see you found a better, previous version; thanks for fixing it.Fuzbaby (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I just merged Smokefoot's version with the previous one and reworded it a bit with a reference :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:15, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

  • The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
  • The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
  • I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
    • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
    • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
    • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
  • The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
  • The data is now retained indefinitely.
  • The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
  • Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [2]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:10, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Interesting lists. I never expected Michael Jackson's dead would make vitiligo such a popular page all the sudden (more than twice as popular as swine influenza so far in July). --WS (talk) 21:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Radiation therapist

Is there anyone with knowledge of radiation therapy and radiation oncology who can comment on this article? At least from the context of working in the US the article seems to address a radiation oncologist rather than a therapist, however, I'm not knowledgeable enough in the topic to know for sure.Fuzbaby (talk) 03:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


A dynamic IP continues to add original research, primary sources, anecdote and non-reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Linezolid is a Featured article candidate

Please feel free to leave your comments (and constructive criticism ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The question is: can we produce featured articles on antibiotics more quickly than bacteria can develop widespread resistance to them? We'll call this one a tie. :) MastCell Talk 21:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
That's easy: choose articles on antibiotics that are still in development :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
At a glance, it looks impressively detailed and thorough. It does seem a bit overtechnical or jargony, but I think we can work on that. MastCell Talk 21:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Pneumonia FAR

Have nominated pneumonia for review. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

NIH event

Press release, several people from Wikipedia will be talking at this event and we will be discussing your project. It will apparently be broadcast on the web. See Meta for schedule. Tim Vickers (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It's also been announced on the foundation blog:

“Wikipedia Academies are public outreach events, usually lasting one or two days, aimed at engaging academics and other subject-matter experts who are not familiar with wiki culture or online communities,” said Frank Schulenburg, head of public outreach for the Wikimedia Foundation. “In presentations and workshops, experienced Wikipedia authors teach the participants how to contribute to Wikipedia and orient the audience to Wikipedia’s structures and community policies.”

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Groovy! Now let's hope all these bright people will descend on Wikipedia and make it better. Can't wait to see the results. JFW | T@lk 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
The event seemed to go very well indeed, see Wikipedia:Academy/NIH 2009. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:33, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

New Proposed Policy

There is a proposed policy being discussed that concerns possible health consequences of Wikipedia articles. Please come and add your views on it by clicking here. Danglingdiagnosis (talk) 14:28, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I have huge concerns with this policy. To provide some backgroud to people this policies purpose is to lead to the removal of the images of the Rorschach inkblot. see talk:Rorschach_test Discussion of weather Wikipedia should be cencored are spreading over the internet.
Now the question is who is going to determine possible harm? Shall we leave it up to the Chinese government, the American Pyscologist Association? We are writing an encyclopedia. It is used by professional aswell as the general population. An encyclopedia is to provide information. Calls for sensorship by certain people need to be questioned extensively.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
I have also commented on the proposed policy (not even a guideline). I think it is misguided, reeks of instruction creep, and is best not implemented. JFW | T@lk 18:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

HIV GA Sweeps: On Hold

I have reviewed HIV for GA Sweeps to determine if it still qualifies as a Good Article. In reviewing the article I have found several issues, which I have detailed here. Since the article falls under the scope of this project, I figured you would be interested in contributing to further improve the article. Please comment there to help the article maintain its GA status. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 18:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Watchlist request

Would a couple of hardy souls please put Sexology and WP:SEX on their watchlists for a little while? Paraphilic infantilism might also be appropriate. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

For deletion?

I've never marked an article for deletion, speedy or otherwise. Wondering if Day-Light Bright Light Therapy System qualifies. "CET" is non-profit, but the article appears to be about a commercial product? - Hordaland (talk) 11:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help styling tables

I am looking for some computer savvy editors to help me style some tables to make them more readable. Basically, several of us editors are working to categorize pharmacology-related articles, and have created some rough draft conversion tables. However, at this time, they need more stylization for readability sake, but we were unsure how to do a few things, like indenting ATC codes in the first column to illustrate the hierarchy. Basically, anything you can do to make the tables easier to use would be great. Please feel free to edit away if you have ideas. ---kilbad (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


Yes, I can hear the groans. No, Guido isn't back. However, this rather controversial article has been getting a lot of edits that could use educated oversight. RetroS1mone (talk · contribs), a strong-willed editor with a strong point of view and limited English skills, has been making massive edits to the article with minimal discussion, and trampling over doubts expressed on the talk page. In particular he is greatly increasing the weight given to the belief that FM is frequently faked. He has shortened the article by over 10% today alone, and massively rearranged what is left, making it impossible for me to figure out what he has changed. I hasten to admit that my knowledge of this syndrome is limited, and I'm probably going to bow out after bringing the issue here. Looie496 (talk) 02:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

While heavy-handed edits to controversial articles are likely to cause trouble, I think RetroS1mone could do with some assistance. This user does indeed have a strong POV but represents an important school of thought that is often delegitimised. On chronic fatigue syndrome it is apparently not politically correct to suggest that psychological factors predispose to the development of this condition. Clearly, the FM article is not being watched by the clutch of editors that do battle on CFS. JFW | T@lk 16:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
I am happy for explaining my POV and it may be is not what people think. My POV is, syndromes of medically unexplained symptoms like in CFS, FM, GWI, IBS, Morgellons, chronic Lyme, they are medically unexplained!! My position, may be psychological factors are part of some, or not. May be, enterovirus infection causes one or some, or not. I do not know and the people that write medical literature do not know today. My number one POV is, Wiki should explain major view points like, some good doctors, scientists say psychological factors, other good doctors, scientists say enterovirus or what ever and there needs be MEDRS for all. The articles for these conditions, are very controversial and i think it is sad, more people with knowledge about the topics are not there but i understand why, patients and advocates can be uncivil when a person does not agree with there narrative of illness. My problem is, Wikipedia should show all from the significant medical view points about these conditions, also when patients and activists do not like. The view point of psychological factors is not much in these articles and do not say "somatization" or "conversion disorder" or o god "hypochondriasis" or "malingering" also when you have twenty MEDRS reviews or you need have armor on your head!! These terms have just so many MEDRS that they are part of the syndromes or in some people with the syndromes, like "acceptable" hypotheses now in the articles.
My other POV is, i like MEDRS for project medicine articles. Articles in project medicine w half of there sources primary literature, case studies, peoples blogs, they need be shortened more then 10% some times. RetroS1mone talk 02:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Over the last year (mostly the CFS related pages), a significant proportion of RetroS1mone's edits have been successfully challenged on grounds of being original research and/or not properly presenting the sources. While RetroS1mone is indeed capable of good editing, their "strong will" and etiquette issues (which has at times bordered on prejudice), such editorial challenges have usually taken a disproportionate amount of time and effort just to have simple often trivial points conceded. All this has created a lot of work for other editors who struggle to keep up with all the drama. So yes, those who edit the fibromyalgia article should probably be concerned. JFW says psychological factors on the CFS article aren't "politically correct". However, the reverse also seems true when the same skepticism displayed towards biological factors is directed towards psychological factors and the cognitive behavioural model. - Tekaphor (TALK) 14:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Classification of the tumors of the central nervous system

Hi all. I am a new entry for the Medicine WikiProject. I have just prepared in my user area a “simplified” Classification of the tumors of the central nervous system, based on official WHO documents. Before the “publication” in the normal wiki area, I need your analysis, review and evaluation. Criticism, suggestions and comments are welcome. Thank you in advance. --Giovanni Camporeale (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd recommend publishing as-is (though adding "WHO" to the start of the article.) There are some changes that would be beneficial, but it would be easier to implement once the article is in mainspace. --Arcadian (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The page name should specify this is the WHO classification. Also, I would like the content to be put a table with sortable columns. The WHO stages I, II, III should be explained more fully in the article, or in a linked article. --Una Smith (talk) 23:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
The WHO classification of the tumors of the central nervous system is in mainspace. I have the intention to write a specific article on Grading of the tumors of the central nervous system. Thank you for the suggestions. --Giovanni Camporeale (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Expert diagnosis requested

Numerous reversions of sourced content by one account [3], with explanation here [4]. A perusal of the articles' history and expert diagnosis to confirm the legitimacy and rationale for these edits would be appreciated. A secondary issue may be whether there is any conflict of interest. Thanks, JNW (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Just looking through it briefly it looks like some of the material removed was sourced to published articles in pubmed that are 1-2 years old and from various authors, so I have a hard time believing his explanation.Fuzbaby (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
If the edits are perceived as vandalism, I'd like to revert them and have an administrator contact the editor. If they're legit, fine. More thoughts would be appreciated. JNW (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
I have compare some of the deleted content to that which is in Uptodate. From what I see the content is correct. This in my opinion looks like vandalism.
I have left on note on the users page emphasising that once the content is on Wikipedia he she no longer owns it.
I recommend reverting the edits.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
He has essentially totally blanked pages. Does anyone have a roll back tool to do mass reverts? Looks like clever vandalism to me.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I have reverted some of the edits, as has Doc James, and left a note of explanation at the user's talk page. JNW (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Please discontinue reverting back the edits. I acknowledged the deletion myself. Content still seeks further approval. Although, retain the PTCL examples on Peripheral T-cell lymphoma page. Thanks --Roannevista (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
No. Wikipedia does not need any "further approval" from anyone to include basic information, like the definition of a disease. If the information is verifiably accurate and presented neutrally, then we're satisfied.
I do, however, request that you never add your own website to any article again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Ok. Granted, will delete external source to the site for the time being. But, will still future additions be granted if necessary? --Roannevista (talk) 18:04, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by future additions Roannevista?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Additions for information re:these topics. Same thing I did with the inclusion of resources.--Roannevista (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

One can always continue adding information. The dicussion of the content than takes place on the talk page of that specific article. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

citizendium likes experts and approvals if that is more your style. I like following cz but don't have time to contribute much. I contribute to WP when I'm reading it and see something I can add. I do get frustrated when another user comes along and deletes it though. It's just the game of wikis though... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:MED on Wikivoices?

I think it would be great if all us medicine editors had a conversation on Wikivoices. I asked the host if she would consider having us. What do you all think? ---kilbad (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think -- well, to be candid, I think that it's very odd that Durova strongly opposes editors talking on Wikipedia (e.g., see comments about a committee for brainstorming ideas for improving Wikipedia, while simultaneously promoting an off-wiki communication system to (apparently) do exactly the same thing, only without Wikipedia's basic policies (like WP:NPA) being applicable to the discussion. I frankly think this is hypocritical of Durova, and I don't want to have anything to do with it.
Additionally, I loathe telephones, and anything like them, so would not participate even if it were a widely accepted system. (I realize that other people have different views of Alexander Graham Bell's invention.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I won't be involved. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:51, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
A couple of the other medical wiki encylopedias use the actual names and qualifications of editors. If we get a bunch of editors coming over from these other wiki and editors associated with the NIH it might be useful to have an area were we us our real names thus increase transparency. Just a thought.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
That will lead to even more evaluation of the contributor rather than the contribution. We have too much of that here already, in my opinion. --Una Smith (talk) 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not prepared to quit being anonymous. See this page (and others on the same site, e.g., [5]) by a permanently banned editor for one reason: Would any rational person really want to make their identity available to a person like this?
To give an unrelated example, see this attack page against User:Hfarmer (. See this page against User:James Cantor. See this hatchet job against User:Jokestress. Would you want to deal with any of what these people are dealing with? These offwiki pages don't just stay offwiki (e.g., here), and they create stress and are brought up in disputes. WP:SEX has a bunch of complaints from User:Bittergrey this month that James Cantor (a professional sexologist) has (*gasp*) added external links to articles! Links to widely respected organizations that most sexologists (including himself) are members of, or have worked with, or published a paper at. If anyone else did it, we'd just evaluate the links on their own merits and be done with it. But since his identity is known, we have to be shocked and appalled.
I edit Wikipedia to get away from my real world commitments. I want my work to be taken or rejected for its merits, not because I'm a person who's supposed to know something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
Excellent point WhatamIdoing. I guess with this having such a general audience and some people taking this stuff fairly personally autonomy is best.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A "real name" adds no transparency unless there is also a mechanism to prove that the person who creates the account really, truly is the person by that name. And, that the person really does have the training, credentials, and expertise they say they do. --Una Smith (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Measles Vaccine

The page Measles Vaccine really needs help from experts. I am raising awareness about this. Dogposter (talk) 01:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To play devil's advocate, why not merge and redirect it to MMR vaccine? We could amplify on the history of the measles vaccine there. MastCell Talk 02:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I agree; I've already marked it for merge; haven't merged an article yet though. Fuzbaby (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
I would oppose the merge. MMR vaccine and MMRV vaccine are good places to talk about administration and history of these combinations, but the individual vaccine components are developed independently, and are of interest to distinct audiences. We don't have all those technical details yet, but if we lump everything into MMR vaccine, it will slow down the development of that content. --Arcadian (talk) 10:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
It was a separate vaccine at first, I don't think it should be merged. Dogposter (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As a seperate vaccine it could easily be covered in a history section of the MMR. I suppose if someone was able to expand the page and put in references that are specific to the seperate vaccine (not just MMR) then it could stand on its own. At the moment it is content empty.Fuzbaby (talk) 00:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

The article just needs time to develop more. Dogposter (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Online Bolognia

I had an idea, and wanted to know what the rest of the community thought. I already own the following source, both in the paper and online form:

  • Bolognia, Jean L.; et al. (2007). Dermatology. St. Louis: Mosby. ISBN 1-4160-2999-0. 

However, today the publisher gave me an activation code for a complimentary year of access to the online version of this source. Therefore, I was thinking, since I already have online access, perhaps I could set up a general account that any of us could use for the next year. All I would need is an e-mail and password to create the login, after which we could all share. What do you all think of this idea? I just figured it would be nice for all of us to have access to this awesome $400 text. However, of course, the overall goal would be to improve the dermatology-related content on wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 22:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

  • It would be useful, but alas is probably against the rules / law. I had some brief thought's a while back - I suspect most editors without access to papers and journals have. There was a slight possibility wikipedia could create an account as an institution, which normally costs thousands - this would require funding and probably be on a yearly basis so unless wikipedia becomes rich enough to afford this in perpetuity. Whether a journal would grant wikipedia enstatement as an institute would be another issue - I'm not sure how their business model operates , but if wikipedians had access, then there's nothingstopping anyone wanting a paper creating a WP account and getting it that way. On the flip side the gains to a journal of being referenced must be having some effects on their value - so it might be in their interests to give us access. Maybe we should ask one of them their position ...L∴V 23:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the source is available through the website Perhaps someone could contact them to see how they feel regarding these ideas? ---kilbad (talk) 00:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


There is a fair bit of duplicated open source medical encylopedia content online. I have queried a few of the other encylopedias ( ,, and ) and all are interested in working with us. Any comments on what we could do to work together?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fill some redlinks on ICD-10#List this? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:18, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Before the possibly mind boggingly possibilities and options are discussed the top priority would be to get them to adopt CC-by-sa so that content could be exchanged (as that would be one of the final goals I suppose), they have until the 1st August which is coming up very fast! L∴V 21:29, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Medpedia is current licensed under GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL). How is that different from what we have?
Wikidoc is under license GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. The cardiologist who runs it is interested in becoming a sister project. Have asked him about the possibility of changing his license.
There is less overlap between us and radiopeadia. Frank the person who runs it also edits wikipedia and is happy to share images. Unfortunately this has to be done on an image by image basis at this point in time. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Okay sort of figured it out. Content will not longer be interchangable if we are not all on the same content license.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry - missed your reply .. but seems you've found the answer and Mike Gibson has already adressed the issue for wikiDoc. L∴V 10:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

One method of collaboration I was thinking might work is creating pages on topics directed towards the general public and pages directed towards physicians. Editing of the pages for physicians could be protected from edits by IPs thus decreasing vandalism and hopefully attracting more editing by physicians from other wikis such as wikidocs and medpedia.

Have invited both project to come and comment here on other ways we can collaborate. Wikidocs by the way has changed their license to CC/SA 3.0. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Mike Gibson the Editor in Chief of WikiDoc here. We are eager to collaborate! We have adapted the same license (still working on changing the logo). We have people working on patient based pages at WikiPatient and docs working on physician level content at WikiDoc. We have others working on a differential diagnosis project where the wiki has searched itself to generate a list of causes of different signs and symptoms. This appears as a box on an expanding number of pages. We have also begun a clinical trial component to the site. Mike Gibson C. Michael Gibson (talk) 14:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Mike, and welcome to Wikipedia.
Doc James, I don't think that Wikipedia will agree to semi-protect a whole class of pages just to keep anon IPs from editing them. Furthermore, it's likely to reduce the willingness of some desirable editors from trying out Wikipedia. Nearly all editors started off as an anon before bothering with setting up an account. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
We have not restricted anon IPs at WikiDoc and we have encountered only very mild vandalism.C. Michael Gibson (talk) 22:16, 20 July 2009 (UTC) I therefore agree that restricting anon IPs would not be a good idea. We would need a group of dedicated editors to monitor any vandalism.

Dr Gibson, I'm not sure if the aims of Wikipedia and WikiDoc are quite compatible. Wikipedia's medical articles are aimed at the layperson but aim to cover enough information to satisfy the needs of professionals to an extent. WikiDoc deliberately introduces a dichotomy. Are you sure that a differential diagnosis engine won't be looking a bit like what is trying to sell to the public? JFW | T@lk 22:55, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

RfC on swine flu statistics

Link to RfC, input welcome. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WP in Journal of Oncology

Hello, has anyone access to this polish journal? Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#WP_in_Journal_of_Oncology ([6]) -- Cherubino (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You might try asking Piotrus (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

One of those lists

This will need to be watched for reliable sources: List of people affected by obsessive–compulsive disorder (just found it on a template being added to articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Over-the-counter drugs article

I just did some fairly significant cleanup/reorganization of the Over-the-counter_drug article. Further eyes and more polish on the article would be appreciated, as would information on OTC drugs in non-US or UK countries. I've tried to add more sourcing to what was previously a completely unsourced article, but more is definitely needed too. Thanks! Zachlipton (talk) 05:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work.
About globalization, I'm told that Germany has a three-tier system like the UK: perhaps this is a Europe-wide thing?
I also hear that in much of Africa, most of what Europe and North America considers to be "prescription drugs" are sold over-the-counter -- e.g., antibiotics, antimalarials and antihelminthics. ISBN 9780471899273 p 62 appears to address this issue. (Actually, you might like that entire chapter.)
On a different subject, a PubMed search on Switching prescription drugs to over the counter turned up a high proportion of free papers, so you might find some good sources for expanding that section there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Merge help requested

We have two duplicate articles under different names, slipped capital femoral epiphysis and Slipped Upper Femoral Epiphysis, both of which have been tagged for merging for almost a year. Could someone decide which should be merged where? And when you are finished, could you also check the accuracy of the redirect, slipped epiphysis? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe these terms are synonymous; therefore, I went ahead and merged them. However, the article still needs a lot of clean-up and referencing, so perhaps another editor could assist with that? Regardless, thank you for bringing this to the communities attention. ---kilbad (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

treatment of panic disorder - regional difference in guidelines

It seems that the US guidelines (APA) recommend benzodiazepines for the treatment of panic disorder while the UK guidelines from NICE state that they are not recommended and are best avoided. See the discussion Talk:Panic disorder#Medications section on panic disorder copied from talk page and edits of panic disorder. This might be a regional variation in clinical practice. Unfortunately the bulk of the literature comes from USA - so there might be a need to consider the sources carefully without undue weight. Helpful and neutral edits needed please. Earlypsychosis (talk) 02:34, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Medical illustrations at Wikimedia

I just stumbled on some excellent creative commons medical illustrations on wikimedia, by an illustrator/cardiologist team Patrick J. Lynch, medical illustrator; C. Carl Jaffe, MD, cardiologist.

These are far better than the muddy Gray's Anatomy scans that illustrate many WP articles. It looks like Frank Netter raised the bar for medical illustrations. They're mostly cardiology, but a few others. Does anybody know how to find other especially good medical illustrations on Wikimedia?

There are two problems with Gray's Anatomy, IMO: (1) While the original plates are beautiful, they don't scan too well on ordinary equipment, and I haven't seen a reproduction on the Internet where I could even read the captions clearly. In fact, even the best printed reproductions aren't too good. They weren't designed to be screened for dots. (2) Gray's Anatomy was descriptive, in a commendable 19th century style, and what you got was what you saw on the dissecting table, but a good medical illustration for didactic purposes should show you the medical point of what you're explaining. A good example is the left atrial appendage (recently in the news). I couldn't even see it in Gray's (understandable, since there's so much to see in the heart). Lynch drew a picture of the left atrial appendage which showed you what was going on. (And back in Gray's day, the coronary arteries were of theoretical interest, since there wasn't anything you could do about them, so they didn't deserve that much attention.) --Nbauman (talk) 16:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

A large portion of Frank Netters stuff was published in 1948 which means that its copyright expires in 2043. [7] So i guess we have a few years to wait yet. Does Grey's Anatomy pick up better with a digital camera?--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
In many cases, excellent illustrations can be provided by vectorizing Gray's images, and then adding labels that conform to modern terminology. --Arcadian (talk) 00:06, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Lynch's picture is indeed beautiful. However it would benefit from some labels. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions ?

Does this fit with naming conventions? I don't think so (considering PANDAS). Is there an admin around who might know and address this? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not appropriate. It rather looks like an effort to use the title to discredit the idea.
I find ~700 hits at on the quoted phrase; I (slightly reluctantly) conclude that it's therefore a notable idea, despite the stub being in dreadful condition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
I can't fix it; I think admin tools are required. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Reverting the move would require admin tools, but moving the page (again) to Obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorder would not, and would not damage the page history. Are caps appropriate in this case? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Caps are no more appropriate here than they are for the main OCD article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
WhatamI, time for you to go for adminship! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Moved. Hey, I'd support that :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for moving that page.
Perhaps we should have a "WikiProject Medicine goes to RFA" week. I can think of several editors that would probably qualify, if they were willing to hassle with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
And now moved back again; I do not know how to fix moves over redirects, could never figure that out. WhatAmI, as you know, I'm swamped IRL ... if you want a nom, pls do let me know, but be prepared to wait for me to find a free moment ! Perhaps Fv will co-nom? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
That article has been moved back to the incorrect name, and the same editor has made reverts and disruptive edits at autism and Asperger syndrome; admin patience needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not particularly concerned about this user's recent edits; they seem to focus mostly on using non-disabling language. Some discussion ought to clear things up. I'll gladly keep an eye on this in case it gets out of hand. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Using non-disabling language is certainly important to me, it is inappropriate to refer to someone who has an ASD as someone who "suffers from autism", or similar. See What to say (and not to say) about autism; from the National Autistic Society, and this NYT article: How About Not 'Curing' Us, Some Autistics Are Pleading. Whatever404 (talk) 18:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it makes sense to call the article Obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder. The article refers to a proposal that various existing conditions can be described as existing on an obsessive-compulsive spectrum, with individual disorders identified as candidates for the proposed spectrum being referred to as obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorders. There is no one "obsessive-compulsive spectrum disorder". Therefore, I think it makes more sense for the article to be titled obsessive-compulsive spectrum, just as Autism spectrum and Bipolar spectrum are.
As I was writing this, I saw that Eubulides has moved the page to Obsessive–compulsive spectrum. Good. As far as I can see, the matter is resolved. Whatever404 (talk) 18:48, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Since the literature far more commonly uses the term "Obsessive–compulsive spectrum disorder", with the trailing "disorder" (often pluralized), it appears that we still have a problem. Let's discuss this at Talk:Obsessive–compulsive spectrum #Move to unrecognized name before doing further renaming. Eubulides (talk) 19:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I independently ran into this problem before seeing the above discussion. I found zero hits at Google scholar on the phrase "Obsessive compulsive spectrum proposal". The word "proposal" is clear editorializing and has to be removed from the title as per WP:NPOV, so I renamed the article accordingly. I also fixed the hyphen to be an endash, as per WP:ENDASH. I followed up at Talk:Obsessive–compulsive spectrum #Move to unrecognized name. I urge that similar moves be thought through more carefully in the future, and discussed, before implementing them. Eubulides (talk) 18:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

FAR Baby Gender Mentor

Baby Gender Mentor is at FAR Wikipedia:Featured article review/Baby Gender Mentor/archive1 Please comment. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 00:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Cross-posted to WT:PHARM.

More eyes urgently needed at Talk:Propofol, where a discussion on the appropriateness of the terms "abuse", "misuse", et al. is currently underway. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I just wanted to say that the stypic section in the Antihemorrhagic article goes directly against the Aluminium sulfate article. The Al2(SO4)3 thread says "Aluminium sulfate is sometimes incorrectly referred to as alum", whereas the Styptic article says "A styptic or hemostatic pencil is a short stick of ... aluminum sulfate (a type of alum)". Tehol (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Report on broken FDA links

Just an update to say that we've fixed almost 200 of the dead FDA links, representing about 10% of what needs to be done.

Yes, it's tedious and unglamorous work, but many hands make light work, and I really appreciate the couple of people that are still plugging away at it.

Links to the FDA and similar websites are a really important component of WPMED's efforts to promote verifiable, mainstream medical information. If you're willing to invest two minutes in this goal, please go to User:MastCell/FDA_links and pick any item. Click the link to the article (to find out what the link supposedly says) and the link to the old FDA page.

  • Some of the links are dead and gone, in which case, you may want to change the link to the backup on (use |archiveurl= and |archivedate= for citation templates; otherwise, just change the URL).
  • Some of the links are 'dead', but the FDA's search engine will "suggest" a page. So far, the suggestions have always been precisely the page I'm looking for. Change the old URL to the new one.
  • Some of the links, particularly in the "permanently moved" list, are 'live' (they take you directly to the page you wanted), and all you have to do is paste the updated URL into the new article.

After you fix a URL, please use strikeout to let everyone know which link has been fixed.

Please also consider putting MastCell's list on your watchlist, setting it as your default browser page, or doing whatever it would take to keep this page in your mind for the next few weeks. Even if you're willing and able to fix just one link a day, your help is both good for the encyclopedia and a big morale booster for everyone else involved. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess I have no excuse for the fact that I haven't taken care of any of these myself yet. I promise to get on it. Thank you to everyone who has been working hard on this. MastCell Talk 05:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi MastCell and all!
I'm not that optimistic about FDA's 301-redirects. In many (most?) of cases the redirect does not lead to the original document, but to a website somewhere up in the file structure. Example: the original link in the article Verification and validation redirects to Guidance Documents (Medical Devices), whereas the correct document can only be found after searching at the redirected page (there's no direct reference given)… The worst I've experienced until now was three levels above the target document. So, IMHO 301's are needing special attention… -- Alfie±Talk 11:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: If you are interested in the history of broken FDA-links, see the archived talk-page. -- Alfie±Talk 12:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Or, build a template to support this, and bot it over. --Arcadian (talk) 02:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Arcadian!
I don't think that a silicon-based life-form is the best solution. We should not pass up a golden opportunity to brush up WP's links. Sometimes FDA's drafted guidelines are still linked, where final ones are available for years, new labels for drugs are valid, etc. I would opt for archived documents only as a last resort. -- Alfie±Talk 11:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Addendum: FDA's press releases ( redirect only to the overview. We should link to the right resource – at the left of FDA's site go the year, and browse to the month/article. As of today we have still 126 links of this type in the 301-Section. -- Alfie±Talk 14:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

William Thompson Lusk

I have been working on User:NuclearWarfare/William Thompson Lusk for the past few days, and frankly, I was getting a bit bored of the man. I have taken notes (and cited inline) on the article itself, but I was wondering if other people were interested in converting the work from bullet notes to prose. The man, an assistant adjuntant general during the Civil War, did some interesting things; he was one of the first people to perform C-sections where both the mother and child lived and also came out in favor of germ theory very early. So, anyone interested? NW (Talk) 00:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


I have been chewing at diabetic ketoacidosis for the last week or so. It is currently C-class. I would hope it is better now. I intend to submit it for WP:GAN shortly, but given that I'm not a paediatrician I would highly value others' input here. JFW | T@lk 11:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

It is now on WP:GAN. thanks to James and Una for some advice. JFW | T@lk 11:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC) amended 23:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
You're welcome. --Una Smith (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd be delighted if someone could do the GA review, before I have to file all those reprints! Reward: much gratitude. JFW | T@lk 10:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It's now been on GAN for 2 weeks. Please, everyone, spare this article a few minutes of your time. JFW | T@lk 23:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
I almost picked it up the other day, but realized that my notion of reviewing the article looked too much like "anything JFW is actually willing to nominate certainly meets the six criteria", and if your goal is a good peer review on the path to a possible FA, then it wouldn't be as helpful as someone else's review.
I have looked it over, and it looks great. I love the fact that you've relied on a handful of the very best sources instead of bloating the ref section with less stellar sources just to make it look long. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, WhatamIdoing. In fact, James already did a pretty good peer review. I am more and more coming round to the view that "less is more" when it comes to sources, and that a few high-quality reviews are usually much more representative of the state of knowledge than lots of small reviews that look at the subject from only one narrow angle. DKA is not exactly an area brimming with evidence. The only other major contribution from a Good Article review would be to remove any leaps of thought that would be perfectly logical for a working medic but possibly test the understanding of the uninitiated (e.g. the concept of osmotic dehydration, which a medic applies without a second thought). JFW | T@lk 13:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I haven't had the time to review this article, JFW. Unfortunately I don't think that I'll have time for a proper review in the next two weeks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:46, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

ECA stack

I'd like to ask for a few eyes on ECA stack. One account has made dozens of edits that have moved the article in a direction which I think is iffy. Specifically, I think the article selectively cites primary literature to claim that ephedrine, caffeine, and aspirin are safe and effective for weight loss, while downplaying the well-known adverse effects and deaths that led ephedra to be banned in many countries. But I may be oversensitive, or just wrong, and I won't be editing much in the near future. So anyone who wants to look, feel free. MastCell Talk 04:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Münchausen by Internet

I have found this at the psychology project and good article nomination. It is presented mostly as a syndrome and it may better suit under the health and medicine nomination instead than the "Culture and society" in the GAN. It should also probably follow WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. Thoughts? --Garrondo (talk) 13:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, the literature on it and the article states that it is a manifestation of factitious disorder and factitious disorder by proxy, communicated online instead of in person. I've not written a med article, but I welcome suggestions on making this adhere to MEDMOS. Garrondo proposed this on my talk page, and I went to see the MEDMOS style guidelines, but I'm not sure what to change based on what little info the sources provide. What is in the article is pretty much what exists in the way of medical literature. So if anyone has any suggestions, feel free to contact my talk page or the article talk page. Thanks. --Moni3 (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Giant cell glioblastoma

Hi. I have just released a “first version” of the article Giant cell glioblastoma. Criticism, suggestions and comments are welcome. Thank you in advance. --Giovanni Camporeale (talk) 13:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


Rod of asclepius.png
Thank you for your support of the Medicine Collaboration of the Week.
This week Abdominal aortic aneurysm was selected.
Hope you can help…

MCOTW is back! A slightly more surgical subject for a change! JFW | T@lk 14:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


I have nominated Médecins Sans Frontières for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Help! - FAC copyed needed

We're confident the Huntington's Disease article has its facts, content , references pretty well dotted, but require help of a thorough copyedit. I think we've done a good job of disambiguating most sentences, explaining necessary technical terms, removed unecessary jargon and the information flows pretty well but the required level of language seems to hover just beyond reach! I will ignore the grade on my Eng Lang result later, and see what happens , but any help of wordsmiths would be greatly appreciated! Cheers L∴V 13:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Additionally any comments in its FAC will also be greatly acknowledged. Thanks in advance to anybody willing to collaborate. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

A great big Thankyou to Axl for quickly stepping up to the oche and putting in several hours work :) L∴V 17:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
Several editors have now applied their skills now and article is getting in shape - big thanks to all. L∴V 13:03, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done every one ! The article has been passed as a featured article :) L∴V 21:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for medical advice

I have a question for anyone that has an answer, i have had sciatica for 3 years now and at this rate i am on the verge of being kicked out of the military if i don't lie about it and say that it's better. Anyways is their a anything i can do to heal it of make it a great deal better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:41, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia does not give medical advice. I suggest that you talk your physician directly about your concerns. He or she might be able to offer other treatments, or refer you to someone else. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Idiopathy in all its forms

As the result of a recent discussion on the Medically unexplained physical symptoms article, I've come to the realization that we have at least three articles on Wikipedia that deal in some manner with conditions or illnesses of unknown origin:

I'm thinking that these articles should be merged into one (though "Etiology" covers a broader definition, so only the appropriate section should be merged). Does anybody have any opinions on this? --RobinHood70 (talk) 17:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The MUPS article is really a very specific entity that cannot easily be merged. There's a large body of research into this specific field, with its epistemological difficulties (lumpers vs splitters, mind vs body).
Etiology and idiopathic are essentially dictionary definitions with lots of extra luggage. JFW | T@lk 18:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Idiopathic does not mean "of unknown origin" despite what you may have read countless times; that is what "cryptogenic" means. Idiopathic means "of its own disease". The distinction is important in the classification of epilepsy syndromes, for example, but the confusion these words carry with them mean that the ILAE is apparently phasing them out wrt epilepsy classification. Most idiopathic epilepsy syndromes are genetic and some have a known defect. Even if/when we discover all the defects that cause these syndromes, they will remain idiopathic. The point is that the defect causes epilepsy alone, and not some other syndrome with epilepsy as a component. Colin°Talk 19:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting distinction in the terminology. As far as the MUPS article goes, I'm inclined to agree that it seems to be a field of study of its own, but we're having the issue right now on the article that it's being used in a number of articles to replace the term "unknown cause" or similar wording, and it's hard to define when that's a reasonable substitution and when it isn't. I think that was what lead me to suggest that they be merged, to perhaps address the ambiguity by (as an example) having an Idiopathy (or Cryptogeny/Cryptogenic) article, with MUPS as a section within it. I'm not sure that's necessarily the best approach, but it was what I was thinking at the time, given my lack of understanding of the terminology. --RobinHood70 (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Now Unexplained symptoms has been directed to Medically unexplained physical symptoms. Given the subtleties of the terminology it would be helpful to get more editors interested in the topic. Ward20 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I've also noticed MUPS being linked in a number of questionable places recently. MUPS is not a synonym for "unexplained" any more than CFS is a synonym for "tired all the time". It looks like a full-scale review might be in order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
There have been repeated explanations that MUPS is not a synonym for 'cause unknown' [8] [9], but the dubious links continue to proliferate. Sam Weller (talk) 00:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Links to MUPS should only be, when MEDRS reviews, MUPS reviews, say conditions have medically unexplained symptoms. RetroS1mone talk 03:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have some MUS references User:RetroS1mone/MUSreferences in my sandbox for people that want learn more about different ways it is used in MEDRS. RetroS1mone talk 03:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I asked for a discussion to address the redirect Unexplained symptoms at the redirect discussion. Ward20 (talk) 19:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


Hello there. Could anyone look at this, please? It was speedily deleted (WP:G11), and recreated again. There are still concerns, the article seems to have serious deficiencies. I know nothing about it, to be honest. Thanks for your time and help. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be plagarism. Have tagged again for speedy deletion.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, Doc James. I've notified the creator of the article. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:04, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

What's the right home for...

What's the right home for impossible-to-diagnose cases like Brooke Greenberg, Summer Stiers, and other exceedingly rare, undescribed, and/or not-yet-diagnosed diseases? MUPS doesn't strike me as the right answer here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

These look like WP:BLP to me. We had a long discussion about case histories wrt Brown-Sequard Syndrome a while back and ending moving them all to wikibooks [10] .-Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, Summer Stiers died a little while ago, so BLP no longer applies in that instance.
But my (thoroughly undeveloped) thought is that individual cases of inexplicable (probably undescribed) diseases certainly exist, and that it might be good to have a label and an article (or section of an article) for them.
We don't want to classify them as MUPS, because they aren't MUPS, even though they are "medically unexplained" (so far) and involve "physical symptoms". We don't seem to have an [[Undiagnosed disease]] article (and I'm not sure what the right name for it would be, anyway). I thought that it might be useful to contrast MUPS (which seems to be turning into a term of the art that isn't just plain "unexplained symptoms") with this sort of idea. Perhaps a new section, Symptoms#Unexplained, or Rare disease#Undescribed? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
If possible, I lean toward using terms already in use over terms that may be unique to Wikipedia. The NIH program is called "undiagnosed diseases". That makes me think "undiagnosed diseases" should be considered. LyrlTalk C 14:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I always like using a term that can be sourced to something, so that's a good suggestion. The NIH program's webiste is a plausible source. Perhaps, at this point, it would be better placed as a short section in Rare diseases, rather than trying to create an entire article about it. What do you (or anyone else) think about that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Just as a general, non-medical opinion, I would say that a section in Rare diseases sounds like the place to start, perhaps with a redirect from "Undiagnosed diseases", and then if the section gets unwieldy, it can always be expanded into an article of its own later on. --RobinHood70 (talk) 19:37, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
There are many conditions which, while formally not-all-that rare, can go undiagnosed for decades. I just read Rare diseases (of which the last sentence doesn't make sense, BTW) and was happy to see that the term is defined very widely in the article at present. Therefore I agree that the proposed section can be a part of that article. - Hordaland (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) As an aside, I just reverted the last sentence to what it was a few months ago, before the non-sensical edit was made. --RobinHood70 (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC on the Rorschach test: fresh eyes needed

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. Should Rorschach test display all ten images used in the test and the common responses, or should we act on psychologists' concerns that doing so undermines the test? SlimVirgin talk|contribs 17:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Not again! This argument is too painful. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:07, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes but this argument has made headline news around the world. The outcome is being watched by many. The page had over 1 million hits last month.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I've endorsed some statements. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
This is now more than just the Rorschach. Several editors are starting to put test materials on other psychological tests, such as Rey Complex Figures, and Wisconsin Card Sort. The norms for these tests will be invalidated by this, as although some of the material is out on the net, nothing is quite as accessible as Wikipedia. This is going to mean that Neuropsych departments have to allocate more budget money to different tests, or that services will be reduced and patient care will suffer. The argument is that people deserve access to information, but I think the comparison is to medications. We put information about medications out there, but we keep the medications in a locked cabinet. Discussing the test is one thing - putting the test materials on is another. It is not necessary for the purpose of the discussion. These tests are used to help with patient care. Surely that is our bottom line in real life - why shouldn't it stay that way on wiki?--Vannin (talk) 16:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree this is a very important argument but I come to different conclusions.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

"Dermatomes" in Angina pectoris

Angina pectoris currently says:

Apart from chest discomfort, anginal pains may also be experienced in the epigastrium (upper central abdomen), back, neck, jaw, or shoulders, following skin dermatomes.

dermatomes redirects to Dermatome (anatomy), which says:

A dermatome is an area of skin that is mainly supplied by a single spinal nerve. There are eight cervical nerves, twelve thoracic nerves, five lumbar nerves and five sacral nerves. Each of these nerves relays sensation (including pain) from a particular region of skin to the brain. ... Dermatomes are useful in neurology for finding the site of damage to the spine. Because painful dermatomes are symptoms, not causes, of the underlying problem, surgery should never be determined by a pain. Aching in a dermatomic area indicates a lack of oxygen to the nerve as occurs in inflammation somewhere along the path of the nerve.

(Dermatome (anatomy) also gives a "see also" to the disamb page Dermatome, which lists Dermatome (instrument), Dermatome (anatomy), and Cutis plate)

I assume that the intended meaning is not "anginal pains may be experienced following areas of skin".
I can make a guess or two what's meant, but am not really be sure.
Can this please be clarified in Angina pectoris and Dermatome (anatomy) as appropriate? Thanks much. -- (talk) 14:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I've clarified the use of dermatome and included reference to referred pain. Kallimachus (talk) 16:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. -- (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Attn needed at Bonghan theory

Seems like crank-pushers are trying to get a foothold on wikipedia, but I'm nowhere near qualified to judge if this is indeed crank BS. I just know I see red-flags, so if someone competent could take a look at it, it would be appreciated. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:58, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Montmorillonite clay - medicinal use

There's an unusual situation now with the article Montmorillonite. If one looks at the Talk Page there, almost all of the discussion and interest is about the medicinal use of this clay. And yet, the article, itself, has no mention of medicinal use! The User:Vsmith keeps deleting anything in reference to this (such as here).

Wikipedia is supposed, at least in some way, to reflect the interests of users and editors. So why is this not happening with this article?

Also, a quick search of PubMed shows 2256 results for 'Montmorillonite' -- so this clay is obviously widely used in medicine and pharmacology. Thus, it looks like the behaviour of user Vsmith goes both against science and popular opinion.

Does anyone have any suggestion how this situation may be remedied? Dyuku (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Looked thru the first few pubmed papers. None comment on medicinal use. Well uptodate brings up nothing. Which are the best papers supporting your assertion?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

The only relevant point here is that there are at least dozens, and probably hundreds of peer-reviewed articles in PubMed dealing with the medicinal use of Montmorillonite. So why none of this can be mentioned in Wikipedia? The situation seems strange, to say the least...

I'm not really sure which articles are better than others -- I haven't read them all. But here are a few that seem good. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

  • Ducrotte P, Dapoigny M, Bonaz B, Siproudhis L (February 2005). "Symptomatic efficacy of beidellitic montmorillonite in irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized, controlled trial". Aliment. Pharmacol. Ther. 21 (4): 435–44.
  • Adsorption of a few heavy metals on natural and modified kaolinite and montmorillonite: a review. Bhattacharyya KG, Gupta SS. Adv Colloid Interface Sci. 2008 Aug 5;140(2):114-31. Epub 2008 Jan 17.[4]
  • Callahan GN. Eating dirt. Emerg Infect Dis [serial online] 2003 Aug [date cited].
  • Globa, L.E. and Nykovskaya, G.N. "Sorption of bacteriophages by the cation-substituted forms of montmorillonite," Acta virologica, 28: 329-333, 1984.
  • Herrera P, Burghardt RC, Phillips TD. Adsorption of Salmonella enteritidis by cetylpyridinium-exchanged montmorillonite clays. Vet Microbiol (2000) 74:259–72.
  • Hu CH, Xu ZR, Xia MS. Antibacterial effect of Cu2+-exchanged montmorillonite on Aeromonas hydrophila and discussion on its mechanism. Vet Microbiol (2005) 109:83–8.
  • Tong G, Yulong M, Peng G, et al. Antibacterial effects of the Cu(II)-exchanged montmorillonite on Escherichia coli K88 and Salmonella choleraesuis. Vet Microbiol (2005) 105:113–22.
  • Broad-spectrum in vitro antibacterial activities of clay minerals against antibiotic-susceptible and antibiotic-resistant bacterial pathogens Haydel, Shelley E | Remenih, Christine M | Williams, Lynda B Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy [J. Antimicrob. Chemother.]. Vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 353-361. Feb 2008.
  • A systematic review of contact dermatitis treatment and prevention. Saary J, Qureshi R, Palda V, DeKoven J, Pratt M, Skotnicki-Grant S, Holness L. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2005 Nov;53(5):845. Review.
  • Characterization of clay-based enterosorbents for the prevention of aflatoxicosis. Phillips TD, Lemke SL, Grant PG. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2002;504:157-71. Review.
  • Treatment of toxicodendron dermatitis (poison ivy and poison oak). Guin JD. Skin Therapy Lett. 2001 Apr;6(7):3-5. Review. PMID 11376396
  • [Prevention of allergy by protective skin creams: possibilities and limits] Schliemann S, Wigger-Alberti W, Elsner P. Schweiz Med Wochenschr. 1999 Jul 3;129(26):996-1001. Review. German.
  • A novel organoclay with antibacterial activity prepared from montmorillonite and Chlorhexidini Acetas. He H, Yang D, Yuan P, Shen W, Frost RL. J Colloid Interface Sci. 2006 May 1;297(1):235-43. Epub 2005 Nov 23.
  • Investigation on the mechanism of peptide chain prolongation on montmorillonite. Bujdák J, Eder A, Yongyai Y, Faybíková K, Rode BM. J Inorg Biochem. 1996 Jan;61(1):69-78. PMID 8558134

Dyuku (talk) 05:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed your list formatting, and made use of the magic word for PubMed id numbers. You might also like to know about this handy ref formatting script. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:48, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to reflect the interests of editors: WP:DUE clearly specifies that Wikipedia should reflect the interests and views of reliable sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd say Wikipedia should meet the interests of readers while reflecting the views of reliable external sources. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Quoting from WP:DUE, "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each."
Now, since we have tons of reliable sources demonstrating medicinal use of Montmorillonite, and no reliable sources to indicate the opposite, then clearly the views of Vsmith belong to the scientific fringe, and should not be reflected in Wikipedia. Dyuku (talk) 05:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Case Fatality to Case Fatality Rate

I've moved the stub for case fatality to case fatality rate. I think it improves clarity and reflects the more common usage. Now case fatality redirects to case fatality rate rather than visa versa. There was only a little discussion on the Talk:Case_fatality page about this change: one comment in support. I have also moved the WPMED tag. BillpSea (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

While that's a reasonable decision to make, unfortunately it's not the best way to move the pages. You should have used the 'move' button at the top of the page, and it would all have been done automatically, instead of cutting and pasting the contents. There's more details at WP:MOVE.
(It can't be done that way now, because of some software limitation after you've pasted the text, but I suspect that one of our admins will see your note and fix it all in a little while.) Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

New policy

Am attempting to create a policy pertaining to suppression of information / content. User:Jmh649/Suppression of content Would appreciate any comments.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to WP:LEAD

Input needed at Wikipedia_talk:Lead_section#Problem. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Grading of the tumors of the central nervous system

Hi. I have just released a “first version” of the article Grading of the tumors of the central nervous system. Suggestions and comments are welcome.--Giovanni Camporeale (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment in Alzheimer's disease

There is an ongoing discussion regarding the relationship of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields and Alzheimer's disease (See: Talk:Alzheimer's disease). Specifically comments from editors regarding the reliability of sources and how to integrate their conclussions would be greatly welcomed.--Garrondo (talk) 08:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion discussion

Hello. There is a deletion discussion regarding Leon S. Talaska, an OB/GYN, going on at AFD. Your input is appreciated. — DroEsperanto (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Frances Oldham Kelsey

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the article which you can see at Talk:Frances Oldham Kelsey/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. You are being notified as the talk page has a banner for this project. Thanks, GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Medical cannabis

Dear all!
More than 50 edits of the article Medical cannabis within the last three days were close to an edit war. I think the article needs a general overhaul. IMHO the article is far from WP:NPOV and contains a lot of unproven assertions, speculations, etc. The article currently is 93kB long, which also calls for some chimney sweeping. I added some quality-templates and hope for assistance. -- Alfie±Talk 22:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Any help from the medical community is still greatly appreciated. The talk page is recommended only for persons with some stamina. —Alfie±Talk 18:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the big question at the moment is whether "formally regulated pharamaceutical products derived from cannabis" should be covered in the same article as "go smoke some pot, if you've got a problem with nausea". Perhaps some editors here will have an opinion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Amir Belson and his catheter

I'm posting this here because Talk:Catheter isn't getting a lot of attention. As reported by popular science in June 2009, he has created an improved catheter. I would write about it myself, but I'm neither familiar with catheters in general nor understand his device well to offer a broad overview. I'm looking for someone who is more knowledgeable to explain it to me here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkjhv (talkcontribs) 11:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Bot to tag deadlinks?

About User:MastCell/FDA links (I know, you were just on your way to do your bit, but now I've distracted you ;-)

Is there a bot that we could send off to find and tag deadlinks specifically within the website? It might get some extra hands involved, as editors at individual articles might search for the updated links.

Ideally, the bot would leave an explanatory note on the article's talk page as well, so that the editors realize that nearly all of the pages are still on the website, just at a different URL. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wonderful idea! Whoever creates a silicon based-lifeform, a suggestion: the note should also include as message to also delete the link after the update from User:MastCell/FDA links. Sometimes (OK, very rarely) I started off for an article and found the link already corrected, or even worse simply removed. That meant digging into the history page. ;-)
For specialist only: see here how to deal with archived pages. —Alfie±Talk 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, but we could also ask MastCell to create a new list for us after a while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree, but the current list with finished links is an incentive to continue the work (at least for a lazy old dog like me). —Alfie±Talk 21:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sensory integration

Not really a medical article, but yesterday I reverted an edit that I thought provided medical advice (and also violated NPOV although I didn't say so), and today an IP has reverted my revert. Since I never like to get into one-on-one edit wars, can I ask for input from other editors? Looie496 (talk) 22:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Evidence Based medicine

Hello! Last week I tried posting an article on Zynx Health but it was deleted. How do I request that it be created as a part of the WikiProject Medicine section? I have explored this section and see that some of Zynx's competitors are listed here (like UptoDate). Is this the appropriate place for the article? JoeShmo3000 (talk) 22:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you name several sources of information about the company (not including anything that is written by the company)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, I can name several! Would more be needed to get something started? Let me know.

JoeShmo3000 (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've formatted your list to make it a bit easier to read.
Your first task is to demonstrate 'notability' according to Wikipedia's notions, which means showing that a somebody outside the company noticed its existence. The first handful of links are probably useless for this purpose (although they're good for writing the article), since they're all either directly or indirectly written by the company/the owners/the marketing department's press releases.
You've got a chance with the PubMed Central article, even though one of the four authors is with the company. The CEO interview is a good, basic "news"(ish) piece, and that will also help quite a bit. The NCCN and NQF stuff might help, but wouldn't be sufficient on their own.
It's helpful (to the people that try to very quickly review every new article) if your first sentence or two has some sort of "claim to fame", complete with a good reliable source to support it. For example, Zynx seems to make software that (by my calculation, and note that I'm not a reliable source ;-) is used by something like 30% of US hospitals.
In developing the article, you'll definitely want to mention the research (invoking the PubMed Central article), and obviously a section on the company's history, including founding and ownership, is appropriate.
There's also some general advice at Wikipedia:Your first article that you might want to look over.
If you want, you can start the article in your userspace (click here: User:JoeShmo3000/Zynx); generally, people won't speedy-delete userspace pages that are just getting started. If you decide to take that route, then at some point you'll want to move the page to its real name (which is very easy). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing, this is all very helpful. (Thanks for formatting!)I think I mentioned that I had already created the page and it was deleted. If I create the page again in my userspace and then move it to the real name wouldn't it just be deleted again? I was told not to try to recreate this page which is why I came here to see if this part of wiki would accept it--I feel like it belongs here. I know now not to use the company's web site as a reference but my previous attempt just got speedy deleted so I had no chance of making any corrections.

There was one other citation I didn't add, it was the Outsell (an independent party) Market Research report that names Zynx as the market share leader, so wouldn't that show notability? The only problem is that although I can link to this article, no one can infact read it unless they pay the hefty price for it. I myself have read a copy of it which is why I know. JoeShmo3000 (talk) 07:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Amino acid GAR notice

Amino acid has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting editorial assistance with Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak

Hi, friends! I am working diligently on this article and am trying to raise it to be a Good Article. Thus far I have made extensive edits to the article, but have failed two GA reviews. I am requesting additional assistance to the article so that it might be raised to GA status. Might anyone help? Thank!! Basket of Puppies 04:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright issue

I found this picture on the Encyclopedia of Science. There is an identical picture on Wikimedia Commons:-

The Encyclopedia of Science has the following copyright notice:-

All original content, including text, code, page design, graphics, and sound, in The Internet Encyclopedia of Science, which is part of The Worlds of David Darling web site, is protected by copyright.

Unless explicitly stated otherwise on the relevant page, material appearing in The Internet Encyclopedia of Science may be copied only for the purposes of reading it or keeping it for personal reference by a single individual. Any other reproduction or distribution of the material in The Internet Encyclopedia of Science, including commercial use, is not permitted without written consent. Requests for such use should be e-mailed to the contact address above.

Where the copyright is not owned by this web site this will be clearly stated within the page. Such material is included either with the explicit consent of the relevant copyright owner, under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, under the guidelines of "fair use", or because it is in the public domain.

No part of this website may be posted or in any way mirrored on the World Wide Web or any other part of the Internet without written permission.

I'm guessing that the likely issue with this picture is that the Encyclopedia of Science has taken the public domain picture, but hasn't attributed the GFDL label to the picture? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Close. Both Commons and the Encyclopedia of Science article cite the U.S. National Cancer Institute (a.k.a. The work is PD-USgov, not GFDL.LeadSongDog come howl 17:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I see, thanks. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Comments needed on a source for the Alzheimer's disease article

I have asked for imput on the usability of a review as a reliable secondary source for the Alzheimer's disease (Kheifets, L; Bowman, Jd; Checkoway, H; Feychting, M; Harrington, Jm; Kavet, R; Marsh, G; Mezei, G; Renew, Dc; Van, Wijngaarden, E (Feb 2009). "Future needs of occupational epidemiology of extremely low frequency electric and magnetic fields: review and recommendations". Occupational and environmental medicine 66 (2): 72–80. doi:10.1136/oem.2007.037994. ISSN 1351-0711. PMID 18805878) in the Reliable Sources Noticeboard here

Specific concerns have been raised by an editor that states that the author can not be considered an expert according to wikipedia standards of WP:MEDRS; while I disagree. Since the discussion directly affects one of the FA-top importance articles of the project I would greatly acknowledge any comments on the matter. Thanks to everybody in advance.--Garrondo (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I ask for help one more time: Some comment from editors would be really needed, since very few editors have commented and it is very important for the Alzheimer's disease article... COMMENTS PLEASE :-), BESTS.--Garrondo (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
To be more clear the exact question is if she is "someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill" in the "Alzheimer's disease" field--Nutriveg (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on WP:MEDMOS

I removed my previous comment as I misinterpreted the situation. User:InternetMeme and User:Bevinbell have been edit warring on WP:MEDMOS. I would recommend everyone add WP:MEDMOS to their watch list as well as probably propofol as well. This dispute seems to be a fall out from lengthy discussions on propofol talk page regarding the term off-label use being used to describe drug abuse.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:37, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

thanks for coming to the party late - we have reached consensus on Propofol on terminology. Please review the three revert rule - no edits occurred in a 24 hour period (three weeks ago), there were three edits in a four day period. Bevinbell (talk) 00:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Yea but medmos is a highly important wiki page and there seemed to be little intervention. It is not just that incident but any further incidents by other editors. I discussed further on my talk page.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Bevinbell, WP:Edit warring is rather more expansive than the Three-revert rule. You two were edit warring over something rather inconsequential. I think we were all glad when you stopped. I assume that your failure to start a discussion on MEDMOS's talk page, as I requested at the time, was because you had resolved the dispute elsewhere, but if not, my invitation still stands. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


I'm wondering about the categories this unapproved drug is in. It seems to do things related to sexual dysfunction but is not approved, at least in the US for that purpose, although, according to the manufacturer's website it remains under development despite problems. There is some discussion on the talk page of the article. Fred Talk 18:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal: Acid-base homeostasis

It seems to me that Acid-base homeostasis should be the main article for this topic, and that acid-base imbalance should be merged into it, as well as much of mixed disorder of acid-base balance. If no one objects (discussion at Talk:Acid-base homeostasis), I'll do it. I'm posting word on those pages; feel free to join. - Draeco (talk) 04:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:JOURNALS need helps!

I've noticed that most of the most popular missing journals are medicine related. Help would be appreciated to turn that see of red into a sea of blue. Most of these seem to be abbreviations that should be redirected to the main journal. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 23:23, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How is the list updated (to remove blue links)? Is there a bot? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, a bot runs every so often and generates these lists. Dunno when the next run will be, hopefully soon (interface should be overhauled big time). If not there's plenty of articles still remaining to be created/redirected and so on. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 00:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Here's a list of highly-cited, but currently missing articles/redirects (might not be medicine related).

Free free to remove journals that aren't related to this project. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 11:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of these could at least get an auto-stub with an external link to the respective entry at NLM Journals, though a little sophistication could also populate some of the parameters for {{Infobox Journal}} too. Perhaps user:Diberri could be persuaded to take it on if asked nicely.LeadSongDog come howl 14:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Writing guide. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 20:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Psychological associations take off Wiki access against editor of Wikipedia

Today I received a notice from my college of Physicians and Surgeons about complaints filled by a number of psychological associations about my linking of the 10 Rorschach test inkblots from Wikimedia commons to Wikipedia. The Wikipedia community has supported the addition of this material by a large majority. I have posted this here as this attempt by the psychological community to effect Wikipedia content is disturbing to say the least.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Was this a letter from the college? [By the way, what is the name of your college?] How did they track you down? From your userpage profile? Axl ¤ [Talk] 07:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
The compaints were a number of pyschology associations and they were made to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Saskatchewan. The conversationn continues regarding this here [11] It all started when I spoke with the NYTs a while back. The NYTs than wrote an article regarding Wikipedia and the Rorschach. My name was mentioned. Another editor on Wikipedia than proceeded to post how to get ahold of my college aswell as my hospital and a number of other editors have encouraged people to make compaints against me on Wikipedia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
We have specific policies about that: Wikipedia:Harassment. Please report that "another editor". For while you can request the removal of that personal data.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
In this instance someone talked to the New York Times and claimed to be a Wikipedia editor; that person has received a letter. All of that is outside of Wikipedia. --Una Smith (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Look over some recent changes

Recently visceral schistosomiasis was moved to schistosomiasis (skin symptoms), with visceral schistosomiasis‎ being redirected to schistosomiasis. Perhaps someone could look over the recent edits, redirects, and moving of these articles, particularly as they relate to naming conventions, organization, etc. I think some clean-up may be needed. ---kilbad (talk) 13:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Purtscher's retinopathy

Just deleted this as a copyvio of eMedicine. Perhaps a kindly soul would be willing to rewrite it as a stub? at Purtscher retinopathy? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

2009 flu pandemic

2009 flu pandemic is increasingly loaded with POV quotes. --Una Smith (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Another editor keeps changing the redirects Swine flu and Swine Flu to 2009 flu pandemic, arguing that readers using links to these pages are not interested in swine influenza. Others, including me, keep changing them back. --Una Smith (talk) 19:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Has there been any real discussion on this matter? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Not any I would call real discussion. --Una Smith (talk) 01:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Free articles?

The Brazilian College of Surgeons appears to offer full-text PDF versions of select articles from several journals, with updates twice a month, in the "Suggested reading" section of its website. Access is not restricted to members or fellows. The website's in Portuguese, but quite easy to navigate—could be a useful source. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:40, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring, POV, and a strange AFD close

More eyes please on the discussion at Talk:List of diseases and conditions with unusual features. Lots of OR and POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

OR is certainly a concern here (POV, I don't really see). What are the inclusion criteria? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Apparently, the selection criteria are "makes people stare (or wonder)" and "not too many people have it". Discussions about formalizing the criteria have gone nowhere, and the most recent suggestion was to add epilepsy, on the grounds that watching some kinds of seizures is distressing to bystanders. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I have nominated list of diseases and conditions with unusual features for deletion, and, if available, comments there would be appreciated. ---kilbad (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Three more days to go: There's still plenty of time for any other interested editors to share their opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of diseases and conditions with unusual features.
For those that haven't noticed it before, Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine is a manually created list of AfDs that might interest members of this project. It's watched by many editors, including some from related projects. If you start or see an AfD that is at all related to medicine, please feel free to add it to the list. WP:PRODs and WP:MFDs and the like can also be listed at the bottom of the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi. I've been giving these categories an extensive overhaul, separating the subcategories into site of synthesis, functional axis, chemical structure and action on the body. Please take a look and see what you think. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

Once again I'm encountering a difficulty with a new contributor on the BHRT page. Please see here. My changes mostly involved removing coatracking and syntheses, particularly the removal of studies that don't mention BHRT at all. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 12:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work; sorry I don't have more time to help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
A couple sources came up that clarify some issues, but I would still dearly love input from someone aware of the issues here. The central issuse of coatracking and syntheses still stand, even as the focus of the page will probably change in the near future. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Attention and extra eyes are needed at this article; a POV tag has been placed without full justification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

To be fair to Hillpna, I've read some new sources and re-read some old ones, and I believe I was off in some of my original issues with the page. It's a very confusing issue, not helped by the pharmacies advocating for BHRT and even peer-reviewed literature mixing bioidentical with compounding and a dash of pharmanoia. There are still problems of coatracking and syntheses waiting in the background, but there is also a need to clarify a lot of what is already cited. I would still dearly love some extra input, I still think Hillpna has jumped the gun and does not grasp the essence a lot of applicable policies, but I think I have a firmer grasp of some of his/her objections and there is some merit to them (though an overly aggressive protection of the old version doesn't help his/her case or any readers). WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Bolognia push 2009

Please help make sure wikipedia has articles on every dermatologic condition. There are many new articles and redirects to be made, and we at WP:DERM are looking for more help! ---kilbad (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


Does anyone know what is wrong with the Diberri template filler? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It is been broken for over a week. He says he is trying to fix it as fast as possible.--Garrondo (talk) 15:25, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

On the subject of the template filler, I have used it extensively, and I know a lot of editors appreciate it, I thought he deserved a pat on the back - but don't see any barnstars or such .... maybe we should club together and give a special barnstar - I mean how many articles have indirectly benefited from this tool! L∴V 23:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

He also has (had) the note at the top of the tool asking for money Face-smile.svg WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 00:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Looks like there's been some progress! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Cock ring

Hidee ho!, I was doing a bit of clean-up at cock ring and was hoping someone could take a peek to see if we are okay with the medical bits presented there? Mucho appreciato! -- Banjeboi 16:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

PMID 18507720 looks like a useful source. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
My, what an amply illustrated article. I'm afraid I don't have much to contribute beyond a few anecdotes from my days in the ER, none of which are encyclopedic in nature. MastCell Talk 17:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of that, why isn't Penile incarceration in List of unusual diseases? After all, it would immediately freak out at least 50% of our readership... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I don't know that it's a "disease" per se. If you tie a string too tightly around your finger, and you can't get it off, then you don't really have a "disease", just questionable judgment. More to the point, it appears there's a developing consensus to delete the list in question. MastCell Talk 17:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The article would be more complete with a section on similar rings used in management of livestock breeding males. I have seen them in use on bulls, and read of their use on horses. They are sometimes known as spermatorrheal rings. Looking for mention of them here, I came across a content fork: Spermatorrhoea and Spermatorrhea. --Una Smith (talk) 19:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for the quick replies, just to be clear we seem to be treading in medical advice or at least diagnostic areas, I think. I just want to ensure that whatever we have there presently is both accurate and allowable. -- Banjeboi 20:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Liver disease

Liver disease, which is obviously an important topic, is significantly incomplete (e.g., zero information about treatments). If anyone is looking for a high-impact article that will be easy to expand, this is a good candidate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi all, am reviewing Snakebite for GA status - thought some input from here might be good (don't do much with snakebites in psychiatry). All input at Talk:Snakebite/GA1 welcome. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good but under-referenced. The "First aid" section needs some serious work. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Neurocognitive Rehabilitation by Carlo Perfetti concept

In it was deleted becouse it's an original research without any study peer reviewd.. now it's again in and we are going to delete again.. Just to let you know about. Regards --Ignlig (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Article suggestion: death's approach

Hi all. I really appreciate your work here.

I looked through the topics related to death, and found there was a gap where I was hoping I'd find an article. I think it would be good to have an article on what happens to the body before death, for example, in terminal illness. There is a terminal-illness article, but it focusses more on the logistics than the physical/medical perspective; there's a stub about "death rattle", which is one aspect of what I'm talking about, but it's specific, not exhaustive.

Maybe no one's thought to write one because as a society we just don't like to think or talk about the subject, but I think it is worthwhile information to have, and I know I'd appreciate the information.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Then be bold and write it :-) --Garrondo (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
"What happens to the body" probably depends a lot on the specific cause of death. Trauma will obviously differ from long-term disease processes, but COPD is going to differ in some respects from brain cancer, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The National Cancer Institute has a summary on "The Last Days of Life" that someone could use as a starting point for such an article. PDQ Health Professional Version(disclosure: I work there, but was not involved in writing the summary.) Pluto665 (talk) 20:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Dorothy Rowe

Anyone from the UK heard of this person? Zero exposure here in Oz. Article could do with some independent sourcing. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

okay, have added some Earlypsychosis (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


Glynwiki (talk · contribs) has been merging some of his work into statin, and I have serious misgivings about the quality and tenability of the added content. I seem to be the only editor who cares enough about this to actually engage with Glynwiki and explain why Petri dish studies in rat mitochondria are unlikely to be relevant in this article. I'd very much appreciate some other contributors' input before I slash the entire addition. JFW | T@lk 18:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I will try to take a look. As an aside, there must be a special place in hell reserved for medical articles which rely on patent applications to source their claims. MastCell Talk 18:39, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Noninvasive Diagnosis of Fetal Aneuploidy Using Maternal Blood

Hi, can please someone have a look at the two concerns at Talk:Noninvasive Diagnosis of Fetal Aneuploidy Using Maternal Blood? Thanks, Pgallert (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pgallert,
Thanks for your note. The "two concerns" appear to be a suggestion for a different name and a request for copyediting this grammatically correct article for greater concision. Neither of these require the input of very many editors, and neither of them are really terribly important in the grand scheme of things.
IMO, if you don't get an active objection to moving the page, then you should simply be bold and do it yourself. As for copyediting, I'm not even sure that it deserves a {{Copyedit}} template: it's really not that bad, despite one editor saying that parts of it are (or were) a bit repetitive. I suspect that this comment can be safely ignored. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

End of life care

Prompted by a Daily Telegraph article [12] on the Liverpool Care Pathway, I was surprised to find that we don't seem to have a general article on end-of-life care.

Such an article might usefully cover some of the issues which can seem quite controversial - for example, removal of artificial hydration (cf [13]); as well as providing context and better framing for articles like terminal sedation; recommended reduced monitoring, medication and intervention; and general issues of best management and caring, such as those the LCP checklists try to prompt.

But, IMO as an uninformed layman, this is not an article to be created by an uninformed amateur; any such article would need to be created by professionals, that know their stuff. Jheald (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is written largely by amateurs, and you should feel free to find a couple of good reliable sources and do whatever you can. I suspect that you already know enough to start the article, and even a stub of just a couple of sentences and one good reference is a big help. Please give it a try. When you've done as much as you can, perhaps someone else will want to add their bit. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
End-of-life care and palliative care are effectively synonyms, although palliative care is spreading into the realm of symptom control in general. Perhaps we need a redirect to start with. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

FA tuneup needed

Cystic fibrosis is an FA with citation tags; is anyone able to give it a tune-up to avoid FAR? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I see more than citation trouble there... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:07, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, unless members here can work on it, perhaps it should go to FAR in a few weeks? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Category:Types of cancer

This category currently contains several types of benign neoplasms, and should be renamed or split. Any suggestions? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the benign stuff should be removed. An alternative is it should be renamed tumours.
I've seen a lot of confusion on Wikipedia between cancer (malignant, i.e. can metastasize) and tumour (benign or malignant). Nephron  T|C 16:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I'd support renaming, rather than trimming. (If we remove them, then we'll just have a neverending battle with other editors adding them back in.) --Arcadian (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
It's possible that the never-ending nature could be helped along by providing a different category for benign tumors, with explanations and links at the top of the cat pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm just thinking there will be great fun in categorizing tumours that can be both malignant and benign, e.g. pheochromocytoma. Nephron  T|C 17:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

BDNF associated with many conditions ?

can someone please have a look at all these edits from me [14] (the psychiatric conditions, not melbourne gangland war!) and then the undos [15]. I removed the BDNF sentence added by Beland (talk · contribs) on a number of articles (schizophrenia, dementia, anorexia, bulimia, etc ) - I first added [citation needed] for some articles, but then read the article that Beland (talk · contribs) directed me to and found no reference to all the conditions listed. Nutriveg (talk · contribs) has undone some of my changes [16]. Some of these are okay with a relevant sources - such as the one on Rett [17], but this scource for bulimia is simply a RCT with no mention of BDNF that I can see [18]. Earlypsychosis (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I support removing those sentences as the first step -- Beland simply added the same vague sentence to eight articles, with no sourcing or discussion. In cases like that, the only reasonable approach is to remove the material -- it can't be right for something that took one editor two minutes to do should force other editors to spend two hours fixing. (Already dealing with this at schizophrenia). Looie496 (talk) 21:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

this was the original article used to show that BDNF is associated with numerous conditions Strand AD, Baquet ZC, Aragaki AK; et al. (2007). "Expression profiling of Huntington's disease models suggests that brain-derived neurotrophic factor depletion plays a major role in striatal degeneration". J Neurosci. 27 (43): 11758–68. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2461-07.2007. PMID 17959817.  Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) Earlypsychosis (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

This is just a report on some original experimental work in a transgenic mouse model. To say that this substance is 'under investigation' is stretching the truth rather farther than supportable. There's actually more justification for saying that several dozen herbal extracts are 'under investigation': those, at least, have been tried in humans! WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
I didn't use that source and rewrote the text. Boghog2 also added a lot of references as well. Please get yourself informed instead of relying solely on Earlypsychosis POV.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
You're still left with a due-weight problem for the disease articles: If you can't find a paper primarily about the disease that discusses BDNF (such as a review paper on bulimia, not a review paper on BDNF), then Wikipedia's article about the disease probably shouldn't refer to BDNF.
The BDNF article itself doesn't suffer from this problem, as any good paper that is primarily about BDNF could obviously be useful in writing Wikipedia's article about BDNF. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

So in summary

BDNF now has more references as per here [19], not just the one inadequate Strand et al article cited to show a possible link with clinical depression, schizophrenia, Obsessive-compulsive disorder, Alzheimer's disease, Huntington's disease, Rett syndrome, dementia, anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa...that I removed (without any agenda). So a good improvement!
the following articles also have new references as below to support the line There is an association between brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and
schizophrenia Gratacòs, M.; González, R.; Mercader, M.; De Cid, R.; Urretavizcaya, M.; Estivill, X. (Apr 2007). "Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor Val66Met and Psychiatric Disorders: Meta-Analysis of Case-Control Studies Confirm Association to Substance-Related Disorders, Eating Disorders, and Schizophrenia". Biological Psychiatry. 61 (7): 911–922. doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2006.08.025. ISSN 0006-3223. PMID 17217930. Ivleva, E.; Thaker, G.; Tamminga, A. (Jul 2008). "Comparing genes and phenomenology in the major psychoses: schizophrenia and bipolar 1 disorder" (Free full text). Schizophrenia bulletin. 34 (4): 734–742. doi:10.1093/schbul/sbn051. ISSN 0586-7614. PMC 2632452Freely accessible. PMID 18515820. 
Causes of schizophrenia Xu, Q.; St Clair, D.; Feng, Y.; Lin, G.; He, G.; Li, X.; He, L. (Jun 2008). "BDNF gene is a genetic risk factor for schizophrenia and is related to the chlorpromazine-induced extrapyramidal syndrome in the Chinese population". Pharmacogenetics and genomics. 18 (6): 449–457. doi:10.1097/FPC.0b013e3282f85e26. ISSN 1744-6872. PMID 18408624. 
Biology of obsessive–compulsive disorder Hall, D.; Dhilla, A.; Charalambous, A.; Gogos, A.; Karayiorgou, M. (Aug 2003). "Sequence Variants of the Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) Gene Are Strongly Associated with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder". The American Journal of Human Genetics. 73 (2): 370–376. doi:10.1086/377003. ISSN 0002-9297. PMC 1180373Freely accessible. PMID 12836135. 
Alzheimer's disease Matsushita, S.; Arai, H.; Matsui, T.; Yuzuriha, T.; Urakami, K.; Masaki, T.; Higuchi, S. (May 2005). "Brain-derived neurotrophic factor gene polymorphisms and Alzheimer's disease". Journal of Neural Transmission. 112 (5): 703–711. doi:10.1007/s00702-004-0210-3. ISSN 0300-9564. PMID 15375678. 
Rett syndrome Sun, E.; Wu, H. (Feb 2006). "The Ups and Downs of BDNF in Rett Syndrome". Neuron. 49 (3): 321–323. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2006.01.014. ISSN 0896-6273. PMID 16446133. 
dementia - no evidence provided, so removed
anorexia nervosa Ribasés, M.; Gratacòs, M.; Fernández-Aranda, F.; Bellodi, L.; Boni, C.; Anderluh, M.; Cavallini, C.; Cellini, E.; Di Bella, D.; Erzegovesi, S.; Foulon, C.; Gabrovsek, M.; Gorwood, P.; Hebebrand, J.; Hinney, A.; Holliday, J.; Hu, X.; Karwautz, A.; Kipman, A.; Komel, R.; Nacmias, B.; Remschmidt, H.; Ricca, V.; Sorbi, S.; Wagner, G.; Treasure, J.; Collier, D. A.; Estivill, X. (Jun 2004). "Association of BDNF with anorexia, bulimia and age of onset of weight loss in six European populations" (Free full text). Human Molecular Genetics. 13 (12): 1205–1212. doi:10.1093/hmg/ddh137. ISSN 0964-6906. PMID 15115760. 
bulimia nervosa Ribasés, M.; Gratacòs, M.; Fernández-Aranda, F.; Bellodi, L.; Boni, C.; Anderluh, M.; Cavallini, C.; Cellini, E.; Di Bella, D.; Erzegovesi, S.; Foulon, C.; Gabrovsek, M.; Gorwood, P.; Hebebrand, J.; Hinney, A.; Holliday, J.; Hu, X.; Karwautz, A.; Kipman, A.; Komel, R.; Nacmias, B.; Remschmidt, H.; Ricca, V.; Sorbi, S.; Wagner, G.; Treasure, J.; Collier, D. A.; Estivill, X. (Jun 2004). "Association of BDNF with anorexia, bulimia and age of onset of weight loss in six European populations" (Free full text). Human Molecular Genetics. 13 (12): 1205–1212. doi:10.1093/hmg/ddh137. ISSN 0964-6906. PMID 15115760. 
any comments and edit assistance welcomed. Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
There's no purpose of continuing this general discussion here, please use the article discussion page where there's specific concern. By the way, since the start you all have done nothing beyond criticizing other people (suppose) contributions to this subject, so I'll let you do the actual job now and I'm out of this discussion.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Status of {{Infobox Medical Person}}?

This template is rarely used, but I think it would be helpful for the usual reasons. Perhaps the name of the template is too unwieldy? Also, it isn't listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine#Templates or at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(medicine-related_articles)#Infoboxes. Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The template name is unwieldy. However, the reason it has not come up here before is probably because this project tends not to include articles about medical people in its scope. The current assessment guidelines state to tag a page with {{WPMED}} "only if the person is notable for substantial contributions to medicine." I would guess that most medical people are notable (and thus included in Wikipedia) for reasons other than substantially contributing to the field of medicine. Instead, they are covered by Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia and tagged with {{WikiProject Biography |s&a-work-group=yes}}. --Scott Alter 01:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
That's the general theory, but in practice, the topical WikiProjects do the work. In other words, the biography project doesn't exactly have it together. In any case, I added this template to Aniru Conteh and just submitted a peer review. I would appreciate an assessment of the article by this project, any corrections and criticism, or recommendations for expansion, or even major contributions. Ideally, I would like to go into detail about Conteh's clinical approach to treating Lassa fever, and the status of the ward after his death, and the new role of the Mano River Union Lassa Fever Network. There appears to be an update regarding the ward (and the network) in one or two journals that I don't have access to, particularly Antiviral Research 78 (1):103-115, and possibly a few others. Jessica Melone (I believe she is currently employed by the NIH) includes some of this information in a PPT presentation[20] with references at the end, but without footnotes, it's hard to tell where to find it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


An anonymous editor is making POV edits to Prolotherapy[21]. Could somebody take a look at that? --Nbauman (talk) 16:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the offending sentence (the second edit only, the first one just removed redundant information). I'll try to keep an eye on it. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

What type of dash to use

I was not sure what type of dash to use for the actual article title of Ulnar–mammary syndrome. Please correct the title if I used the wrong type. ---kilbad (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Almost certain it's an the shorter dash (forgotten if it's called en or em) so I've moved it to that. Hope I'm right, otherwise I've made the situation a little more tricky, but I've always used the shorter dash and they haven't been moved yet... Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  18:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
It is indeed the en dash (the shorter one, so named because it is as wide as an en in whatever font it's set in). The guideline is WP:DASH, and the Dash article has all the information you need :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
There are 3 dashes, the hypen -, the en dash –, and the em dash —. Em dash is used to separate chunks of text. En dash is used in numeric ranges. The dash used in hyphenated words is the hyphen: Ulnar-mammary syndrome. --Una Smith (talk) 03:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
No, Una, the hyphen is not a dash. There are many other uses for the en dash, as detailed in the links I provided above; it was the correct character in this case. Wikipedia does not follow the Chicago style: see point 1(c) of WP:DASH and Wikipedia:DASH#En dashes in page names. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Although the link Wikipedia:DASH#En dashes in page names is blue, it has no anchor; Wikipedia:DASH#En dashes does. Having now researched this syndrome on PubMed, I agree the en-dash is correct. The syndrome shows abnormalities of the ulna and the breast. The article, a stub, provides no clue. --Una Smith (talk) 15:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I apologize if I came across a bit impatient, by the way. Chalk it up to typophilia. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I was thrown by the adjectival ulnar, wondering how ulnar qualified mammary. Evidently it is short for ulnar ray. Oh well, this is what the trait is called, however poorly it parses. --Una Smith (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Case studies

A user has added some case studies to Spinal stenosis They are well done but not exactly encyclopedic.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not only that but they have dedicated full sections to case reports, some of which appear irrelevant to the article topic. WP:UNDUE jumps to mind. I think a lot of pruning and deleting is needed.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
One could just put them all together and move them to Wiki books.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if we will ever manage to convince User:A E Francis that this is not acceptable? He's done this to several articles, always with strong objections whenever it's noticed, and he seems to be WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT about it. I'll userfy the text, with a reminder that Wikipedia is not a collection of case studies, and a recommendation to try Wikibooks. Again. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if several editors would watchlist this page for the next few weeks, in the (unlikely) case of edit warring. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
And someone else should have a go at Hemiparesis#Representative_cases. The article is just a stub followed by 16 detailed case studies. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Same approach applies. This is actually really good content, just not appropriate for Wikipedia. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:06, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that it's excellent content. If he would transwiki it, I'd cheerfully add the sister links myself. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


An IP persists in adding a foreign-language blog to external links; I'm going to be traveling until the end of September. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted this person twice, don't want to go for a 3rd time and risk 3RR. More eyes are needed. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm watching it, will revert and explain about blacklists if it happens again. Looie496 (talk) 02:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry, I don't think removing vandalism or linkspam runs afowl of 3rr.Fuzbaby (talk) 02:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Multi-reverting linkspam often makes me a bit nervous, because what I see as spam may be seen by somebody else as a good-faith addition. I don't like to be in a position where whether or not I'm violating 3RR is a matter of interpretation. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I have semi-protected this page for a few weeks. Graham Colm Talk 21:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominating Rumination syndrome for FA

Hi all. Wanted to come here first and see if anybody had an comments/opinions on my (I say my only based on the percentage of contributions, not on ownership) work at rumination syndrome. The article just passed its GAN with flying colours, and seems like it could pass an FA (Aside from needing to fix the bulleted list in Diagnosis). Be harsh and nit-picky please. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 02:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not working

Does anybody know why the template filler is not working [22]? Graham Colm Talk 17:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

See my post above, under Diberri. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Sandy, I missed that post. Graham Colm Talk 17:25, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

References 2,7,11 in "Cervarix" article point to page not found. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

New article, may need the old once-over

Glutathione supplements. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A very brief once over of that article makes me suspect that it may be original research, synthesis and slanted to dubious alternative healthcare claims. My instincts are that anything of value should probably be merged into, Glutathione.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree about merging. --Una Smith (talk) 23:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
A lot of the refs have been misused, most of the refs are not even on supplementation but just on how glutathione works in the body.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 01:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with LG on the refs, not surprised considering the topic. Fuzbaby (talk) 02:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Redirected. Physchim62 (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
That was not a medicine article, but biology, the redirect deleted all the article content. Please use the article page for discussion.--Nutriveg (talk) 16:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Article content was faked by using irrelevant refs which were not even about supplements to make scientific statements about supplements. There is no need to use the talk page of the article as it has been deleted/merged.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
That deletion was done few minutes ago, no previous discussion was made in that article discussion page and there is no way to discuss an article content if someone keep deleting it.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Support merge. The problem with that article was encapsulated by the first sentence, which gave a broad and unreferenced definition of "glutathione supplements" that is at odds with the usual meaning of the term. When you say "glutathione supplement" that means "a supplement containing glutathione" - that content formed about two sentences of the entire article, the rest was a broad sweep of "dietary compounds that might interact with glutathione metabolism". Tim Vickers (talk) 17:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
We can't discuss an article content on the basis of presumed content since it can't be edited (improved) because someone else keeps deleting it.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I can't understand what you are trying to say. However, if you are objecting to the redirect I'd say that it seems entirely in line with the consensus of this discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Nothing was deleted; the article was turned into a redirect. All the content is still in the history. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
All the old content is in history, it was reverted twice while I was improving it, so I can't edit it any longer and article content can only be presumed, beyond that it's not a medicine article, but biology. Thank you.--Nutriveg (talk) 17:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Most of the references were about biology and glutathione but were made to talk about supplements when refs were not about supplements, hence misuse of refs.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I wrote most of this article. I would support the consensus Wikipedia editors. I agree that definitions must be supported by consensus. The definition of "glutathione supplement" seems to be at issue. To have it include any supplement that might be used with the intention of increasing or supporting glutathione function may be too broad. (Entropy7 (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC))

I think Nutriveg is saying it is hard to discuss content that is not in the current version of the article. Nutriveg, you can link to past versions of the article, link to diffs of the article, and copy chunks of text from any version of the article to the talk page. I agree with Entropy7 that the heart of the problem is a mismatch between article title and content, not misuse of references. I also agree with other editors that the content in the disputed article belongs in the other article. Making Glutathione supplements a redirect is a first step, but perhaps some content prior to the redirect does remain to be merged into the article Glutathione. --Una Smith (talk) 20:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Not all of the refs were misused and there is some content that is worth merging. There are relevant refs I thought that it had been or was going to be merged into the main glutathione article? Ref one,[23] was cited 5 times to make statements about supplements but the ref was not talking about supplements. The main glutathione article is still a bit small and is quite a way off needing to be split, so would not oppose relevant info being merged into it.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
On closer examination most refs were not misused, just the intro and first section was for the most part not reflecting the refs.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You made a very poor reading of that Wikipedia article introduction ("either increase glutathione levels or increase effectiveness of glutathione mediated processes") since the reference you cited is clearly ontopic: "an imbalance in expression of GSH and associated enzymes has been implicated in a variety of circumstances (...) Polymorphic expression of enzymes involved in GSH homeostasis influences susceptibility and progression".--Nutriveg (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Ok, but where does it say that "Glutathione supplementation has been shown to increase plasma glutathione levels in different diseases" (then listing the diseases) which was stated in the article?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I mean it's on topic because those enzymes fits the article topic by that article introduction. It's well known that glutathione is reduced by the onset of many diseases, so supplementation is likely to be effective in those conditions. I can't search for a source right now but it's clear you don't know the subject you're talking about.--Nutriveg (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
This statement is original research, "so supplementation is likely to be effective in those conditions". I accept that glutathione is reduced in many diseases, however, correlation does not mean causation,,, meaning glutathione may be a symptom of a disease process but correction of glutathione levels may do nothing for the symptoms or disease. This is what I mean by speculation and original research. I admit I do not know much about the subject matter, but if you have references which say what you are saying then great. By the way, I am not your enemy, although it may seem that way and I am not rabidly anti-supplements, was just opposed to original research and what I perceived to be misuse of a couple of refs. If it is any consolation when I first joined wikipedia I made a lot of mistakes, using poor sources and even misinterpreting a few of them and even original research on some occasions. I am sure that a compromise can be found. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
"So supplementation is likely to work" is not just WP:OR, but is well beyond any high-quality source I've seen in the last few years. AFAIK, the most charitable interpretation of available data is that glutathione supplementation is at the "plausible hypothesis that needs rigorous testing" stage. A less charitable reading is "When we blind the trials properly, we're not seeing a benefit beyond placebo."
Supplementation is known not to be useful in other similar situations: e.g., most Calcium deficiencies are not usefully treated by taking an oral Calcium supplement (even when the supplement includes Vitamin D). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
"So supplementation is likely to work" was my comment about that phrase, ("Glutathione supplementation has been shown to increase plasma glutathione levels in different diseases") since I couldn't pick a source at that time to use its own words. The phrase was specific about "plasma glutathione levels" which makes it even more plausible. Now I picked a source that explicit says that in the abstract (I don't know if the previous one already did in its content) and we can all be happy.
The problem here is that the Wikipedia:Editing policy says one shouldn't delete content in that situation only if it's "patent nonsense" or after a {{fact}} was used. It didn't sound as "patent nonsense" to me and those that deleted it (at least Literaturegeek by his own words) didn't know the subject. So you complete deleted that newcomer contribution soly by assuming bad faith, that all that text was about promoting some specific branded product.
PS: About calcium supplementation I've sources that support a different POV than yours, please inform me in which wikipedia article they are not well represented.--Nutriveg (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The problem is whether you're looking at biomarkers or practical clinical outcomes. Sure: eating glutathione supplementation raises the amount of glutathione in the body.
But does it improve practical outcomes? No -- not as far as anyone can make out, at the moment. For example, many women take Calcium to reduce the risk of hip fractures due to osteoporosis. Eating Calcium increases the amount of Calcium in the body. But does it work? Not really: Women who take Calcium supplements and women who do not either end up with basically the same number of hip fractures due to osteoporosis, or they prevent the hip fracture at the cost of a heart attack[24]. There are various theories: e.g., perhaps the extra Calcium blocks Phosphorus absorption. (Both are needed for healthy bones.)
Just improving the biomarker doesn't make people healthier. We need to be careful about claiming that something "works", because the average reader is going to interpret that as "has a practical benefit to daily life", not "improves some number on a lab test". And, in case you weren't aware, on Tuesday, this article said "Glutathione supplementation has been shown to affect the prograssion or treatment of Parkinsons disease[1], HIV[2][1], cystic fibrosis[3][1], liver disease[1] and cancer[4][5]," which is a clear claim of practical benefit that isn't even slightly supported by the named sources, most of which explicitly disclaim any practical benefit. For example, the HIV source says that GSH levels increased, but T4 counts, etc., all remained the same. Based on this information, a reasonable person would conclude that GSH has zero effect on HIV disease. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I won't discuss Calcium here since it's offtopic. By the way "Calcium deficiencies" is different than "bone health", if someone has a bone disease when the cause is not low serum levels of calcium (which can be exam checked) it's unlikely that kind of supplementation will help the outcome of that disease.
As I said before that was a biology article not a medical one, so the kind of required rigor is not the same. That low access, unpopular term article had miminal or no impact to someone seeking information on "treatment of Parkinsons disease". That person would find that article only by accident, specially during the time those weak points could be addressed. No comments on the quality of that Glutathione metabolism article made so far justify the way it was completed deleted and the way many people kept deleting it as whole while I was trying to improve that article content. --Nutriveg (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, you are talking about correcting a deficiency. Do you have any references which show a therapeutic value of glutathione? If not, then I am not sure a dedicated article is warranted. Why not expand this section, Glutathione#Supplementation sticking closely to what the refs say?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I must be misunderstanding something. Nutriveg, are you saying that it's OK to make unfounded claims that glutathione can treat Parkinson's, HIV, cancer, etc - as long as those claims are made in a "biology" article rather than a "medical" article? Even if this were not a ludicrous assertion on its face, doesn't the claim that a substance can cure a disease place an article squarely in the "medical" realm? MastCell Talk 21:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Literaturegeek, read the the article introduction to understand that article purpose. As I said before the content could be moved (later or at that time) but the only actions, by yourself included, were to delete the whole article and to stop another editor from improving/reviewing that text (before it could be moved).
MastCell, No, I was saying that part of the article should be rewrited or deleted, not the article as whole, specially not several times while someone else was trying to improve it.--Nutriveg (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I did read the intro. Here is the last version,[25] for anyone who is interested of the article before it was deleted and redirected. There are some refs which are interesting factoids which should be merged into the main glutathione article. I am not opposed to some of the information being merged. I did read the introduction and I still feel that there is not enough good refs for a dedicated article to glutathione supplements. I also am of the opinion of correlation does not demonstrate causation or benefit from supplementation, it is speculative. I think instead of arguing about whether the page should be ressurected, which is unlikely due to lack of consensus, why not just move relevant refs to the main glutathione article, stick closely to what the refs say, then if anyone disagrees with some of the refs, we can take it from there?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I pointed the introduction because that was what the article was about, not about "therapeutic value of glutathione" as you said above. Stop pushing the blame on me, you opposed any change in article before merge because you deleted it twice as I was doing so. Because of all that more than ever I lost the motivation to continue editing it. If you want to end this discussion just end it, instead of implying it was a fault to separately edit (expand) the article prior to merging (what no one did) or start discussing the article as it was restricted to a specific phrase (that could be easily deleted instead of the "whole content"), using my comments in this discussion like they pertained to the article, ... --Nutriveg (talk) 22:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Change to the article is irrelevant because you have been asked to provide refs which specifically talk about therapeutic benefit and have not provided any. It was not I who initially deleted the article but another editor. You reverted the deletion without discussion so I reverted your revert twice. I thought my compromise of merging content into the glutathione article was a good compromise, apparently not, oh well. :)--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
There was discussion here and on that article talk page (the appropriate place), I only reverted the article deletion to add/remove/rewrite content, that was what I was doing while you were simpling reverting, part of those edits never came to that page because of edit conflicts (you deleting the article while I was editing) and an edit stall to respect of 3RR. I won't further continue this discussion.--Nutriveg (talk) 14:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Fever vs hyperthermia vs failure of thermoregulation

I've been looking a bit at our articles on fever, hyperthermia, and human thermoregulation, and think that a differential diagnosis section would be appropriate. Specifically, we have no information about how you would determine that a given elevated temperature is a "fever" (elevated set-point) instead of "heat stroke" or a failure of thermoregulation (which I understand could be caused by a stroke or other problem in just the right spot in the brain, but correct me if I'm wrong).

Does anyone know how to tell these apart? More importantly, does anyone know of a reliable source that discusses the process of classifying "39 C" as one or the other of these three options?

My guesses (definitely WP:OR here) are that an elevated temperature that is responsive to paracetamol is probably a fever instead of the other two (converse probably not true?), and that if you had a case history of spending all day in miserably hot weather, you'd suspect heatstroke instead of the other two, but surely someone knows more than I do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A good general medicine textbook will have everything you're looking for. Harrison's, for instance: start on page 117 :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, Fv. Any advice on how I should handle Harrison's self-contradiction (that damage to the hypothalamus produces "hypothalamic fever," in the "fever" section, and that it produces "hyperthermia" in the hyperthermia section?
Also, I've found Heat syndrome, which seems a bit fishy to me. The term is occasionally used... but not like that, in my quick search. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Where did you find the contradiction? The last paragraph of the "Fever" section is pretty clear to me, defining "hypothalamic fever" as an occasionally used term that doesn't jive with the typical effects of hypothalamic damage and noting that trauma to the hypothalamus may directly elevate the hypothalamic set point (which would make it "fever" in that the set point is changed and "hyperthermia" in that no pyrogens were involved). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Heat syndrome smacks of WP:OR to me, especially when you check the earliest revisions of the page (mmm, vampires). If there's no established definition in the literature to which the article can be rewritten to conform, it should be sent to AfD. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Table 17-1 lists "hypothalamic injury" as hyperthermia.
Does anyone happen to know whether an elevated temperature due to hypothalamic injury (apparently a rare presentation of a rare condition) is responsive to antipyretics? That seems to be the basic rule of thumb... WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
A couple of recent reviews (PMID 18649158, PMID 12742737) suggest that elevated temperature with hypothalamic injury = hyperthermia. Have a look at this Google Books search of "hypothalamic fever": the term also appears in earlier editions of Cecil, with the exact same wording as in Harrison's. Bearing in mind that the only authors that seem to mention it in recent times call it a rarely and poorly used term, I'd safely say that "hypothalamic fever" does not merit a mention in Wikipedia. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


Is Diberri still not working? Does anyone have a workaround or alternate? I need to put together a long list of sources for PANDAS, and hate to have to manually generate all those cite templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I have started using the {{cite pmid}} template where possible -- it saves a lot of work and space. Looie496 (talk) 01:25, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes agree. I have slowed down on my editing as diberri is down. It is nice having all the info available rather than just the PMID. Diberri also worked great for books using the ISBN. What sort of help is needed to get it up and running again? This is something that should be combined right into Wikipedia so that this problem does not occur again.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Look at the documentation for {{cite pmid}} -- it fills in all the other information automatically (after a delay if that pmid has never been cited before). You can even edit the form of the citation if it doesn't look the way you want. I do agree though that Diberri's tool is very useful in any case. Looie496 (talk) 01:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


We are making a lot of great progress with the Bolognia Push 2009. If you are not currently involved, perhaps consider contributing as we are always looking for more help at the dermatology task force. Feel free to e-mail me for all the details. ---kilbad (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Brain GAR notice

Brain has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Gross anatomy

I keep randomly returning to Osteitis fibrosa cystica in an attempt to address a few concerns. Does anyone have any gross anatomical depictions of brown tumors they'd be willing to drop me a link to? Strombollii (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Contact lens GAR notification

Contact lens has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Added web page

This user User:Gdiluozzo has added a web page to about a dozen articles. Do not think any of the additions are appropriate.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Google Knol

Google knol is another online encyclopedia set up by google which has a great deal of medical content under a creative commons 3.0 licence. [26] Might be a good place to pull stuff from. They seem to have a large number of physicians and other health care providers who contribute.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Categories: Health informatics, Health care informatics, Medical informatics

We currently have three categories, Category:Health informatics, Category:Health care informatics and Category:Medical informatics (plus further categories for specific software).

All three identify the same article, health informatics, as their "lead" article; and that article gives no differentiation between the three.

So: is there any thinking as to what distinction there should be between the three categories? What articles ought to go into each one? Jheald (talk) 16:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

New category: Healthcare management

I have created a new category Category:Healthcare management, which I was a bit surprised didn't exist before.

I've given it the provisional rubric,

"A category for management and organisational (rather than purely economic or transactional) issues in health care, particularly those arising close to the front-line of healthcare delivery."

to try to suggest a focus on more real-world activity; rather than the managing of flows of pieces of paper, or the design of structures for such pieces of paper to flow through and between (though perhaps those activities deserve categories of their own too).

I've added a few articles with an operational management angle; but the category is probably still under-populated, so there are probably more that people feel should belong there.

The category "lead" article is identified as Healthcare administration. However, at present the article really only contains information on some (U.S.-specific) qualifications, and some (U.S. specific) professional associations; but very little on anything that might be contained in those university courses, or any distinctive challenges that arise in healthcare management rather than any other kind of management. So the article could use some expansion. Jheald (talk) 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
No. Don't be fooled. The proposed wording change is shown at the RFC linked in my post above. The removal of the "exceptions" phrase is a very significant change. The policy never stated that it consisted of "rules" before, and it still doesn't. However it remains policy. Simply stating a personal view that titling a section "principles" changes the status of the policy page, is one not even accepted by many editors on Hesperians side. There is already an attempt to use the principle of no exceptions to the "use common name" policy to radically change the Naming conflict page, and one of the proposers of this change has indicated that the guidance on flora is also targetted. The change is in my view an attempt to impose a rigid, top-down policy on naming which ignores what wikipedia editors on the ground find most useful. Xandar 03:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect request for Leukemia

Leukemia is having a small problem with a couple of IP addresses adding memorial/tribute statements involving a child with leukemia: [27][28][29] I've left notes at the IP talk pages, but if one of our admins feels like semi-protecting the page for a few days, it might reinforce a change in behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. There also seems to have been an inordinate amount of vandalism in the past few days, so brief semi-protection is definitely warranted. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 04:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer

Please add Pancreatic cancer to your watchlists. With the death of Patrick Swayze, the article is likely to attract a lot of attention, and it is currently watched by only 52 Wikipedians. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, but just remember to be nice, until it's time to not be nice. MastCell Talk 03:29, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm is a text dump. I suppose the first thing to do is check if it is a copyvio. Then do a massive rewrite. --Una Smith (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
Not sure if you've had a chance to Google it, but it's definitely dumped from this page. At least it was referenced. I'm not the best on working out what's copyrighted, what's not and whether or not it's violating copyright policies or laws, so would you mind checking out that site? All the best. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat  17:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The text dump onto Wikipedia appears to be an effort to promote the services of that website. So I would say this is not a copyright problem, but a COI and NPOV problem. A massive rewrite is in order. --Una Smith (talk) 03:40, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Need help cleaning up an edit

Can someone with some medical expertise, and a lot of free time on their hands, help me clean up and determine the validity of this edit to critical incident stress management? I don't know anything about the subject; the article's only on my watchlist because it doesn't seem to be well-watched. It's nearly midnight here, and I have other things to do. Thanks. Graham87 15:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The content looks solid and well-referenced -- much better than what the average brand-new editor does -- but it needed some serious wikification work. We've made some progress, but if anyone's interested in helping out, please have a look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Graham87 02:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

warfarin, acenocoumarol, or phenprocoumon

I have a question about anticoagulants and pulmonary embolisms, I've put in on the pulmonary embolism talk page. Feel free to try and answer it if you're familiar with the subjects. Thanks!     — SkyLined (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to double-post. I have already dealt with your points. JFW | T@lk 20:28, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Random WPMED page

User:GregU has a new version of the randomlink.js tool that can be configured to pick a random article from among WikiProject pages instead of the entire encyclopedia. If this sounds like fun to you, it can be configured to choose based on a set of categories or based on the "What links here" of the WikiProject template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be nice to have indeed. --WS (talk) 08:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Medical images

I have redacted the names and places of people who have not given their permission to be publicly mentioned in this way. John Vandenberg (chat) 23:15, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I have received more complaints from psychologist regarding my posting with verbal consent this among other images [30]. I now have formal written consent from this person. This is the form I used to ask permission for use.

To Whom It May Concern:

I hereby authorize Dr. James Heilman to use images of myself and my condition on Wikipedia and allow their release into the Creative Commons under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. This means in short that: people are free to distribute and modify the file as long as the author(s) are attributed in any format.

I am aware that Wikipedia is attempting to catalogue the breadth and depth of human knowledge and to provide it free to the world at large. That Wikipedia is the 6th most popular internet site in the world and accessed by greater than 65 million people per year as of 2008. And that nearly 50% of physicians use Wikipedia in Clinical practise. I am willing to freely contribute to the public availability medical information.

I realize that neither I nor Dr. James Heilman will be financially reimbursed for these contributions.

Wondering if we should attach something similar to images so that no one gets confused? Any comments on the wording?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't you get the creator to contact WP:OTRS? Fences&Windows 23:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
My only comment here was that we should have a formal policy for use of potential sensitive images. The picture of the child with Down's syndrome for example may be questioned. We should have a form that we all get people to sign. This may prevent future misunderstanding.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:49, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The above is a subject consent form; the copyright holder is supposed to send an e-mail to OTRS but there is no similar requirement for subjects. In any case, how to show incontrovertible proof of consent, without breaching confidentiality? --Una Smith (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes people have given me consent for use of their images but I do not think we should be posting names or anything just to prove that they have given written consent. I guess I will just keep the documentation at home and people will have to take my word for it unless anyone can think of another method.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The way it works in commercial photography is consent is between the photographer and the subject. Ie, only the subject has grounds to claim consent was not given. Written consent is kept confidential unless a claim emerges and it appears that the claim comes from the actual subject (as opposed to someone who merely claims to be the subject). --Una Smith (talk) 03:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you getting complains on-wiki about this, or in real life? On-wiki, we can help; in real life -- well, there are cranks everywhere. Your institution or malpractice insurance agent might care about the details of the paperwork, but it's rude for a complete stranger to assume that you lied about the consent, and it's inappropriate for random strangers to appoint themselves to the "paperwork judge" and issue rulings on whether verbal consent is adequate.
Are you assuming that this is retaliation for your efforts at Rorschach test? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
To give you further details the complaint comes from [redacted] a psychologist from [redacted]. The letter of compliant is to my college of physicians and surgeons and in it she also makes reference to my involvement in the Rorschach test / public domain. So it does like like I am being Wiki stalked.
I have legal counsel in these matters. I am posting to this forum as we here probably need a format to note that approval has been obtained. Verbal approval may not be sufficient. My college of physicians and surgeon will be discussing this shortly. The above psychologists felling are however that it is horrible that we Wikipedians only get verbal consent for images of people we may see in our practice. She sees herself as attempting to "protect vulnerable people". I shall be spending the rest of the day trying to track down the people in the images. I have the day the image was taken but not the name or any other contact info. That mean I have a lot of coffee and gift to buy hospital staff for their effort in helping me find these people to get consent in written.
So to finish to COA I shall be getting written approval from all identifiable people I use on Wikipedia and it might be advisable to make this policy to prevent any third party attacks upon use. We must be proactive in these matter. Are actions are being scrutinized by many who hope we fail in this endeavor of creating an encyclopedia of all human knowledge.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

The intent of WP:BLP is quite clear. For otherwise non-notable individuals we should be very protective of their privacy. Given that biometric image-based search engines are already starting to appear on the web, we should assume that someone's image will eventually be tied to their personal identity. Omitting the name is not even close to being a sufficient long-term guard of the subject's privacy. Either get (and keep) a record of consent or don't use photos of living people in association with potentially harmful information about them. LeadSongDog come howl 18:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but no: Doc James has obtained consent; he doesn't have it organized in a handy fashion. Wikipedia has never required image uploaders to maintain an organized list of what they've uploaded. Our pages are supposed to do that for them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to written consent -- far from it -- but [the psychologist] reasoning doesn't hold up. Either she believes, without foundation, that the asserted verbal consent is fraudulent (you're a liar), uninformed (you withheld information), or incompetent (highly insulting to the participants) -- or it's really no better, in practice, than written consent. For example: your assertion of the existence of written consent relies just as much on your integrity as your assertion of the existence of verbal consent; people misunderstand written forms as easily as verbal ones; people can be pestered into signing documents just as easily as into verbally agreeing; a person incompetent to give consent verbally is also incompetent to give consent in writing (and so forth).
I'm sorry that you've had to go to the trouble and expense of hiring an attorney, especially since it seems pretty silly for her to get worked up over the exact form of paperwork in the complete absence of complaints from the so-called vulnerable people. As a judge once told me, based on his many years of family court disputes, what really matters is whether people have a good understanding, not how they write it down.
In the meantime, I've asked at WT:IUP for advice on recording consent. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Consent and privacy are two separate things, and they can be in conflict. To protect the privacy of a patient who has given consent, may be better to not obtain a written consent. Perhaps also to not even know the patient's name. In Doc James' case, written consent would serve no purpose except to allow the people harassing him to do the same to patients. Will he violate the privacy of his patients to defend himself? --Una Smith (talk) 19:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I think obtaining consent is the responsibility of the uploading physician. We shouldn't send forms to OTRS; that breaches confidentiality. Just keep the forms for when you need them, e.g. when you are harrassed by psychologists. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:31, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I was a bit slow on the uptake. For publication of such images in a medical journal you would need to obtain formal signed consent to publication, and send that consent to the editor as proof. You should definitely obtain signed consent for your own legal protection. Wikipedia:IUP#Privacy_rights gives our policy on image us and privacy. A problem with the current situation is we have to take your word that you have consent; sending the forms to OTRS would be the equivalent of sending the forms to a medical editor, though I am unable to advise whether this would be a breach of HIPAA or other confidentiality laws. Fences&Windows 02:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

A more sustainable solution may be to give the image to the patient (both legally and physically), and ask if the patient would be willing to upload the image through OTRS. --Arcadian (talk) 02:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This has several downsides. (1) Many patients are not computer savvy enough to do this, and the intersection set of those who are savvy enough and have a condition worth photographing for use here is really small. (2) This requires the patient to reveal an e-mail address to anyone who can examine OTRS tickets now and in the future (the tickets are kept). That is a lot of people. Thus, this substantially diminishes the patients' privacy. (3) When a patient supplies an image created in a medical setting it is not unusual for Commons editors to challenge the patient's claim of having the right to license the image. --Una Smith (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hell, you don't need my permission. Verbal chat 13:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Advice for new user on rewriting a medicine page

I'm a new user looking at improving/rewriting the page on lymphangiomatosis. I'd be grateful for advice on any particular considerations to be aware of beyond what is on the general wikipedia page for new users on creating new articles. My plan is to draft the new page on my userpage and then move it across.

Apologies if this question should be asked somewhere else (I did search the archive but couldn't see anything) Thanks.

Wikigenevan (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help out!
The most important pages are WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. The former provides an outline and stylistic advice for medical articles, and the latter clarifies what kind of sources should ideally be used. The current version is not too bad but a bit jargonistic and devoid of proper sources.
Let me know if you need a hand, or ask her for support/advice. JFW | T@lk 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
It's great to have another editor to help out with this. This is a good page to ask for help, and I'm sure the article will benefit from some attention. You should feel free to work directly on the article if you prefer (in your userspace is also fine: whatever you prefer). Here are some ideas for you:
  • WP:MEDMOS#Sections has some ideas about what kinds of things should be included. The top of that page also has some suggestions about how to write an article that sounds encyclopedic. (That is, something that sounds like neither a patient-information pamphlet nor a medical manual for the treating physician.) To avoid copyright problems, you need to write everything in your own words.
  • We always appreciate really top-quality reliable sources for medicine-related articles. Medical textbooks (if you don't have a relevant one, try Google books, your local library, or other sources) are ideal, as are relatively recent literature review papers, which you might be able to find through PubMed. I know this is a rare condition, but case reports and older publications (more than about 10 years for rare conditions) are not usually very good sources -- but use your judgment. For example, you might like to look at PMID 18840914, which is a case report, but which also (in the "Discussion" section) provides a good overview that might be useful to you.
  • Please make an effort to use WP:CITE#Inline citations so that future editors will always know exactly where a given fact came from. Citations don't have to be perfect as long as they're understandable. That article is currently using WP:Footnotes, so you should probably stick with that style.
I hope this is helpful. Wikipedia's formatting system can be unduly complicated, but there are a number of experienced editors here. Please feel free to ask more questions as you go along. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Assistance required on Safe sex

A dispute is developing towards an edit war on the above page. On one side there is myself, Simon Speed and User:Zodon. On the other side is User:Nutriveg. From my point of view, Nutriveg has been removing well sourced material and adding verifiably false information. I do not believe any of us wants a pointless edit war and there has been at least some willingness to compromise from all concerned. I think fresh editors looking at the article would help build consensus and take the article forward. --Simon Speed (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I think User:Nutriveg has edited other medical articles in the past. Would anyone still assuming this editor's good faith please check the following edits they have made to their talk page:- 2009-09-19 [31] 2009-04-20 [32] 2009-03-12 [33] 2008-12-14 [34] . --Simon Speed (talk) 10:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Editors are entirely free to remove messages from their user talk pages. Removal is taken as proof that the editor has read the warnings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


After a couple of days of following the article and a couple more on the talk page, here's my overview. Y'all should plan to show up on the talk page after reading this:

  • Fully protected. Many thanks to the admin for putting a very firm, albeit temporary, stop to the edit warring.
  • Page name. One editor is pushing for a very fine distinction between safe sex and safeR sex. That is, "safe sex" has an absolute, gold-plated guarantee that you won't get any kind of infection and/or (depending on the definition) suffer any sort of negative (including non-infectious) health effect. (Sexual activities known to be in this last category: None.) SafeR sex, by contrast, reduces your risk of contracting an infection from another person.
    The vast majority of sources, as well as this article (since 2001), use the two terms interchangeably. A small minority of (very good) sources draw a distinction between the two terms -- always and only for the purpose of explaining their stylistic preference for the term safeR sex. The article currently describes the fine distinction and then goes on to use the term interchangeably. This matters because I'm about to lose patience with the endless WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT obstruction -- there's a lot of work that needs to be done that has absolutely no connection to this, but we can't get anything accomplished because of this fight -- and because one editor seems to think that the article's (current, not original) location at Safe sex means that nothing about harm reduction (safeR sex) belongs in the article. (No, don't bother asking me to pretend that I have any sympathy for this defining-the-article-out-of-existence argument: I don't.)
  • HIV or everything. There's some question of whether anyone uses safeR sex outside of the context of HIV. (Sure they do, as any quick trip to PubMed will tell you. But this is not impinging on our consciousness.) All of the sources that explain the nuances of the choices are AIDS-specific (e.g., UNAIDS).
  • Infecting yourself. One version of the article says that you can transmit an STI to yourself (e.g., by spreading fecal bacteria to the urinary tract, and thus getting a UTI). No sources support this notion of autoinfection as an STI. It appears to be based on a literal interpretation of "safe": If you get a UTI from doing that, then it wasn't safe, was it? (Well, no, but that doesn't mean that it's an STI, either.)
  • We're not writing the article; we're not even trying to. We're trying to "win". This is dueling sources for the sake of having it reflect "my" personal vocabulary quirks instead of for the sake of producing a good product.

What you can do to help: I've just started a straw poll that I hope will reduce the bickering about whether or not this or that practice is within the scope of the article. It's at Talk:Safe sex#Scope_of_the_article. Please add your views, and then please watch the page for the next week or so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

When asking for other users to join a discussion do it in a neutral way, not suggesting they should assume any POV or presenting the facts in a distorted way.
You didn't "followed the article" but actively joined the discussion supporting a specific POV.
I asked the article to be protected because unaware editors that recently joined the discussion were reverting it to a intermediary version, after the earlier problematic version.
All definitions I used were from sources, the definitions of "safe sex" were weak because as well were the sources that defined that term. You are presenting then in a caricaturist way, making statements (most of all) I never did. For example you took harm reduction from nowhere since I never used or supported that term.
The very good sources that support the "safer sex" term, the WHO for instance, clearly do it because of the meaning, those sources don't present it as a aesthetic decision you're implying.
The article current description of "the fine distinction" is unreferenced text, Original research that contradicts at least one of the sources provided (UK).
The HIV was the last step we reached, when you and the other editor refused to clearly state that conclusion: It's a recommended term (at least) for HIV, including by 2008 UN AIDS Terminology Guidelines. So we could move on from that point, discussing other STDs and HIV due balance. Instead, cornered by evidence you shortly decided to abandon that discussion, saying it was not important, but now is forum shopping
Talking about "infecting yourself" you're going deep on the article discussion, raising a very recent discussion that started today but seens to be very important for you and you're the only one supporting that POV. The exact term is "cross infection", there were [35] sources supporting that and you never requested additional sources or gave time for them to be presented.
Don't include me in your quest for win, I said several times that I could change my opinion if reliable~ sources were provided. But you ignored those I presented so far.
We never rejected the reference of any preventive practice and you are starting that pool from nowhere. The discussion so far was what term definition (provided so far by reliable sources) better defined the article content, where I supported the "safer sex" definition brought so far.--Nutriveg (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm astonished that you would pretend to know which articles I've read, and on what days. I tell you, accurately and in good faith, that I watched the edit warring for a couple of days before my first edit, which was on 20 September. If you can demonstrate that I'm a liar, then please do share your sources of information.
None of your other points, such as the possibility of non-sexual transmission of HPV (the article you link here) are worth responding to at this time. Editors here are perfectly capable of giving their opinion about the general subject of the article -- whether it should be the general concept of reducing transmission of STIs between partners, or about the variety of definitions used for the words -- without knowing anything at all about the various definitions.
Whether the article should focus on the "concept" or the "vocabulary" is a pretty basic question that any editor is capable of sharing an opinion on. Sometimes it's important for Wikipedia to have an article about names: See Gay-related immune deficiency and Gay bowel syndrome as examples. Sometimes it's more important to have the article cover the idea behind the words: See AIDS and Proctitis for the ideas that those two obsolete terms refer to. This is the question for editors: Should we focus on the idea, or on the terms? It's this decision that determines the article content, not the definition of the words currently used for the page name. After all, we can change the page name if we need to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Current quick question. Nutriveg has decided that the UK's National Health Service website, NHS Choices, is unreliable per WP:MEDRS, on the grounds that it's targeted to consumers and is therefore likely to use "lay" language, like "safe sex" instead of supposedly "medical terminology" like "safer sex", and on the grounds that MEDRS doesn't specifically name this website run by the NHS. Nutriveg prefers the language preferred in UNAIDS's terminology guideline, which is essentially a house stylebook for the agency's marketing department. If you have a view on this issue, I think a quick comment at the end of Talk:Safe sex#New_article_title would be the place to share your thoughts. The question: Is the NHS Choices website a reliable source for medicine-related information that is compatible with MEDRS requirements? (Many thanks to the editors who have taken time to comment on previous issues.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Hum, you again came back here presenting the issue in a non-neutral way using words that don't represent what I said.
NHS Choices, is a website of NHS, I didn't say it was directed to consumers, but the general public, by its own definition "The service is intended to help you make choices about your health"
That kind of source is clearly defined by WP:MEDRS: "public guides and service announcements, which (...) are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature."
And I pointed that the discussion about that website is useless, since the links of that website so far provided support more the "safer sex" term
To contextualize we are not discussing this term just to have a discussion, we are discussing the name of article title, where I'm trying to follow WP:MEDMOS#Naming conventions specially where it says:
"Where there is a dispute over a (article title) name, editors should cite recognised authorities and organisations"
I've already cited such for instance (PAHO/WAS/WHO)[36] and UNAIDS[37] supporting the "safer sex" term.
But User:WhatamIdoing and Misch are strongly supporting the "safe sex" title, even though they don't have (equally) reliable sources, by WP:MEDRS, to support that POV.
One editor, Misch, say it's of little importance to follow WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS as he sees that article as little related to the prevention and control of diseases, being more related to sexology in his opinion, and even stated that "Safe sex is sexual practice, not medical practice (apart from when doctors and nurses have sex)"
That discussion is happening in this section of that article talk page.--Nutriveg (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The UNAIDS document is a style guideline. It tells its staff to use British spelling (p. 20) with the same authority that it tells them to use your preferred term. It is not a scientific document. Ditto for the PAHO document, whose title is "Promotion of Sexual Health" and repeatedly recommends using the mass media for education and awareness. These are not scientific documents. You have insisted for several days now that these two marketing plans are supposed to trump every other source, despite being nothing more than instructions to their marketing departments about how to promote their goals in public.
You've also recently insisted that the NHS is not a "recognised authority or organisation", despite the fact that the NHS is specifically listed, by name, as being a recognized authority in the very guideline that you're trying to (ab)use to exclude it. Please look, again, at WP:MEDRS#Medical and scientific organizations, and specifically the bit that says, "Statements and information from reputable major medical and scientific bodies may be valuable encyclopedic sources. These bodies include...the British National Health Service." It does not say, "Only certain information from the NHS that supports Nutriveg's preferred term," or "Only certain parts of the NHS's websites" or anything like that.
Your complaints are beyond silly: either you can't understand fairly simple English, or you're being willfully perverse. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
That's your view about those documents, where I see you qualifying those documents as marketing which Wikipedia defines as "inform(ed) or persuade(d) that existing and newly-identified needs and wants may be satisfied by the products and services of others" as nonsense.
Those documents weren't directed to the general public, nor even to mass media, but to other health authorities/organizations and health professionals.
I've never said that NHS was not reliable, but that website wasn't (equally) reliable by WP:MEDRS and didn't fit the purpose described in WP:MEDMOS since it is directed to inform the general public about health choices, so strict following of "scientific and medical terminology" is not expected. Beyond that the links so far provided for that source, as a whole, support the same term used in those two documents that support the "safer sex" term, so you're just making all this discussion to make a WP:POINT, to disqualify myself. Which also evident when you change approaches, supporting the PAHO, WAS, WHO and UNAIDS presented documents as "marketing" but the "NHS Choices" as reliable.
You're so much involved that couldn't even find the my citation of WP:MEDRS qualifying websites like "NHS Choices": "public guides and service announcements (...) are generally less authoritative than the underlying medical literature."--Nutriveg (talk) 11:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Promotion of one product?

This user's contributions seem to be narrowly focused on promoting one company's products on Medicine pages. Do others here agree? If so, I don't know what the proper procedure is when there are many pages affected. Thanks for any comments. --Scray (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Good morning, i'm the user biopredictive. I've named my user this way to be very clear that I speak in the name of a commercial company, and don't try to act "hidden" or whatever. What i've done :
- added a page for a validated, recommanded diagnostic test (FibroTest). This test has 98 scientific publications and is validated since 2002. This page explains how test work, benefits and limits ; evidence based.
- added reference to the test as a possible alternative to liver biopsy
If you think my steps are not perfect or clear, I'm willing to discuss about it (here, but i'm not fluent w/ wikipedia yet:), or email).
Have a nice day.
(Hope I did post on the correct place)
Biopredictive (talk) 14:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Please familiarize yourself with our guidelines on conflict of interest and Spam. It is possible to constructively work on articles for which you have a conflict, but it should be approached with care. In most cases, it is best to help inform discussions on the article talk page rather than directly editting the article.LeadSongDog come howl 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanx for your advices, I will clarify all this next week. My intention is to add a article on my user page declaring my COI. I had an hesitation to write a paragraph at end of my article explaining that the initial article was written by us, explaining the possible COI. Biopredictive (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
COI concerns are valid. FibroTest is a notable test for liver fibrosis, but the publication strategy of the authors is a bit spammy. Fences&Windows 00:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
There is no "spamming" intention here at all. What doest make you feel it "a bit spammy" ? How can I help ? � � Biopredictive (talk) 07:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Relevant to this is this discussion. Input welcome. I do heartily commend Biopredictive for discussion this in Talk space rather than directly editing the article. --Scray (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent expansion of Central nervous system disease

If you have time, please visit and help improve the article: a significant amount of content was added during this edit series, and there are some problems with the content. Many diagnoses which are not "diseases" were added (such as Asperger syndrome), and at least the AS section contained factually inaccurate information; others may as well. Whatever404 (talk) 11:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Gosh, it does need help. Heaps of unreferenced info and opinion. "You should..." and other remarkable wording. - Hordaland (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

ADHD controversies

ADHD controversies article could do with some eyes on it and input. Refs are being misused, one editor is edit warring over content. They have said they would like to see the article deleted and keep fighting over labeling controversies fringe in article text without refs directly saying that. I have been reverted 3 times and other editor has been reverted.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Noticed that. I wish WP:Fringe specifically said whether editors may or may not introduce the word fringe in an article when it isn't found in any source. IMO if something is decidedly non-notable fringe we leave it out, otherwise we call it minority.
Another factor: On Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Arbitration cases it is pointed out that "matters that are of notable popular interest" are included in Wikipedia articles even where there "exists little scientific interest or analysis." ADHD controversies may be in science and/or in popular culture. Keeping these things straight would help here. - Hordaland (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

America’s Healthy Future Act

I recently created 'America’s Healthy Future Act', and I would appricate any comments or points of advice on how to proceed in improving the article. The Squicks (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have taken an interest in the article! The Squicks (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Health insurance mandate

I was very surprised that the topic has no article, so I made one. Any comments about this would be greatly appreciated. The Squicks (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Parietoöccipital fissure?

Quick question, is the Parietoöccipital fissure correct or should it be the Parietooccipital (or Parieto-occipital) fissure, as it is the fissure between the Occipital lobe and the Parietal lobe. Regards, Captain n00dle T/C 22:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

All of these are valid from the 'grammatical' perspective, but we usually follow the choice of Terminologia Anatomica, which appears to be "Parieto-occipital sulcus". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply, I have never seen the ö used before in any english text book. Should I move the page and create a redirect? Regards, Captain n00dle T/C 23:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, moving it would be appropriate. (The original page was created from the spelling in Gray's. The "ö" was common in English back then, but now only The New Yorker still uses a diaeresis for consecutive vowels pronounced separately.) --Arcadian (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • ^ Fallon BA, Nields JA (1994). "Lyme disease: a neuropsychiatric illness". The American journal of psychiatry. 151 (11): 1571–1583. PMID 7943444. 
    • ^ Hess A, Buchmann J, Zettl UK; et al. (1999). "Borrelia burgdorferi central nervous system infection presenting as an organic schizophrenia-like disorder". Biol. Psychiatry. 45 (6): 795. doi:10.1016/S0006-3223(98)00277-7. PMID 10188012.  )