Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 36

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


What to do? The sources "copy and pasting" from us are getting to be of higher quality

Was working on our article on baby colic as it was a disaster. Was happily using this July 2012 review article to update and improve our content Came to the "5S" approach and they are word for word the same as us except that we had the content first being added in this massive edit [1] in 2010. Look back further this seems to have been a merge from here [2]. Which was than added in this massive edit here [3] by the same user in May 2010. Do we trust the peer review of this journal and can we simply use this paper to improve our summary of the "5S's" technique? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

It looks like XKCD's prediction has come true [4]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:18, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The rest of the 2012 paper is copied verbatim from this 2004 paper in AFP. Do journal not check for plagarism? It does not appear that what we have was plagiarized but I am not definitive. Anyway have reported it to the journal in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
The only pay-to-play journals I consider reputable are the PLoS group. I don't trust the BioMed Central journals (of which the Italian Journal of Pediatrics is one), particularly when the authors come from third world countries, which are notorious for plagiarism. They are supposedly peer-reviewed, but who is doing those reviews? Looie496 (talk) 14:11, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Peer-review is supposed to look at content, not at writing. Plain old editors are supposed to be checking for plagiarism. In this case, it ought to be as simple and as cheap as using one of those plagiarism detection programs that so many schools are depending on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
"Anyway have reported it to the journal in question" -- meaning AFP (for copyright infringement) or Italian Journal of Pediatrics (for plagiarism)? Did you get any response? Klortho (talk) 12:34, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


I have a copy today. It looks like a lot of new names for more or less the same thing. I assume we will redirect most of these to the old terms? The last thing we need is somatic symptom disorder. undifferentiated somatoform disorder and somatization disorder. I have redirected them both to the last.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree redirect the less notable terms. It's going to be a while before people catch up. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Psychology#Somatoform_disorder_and_DSM_V. Lesion (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Mental retardation apparently got renamed Intellectual disability (intellectual developmental disorder)—yes, the parenthetical bit is part of the name. The original plan was to call it intellectual developmental disorder, by way of distinguishing it from the same intellectual difficulties being due to TBI or dementia. I'm not sure what to do with their final choice of name, which will look like we've disambiguated the page title. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
We don't have to follow ICD or DSM names (our guidelines provide for that) ... if we did, Tourette syndrome would be the ridiculous article title of "Combined vocal and multiple motor tic disorder [de la Tourette]". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree, we don't have to follow sources like the ICD and DSM-- where a clear consensus is demonstrable in the sources as to the most notable name. In disputed cases, the MOS tells us to seek out international standards, giving as an example the ICD, but I wouldn't interpret this as being universally mandatory. In all these cases mentioned so far I would guess that most of the sources are using the "old" term, and I suspect this will be the case for a while to come. Old habits die hard... Lesion (talk) 14:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree, ICD, at least, has to serve as a tool for internationally standardized classification/coding (eg for epidemiological and surveillance purposes), rather than universal naming of... erm..., unspecified. (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think that these new names are going to catch on at all in most cases, especially given the intense criticism the DSM-5 has gotten; a lot of the medical community, like the lead of the DSM-5 article currently states, feel that the DSM-5 "forces clinicians to make distinctions that are not supported by solid evidence, distinctions that have major treatment implications, including drug prescriptions and the availability of health insurance coverage." I also agree that we should use the medical terms that are most common, following Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Naming conventions. Flyer22 (talk) 14:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
And as for the part of the naming conventions guideline that states "Where there are lexical differences between the varieties of English, an international standard should be sought," giving the World Health Organization, ICD-10, and DSM-IV-TR as examples (I suppose we'll be updating the DSM mention), there are not enough lexical differences; as we know, it's only the DSM-5 using these new names. Flyer22 (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, in the case of Tourette's, it is the ICD-10 that uses the name that few journals use ... in the case of TS, neither ICD nor DSM reflect the most common usage in journals, but ICD-10 is worse than DSM. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Sandy, do you mean worse with regard to naming? Or worse in general? Or both? And are you specifically speaking of the ICD-10 versus the DSM-5, or the ICD-10 versus the DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5? Flyer22 (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm speaking of naming ... the huge majority of secondary revievs and reliable sources refer to it as "Tourette syndrome". The ICD-10 calls it the overdone, Combined vocal and multiple motor tic disorder [de la Tourette], which we wouldn't use and which would make an awkward article title, and which even the leading UK TS researcher (Robertson MM) doesn't use in article titles. The DSM refers to it as Tourette's disorder, which is still rarely used by researchers, but that name is not as bad as ICD. (Scan the secondary reviews listed in the sources at TS and you'll see that most use Tourette syndrome-- in recognition that the "significant impairment or distress" criterion was removed in DSM-IV-TR, because impairment is not necessary for a TS diagnosis, hence the preference researchers have for "Syndrome" over "Disorder".) In terms of the content (ICD vs DSM-IV-TR vs DSM-V), Tourette's has been spared the controversy-- there are few problems with all three, and V made minor but logical and well-accpeted adjustments relative to IV-TR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I see. This discussion has made me think about gender identity disorder versus gender dysphoria; there is significant debate about whether or not to call this condition a disorder because of some research suggesting that it is not a disorder and the stigma that the term disorder causes the transgender community (even saying "condition" can be considered offensive to some transgender people, and I only use it in this case when I don't know what word to use in its place that wouldn't cause offense and/or to be clearer). The diagnosis (that may be better to use than "condition") is still referred to as "gender identity disorder" by most of the medical community, but the article was changed to Gender dysphoria not long after the DSM-5 was published. The article currently states "formerly known as gender identity disorder (GID)," but, like I just noted, it's not "formerly" for the medical community, except for the DSM-5 (and researchers who are personally preferential to using the name gender dysphoria). So I'm interested to know your and other WP:MED participants' thoughts on this matter. I know that some (maybe all) of our transgender editors, such as Sceptre, Bonze blayk and Picture of a Sunny Day, would be against moving the article back to Gender identity disorder (I linked their names so that they will be aware of this discussion). And given what I stated in this paragraph about this topic, this matter may be an exception to following the medical terms that are most common. Flyer22 (talk) 16:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Flyer22? Perhaps you overlooked my formal recusal from editing articles dealing with "transgender issues" towards the end of the ArbComm Case on "Sexology"… I've updated my user page to clarify this. - thanks, bonze blayk (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Our wording in MEDMOS ("The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources ... ") has worked for Tourette syndrome: that is, regardless of the vagueries of ICD, DSM, etc, almost every highest quality journal article calls it "Tourette syndrome", and that is the name most used and recognized by medical sources. I'm not sure what the situation is for the gender diagnosis, but I do not believe we must be beholden to either DSM or ICD-- gotta do your homework on that one :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, per my initial statement above, I agree that we do not have to be "beholden to either DSM or ICD." I'm not sure about some other people's homework, but my homework on that is solid. Flyer22 (talk) 17:06, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the issue of "high-quality" here is important. Because on that basis alone, mental retardation should have been changed well before the DSM changed it (they are rather late to this). This is one for which there is even a law in one country (USA - Rosa's Law). Particularly for terms related to disabilities and mental health, the pejorative use of terms is a real issue. That significant parts of professions are slow to reflect these changes is not a reason to stick with terms. It's a question of where in the arc of progress on sensitivity we want to be. Not too early (or you get too far ahead of people and make changes that don't end up "taking"), but not leaving it so that Wikipedia is using terms like mental retardation (which was already regarded as not acceptable 20 years ago in disability and progressive authoritative medical circles).Hildabast (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure your argument works in terms of Wikipedia policies-- we are not advocates, we follow sources. Of course, if the preponderance of "high quality" sources agree with your take on the naming, then we're good. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
This is the same as being 20 years out of date on clinical practice: and it's to do with setting the bar high enough on what "high quality" means, to relate to reputable conventions, not practise in literature that may be high quality on other grounds, but facing journal policies that are out-of-step or simply finding old habits hard to break. I don't think this is an issue of advocacy versus sources: it's about staying current and putting the effort in - it's not as simple as what's the terminology in the papers we're citing. Truly finding out what the "preponderance of high quality sources" say would be a research exercise for which you'd need a source.Hildabast (talk) 17:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm still not following Hildablast's post (of 17:08) ... if I am understanding it correctly (which I may not be), it seems to be saying we should advocate for change and consider medical sources as "out-of-step", rather than follow sources, which is not Wikipedia's role. It is not up to us to say the highest quality journals may be "finding old habits hard to break". We report what the highest quality sources say. In the case of the article name for Tourette syndrome, following sources works for the title; in the gender case, I don't know the situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Hildabast is concerned about the use of MR rather than ID, not about transgender issues.
As a point of fact, if you look at the titles in review articles over the last ten years, about half use MR and half use ID. There is something of a pattern to it: Fragile X has "MR" and Down syndrome has "ID". MR is out of date socially and in some cultures, because children used that (like all the previous names) as a taunt on the playground. "What are you, specially abled?" just doesn't have the same ring and so hasn't caught on. If you look at other languages, the names usually translate to something similar to either MR or ID. We have "mentally held back" (that's what "to retard", e.g., flame retardant, means); other languages have "cognitive incapacity" (Spanish), "mental handicap" (French), and "mentally hindered" (German; the last word also means disability in general).
What none of us have, thanks to the DSM5's last-second change, is a name that explains why this particular kind of disability-affecting-the-intellect is importantly different from all of the other disabilities-affecting-the-intellect. In fact, they've muddied the waters even further by expanding the age range due to purely financial/legal considerations. Previously, anyone who developed a disability-affecting-the-intellect by smearing his drunken brains on the highway at the age of 21 had a TBI. Now, he has what used to be called MR, because it happened before the end of the expanded "developmental period", and this label means that the patient gets a different type of financial support in the U.S. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I'm talking about mental retardation - and yes, it would be language-specific. How long any medical practice takes to spread out to all cultures from wherever it starts makes language similar to other aspects of practice - if you waited for the change to be a majority in every culture, only things not researched widely would change within the same generation the profession at an international level changed. I'm arguing that you'd have to do proper research to really determine this by research, and it might not be the best measure anyway: it's showing when has this become a long-accepted issue, not necessarily when is it a good time to make the change. But for example, if major societies, their guidelines and their journals make the switch - whether or not they are the majority of the literature - that might be the point at which you say, it's only a matter of time now till it filters through the majority of authors and the majority of journals' editorial policies. You can see this phenomenon of course in the WP itself. The decision can be made about the title, but does that mean that the majority of contributors never type that word any more? Not necessarily. That wouldn't invalidate the decision by the community (as the community organizes itself) to have made that determination, and for it to be just a matter of time till it was routine. Just because something is high quality methodologically, doesn't mean it's representing the social development of a profession - it mightn't even be written by people from that profession. When policy changes, and when widespread implementation changes, can be two separate things. One may happen before the other.
For the ones I've researched, there's a critical mass of opinion leaders reached, then policy/practice of the professional leadership changes, and then practice of others slowly catches up (much like many changes in clinical care, in fact). I don't know of examples where the accepted opinion of profession leadership changes, and the majority doesn't eventually follow - be interested to hear of any. They're usually more on the conservative side. Waiting for the latter - that a majority of journals/authors change (how determined without knowing you've got a representative sample?) - may mean being out of date by a decade or two (as Wikipedia is with some women's health language, while having made the change around the same time as the profession - not the literature - in others), because an error-prone measure may be used. My point being, a compelling case may be made at the point there's major international consensus or consensus from multiple major societies on something, rather than waiting for the literature method - especially when you can't rigorously research the literature anyway. Hildabast (talk) 23:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
From the looks of it, this one has gone the other way: first opinion leaders, then the general public, and finally the professionals are playing catch-up. I suspect that one reason for professional resistance is because the first few proposed alternatives, like developmental disability, were so wildly imprecise as to be useless for professional purposes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm very puzzled by these arguments. DSM isn't something that's updated regularly: it was last updated in what, 2001? The debate about mental retardation for quite some time has been not about what to call it - that was settled some time ago (see this article from 2011 saying the debate had been going 15 years then, and was settled from a policy and professional POV. The MeSH heading was changed to which that WP article links does not say mental retardation either. The profession is debating something else around its classification - which would have been happening regardless of what you call it. By the time Rosa's Law came along, this acceptance had already happened. This is up there with Mongoloid for Down Syndrome, or spastic for cerebral palsy or moron. Just because it's such a long time between ICD and DSM revisions says nothing about this specific term. Hildabast (talk) 02:31, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Rosa's Law was introduced two years before your source says that it was settled from a professional POV. That indicates that the legal system moved faster than the professionals.
I suspect that we have different experiences. I've actually talked to physicians in the last couple of years who have been genuinely surprised to hear that MR is considered offensive and outdated by parents and advocates. Perhaps all the ones you talk to got the memo a long time ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
If the DSM had gone with its original proposal, I would have personally recommended the page move to IDD, despite the current ICD still using the old name and the future ICD reportedly planning to use the popular, rather vague "intellectual disability". But with this odd parenthetical name appearing in the DSM, I'm just not sure that it's a good encyclopedia article title, and so I've done nothing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think the article needs to be called that: "intellectual disability" is the MeSH and professionally used term (search PubMed and that's what you'll predominantly see in titles): they are acknowledging that it may begin in the developmental period. Hildabast (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Whereas Heart attack takes one to a WP:MED page, Transgender doesn't. Turning to Gender identity, the #In the DSM subsection summarizes terminological issues discussed in the page linked as Further information: gender identity disorder (a WP:PSYCH page). So, seen in the round, maybe Wikipedia is actually already putting the "medical" model into some sort of perspective? (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
IP, there was discussion last year and earlier this year about what WP:MED wants to label as being within its scope; see the WP:MED Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gynandromorphophilia and WP:MEDRS Proposed change to opening words discussions (especially the former discussion). Though "psychology" and "psychiatric" do fall under "medical," not all articles dealing with those topics will be tagged as falling within WP:MED's scope, especially if the topic is significantly more a social topic than a medical topic...which the topic of transgender is. Sometimes it is decided that an article dealing with a psychology and/or psychiatric topic is better left tagged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force. Any type of psychology and/or psychiatric topic is still brought to this talk page, of course, especially considering that WP:MED is the most active of the three projects (with Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Psychiatry task force being the significantly less active one).
On a side note: While checking up on Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology earlier this hour, I came across the article Wikipedia:Psychology; that article needs to be deleted (if not a notable topic) or fixed up better than that. Flyer22 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
My post wasn't intended to be about projects, as such. Rather, I was trying to get a feel, from a general users' perspective, of how the the DSM-titled page fits in to Wikipedia's presentation of transgender topics as a whole. My impression is that if a user comes to Gender dysphoria via more general pages, such as Transgender then the DSM diagnoses appear within a broader social context. If on the other hand, a reader goes straight to Gender identity disorder then the controversy surrounding that term/diagnosis (and, by implication perhaps, the medical model as a whole) is still apparent. So, overall, I feel a broader picture does come across—one in which the psychiatric/medical establishment may conceivably be playing catch up. (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Considering the title format, which marks it as a project page, and that it is placed in Category:Wikipedia essays, I see that it is an essay. But it still needs cleanup and should be tagged as an essay at the top of the page. Flyer22 (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
If we weight all recent high quality sources (which would include the DSM and ICD) plus some textbooks and review articles we should be good. We will not be the first and we will not be the last to switch over. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:23, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: At the Gender dysphoria talk page, an IP has brought up the matter of retitling the Gender identity disorder article to Gender dysphoria, and describing the diagnosis as "formerly known as gender identity disorder (GID)." Flyer22 (talk) 22:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

THE introduction of the article on Gender Dysphoria says "Gender dysphoria, formerly known as gender identity disorder (GID)" but they are totally different things. As written in the Gender Dysphoria talk page, putative expert James Cantor wrote the statement that "Gender identity disorder is as clear an identity disorder as one gets".
An Identity Disorder is an entirely different psychological phenomenon from a Dysphoria (which in unsophisticated language is an anxiety with a melancholy). Gender Identity Disorder should never have been moved (really renamed) to Gender Dysphoria. Gender Dysphoria can stay, in a DSM-5 context, but Gender Identity Disorder needs to be reinstated.
Removing GID endorses a purely American perspective. GID may be obsoleted in the DSM but it is still current in the ICD (International Diseases) wherein Gender Dysphoria does not exist. See ICD-10 F64.2 and F64.8. The ICD is backed by the entire United Nations Organisation but the DSM 5 is backed only by one professional association and so is much less authoritative than the United Nations. We should not be beholden to either DSM or ICD but following only the DSM where the two clash is clearly wrong. The ICD is a more authoritative source than the DSM. The fact that the patient population for the two overlap substantially is not a reason to describe two totally different concepts in psychology as if they were one and the same. Wikipedia should be describing concepts in psychology, rather than stigmatizing diagnoses as such. Is Wikipedia to become a purely American bully thing? If not there needs to be two separate pages, one for Gender Identity Disorder and a totally separate one for Gender Dysphoria with a mention that Gender Dysphoria is is only an American fashion. (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)HenryHall
I really don't want to make these changes myself, I am not a Wikipedia expert. But the recent changes to Gender Identity Disorder desperately need to be reversed out. And, I would suggest a "Not to be confused with Gender Dysphoria" or "See also Gender Dysphoria" added. (talk) 12:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)HenryHall
IP (Henry Hall), gender dysphoria is gender identity disorder; the only differences between them with regard to the DSM-IV-TR and the DSM-5 is that the DSM-5 calls the diagnosis "gender dysphoria" and has somewhat altered the criteria. The name was changed for the DSM-5 because, as the Gender dysphoria article notes, the term gender identity disorder was considered stigmatizing because it has the word disorder in it. Creating a separate article for gender dysphoria would be creating a WP:POVFORK. They should be covered in the same article because they are the same topic, with slight differentiations in the DSM-5. This discussion is partly about not creating WP:POVFORKS just to cover the DSM-5 changes with regard to diagnoses. And as can be seen from above, with regard to comments by me and others, your points about changing the article title back to Gender identity disorder, and removing "formerly known as" are valid. I reiterate, like you do, that the diagnosis is not "formerly known as gender identity disorder"; it still is known by that name in the majority of the literature on the topic.
By the way, when you state "Gender Identity Disorder should never have been moved (really renamed) to Gender Dysphoria," I'm interested to know if you are only referring to the Wikipedia article title or are also referring to the DSM-5 using the latter name. Considering that you have categorized gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria as two different things, I suppose you are only referring to the title of the Wikipedia article. Also, since it may help, I've invited James Cantor to this discussion by linking his username in this paragraph; WP:Echo will let him know of this discussion now. Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Where I wrote should "never have been moved (really renamed)" I was indeed referring to the Wikipedia article. The DSM is whatever it is, it matters nothing what we think it should be. But really, an Identity Disorder is not a Dysphoria; they are totally separate concepts in psychology. The fact that the two sets of diagnostic criteria are very similar does not make the two disorders the same thing. The previous sentence is crucial. Psychiatry as a whole has very low validity which is a term of art meaning that one set of very similar symptoms fits many different disorders. Gender Dysphoria as defined in the DSM is strictly an American thing; it is a minor thing compared with ICD GID which is worldwide and more authoritative. Both GD and GID are current concepts in psychology (unless you take a strictly American view of things) (talk) 17:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)HenryHall
IP (HenryHall), what I stated above about gender identity disorder being gender dysphoria isn't about identity disorder being different than a dysphoria in some contexts; it's about the fact that "the only differences between [gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria] with regard to the DSM-IV-TR and the DSM-5 is that the DSM-5 calls the diagnosis 'gender dysphoria' and has somewhat altered the criteria." Researchers, not just American researchers, have been using the names gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria interchangeably for years. Googling the two names together (whether regular Google, Google Books or Google Scholar) shows that. It is often the same diagnosis in the literature (not just American literature), with the DSM-5 now having somewhat different criteria for it, though sources occasionally distinguish between them; see, for example, this source (page 1127) that distinguishes and, it seems, touches on what you mean about distinguishing. I understand that gender identity disorder can be considered an aspect of the more broader application of the term gender dysphoria. However, if you read WP:POVFORK, it is clear that separate articles should not be created in this case. Again, your points about changing the article title back to "Gender identity disorder" and removing "formerly known as" are valid. But your insistence that gender identity disorder and gender dysphoria "are totally different things" is not supported by research; some researches distinguish them somewhat (again refer to the source in this paragraph), but never have I seen them totally distinguished. Note again that I am not speaking of differences in the terms disorder and dysphoria. Or the concepts of identity disorder vs. dysphoria in psychology. I am speaking of gender identity disorder vs. gender dysphoria.
Perhaps, someone else is interested in weighing in on this? I think I've stated all I'm going to state about it in this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 18:45, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the ICD 10 is a more global source than DSM 5 and should trump the DSM 5 on Wikipedia when the two are in conflict. As people familiar with my past comments on Wikipedia are probably aware, I don't personally believe being transgender is a disorder or a psychiatric condition of any kind. Being trans is simply a natural biological variation in my opinion, like being tall or having red hair. However, transgenderism/transsexualism is commonly regarded as a disorder by the transphobic medical establishment, which is, of course, controlled by cisgender people. I don't really have a problem with Wikipedia acknowledging this reality in a NPOV way. And I think it's true that "Gender Identity Disorder" is probably the most accurate label to summarize the current majority medical opinion on transgender people and our lives. So I would be fine with changing the "Gender Dysphoria" article back to "Gender Identity Disorder," and to be honest, I was sort of taken aback when the article was renamed earlier this year after very little discussion. There's no reason that the DSM 5 should trump the ICD 10 or the majority of medical sources when one is looking at a medical concept (and Gender Identity Disorder/Gender Dysphoria (as a formal diagnosis) is a medical/psychiatric concept). In contrast, I was opposed earlier this year to the existence of an article on "gynandromorphophilia" because it was a non-notable, fringe theory developed by James Cantor and Ray Blanchard that is of little interest to the medical community, in general. But GID is a significant theoretical phenomenon in the medical community, and I am OK with having an article about it and having the article under the name "Gender Identity Disorder." Rebecca (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
P.S. Thank you for notifying of this discussion, Flyer 22. I appreciate being kept in the loop. Rebecca (talk) 21:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome, Rebecca/Picture of a Sunny Day. Thank you for weighing in on this matter. In your case, I was clearly wrong above when I stated that "I know that some (maybe all) of our transgender editors, such as Sceptre, Bonze blayk and Picture of a Sunny Day, would be against moving the article back to Gender identity disorder." That's what I get for assuming. And as can also be seen from above, Bonze blayk is no longer commenting on transgender topics on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Have started the discussion around ID verses MR verses other again here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

MEDMOS originally mentioned ICD and INN as "international standards" to be used when resolving "lexical differences between the varieties of English". In September 2008, a talk page discussion suggested adding DSM to the list as Casliber said it often was used outside of the US rather than ICD. Although this was a well-intentioned change, it is an American standard so doesn't actually resolve "lexical differences between the varieties of English". There was never any intention that ICD or DSM should be regarded as the gold standard source of article names with higher authority than "commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources". These were merely to distinguish between, say, two "commonly used" terms. It avoids all they tiresome debates where people count Google results or PubMed title counts: those are going to be US-spelling-biased. Also, there are some names where wikipedians debate which name is best for various reasons, and these debates have already occurred among the experts and the results published by international organisations or committees. I suspect MEDMOS needs a bit of tweaking there if people are interpreting it to mean DSM decides our article names. Colin°Talk 10:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Bot tagging medical articles that lack a PMID or DOI

I have placed a request for a new bot at Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 55#Bot tagging medical articles that lack a PMID or DOI. I would request you to discuss the utility of such bots and to expedite the formation of such a bot if such a requirement is felt. DiptanshuTalk 16:27, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Study on tracking of those searching health information online

I can't access the study. It has the title of "privacy threats when seeking online health information". Coverage here. Out of the 20 websites, did the author include Wikipedia? If not, maybe a reply or email is in order. Biosthmors (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia was not included. It was a 'convenience sample' that included websites ranging from pubmed and nejm to men's health and fox news health. --WS (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


I haven't spotted any mention of DARE in MEDRS, and I feel it could be useful to include it. I've started a thread on the MEDRS talk page: DARE guidance?. (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Attempt to use primary source to refute secondary one

Is occurring at omega-3 fatty acid. [5] Wondering if I could get others opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:02, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible reference spamming

The contributions of an editor popped up on my watchlist, which appears to me to be ref spamming a particular series of books. Is this appropriate behavior? If not, what should be done? Yobol (talk) 00:54, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Context is everything. In general:
  • Are the refs applicable to the sentences they're appended to? (That's good)
  • Are there any authors that appear consistently in the papers/refs cited? (that can be an indicator of selfpromotion, which again needs finer contextual analysis, and if it exists (but the citations are otherwise good) a gentle word of caution/encouragement)
  • Are the refs properly formatted, or does the editor need to be guided to correct any problems with them?
etc! In this case, from the userpage and userhistory and looking at today's edits [topical expertise, 6 years as editor with 8,000 edits, well formatted refs, a variety of authors named in each (mostly from the same textbook, but that's ok), other edits that fix elements not related to the book] - the editor probably deserves a barnstar, or a "thank" notification. S/He is probably reading a book, and thinking "oh, this paragraph would be a good citation for our article".
Hope that helps. –Quiddity (talk) 02:32, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Do not see many edits pertaining to medicine. The further reading section should go after the reference section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:49, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Fowler's positions

There are 3 pages: Fowler's position, Semi-Fowlers position, High Fowlers position. Plus, semi-Fowler's is on the pages needed to create list. A new page isn't needed - the apostrophe should just be in the two pages where it's missing, and if these typos are common, to re-direct the ones without apostrophes to them.Hildabast (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for noting. I moved these pages, and that automatically left the redirects. It's easy, actually: Wikipedia:Move#How_to_move_a_page. On a page one clicks move after clicking the drop down triangle. Then one specifies a reason and clicks move page, FYI. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 14:00, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks - and thanks for the pointer. Hildabast (talk) 14:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
You're welcome! Biosthmors (talk) 14:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
I think these kinds of pages ought to be merged, with the titles redirecting to specific sections. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
That sounds good to me - they're rather vague differentiations anyway and even all together not likely to be a massive topic. These pages are rather surgery-focused and don't have the childbirth aspects in there, which is surely what's driving a lot of people to look it up. Which is why they hit my radar. May tinker. Hildabast (talk) 15:29, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Human breast milk

Is there any reason why human breast milk shouldn't be moved to human milk? Biosthmors (talk) 08:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Not that I can think of. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:COMMONNAME, perhaps - I think the former is the more common usage, though it is redundant. -- Scray (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I think that plain old breast milk would be the most common name. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with WhatamIdoing - animals' milk is never referred to as breast milk. Hildabast (talk) 19:27, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes will move to breast milk. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
I concur. "Breast milk" is the most common name and resolves the redundancy, and no one refers to any non-human milk as "breast milk". (Of course, all milk comes from some form of breast or analogous structure, so there is an inherent redundancy there too, but somehow the entire English-speaking world readily overlooks it, and Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, in its interpretation of common name.) Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 23:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
It's not really redundant. All mammals have mammary glands. "Breast" is the older word for the upper front part of the chest, not specifically to a woman's milk-producing parts. You can see the old use in quotations at Feet of clay and Pharisee and the Publican. Its use now to refer especially to female mammaries is probably an example of the euphemism treadmill. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I suspect you're right after all. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 06:44, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

 Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Striae gravidarum stub

There was a merger proposal in late 2012, suggesting striae gravidarum go to the stretch marks page. I commented on the talk page that I agree, after I wrote a section on stretch marks for the pregnancy page. The stub looked to be pretty dreadful, and I didn't create an internal link because of that. I've just looked at the treatment section properly after someone commented the primary sources weren't necessarily useless. Now I feel strongly this stub needs to go as a priority, because I don't want to spend on it, but it can't stay online like this. The first primary source it uses is for a topical tretinoin and it's not in pregnancy - topical tretinoin is FDA category D for all trimesters of pregnancy because of its teratogenicity.

So I now looked at the stretch marks page. It is also in a bad state. The real value that it should have had, would have been treating the scars, but it doesn't really do that - and it's also poorly based (and wrong) on prevention of striae gravidarum (will edit). But it would be great if the stub could be resolved, without having to spend time editing it. Hildabast (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata progress report

The first goal of the Wikidata Medicine task force is finished. All the strings from the diseases infobox can now be entered on Wikidata. See for example:

Our next goals are to create properties for the anatomy infobox and the drugbox (50% done). At the same time were also trying to gather further information like symptoms, affected organs and tissues and affected species. We could use more suggestions on what useful information to acquire. For example if a disease has a vaccine, when and how often it should be administered or what kind of analytics and imaging are used for a diagnosis. We are also working on tagging all medical subjects on Wikidata, so we can generate statistics for different Wikipedia languages. I leave you with this simple query which lists all the diseases where the discoverer is known "[486]_AND_(claim[61])". The data is still incomplete and were lacking really useful information but it shows what kind of lists we will be able to generate soon. --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay so how far out are we from knowing there are X number of medical articles in Swahili? And next of course it would be great to know how many page views these articles get in total.
Would especially love to know how many page views this subgroup of 80 medical articles get in other languages. We have the English data here [6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:42, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
I am currently looking into how we could display that information with Limn (see for general wiki stats). I think it would be nicer to be able to track those 80 articles over time.
I am hoping to answer your "number of medical articles in Swahili" sometime this summer. As I said we first need to apply properties like MESH ID to all medical items so we have a way of querying them. Bots are already gathering the information, but we have to be a little of information, because a tremendous amount of data is currently being acquired. --Tobias1984 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Can we apply the tag on the talk page that states WP:MED to Wikidata? We define medicine more broadly than simply having a MESH code. And this would not pick up subpages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, several pages may legitimately require the same MESH code, and certain pages cover more than one code. On a side note, outside WP:MED I've encountered situations where I haven't been able to insert/fix a clear-cut interwiki language link because I get an error code telling me that the link has already been taken by another page—one which legitimately requires the same link. I hope this isn't going to happen in the future with ICD, MeSH codes etc: it would be a real loss imo. (talk) 22:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
ICD, MeSH and other identifiers will not be constrained to only one page. There are also plans to fix the problems with the interwiki-links by allowing links to redirect pages. This is naturally difficult because there are no intrinsic boundaries where one subject ends and the other begins. One Wikipedia could have one entry for HIV, while another could have a few entries concerning the diagnosis, the treatment, the virus itself and the history of HIV. This is probably a topic where no "perfect" solution will be ever found and the interwiki-links might need a more dynamic and flexible approach. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:12, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

What's the plan forward? Modifying the infobox template so it uses wikidata if no value is entered locally? Actively moving the data to wikidata (removing it from the article code itself)? In the short term this would probably benefit other language wikipedia's most, as they can easily reuse the data from here and it the long-term it would be a nice centralized place to keep all data up-to-date. Searching around, I see a few infoboxes of other projects have been modified to use wikidata, but nothing large-scale yet. --WS (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

My concern would be that moving the codes to Wikidata would indirectly (but perhaps almost inevitably?) lead to the interests of Wikipedia users being somewhat sacrificed in favour of metadata interests. Would code insertions remain at least as flexible as they are now (to handle Wikipedia article overlaps, multiple codes, etc)? Would inserting/updating/expanding/fixing codes become less intuitive? (For example, following the Wikidata interlinks move I've rapidly gave up on fixing things like the en language link in it:Clacson, which should be Vehicle horn rather than Horn (acoustic), as it is now—I guess I'm not the only one who feels that life's just too short...) (talk) 13:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The goal would be to manage all data globally. This would benefit all Wikis because no time would be consumed keeping the infoboxes up-to-date. Especially for new pages it would save a lot of time because the infobox, interwiki-links, categories etc... would be generated automatically. I think the wiki-wide-deployment of this is still at least a year away and hopefully user-interface and flexibility issues will be gone by that time. In conclusion I want to point out again that most work will be done by bots and all we need is an occasional visit and maybe a few corrections on the items of the article your currently working on. This will enable us to do to incredible things in the future. Just think how our articles will benefit from dynamic content like this for example link --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:43, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this update. I'm happy about this progress. I especially like the idea that someone could do the work once, and have it automatically reach any language Wikipedia that wanted it. That's much more efficient than doing each page by hand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Vaguely related to this: what should we be doing, if anything, about edits like this: [7]. Are all such links now handled by wikidata? Lesion (talk) 10:48, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes normally, that should go to wikidata and edit links under the language list allows you to do that. Except in this case the editor in question was probably hindered by the existence of separate wikidata entries for the norwegian wikipedia article and the one containing the english and other language versions, which will result in an error message when trying to add it. This complicates things a lot, if you then want to add a link you have to merge the wikidata entries and request deletion of one of them. --WS (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Is this issue because I moved the TMD page recently? Do you have to move the associated wikidata page too? Lesion (talk) 12:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
No it is probably just because the Norwegian article didn't have any interwiki links before and thus ended up with its own entry. But the way of fixing this is sadly totally unobvious at the moment. --WS (talk) 14:06, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


A user recently added "Phytochemicals from dietary plants and spices have been shown to prevent cancer initiation, promotion, and progression by exerting anti-inflammatory and anti-oxidative stress effects, and have been shown to induce apoptosis in cancer cells and suppress tumor growth in vivo.[1]" to the lead of the cancer article. I have moved it to the research section but even there I am not sure. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ Shu, L (2010). "Phytochemicals: cancer chemoprevention and suppression of tumor onset and metastasis". Cancer Metastasis Rev.: 483–502. doi:10.1007/s10555-010-9239-y. PMID 20798979. Retrieved 14 July 2013.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
It looks like someone has deleted that text from the article. If you provide a link to the reference, I could check that. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:53, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
For those who don't know, if you're pasting in a ref-tagged citation, you need to add the reflist so we can see more than a little blue number. The best way to do it is {{Reflist|closed=yes}} so that it will pick up all the refs above your note, but not screw up any sections below. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Overall, I would say that the statement gives undue weight to the benefits of phytochemicals. I am particularly sceptical about the claim of tumour suppression in vivo. In any case, the deletion of the text from the article makes the matter moot. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

MEDRS query

Could some folks please have a look at this series of edits to MEDRS? I am short on time, and unable to determine the overall change, but at a quick glance, I'm concerned that MEDRS is diminished by this series of edits, and it appears that the edits are supported by something like ... two ... editors participating at talk. In multiple sections above, I am unable to decipher the meaning of posts by Hildablast, and I am severely pressed for time through August, so I recognize I may be missing something (and apologize in advance if that is the case), but my concern is that the guideline may have been weakened by alterations to long-standing text based on input from only two or three editors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

I briefly contributed to the discussion on the talk page. Overall, I support the changes, although there is one phrase that I believe is unnecessary. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually the phrase that I was uncomfortable with has since been removed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
- FWIW, the sentence that Axl was uncomfortable with [8] actually pre-existed this series of edits: see [9]para 2.
- I find Hildabast's talk-page contributions crystal clear—given her level of expertise in EBM theory, she is likely to pick up on points which passed the rest of us by. I do think it's better to use the terminology appropriately (as simply worded as possible, without being simplistic). (talk) 09:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

A part of this discussion was split to my talk: [10] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:14, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Note: it wasn't my intention to split the discussion. (talk) 12:33, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration with NIH

Blog post about the collaboration efforts is here [11]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Obesity disease status

Resolved: Thanks everyone, this is very informative and clear now. EllenCT (talk) 23:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

The American Medical Association recently reclassified obesity as a disease instead of simply a medical condition. Firstly, what is the status of obesity outside the US? Second question: why isn't a condition with deleterious consequences caused by other recognized risk factors always a disease to begin with? Is this just convention or is there a default definition? Disease seems to imply that obesity is certainly a disease. EllenCT (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

On your second question, according to this, it's more about knowing the etiology. Biosthmors (talk) 09:37, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Aside from the popular perception of obesity as a comical trait, the status of "disease" very much depends on definition of the term. In general in the UK, obesity per se is not regarded as a disease—there are many obese people do not suffer ill effects and are not ill. Rather, obesity is regarded as a modifiable risk factor associated with a number of diseases such as metabolic syndrome and obstructive sleep apnoea.
I suspect that the reclassification by the AMA is due to a number of reasons, some of which may be political or economic in nature. Obesity is a growing problem (pardon the pun) in the USA and many other countries. By calling it a "disease", it draws more attention to the condition. This may have ramifications for the potential to draw funding for research into the condition and welfare for obese people. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
The question isn't really whether it's a "disease", but whether it's "a" disease. It could be three or four of them (e.g., is "I love French fries" obesity really the same disease as "My thyroid is broken" obesity?). That's why knowing the etiology is important for declaring something to be a proper disease rather than a syndrome. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Regarding obesity related to hypothyroidism, I don't think that any healthcare professional would regard obesity in that context as a disease. Rather, it is a symptom or sign.
Hypertension is in a similar position to obesity. (Primary) hypertension typically does not have symptoms but it is a risk factor for several serious diseases (or complications?). On the other hand, "primary obesity" has traditionally been regarded as self-inflicted, thus eliciting little sympathy from healthcare professionals or from society in general. That attitude has slowly changed over the last decade or so, reflected by the change in the AMA's stance.
In any case, these issues are incidental to Wikipedia. Wikipedia's articles must reflect the dominant phrases in the literature. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
Axl, you say primary obesity has "traditionally been regarded as self-inflicted". What other direct cause is there? While I accept there are indirect factors that lead to a "more energy consumed than expended" lifestyle and that solving a weight problem is far from trivial, I'm not aware of any new scientific understanding beyond "too much calorie-rich food eaten". I'm interested that one "expert" said this will put obesity on the "level of asthma", a disease with poorly understood environmental and genetic causes, no clear preventative measures, and for which nobody is considered individually responsible for their own condition to any degree whatsoever. -- Colin°Talk 19:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
One very recent proposal is that obesity may be an infectious disease [see PMID 23235292 (warning: primary animal study) and PMID 20804522]. Of course this proposal is a long way from being widely accepted. Boghog (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Interesting research. The statement "obesity may be an infectious disease" is somewhat overstating the research though, which suggests it may be a factor for people who already each too much calorie-rich (high fat) food. The mice who ate a normal diet didn't get fat whether they had this germ or not. Unlike asthma, primary obesity is not only preventable but a treatable, albeit with difficulty. Like smoking cigarettes. Colin°Talk 10:06, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Colin, of course obesity is due to an imbalance between calories eaten and calories expended. While it is easy to ascribe this to a combination of greed and laziness, perhaps it is not so simple. The sensation of hunger is an essential survival feature and it cannot be controlled—at least not in any reliable way other than by eating.
In general, traits are due a combination of genetics and environmental factors. 100 years ago, obesity was a rare trait in human societies. Genetic factors have not changed much in that time. In modern affluent Western societies, we often have a combination of sedentary lifestyle (such as office work), easy access to high calorie foods (such as those containing fats and refined sugars) and more disposable income with which to afford these treats. But our hunger instinct is genetically based on the paleolithic lifestyle when high calorie foods were rare and highly desirable for basic survival.
I'm not sure if the "expert" you refer to is supposed to be me. I am not an expert on obesity and I never claimed to be, although I do treat patients who have obesity, notably those with obstructive sleep apnoea. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:19, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Marking articles with open access icon

A small version of this icon could appear in the citation for references which are open access

How does WP:MED feel about marking citations with an icon which indicates whether the source referenced is open access or only viewable by those with subscriptions? The rest of this post gives background to that question and nothing more.

The Cochrane Collaboration is an organization which publishes excellent reviews which would be great for this board to recommend to anyone who wants a source with which to develop articles. It is my opinion that Cochrane is widely respected and gives conservative, non-controversial information backed by evidence. Cochrane's publications are expensive, but they have offered to give free subscriptions to Wikipedians who sign up at WP:COCHRANE. One controversy about this and about medicine in general is that health content is not accessible by everyone; only people with subscriptions may read this.

User:Ocaasi is managing the Cochrane project as part of a Wikimedia Fellowship - see The Wikipedia Library for details on the fellowship. For transparency in this Cochrane relationship, he has proposed that people accepting the free subscription also agree to tag any Cochrane publications which they cite with Template:Subscription required. This is an entirely viable and good response to get information into Wikipedia while also being mindful that few users would have access to read Cochrane articles or any subscription health articles. Here is how it would look to cite a subscription paper.

Dalip, Daniel Hasan, Raquel Lara Santos, Diogo Rennó Oliveira, Valéria Freitas Amaral, Marcos André Gonçalves, Raquel Oliveira Prates, Raquel C.M. Minardi, and Jussara Marques de Almeida (2011). GreenWiki: A tool to support users' assessment of the quality of Wikipedia articles. In Proceeding of the 11th annual international ACM/IEEE joint conference on Digital libraries (JCDL '11), 469. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press. DOI (subscription required).

However - User:Daniel Mietchen since at least 2012 has been advocating for users to have the option to more readily identify which references are by subscription and which are open access. Daniel has proposed that the most popular open access icon - an orange lock designed by PLOS but not their trademark - be that icon. This icon has been tested for months at meta:Research:Newsletter. It looks as such:

Publications that are either self-archived in an open access repository or published in an open access journal will be marked with an open access icon next to the download link, e.g.:

Laniado, David, Riccardo Tasso, Y. Volkovich, and Andreas Kaltenbrunner. When the Wikipedians talk: network and tree structure of Wikipedia discussion pages. In Proceedings of the Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media (ICWSM '11), 177-184, 2011. PDF open access publication – free to read.

Publications that are not open access (i.e. behind a paywall or tied to institutional subscriptions) will be marked with a closed access icon:

Dalip, Daniel Hasan, Raquel Lara Santos, Diogo Rennó Oliveira, Valéria Freitas Amaral, Marcos André Gonçalves, Raquel Oliveira Prates, Raquel C.M. Minardi, and Jussara Marques de Almeida (2011). GreenWiki: A tool to support users' assessment of the quality of Wikipedia articles. In Proceeding of the 11th annual international ACM/IEEE joint conference on Digital libraries (JCDL '11), 469. New York, NY, USA: ACM Press. DOI closed access publication – behind paywall.

I was thinking that user:Ocaasi's Cochrane project should ask users to consider using Daniel's open access icon system. The advantage of Daniel's proposal is that a discreet icon indicating open or closeness is more quickly understandable and visual appealing than text which reads, "subscription required". Also, I think that by introducing this as part of the Cochrane project, the new practice of using this tagging system in templates could be introduced to an audience who already is interested in working with subscription academic journals, and who might already be sympathetic to community desires to identify what content is open and what is restricted.

What does this board think?

  1. To what extent is it useful to give any notice that reading a referenced work requires a subscription?
  2. To what extent is the open access icon useful as compared to the currently available text template which appends the words "subscription required"?
  3. The icon could be added with its own template, or it could be integrated into the regular template with a yes/no field. If it were available, how often would people here use it?
  4. How does this board feel about sharing sources on Wikipedia which most people cannot read for lack of a subscription?
  5. It is my opinion that Cochrane provides high quality information of great interest to Wikipedians and which cannot be found elsewhere, and I do not think that is debatable. But I will ask anyway - what are this board's thoughts on using Cochrane information to develop Wikipedia? Perhaps post comments on the talk page of WP:COCHRANE.

Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes support the addition of the open and closed access symbols. Should be in the template. Is there an automated tool that could do this? The question of sharing sources is completely different than the icon one. Our use of sources must comply with the law. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:52, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Those questions have been hashed over many times at WT:FAC and in the various citation templates. Basically, we do not require that sources be available online. In cases of sources of equal value, we would try to pick the freely available text, but when superior sources are not freely available online, we prefer them. To that end, if a source is already available, current practice is to link to the free full text in the article title. If the source is not freely available, we only link to the abstract via the DOI or PMID, but not in the article title. So, we currently already indicate which text is free and which is not, in practice. In other words, we already do everything we should do, and adding another parameter isn't needed (nor should we potentially mislead anyone to the idea that free full text is necessarily superior or desired, although sometimes it is). I wouldn't use this because it is redundant and just creating extra work; we already do everything we need to do, and adding another parameter to chunk up text and take editor time isn't necessary. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't see how this "link the title if and only if the full text is freely available" rule is viable. There's nothing stopping new editors or even veteran editors from breaking it through lack of awareness. And they clearly are: I just randomly checked five of the identified Top importance, FA-class WP:MED articles, and at most one consistently followed the rule. Even if all Wikipedia articles followed it consistently, I don't see how readers would be aware of it. The icons are clear, concise, and intuitive. I can't imagine the icons being more work than the title-linking rule, as the rule would require editors to regularly trawl through existing reference lists to check for compliance. The icons could be added once, and then the job's done. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 06:28, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia: there is nothing to stop anybody from anything (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, and exceptions to good editing are much more the exception than the norm).

On your assertion about "five of the identified Top importance, FA-class WP:MED articles", I can't take that at face value. Could you please list them? When were they promoted? Were they promoted by me? Have they deteriorated since promotion? We most certainly regularly and routinely follow the Wikiwide convention of linking when free text is available, not linking when it is not, and providing a link to the abstract via PMID or DOI. (See the Diberri template format filler.) I don't know where this straw man about (subscription required) even came in to the argument.

Further, this "rule" is not a rule specific to medical articles; it is best practice for all articles. We link text when available, the absence of a blue link means it's not available. That some folks may be doing otherwise (OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) isn't a reason to codify bad practice.

The icon will be equally meaningless to most readers, similar to the way we once promoted the use of a PDF icon, and I routinely had to fix those in every FAC nomination-- no one used them, and all they did was clutter up text with an extra parameter that no one cared about, understood, or used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I just checked every second article in this list, yielding Bacteria (promoted Dec 2003), Influenza (Nov 2006), Major depressive disorder (Dec 2008), Multiple sclerosis (Oct 2005), and Schizophrenia (Aug 2003); only Multiple sclerosis appeared compliant. But my main point is that even if all articles followed the rule, a reader could peruse Wikipedia for years without ever realising the significance of whether the title is linked. Heck, I've been editing for seven years and I'd never heard of this rule, which is not documented in Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Inline citation, Help:Referencing for beginners, Wikipedia:Citation templates, or Help:Footnotes. I think the lock symbols are intuitive, but any reader who doesn't understand them will be no worse off than under the current system, and should only need to mouseover one of them for an explanation. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 08:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I looked into this, and found a can of worms on numerous fronts. Not wanting to divert this discussion, and not having time right this moment to address all of this, I will later start a new section here to examine the long-standing and growing problem of what is covered in way too many citation guideline pages, including our own at MEDMOS (which I just reviewed because of this section). (Mention of current practice in medical articles is buried in those pages, but not very effectively by the way and then contradicted in other pages!) More later, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a good idea. Whilst we were already sort of doing this by linking to the free full text if it was available and linking to the DOI/PMID if it was paywalled ... consider the fact that the readers might not immediately understand this "secret code". The little graphic makes this immediately obvious and offers improvement over the current appearance. I don't think we should be put off by the work involved, after all I assume one, possibly many bots will be carrying out this task... Lesion (talk) 20:21, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
It is not a "secret" code-- it is the way sources are routinely listed on any kind of article. If there's a blue link, it goes to text; if there's not, it doesn't. The little graphic will be no more obvious or useful to our editors or readers than the older PDF icon was. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
It's a bit more complicated. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access/Signalling OA-ness, I have listed the options to signal compliance with the Budapest Open Access Initiative's definition of open access (basically, CC BY, without any embargo). The orange lock – while originally intended to signal CC BY – has frequently been used to signal "free to read" (i.e. open access in the broader sense), including in the examples Lane cited above. So there are at least three levels of openness that the signal will have to be able to convey:
  1. Free to read and to reuse
  2. Free to read but not to reuse
  3. Paywalled
As for defining reuse, perhaps we could concentrate on cases where reuse is possible on Wikimedia projects, so that editors can then see at a glance which references might be worth a look for illustrations and other materials that could help improve the respective Wikipedia articles. This would mean signaling compatibility with CC BY-SA, which is strictly speaking not BOAI compatible, but given that almost no scholarly journal articles have been published under CC BY-SA so far, the difference to signaling compatibility with CC BY would be negligible in practice.
In terms of automation, a list like this one could be used to implement license signaling on a per-publisher basis, but this only works if everything from that publisher is licensed the same way (or at least, compatibly), which clearly is not widely the case. License signalling on a per-article basis is not yet available but on the horizon – CrossRef are working on it, and it is likely to become a component of the DOI bot once it is ported to Wikimedia Labs. For things that are paywalled at the publisher's site but may be available for free from elsewhere, automation would probably involve crawling the Web like Google Scholar does. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
If it's going to be implemented automatically, then it really needs to be done on a per article basis. How else can the large quantity of ones be dealt with, that become open to read after an embargo? Hildabast (talk) 10:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary OT break: Talking of Cochrane...

Oops, missed a question:

It is my opinion that Cochrane provides high quality information of great interest to Wikipedians and which cannot be found elsewhere, and I do not think that is debatable. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't have full access to Cochrane, but from what I know, yes, this is debateable in the case of Tourette syndrome. I've seen no reason to believe that Cochrane has superior information on TS. In fact, based on this, I would say Cochrane is inferior (a review authored by the main proponent of and author of the original studies, conclusions at odds with some other independent authors on the topic???) I've just glanced at everything Cochrane has on TS and the content is inferior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
See PMID 22747638. IMO it's not a question of "inferior"/"superior", but rather the role of expert judgement calls in EBM. Paraphrasing: According to a recent Cochrane review on XXX, definite conclusions cannot be drawn, because of lack of sufficiently reliable data. Notwithstanding, many experts think XXX is recommendable in XYZ circumstances. In such cases we think XXX should be taken into consideration. #Role of expert opinion? (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Another example of the "superior" Cochrane reviews can be found at Talk:Ketogenic diet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC) example of an "ideal source talk" ?! ;-) — (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, it's not a good example, because that conversation was not finished - it's still on my list to get back to - and on the scale of quality, it's not an example of a really bad review. There are however many very bad systematic reviews, just as there are very bad articles of any study type. Being Cochrane is no guarantee that they're not bad or even egregious. But it's been said in this discussion that the highest quality articles were not likely to be open access articles, and that's demonstrably false. I suspect it's a hangover from the very early days of OA publishing - or it doesn't take into account the ones that will be free to read after a year (which includes new/updated Cochrane reviews from now on). But take the journal PLOS Medicine (COI - I'm an editor there, and I have a couple of articles about systematic reviews there). This is arguably the top - or certainly near the top - of the medical journal quality tree now. The fact that research funded by major funders like Wellcome Trust, NIH, MRC, NHMRC, CIHR all have to be available in a public access version at least after an embargo makes it patently clear that while it can't be said that being free to read is any guarantee of high quality, the argument that it's likely that an OA article is not the best of a given group is not sustainable. The odds are either even (likely) - or somewhat tilted in favor of free to read being likely to be better. Hildabast (talk) 10:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC) Oops - corrected Hildabast (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
I cannot decipher what 86's cryptic comment of 17:30 means, but to my other concerns expressed elsewhere on this page, it is not at all an example of typical talk page discussions, wrt the problems we most frequently encounter on Wikipedia and which take most of our time. A more typical scenario of what chews up a lot of editing time can be seen by following all of the links here, which I suggest that involved (and new) MED participants do in terms of understanding my "pie in the sky" concerns relative to other issues that are taking editor time here. In other words, this is a plea for relatively new editors to be aware of how limited the number of experienced WP:MED editors are, and how much work they need to do just to keep out really bad stuff here, much less be able to find time to add new/good content. "First do no harm", please.

Also, in that particular discussion and series of edits, please note this discussion of citing sources at MEDMOS (please do not add your own opinions or engage in overanalysis of studies in what often becomes an attempt to discredit sources rather than just state conclusions). [12]

But it's been said in this discussion that the highest quality articles were not likely to be open access articles, and that's demonstrably false. Hildabast (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you please point out where that was said? I'm unable to find any statement of that nature and it is helpful to clarify so as to avoid misunderstanding, inadvertent or otherwise. Thanks in advance, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure, it was this statement "It is my experience that the highest quality sources aren't typically freely available." If I misunderstood it, then I'm happy to just let this go. Regardless of what this statement meant, the only point I'm trying to make is that certainly for review content, it is possible now to state a preference towards free to view, because odds are, there is one. It's such a big trend, that in many areas of health, considerably more than half are free to view, and they are the higher quality ones. That can be different in different disease areas, that's true, but across the board now, the trend is towards public agencies having paid for them (or done them, in the case of health technology assessment agencies), and with the exception of Cochrane, that means free to view (even if only after an embargo period). The trend is major and it's been happening fast. Hildabast (talk) 20:52, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks-- I now see the source of the misunderstanding and have amended my original post (which was vaguely worded) to clarify. It is my experience referred specifically to the area I most edit (tic disorders, and other sometimes comorbid conditions), where the highest quality reviews are not Cochrane. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary break: what to do?

  • At this point, we have the opposite possibility: tagging non-free content by tagging such sources with {{subscription required}}. However, I don't think it's used much. And for this exact reason I would only be in favor of such tags if this could be automated. Otherwise it becomes haphazard and risks to be more confusing than anything else. One more concern that I have is that an icon for OA articles would somehow get to be interpreted as that such sources are somehow superior, which is not necessarily the case. --Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes unless it is done automated and with a single edit I would oppose as well. The last thing I need is to see them being updated one by one. And more confusion and more people being distracted from writing content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:47, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of talk of automation and bots on this page, and a lot of it from people I have never seen actually building content and editing articles and engaging the more typical editing situations we deal with day in and day out here. I'm worried about the direction this WikiProject is headed; there seem to be a lot of editors with ideas about automation, bots, automated source listing, benefits of certain types of sources, but declining recognition of day-to-day issues of editing. It all looks very pie in the sky from my editing experience. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
After having writing as much medical content here on Wikipedia as anyone, I do not see bots as a pie in the sky, just as one potential tool to help make minor very specific changes. Yes the real work is writing the content and we need more people doing it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:54, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not referring only to automated editing wrt "pie in the sky" (although certainly some editors here may not have had the pleasure of dealing with intransigent bot operators or technical-minded editors determined to impose their views on articles in spite of content deterioration); I am referring also to an absence of knowledge about what issues we seriously face in here, and the most important issues relative to where we should be spending our time. Icons to indicate free access would be a lovely idea if we weren't spending most of our time dealing with POV pushers and university students with a grade-school level command of prose and research and plagiarism who wouldn't know, won't read, and couldn't care less about whether a source meets or not MEDRS, and is free or not. I am using "pie in the sky" to reference some of the rose-colored statements about where we might end up in the "long run" on Wikipedia: in fact, on Wikipedia, most of our time is not spent in discussions like this with well-meaning, professional editors who understand sources, but rather dealing with trolls, POV-pushers, ill-equipped, and others demonstrating "frank psychopathology". I understand some here are optimistic that some of these proposals will advance the ball wrt the real problems, but I am frustratingly finding that our time could perhaps be better spent in focusing on some of our more serious concerns. "First do no harm" has been stuck in my brain since reading Talk:Ketogenic diet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think "subscription required" is an ok option at all: firstly because it's not true - you can pay for a single article, you don't have to buy a whole subscription. Very few publishers don't have pay per view these days. Secondly, the whole thing of pointing people to publishers' websites with "subscription required" is a marketing approach - it is suggesting/implying subscribing an action, and it's sending people to a commercial environment in which a variety of sales pitches are happening, including seeking to channel people's next article to look at within that stable. Thirdly, it may deter people from clicking at all, thinking there is no free content to be seen, and that's not true. There is at least an abstract. I really agree with what SandyGeorgia's saying about quality and appropriateness of content being important: and there is no reason to assume that the Cochrane brand is going to be good quality or better quality than one of the open access systematic review communities. Indeed, on sheer numerical grounds at all, the best and most recent systematic review to answer any random question is unlikely to be a review from any one single "brand" or community - although there are some topic area exceptions where that's not true and most decent systematic reviews will be from Cochrane. Hildabast (talk) 02:41, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I personally go a different way. All other things being even close to equal, I'll cite the open access option, both for readers to be able to see if they want more information and to increase the number of people who are able to call me on it if I've made a mistake or twisted something. That being the case, for me, by definition a non-open access group can't be in a preferred position if there are other groups that are at least comparable. The open access systematic reviewing community is large and worthy of support. Hildabast (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I find myself in agreement with Hildabast. First, subscription required isn't widely used in our medical citation format, and that is a red herring. And yes, all other things being equal, we prefer freely available sources to those that are not. It is my experience (corrected to clarify: with Tourette syndrome SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)) that the highest quality sources aren't typically freely available. When they are, I prefer them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of references is to direct readers to where our article text is drawn from. Whether that source text is available for reuse under CC BY is irrelevant to that purpose. So if this icon is used by some people/sites to indicate truly free-content material then using it for merely free-to-read material would cause confusion. WP:MEDMOS has long advocated what Sandy describes: we hyperlink the article title if the source is available for free. Our citation format typically includes other hyperlinks from the DOI or PMID which readers can use to find the paper or abstract even when not free. While not all editors may be aware of this convention, it isn't a "secret code" as far as our readers are concerned. Hyperlinking the article title is a huge clue to the reader that this might be worth clicking. Whereas people with subscription journal access will generally understand the DOI link's purpose. Speaking as someone without ready journal access, following a link to a paper only to find out it is paywalled is like a slap in the face. $40 for a few sheets of paper is not an option for anyone but the super rich with money to burn. So I very much appreciate efforts by editors to distinguish the two when they can.

There are maintenance problems with the whole thing no matter how it is presented to readers. I can see an advantage to the citation template having a flag "Free to read" which could be rendered in whatever way the community agree, or even per reader preferences if Wikipedia ever got that smart. Sometimes papers are non-free to begin with but become free after a period of time. The PubMed database has a flag to indicate free papers but in my experience is it wildly inaccurate other than for journals that are always free or where there's a PubMedCentral copy. Colin°Talk 12:32, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm also worried about the maintenance problem. Anything in Blood is free after a year, and more journals make things free after five years. If you tag a new Blood article as {{subscription required}}, you'll have to remove it once it's a year old. I don't mind offering templates for people who want to use them voluntarily, but I wouldn't want to waste my time on this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
"The purpose of references is to direct readers to where our article text is drawn from." Sure, but in the absence of a "Further reading" list under the sources, users will naturally tend to turn to the references to scan for "further reading", whether on the sourced information or the topic as a whole. (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree -- my point was their ability to read further (whether to check the sources, or to learn more) is in no way controlled by whether there's a CC BY licence on the source. Free to read is free to read, even if it is all-rights-reserved. Colin°Talk 17:36, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Morgellons at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

At the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard there is a dispute about sources available to describe Morgellons, a disease in which people believe they have parasites in cases when doctors can detect no parasites. See Wikipedia:DRN#Morgellons.

Also, some of you may be interested in seeing the redesign of the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. User:Steven Zhang has had a big part in this redesign, as well as creating the board initially and using that space as a hub to direct to all other dispute resolution processes. If anyone has not seen the changes then now could be a good time. I feel that this board is a much better resource now and it would be a great place to share problems should any come up which require general community support and not people interested in medical topics specifically. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:25, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ya know, with this new notifications system, I saw this post...fwiw I've just completed another redesign of DRN (sub paging and updates to code. Other changes are happening right now, but once these are completed my attention will be shifting to resolving the open disputes). Kind regards, Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 13:29, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
  • FYI, the PubMed string
    morgellons disease[mh] OR morgellon* AND (Review[ptyp] OR review[tw])
    currently retrieves 10 potential MEDRS, including 8 6 not retrieved by the talk page bot (which uses "delusional parasitosis" as its main search term).
    Disclaimer: I did this search blind to the dispute. (talk) 14:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Category:Ailments of unknown etiology

Category:Ailments of unknown etiology

This is the first time I've noticed this category. Thoughts:

  1. Is it worth renaming it to something that sounds more encyclopedic? e.g. "Idiopathic disorders" or something?
  2. I'm strongly suspicious that this category contains only a tiny fraction of the articles it should technically include... but hey, at least we included the important ones like Dancing Plague of 1518. =D Lesion (talk) 17:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Claimed paradigm shift in primary cause of American mortality

Can [13] be confirmed with WP:MEDRSs?

If so, and if this really represents a paradigm shift, which articles need to be updated? PMID 19110085 is a 2009 review which seems to support the blood sugar aspect. PMID 22363018 and PMID 23010698 are 2012 reviews which may support the fatty acid aspect. EllenCT (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Like most self-published materials that proclaim "paradigm shifts", this can be ignored. As the full text of your second source states, "there is at this time no universal belief or high-level evidence that n-6 promote CAD", n-6 being an alternate nomenclature for omega-6 fatty acids. That's where things currently stand; it's an intriguing theory lacking supporting evidence. The whole piece is rather deceptive, since the "doctors say cholesterol, not inflammation" premise ignores a well-known inflammatory source which is not ignored by doctors: smoking. The relative role of inflammation is undetermined, and is not wholly dependent upon ω-6.Novangelis (talk) 20:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Definitely not a reliable source for anything other than this persons opinion and that opinion is not notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you both. I also found PMID 23538939, a review from 2013 which seems to indicate that Lundell's blood sugar assertions may also be uncertain. However, I started looking at this because of the brand-new population overview review at which states that high blood sugar is the fifth most significant risk factor in the US. Is it considered such for the same reasons that Lundell suggests? EllenCT (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

It's more complex. While glycosylation of proteins is a prominent factor in cardiovascular disease, it does not explain the the association with cancer well. For example, insulin resistance means higher Insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1).[14] Diabetes affects numerous systems by a variety of mechanisms.Novangelis (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

User discussion moved

Dolfrog (talk · contribs) has raised concerns about Jmh649 (talk · contribs)'s editing/summary style, and I moved the discussion over there. Involved editors have been notified. -- Scray (talk) 05:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Primary research

We have a user repeatedly adding primary research to the article on hepatitis C as per here [15] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I just commented on that talk page. Egregious (though good-faith) WP:SYNTH. -- Scray (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
User:DrMicro is persisting in their attempts to add content using primary sources which do not mention the topic of the article in question. Wondering if further people could comment / watch the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

An education edit

What does one do with something like this with statements like "One study demonstrated that after 4-5 years of deferasirox treatment the mean LIC levels of patients decreased from 17.4 ± 10.5 to 9.6 ± 8.0 mg Fe/g."? [16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Have moved it to a subpage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
That statement is inappropriately detailed for a general encyclopedia. If the reference is a suitable secondary source, it would be reasonable to say something like "Deferasirox reduces the liver iron concentration". Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)


I can see there is something wrong in the Cardioplegia entry. It's the following paragraph, which is incomplete in at least two points; it is perhaps the remnant of an unfinished edit:

"and then cold cardioplegia is given into the heart through the aortic root. Blood supply to the heart arises from the aorta root through coronary arteries. is in diastole thus ensuring that the heart does not use up the valuable energy stores (ATP- adenosine triphosphate) . Blood is commonly added to this solution in varying amounts from 0-100%. Blood acts a buffer and also supplies nutrients to the heart during ischemia."

However, I am not knowledgeable enough to fix it. Can anybody here do it?

Andreas Carter (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Google books is a simple way to find references for this sort of content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The complaint, however, is that parts of sentences are missing. See the third "sentence", which begins with with the word "is". WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, precisely, the first sentence starts with a lowercase "and", and the third one with a lowercase "is". I wouldn't know where to move these snippets. One possibility would be to delete the paragraph altogether, but I prefer to leave this choice to someone who understands the matter at hand. Andreas Carter (talk) 18:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggest merging cretinism into congenital hypothyroidism

I'd like to suggest merging cretinism into congenital hypothyroidism. Discuss here. Klortho (talk) 16:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

The cretinism article starts "Cretinism is ... due to untreated congenital deficiency". But it later says "Cretinism arises from a diet deficient in iodine". Unless you accept the first definition, merging them would be a mistake. Maproom (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Please discuss here. Klortho (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

HepB vaccine article

I was researching the hepB vaccine and came across two Wikipedia articles that contradicted each other. This one states that Dr. Maurice Hilleman created the first HepB vaccine. This one states that Dr. Baruch Blumberg created the first HepB vaccine. I am not a medical expert and I have no idea how to resolve this. (talk) 06:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Alzheimer research article

I happened to see Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Alzheimer's Disease and Prions - can someone save it? - it has been there since 2012. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Should probably be deleted. There are statements like "Prions have been discovered to be extremely deadly, resulting in diseases such as Parkinson's Disease and Huntington's Disease.[11][10]" supported by a primary research mouse model [17] and a paper on yeart [18]. Last time I checked yeast neither get Parksison's nor Huntingtons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:20, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for responding Doc James. Could you please clarify your comments – are you saying that:
  • The article is poorly written and does not describe the research accurately?
or that:
  • The research itself is flawed?
The reason I brought this up here is that as it stands this is the only Alzheimer research-related article I can find on wikipedia. See Category:Medical research. Thanks for any feedback. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The first. What about Alzheimer's_disease#Research_directions and Alzheimer's_disease_clinical_research? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Doc James, I have added both of your suggestions to Category:Medical research. As far as Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Alzheimer's Disease and Prions is concerned, since you say it is poorly written why should it be deleted instead of improved? XOttawahitech (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Would be easier to start from scratch IMO. Could probably be summarized in a couple of sentences. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry to say I'd have to second that. (talk) 16:34, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The AFC should be abandoned, we have Alzheimer's disease clinical research (which may be a mess, but whatever), write the correct text there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

That article was actually published in mainspace as a student project, then months later the user requested deletion. When I noticed that the article was deleted in mainspace I asked why to the admin and they replied here). Student #67 on the course page. Biosthmors (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2013 (UTC) And Biochemistry of Alzheimer's disease exists, FYI, Ottawahitech. Biosthmors (talk) 13:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Ataque de nervios

A real doozy, and a tribute to Wikipedia. Claimed to be in the DSM (really?), largely sourced to non-reliable sources, and so full of copyvio that it will take a major effort to clean up. Too bad we can't just shoot these kinds of articles on sight-- I don't have time to fix it. Found it by checking the contribs of the typical student edits I see on Latah, another doosie that takes more time than it's worth. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't culture-bound syndromes also be of interest to WP:ANTHRO? For example, Jumping Frenchmen of Maine, Dancing mania... (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, but I'm not sure they'd be of much help. Can anyone who has a full copy of the DSM let me know if ataque de nervios is classified there as stated in the article? The source does not verify the text. That article needs to be massively cleaned out because of copyvio, etc. Same editors at Latah and others, breaking references, adding unsourced text, adding non-MEDRS sources, all have similar userpages, so I will take it to WP:ENB, since I don't have time to do anything else for now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:37, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't have the DSM-5 to hand, but it is listed in the DSM-IV as a dissassociative disorder NOS.[19][20]Slp1 (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Dunno, but it was listed independently [21] in Culture-bound_syndromes#DSM-IV_list_of_culture-bound_syndromes. (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, did my homework, filed at ENB, found the university involved, lots of articles impacted, don't have time to do any more today. Thanks Slp1 and 86 ... I may get around to cleaning up 'Ataque' if I have time ... copyvio an issue there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, that took all morning ... found the course syllabus, what next? [22] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm... "Culture-bound syndromes rarely found in Western society are explored..."

I notice Medical anthropology has yet to receive a rating on the importance scale by WikiProject Anthropology. I'll notify the project of this thread at WT:ANTHRO. (Btw, here's a draft that hasn't seen the light of day of another culture-bound syndrome listed in DSM-IV: [23]... notable topic tho') (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Beyond irritated to know that a Wikipedia sysop is behind this. These very bad articles have been hitting my watchlist for several terms, and until yesterday, it didn't occur to me that student edits-- much less overseen by an admin-- were behind this. What a waste of my time. I get the most obscure, bizarre, and wondrous wiki experiences via articles that claim a relationship to Tourette's ... I hope someone else will deal with this, because this is just beyond frustrating. Doczilla gets free volunteer TAs, and I get a timesink on my watchlist. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:12, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, no wonder so many of us give up in here. Doczilla SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes I have just trimmed more than 30,000 bits of text from sudden infant death syndrome. Before I got involved there did not appear to be a conspiracy theory that we had left out. Every blog got to weight in along with every 1960s primary source. Sigh. Pubmed and emedicine are often better than the garbage we have :-( Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:18, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
But was there an admin behind the poor editing in that case? This comes back to my concerns about "pie in the sky" addition of things like icons to articles. What we need is an army of editors to shoot poor text on sight, remove the tons of very bad info we have in every article-- we are so far from being in a place where an open access icon means anything. We have boatloads of garbage in here, and I doubt that a few of us will ever be able to address even 5% of it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes excellent points. Havn't look that close to see if an admin was involved at SIDS but I do not think so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Problems with class editing Wikipedia

This content was formerly at the head of the section titled - "Ataque de nervios". Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

A professor and admin, user:Doczilla, hosted a class at a university in which students were encouraged to edit Wikipedia. Some months later, some Wikipedians asserted that the content which students added was low quality and copyright violations.

A complaint was made on the education noticeboard here - Wikipedia:Education_noticeboard#Attention_needed_on_several_articles_and_users. The class syllabus is here; this is unorthodox as participants in the program are encouraged to have an on-wiki syllabus.

It is my opinion that this professor did everything in good faith and as in so many other cases at even the best schools, some students seemed unable to practice report writing with competence. Wikipedia:Competence is required. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:33, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry, I am becoming uncomfortable with your refactoring of talk page edits here, and you taking on a role of providing something attempting to look like an "official" summary, while jumping the line.[24] Please refrain from refactoring posts and jumping the line to add your summaries after the fact to what was a developing situation when the first post was written ... feel free to add your conclusions at the bottom of the section. The role you've taken on here is adding to a budding feeling that this WikiProject is increasingly part of an off-Wiki venture, with editors who are paid for their time valued above volunteers' contributions and concerns, and I don't think that's what you intend. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Also, you are adding links to talk pages that will disappear by the time the sections archive: permalink. Since you seem to be building records, may as well make them permanent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I moved my summary from the head to a subsection. I hope that this addresses that concern of yours. I am not intending to have a overriding voice, but rather want to make the conversations immediately accessible to people who do not know the backstory. I find that most discussions become inaccessible after they reach a certain length, especially when they co-exist on multiple boards or in multiple places, and when the nature of the problem is not known until after some research. I am moving this discussion so that it will not be "jumping the line". I will address some of your other concerns on your talk page and you can bring them back here in their own sections, if you like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the section header (yet again) because Doczilla's classes do not appear to have been affiliated with the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Education Program. I think perhaps this form of curating talk page threads is best avoided. Choess (talk) 02:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for help from AfC

There is a draft article at AFC that needs a lot of help - Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Kowarski Syndrome. The subject appears to be legitimate but the article is quite far from acceptable. Basically the writer needs a mentor, preferably someone familiar with WP article standards, MEDMOS, and the subject or at least the subject area - genetic disorders. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:48, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

There are some secondary sources at google books. [25] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
the submitter of the article, who is the eponymous researcher of this syndrome, has requested further assistance to get his article accepted at #en-wikipedia-help connect. I think the questions remaining to be answered are for me:
  1. is the Bioinactive growth hormone syndrome sufficiently well known enough to justify an article?
  2. if the syndrome is well known enough, is it most well known as 'kowarski syndrome' or bioinactive growth hormone or similar?
I have searched biomed central/highwire and similar but find only limited results and don't have the expertise in this field to know if appropriate, so I have advised the submitter it would be better for someone experienced in this area to make the call about accepting the article into mainspace - can anyone assist? Best regards --nonsense ferret 14:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverse triiodothyronine

In early June, a new editor created a very long, and I think well-written, article on the hormone reverse triiodothyronine in his sandbox. I was concerned that he might be writing it to promote a non-standard view of the importance of this thyroid hormone, relative to two others, and told him so. But I know no endocrinology. I hope that someone with knowledge of this field can have a look at it, and guide him as appropriate. Maproom (talk) 16:02, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow, 336 references! Anyway, the editor has been working with two experienced Wikipedians, so I think he or she is getting plenty of good advice. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I have invited the editor to move the work into article space. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:16, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Ah, many / most of the refs are primary sources from the 1970s. It is not in a generally accessible style or wording. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:32, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
That many old primary sources, and the overcitation, and the inaccessible prose, are all suggestive of WP:SYNTH. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
My attitude is that the principle of avoiding primary sources should really only be applied to articles about large topics that are aimed at a general audience. I believe that articles on subtopics (for example, causes of Parkinson's disease), or articles about highly technical things, ought to be able to use primary sources as needed. In short, the more "in the weeds" the topic, the more freely it ought to be able to use primary sources. I'm not asserting that this article strikes the right balance (not having read it), but I do think there is a balance to be struck. Looie496 (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Sandy that this article is poor. If the use of primary sources was the only issue maybe but this article requires huge amounts of clean up. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:53, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

You know you are going to enjoy reworking an article

when one of the ref names is just "Candida". Lesion (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

[26]? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
=D =D =D Lesion (talk) 10:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Allegheny County Medical Examiner

Hi all, this newly created article has been nominated for deletion, given that it serves a major metro area (Pittsburgh) and has had 2 recent very notable experts as ME I thought it should be created. Please share your thoughts here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegheny County Medical Examiner and constructive additions to the article are always welcomed. Thanks in advance! Market St.⧏ ⧐ Diamond Way 05:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Why all the caps in the name of the article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps it's the job title. Proper names should be capitalized. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Posttraumatic stress disorder

I was hoping an editor or two familiar with WP:MEDRS would be able to give an opinion on whether sources for the inclusion of material requiring service dogs as treatment are appropriate. Talk page has some details. Thanks. Yobol (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately, one of the two references has nothing to do with the topic, and the other, while a review, on the particular topic in question only found a cross-sectional study of 9 people that cannot prove anything. I'll address it on the talk page. Hildabast (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)


User is attempting to replace the conclusions of a 2011 review with one from 2006 as per here [27]with a review from 2006. Thoughts? As it is an active area of research I consider the 2011 review more uptodate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:24, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I had not been able to find supporting text/information promoting fish (Jmh649's cited reduction of cancer risk due to fish consumption) from Jmh649's reference. He has now provided that supporting text.
There is no scientific doubt that eating fish also means consuming many chemicals and metals known to promote cancer, as noted in the "~old" 2006 Am. Cancer Society Guidelines (which are regularly updated IF there's new info).
As for new data, note that consumption of fish and mussels recently also yields significant human exposure to radiation [[28]][[29]], which is known to initiate and promote cancer.32cllou (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)32cllou (talk) 05:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
PS, my concern was prompted by the reports showing the radiation plume from Japan has grown and strengthened tremendously since the nuclear meltdowns. Fish bioaccumulate, of particular risk importance, polonium-210.32cllou (talk) 05:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking for data

I am trying to figure out two values:

  1. How many edits occur to medical articles in X amount of time. We used to have this page [30] but it no longer works. And we have this page but it seems to only list articles beginning with A [31]
  2. Second value I am trying to figure out is how many people are active in this project and has this value changed over time? We have this list here [32] but it does not say how many have edited in the last 3 months (would love to have a bot to figure this out). We also have this catagory which lists 453 users [33] but same issue we have no idea how many article (once again maybe a bot)... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
On the second, that list is fairly useless (so is the category, since some editors don't clutter their userpages which such). I took my name off that list years ago, when I got too busy at FAC, and never re-added it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes realize that it is not perfect. Neither is the number of edits to medical articles as one is not sure how much represents vandalism and the fixing of such. I am sure the numbers of editors is less than many image. This might be additional justification to be careful with the education program as there is not a free army of teachers aids to "mark" the students work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:37, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Any where I'm involved, WP:EDITCOUNTITIS comes in to play, since it typically takes me four edits to make one post :) :) If your goal is to get a handle on how many active editors are doing most of the work on medical articles, I don't think any automated tool or list can give you that, but I agree that the number is far less than most people realize, most of us know who those editors are (you, for instance), we are not enough to keep up with basics, and certainly not enough to be taking up time with "pie in the sky" notions. That is my concern about the direction this talk page has taken. I got the new DSM about a week ago, and instead of updating an entire suite of articles as planned, I've spent a lot of time here on things that in the long-run are not going to make a dent in the 95% of articles on Wikipedia that are horrible and won't be fixed with icons and lists of sources and such. Sorry to be a pessimist, but I'd like to see more engagement of problematic issues "in the trenches" before discussions/decisions that take time away from the precious few resources we have in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
  1. It is often possible to revive stuff that died on the Toolserver if you find a technically minded person. If you want accurate numbers, then you probably want to sort through the main medicine-related categories to find articles that haven't been properly tagged for WPMED first. A list can be generated automatically.
  2. Active WPMEDers and active editors in medicine-related articles are not the same. Many editors work solo. If you want WPMED folks specifically, then I'd use the page histories for WPMED pages as a source of editors' names. Again, you probably want someone who can sit down with a database dump and process all of this automatically for you. If you don't have any friends who can do this, then asking for help at VPT or BOTREQ (a home for tech folks, although it wouldn't require a bot) might be your best option. You could also try the Meta pages about the Toolserver transition as another possible source of help. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
    1. We used to have a page that listed every new edit made to Wikiproject medicine. Does anyone know if it still exists or how to return it to life? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
You mean this?: [34] --WS (talk) 10:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Doc James (Jmh649)

I worry that Jmh649 is misleading Wikipedia/Cancer [[35]] to say eating fish reduces the risk of getting cancer. He also purposely omits known risk factors (processed meats, and fried or charbroiled foods).

Collapsed extended content-related detail to avoid duplication with Talk:Cancer

In general, much of the observed "benefit" may be a substitution effect; thus substitution of red and processed meats for fish may reduce cancer risk[[36]], and how you cook the meat or fish is very important (fish is less likely to be BBQ'd or fried). Finally, the the reference that may support the 2011 review[1] statement that fish is beneficial is vague, and is based on dated observational cohort studies. I say dated (old) because the concentrations of environmental pollutants has increased over time, and is significantly higher now than when the data for those studies was collected.

From the reference [[37]] you will find the following quote:

 "Limit consumption of processed and red meats.
   • Choose fish, poultry, or beans as an alternative to beef, pork, and lamb.
   • When you eat meat, select lean cuts and eat smaller portions.
   • Prepare meat by baking, broiling, or poaching rather than by frying or charbroiling."

Here are several recent peer reviewed journal published studies finding increased risk (or known risk factors) of cancer from eating fish. [[38]] [[39]] [[40]]

Jmh649 writes above that " attempting to replace the conclusions of a 2011 review with one from 2006 as per here [41]with a review from 2006. Thoughts? As it is an active area of research I consider the 2011 review more uptodate." Note that the Am Cancer Society Guidelines are updated as soon as new data is available.

Here is the text I think most reflects the facts and review references (includes avoid processed meats, fried, or charboiled and removes fish): Dietary recommendations for cancer prevention typically include an emphasis on consumption of vegetables, fruits, and whole grains, and an avoidance of red meat, processed meats, fried or charboiled foods, animal fats, and refined carbohydrates.[2][1]

Please comment, or join in Cancer Talk[[42]].32cllou (talk) 19:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I have collapsed the extended content-related detail that is duplicated at Talk:Cancer so that we do not have this content discussion in two places at once. 32cllou appears to be notifying WP:MEDICINE of a content dispute at Talk:Cancer and inviting editors to join. I think this notification is a good idea and hope other editors do join the conversation there. Zad68 20:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes further input would be helpful. User keeps making changes without consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)


NicoBloc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) seems spammy, is this product notable? -- (talk) 22:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes should be deleted as spam. Have posted for deletion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Symptom stub needs template

Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction

The Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction article was created the previous hour. The topic doesn't look as though it is notable enough for a stand-alone article, and rather looks like it should be regulated to the Erectile dysfunction article...with WP:MEDRS-compliant sources of course. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Merge to ED, if there's a decent source, otherwise send to AFD. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:10, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Clearly, the term "erectile dysfunction does NOT imply "that these men [sic] have a problem in their penises". Robinson & Wilson fails MEDRS. Imo, AfD it. (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
And I guess you'd be hard pushed to find recent MEDRS, at least on PubMed... See:[mh]+OR+erectile+dysfunction[tw]+OR+impoten*%29+AND+%28erotica[mh]+OR+porn*%29+AND+%28review[ptyp]+OR+review[tw]%29 (talk) 21:30, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Pornography-induced_erectile_dysfunction#Delete_or_merge?. (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction. --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed addition to MEDRS

I proposed an addition to MEDRS on how to determine a journal is probably not reliable [43]. Comments welcome. Yobol (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This is based on an assumption that non-MEDLINE-indexed journals that meet PubMed's criteria are of lower quality, and that's not the case. Because of a variety of constraints, it can take years to get into MEDLINE, and the constraints aren't necessarily about quality. They're not rejects: it's just one of the alternate routes into PubMed. Same for PubMed Health - the systematic reviews that come in as full text through our system are not poorer quality, they're just not necessarily published in journals (such as NICE reviews). I do know that a lot of people have an interest in perpetuating negative assessments of open access publishing, but that doesn't make their claims justified. There are many journals that are MEDLINE-indexed that would come lower down on measures of quality than some PMC journals, and vice versa. But a journal that falls really below the line would not ordinarily get through either system. "Predatory" ones don't get into either. This has much in common with commercial encyclopedia publishers finding reasons to badmouth WP. Hildabast (talk) 15:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I like your addition (second revision) in general and approve of helping editors discern reliable from unreliable journals. But I would add that MEDLINE is just one major indexing service. There are other major indexing services that are also indicators of reliable, high quality journals: Scopus, Science Citation Index, and Social Sciences Citation Index, for example. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 15:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
If additional indexing services are going to be used as indicators of quality, it would be helpful to have links that show on what basis they assess quality of journals they index. Hildabast (talk) 16:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I know these indexing services from consensus positions in academic journal AfDs; they are mentioned in the article WP:NJournals on journal notability guidelines. Scopus has this page on content selection. Science Citation Index has this page on content selection, which also applies to the Social Sciences Citation Index. --Mark viking (talk) 17:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the last sentence of that is the most important (or at least the most useful). When I have doubts about a source, the first thing I do is to look in Google Scholar at how often it has been cited, and who has cited it. Bad sources generally don't get cited by anybody except their authors. Looie496 (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

It would be optimal to keep this discussion together, in one place, which would be the link above (to the talk page of the guideline in question) ... I'm seeing info repeated here and there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


Hilda raises the bar high! In several ways... Which is really exciting, imo. At the same time, I think we're all aware here that we need to find solutions that work (as MEDRS largely has, despite limitations) within our particular community editing environment where guidelines are used not only to provide a positive guide but also as a mechanism to defend against misguided additions. In practice, to keep the bar at a reasonably acceptable level. And all this without discouraging potential contributors to this project where (as in others) the decline in numbers of committed editors is such an obvious concern.

The reasons commercial enc publishers are able to badmouth WP clearly don't depend only on the theoretical limitations of our guidelines (example). We just don't have the human resources (or even individual library facilities) to cover everything that needs doing... let alone to achieve levels of best EBM practice which can feel painfully elusive. I'm tempted to ask whether a different approach is also required, beyond guideline mechanisms. Involving closer collaboration? Including perhaps more radical collaboration with (and within) NIH/NLM. For example... just off the top of my head... maybe online help desks providing academic librarian services ranging from non-free pdfs to evidence-based responses on literature searches and review quality. Obviously not primarily staffed by Hilda! Just saying... (talk) 18:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - I think! ;) But my main purpose in this discussion was exactly that - some of the ways we are trying to meet that need at a macro-level, is by selecting out good quality information that people can access, is through OA stuff in PMC Journals, and via Bookshelf & PubMed Health - including things like the NICE guidelines. Yet, MEDRS is arguing that it is not good quality unless it is MEDLINE-indexed. It won't be on Scopus or anything else, either, necessarily. So this advice is systematically rejecting high quality content that is ideal for Wikipedians. We can't provide the kind of service that you mention, because it would be against the licensing terms we have to adhere to. But we make it available through resources like PMC / Bookshelf / PubMed Health. At PubMed Health, we're literally curating. Hence things like NCI's evidence-based PDQs, NICE being there and so on. In the US, there's a national network of NLM libraries where you can get that support, though. And librarians everywhere are always worth asking for access to medical journal articles. They often have access to some or can get them. Hildabast (talk) 16:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I doubt anyone could present a case for compiling clinical guidelines, say, on the basis of journal reputation... My understanding is that the MEDRS approach to the provision of medical information derives directly from Wikipedia's broader approach to its "encyclopedic" remit: in short, a verification strategy of identifying sources that are potentially reliable, applying good editorial judgement, and addressing discrepancies, viewpoint questions and other issues by reaching informed consensus in talk page discussions. Obviously, quite different from the world of systematic review... And necessarily so, given WP's volunteer community basis.
So, yes, I certainly do appreciate the potential to Wikipedia of initiatives such as PDQ [44], PubMed Health etc. I also feel that we need to be looking for ways (both in our guidelines, and perhaps outside the box too) to make quality medical editing here straightforward and even attractive. Whereas WP has little difficulty in attracting informed contributions on popular culture, areas such as medical editing seems to rely on the patience of a small population of regulars. (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

DSM-5 article

There's an IP who keeps inappropriately linking to political correctness at the DSM-5 article. See here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: Help came along here. Flyer22 (talk) 10:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Warned user in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Life and Death in Assisted Living

PBS will be running Life and Death in Assisted Living on Tuesday July 30th: I am sure the program will have information that is of interest to certain wikiprojects – but which ones? Can anyone help?(I am posting here because this project is listed on the talk page of Assisted living which has not seen any obvious activity since 2011). XOttawahitech (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicine
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deaf
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Death
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Disability
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia
and Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Health and fitness
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Homeopathy
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medical genetics
and Wikipedia:WikiProject National Health Service
and Wikipedia:WikiProject National Institutes of Health
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Neurology
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Nursing
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology
and Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology
and Wikipedia:WikiProject World's Oldest People.
Wavelength (talk) 01:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC) and 01:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC) and 14:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Wavelength, I will have my hands full adding this notice to all the above wiki-projects and also to this one which I just discovered. Hope I will not be accused of canvassing(?). XOttawahitech (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction

I mentioned this article above, at #Pornography-induced erectile dysfunction. As is clear, it's now up for deletion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Anatomy latin redirects

Hi, I've been meking use of a lot of the anatomy articles lately and I was wondering if it would be possible to organise a bot run to create redirects to all the articles with latin equivalents in their infoboxes from their latin names? --U5K0'sTalkMake WikiLove not WikiWar 13:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi U5K0, that should certainly be possible, saving you a lot of work. The most important thing would be to have a reliable and comprehensive source for the Latin names. The Latin interlanguage links could be of use, but I don't know if they are present in enough articles. If you have a list of Latin and English equivalents that could be of help. --WS (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
This has been proposed similarly in the past here -
and at other times people have talked about Latin names for articles.
I do feel that people searching for Latin terms should be able to find the right articles. I am not sure how this should be done. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not know if it can be of any help but... During the last year of so I made a couple of thousands my self. I tagged them with {{WPAN|class=redirect}} and a list can be found here [45]. There are also some abbreviations, English synonyms and so on, but I would say 90 % are Latin nomenclature. If somebody where to make a bot would it also be possible to add the Latin terms as also known as on Wikidata entries e.g. add Extremitas proximalis ossis femoris under Upper extremity of femur [46].
If you are looking for list over Latin terms you might want to talk with Wimpus. He is very into this as well and can might help you out. I hope this can be of any help to you. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 13:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Terminologia Anatomica (TA) is the international standard on human anatomic terminology.
Wavelength (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, but there are several editions (although there are minor changes) plus Nomina Anatomica (again, in several editions). I do not know how many of these are available online/digital freely for this kind of use. I am not arguing that anything else but the latest version of TA should be in the infoboxes but I think we should have (in an ideal world) redirects from all the terms although it is mostly minor different spellings for a minority of the words. So if a bot solution is possible why not do them as well? With changes in nomenclature there will still maybe 100 years later be textbooks or atlases that uses the obsolete term (since lets be honest; most textbooks are somewhat inspired by others). If we include all official terms (even the obsolete) the user have a better chance of finding what he or she is looking for. Again, this an ideal world scenario but with bots it might not be that more work.
If older versions should also be on wikidata under also known as I do not know. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing question

Hi! I'm new to the medical side of editing and was directed here with a sourcing question. I'm working on Birt-Hogg-Dubé syndrome and was told by Zad68 that I should avoid MedScape as a source. However, the information I got from there is either too new to have been included in a review (late 2012) or only talked about obliquely in a review. Since the information is just two sentences, would I be better off citing it to the primary source, citing it to MedScape, or removing it? Sorry if I'm not making sense - I'm still learning all the ins and outs of MEDMOS and MEDRS. Thanks in advance for the advice. Best, Keilana|Parlez ici 21:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes I remember conversations like this one and there were concerns that Medscape wasn't reliable. It's not a resource I choose to use but I'm curious what others might have to say about it... Zad68
If the disputed content is only 2 sentences, what is wrong with the oblique mention in the review? Oblique mention sounds like it might only be a few sentence too? Another option is to look at the papers which cite the primary source, some of those may be suitable to support the same content... Lesion (talk) 21:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
As an aside, "Birt–Hogg–Dubé" should use endashes, not hyphens, per WP:DASH. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:48, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Oops I didn't know that! I thought it was the other way around, sorry Keilana. Zad68 22:02, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
But, sometimes it's OK to use short dash in article titles, as in Drug-induced lichenoid reaction, correct? Lesion (talk) 22:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I would discourage you from using the term "short dash". The term "Drug-induced lichenoid reaction" uses a hyphen. There are a few types of dash of various lengths. The hyphen is not normally considered to be a type of dash.
When the title of a medical syndrome is derived from the names of two or more people, the names are joined with endashes. When one word is used to modify the second, such as a noun modifying a verb, a hyphen is used.
Article titles should always be consistent with article text. Ideally, there should be redirects from potential titles that have misused dashes/hyphens. I have moved this article to the correct title. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The most important point is this: if you don't get it right the first time, someone can fix it later. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, dashes confuse me. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • My impression is that Medscape doesn't pass MEDRS muster (I don't think they're MEDLINE-listed or rigorously peer-reviewed), but the articles are often simply republished from a reliable source (a peer-reviewed journal). When that is the case, the journal citation is at the top of the article. -- Scray (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, okay, would it be acceptable to cite a primary source in this case or should I just remove the information entirely? Keilana|Parlez ici 02:33, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
What is the contentious text and reference? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Medscape is a reliable source for some kinds of statements. Just about anything is a reliable source for some kinds of statements. These are the two statements:

mTOR functions in pulmonary angiogenesis and protein synthesis; loss of these functions may be the cause of pulmonary cysts in Birt-Hogg-Dubé patients.

Smokers with Birt-Hogg-Dubé have more severe pulmonary symptoms than non-smokers.

That last item looks to me a bit like saying the sky is WP:BLUE: smokers have more severe pulmonary symptoms than non-smokers in every disease. So I'd be inclined to accept that with any source at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the input! Keilana|Parlez ici 16:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not so comfortable with using Medscape for discussing causes (the first quote) ... if it is not covered in any review, consider WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. Agree with WhatAmI on the second statement (not sure it is even needed, sorta d'oh). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Hmm, okay, I'll keep an eye out for a review but until I find one I've taken it out. Thanks for the input! Keilana|Parlez ici 19:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
You didn't give me the reference so I just tried looking at the website. It looks like registration is required so I haven't read any of its articles. The home page looks like it is mainly a medical news website with a small part allocated to medical journals. If the first statement is from the medical news section (i.e. not a peer-reviewed secondary source), it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. With the second statement, while I agree that smokers tend to have more severe pulmonary symptoms than non-smokers, I am not convinced that it is self-evident. Would all readers arriving at the page know that? Could the pro-smoking lobby challenge the statement? If the statement is indeed so obvious, it should be easy to support with a suitable reference. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm going to repeat my previously stated opinion that for obscure or technical topics with a small literature, it's generally okay to use primary sources if no recent review is available. This should be done cautiously, particularly if there is any chance that the material can be seen as contentious. The main reason for using reviews is to avoid "cherry-picking", and that can't easily happen when the literature is small -- there aren't enough cherries. Looie496 (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
Using primary sources to build an article is not desirable...if there are no secondary sources at all, topic is not notable, if there are only one or two secondary sources, this should give us an indication of the weight we should give the topic, and arguably should not use primary sources to expand the article beyond what content the secondary sources can support, as this would be undue weight. I feel there is no requirement to use primary sources in either case. Lesion (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
On rare occasion I've cited a primary source, but only in conjunction with a secondary source that references it, using the primary source to fill in some bit of detail that wasn't covered in the secondary. I can't think of a good reason to cite an "orphaned" primary source (unsupported by a secondary source that cites it) basically for the reasons Lesion laid out. Zad68 00:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Looie496, I respectfully disagree. While the prevention of cherry-picking is certainly a good reason to avoid primary sources, it is not the only reason. Primary source information is more likely than secondary source information to be subsequently refuted. Most importantly, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, not a medical textbook or a review of the literature. As such, if a statement cannot be supported by a secondary source, it is probably not important enough to be included in Wikipedia's medical articles.
In the case of orphan diseases, I believe that all such legitimate diseases would have secondary sources about them—in specialist textbooks if nowhere else. (Even many illegitimate diseases such as Morgellons have secondary sources.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
There is a big difference between "using primary sources to build an article" and "using primary sources to add a detail to an article primarily based on secondary sources". Out readers expect certain basic facts, like prognosis, symptoms, and treatment. These are not always interesting to every author of medical texts or review articles. The fact that the reviews in front of you don't choose to mention prognosis, or only give it one or two words in passing, does not mean that you should ignore this.
Additionally, this is a collaborative project. If someone adds an apparently accurate and uncontested fact and cites a decent primary source—one that is strong enough to support the weight of the claim, even if it's not the platonic ideal of a medical source—your options are really either to upgrade the source yourself or to leave it alone. We don't benefit from removing accurate, relevant, appropriate, encyclopedic facts simply because the stuff under the little blue number isn't perfect. The references list is not an end unto itself. We promote reliance on secondary sources because we want accurate, relevant, appropriate, encyclopedic facts, not because we want a list of references unsullied by primary sources. If we can get accurate, relevant, appropriate, encyclopedic facts with the occasional primary source included, then that's okay. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Am so glad to "hear" what you say on this, WAID. It's the most sensible explanation yet, thanks. --Hordaland (talk) 15:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
"Out readers expect certain basic facts, like prognosis, symptoms, and treatment. These are not always interesting to every author of medical texts or review articles." Medical textbooks always describe those features. Review articles may take a more focussed approach.
"The fact that the reviews in front of you don't choose to mention prognosis, or only give it one or two words in passing, does not mean that you should ignore this." I agree. It means that you need to find another source.
"If we can get accurate, relevant, appropriate, encyclopedic facts with the occasional primary source included, then that's okay." On what basis do you decide that the fact is "accurate, relevant, appropriate and encyclopedic"? If no secondary source states this fact, it is much less likely to fit those criteria. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a perennial issue: if and when and how to cite primary sources, particularly in medical articles. There's almost always a proposal at WT:MEDRS arguing that the guidelines against the use of primary sources should be relaxed or enforced more leniently, and at the same time there's almost always a proposal arguing that the guideline should be made tighter and more restrictive against them. MastCell has written a lot on this, in fact in this current discussion on his User Talk he sums it up pretty well, answering a question about when should we know it's OK to use primary sources: The best answer would be "use common sense", but that doesn't fly in this environment. So we've settled for more prescriptive and restrictive guidelines, which is probably the lesser of two evils As a result of my own experience trying to do content development, I've ended up with a view pretty much in line with Axl's. There are times, occasionally, when I run across what looks like a really good and useful primary source, and as much as I'd like to use it, I don't, figuring "It'll be in a review article in six months or a year or so." It'd be great if we all had the same level of competence and common sense as WAID and MastCell, but we don't (I sure don't), and IMHO overall the project is better off with not opening the Pandora's box of primary sources. Zad68 23:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
We should be using recent high quality secondary sources which includes some review articles. But this is not a blanket statement that we should or must use / contain the conclusions of all secondary sources for the article to be GA or FA. It is simply a rough guide. Common sense must be used regardless of what policies / rules we create around sourcing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Axl, I am willing to believe that some medical textbook, somewhere in the world, will have described those basic features. Every medical textbook will not do so for every single medical condition that is mentioned within its pages. Particularly where rare diseases are concerned, sometimes a medical text merely mentions it as a passing example, without elaborating on all the details.

We decide that basic information like a general overview of prognosis, symptoms, and treatment is "relevant, appropriate and encyclopedic" for Disease X because we know that they are "relevant, appropriate and encyclopedic" for every disease. This is no different from saying that the century an old book was published in or the year that a historically important person was born in or died in is "relevant, appropriate and encyclopedic". We don't need a secondary source to prove the relevance of these basic facts for this case, because they are always "relevant, appropriate and encyclopedic".

Accuracy requires having a source that is strong enough to support the claims being made. That source may or may not be a secondary source, depending on the type of claims being made. If your source is strong enough to support your claim, then you don't need another one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Zad68 and Axl-- on what basis do we decide if something is accurate if it is unreviewed? Often when someone is pushing a primary source into an article, there's an agenda.

For purposes of discussion, klazomania is an example of an article that I rewrote to retain limited use of primary sources after students had been in there-- it is such an obscure topic that there is little written, but it is mentioned in the TS literature, so I kept some of the descriptions students had added from primary sources. On the other hand, if I had written it myself, I wouldn't have used those sources (I'd have gone to a library to find a book). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

On what basis do you decide that something about a BLP is accurate, if the alleged fact doesn't appear in a review article? Assessing the reliability of sources for medicine-related claims does not require a dramatically different process from assessing the reliability of sources for other subjects. Consider the usual questions:
  • Does it have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?
  • Is it published by a reputable publishing house, rather than by the author(s)?
  • Is it "appropriate for the material in question", i.e., the source is directly about the subject, rather than mentioning something unrelated in passing?
  • Is it a third-party or independent source, with no significant financial or other conflict of interest?
  • Does it have a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something, such as editorial oversight or peer review processes?
If you've got positive answers to those questions, and no reason to believe that any other source contests it, then you may assume that it is accurate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange

Hello, I am the Web Content Manager for the AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange. I work for Westat, the contractor that manages this project on behalf of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The site contains more than 800 innovation profiles that describe quality improvement programs that have been successfully implemented at various health care organizations and hospitals throughout the United States. I would like to find out how I can use the collection to enhance articles about specific health care providers and topics such as EHRs, chronic conditions, patient safety, etc. All of the material on the site is public domain. The profiles contain evidence ratings that provide information about the strength of the correlation between programs' results and the implementation of specific innovation programs. The site publishes new profiles every two weeks and updates older profiles annually. I believe there is a lot of worthwhile information here that can be used to enhance Wikipedia articles, including health care stubs. I understand that profiles in the AHRQ Innovations Exchange collection are considered primary sources and that secondary sources are preferred, especially with regard to undue weight. However, each profile in the collection contains a "Context of the Innovation" section which provides historical material that could be useful for articles about hospitals and local health providers. The "Results" section could also provide primary source material that supports major themes in some articles. I would like to use the collection to contribute in a manner that conforms to Wikipedia standards. I am new to Wikipedia but feel there is value in making this government-funded content more available through open source platforms. I would like the community to consider how these resources could be used to update articles. I am eager to meet more people working on this project and learn more about Wikipedia best practice in general. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any suggestions, or I can provide more information. Also, can someone take a look at my edits to the main AHRQ Health Care Innovations Exchange article. I tried to reduce the PR language that someone else had posted and provide category headings that would tell users what type of content they could find on the site. I thought this was a step in the right direction for this article, but my edits got reverted along with edits on other pages. I understand why some of the other reversions took place but do not understand why my edits on this article are not considered beneficial. Thanks FieldsTom (talk) 15:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the best person to field this question... but I guess, if you haven't already done so, you need to take a look at Wikipedia's conflict of interest guide (full guideline here). (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is my assessment -
  • It seems that what you have is a set of hundreds of reviews of local health care providers (at the organization level) in the United States. This includes hospitals and medical centers of various types.
  • Your reviews are connected to the US government and might be called part of the "official record" of where taxpayer dollars allocated to regional health projects go. I do not understand entirely, but it seems that these reviews have some "official" status and that probably constitute part of the reporting of how tax dollars are distributed. That is, an organization probably is getting federal funding to deliver health care, and in exchange, they are reviewed in some way to report to the federal government and to taxpayers how money is spent. If these reviews are intended to be accountability of that kind, then that would mean that they are good enough for taxpayers and the government and probably also the best reviews that exist of their sort, so I would say that they are good enough for Wikipedia.
  • I do think that you should review conflict of interest rules but it seems to me that you are neither promoting AHRQ, the site you are referencing, nor are you promoting the organizations in the reviews. Access to these reports would just increase transparency of projects done by people who report to the central government. Still - mind the rules at WP:COI as everyone will tell you. Be transparent yourself and thanks for coming to this board.
  • The content which is to be shared could really help Wikipedia. As a precedent, there is a Wikipedia article on practically every high school in the United States. See WP:High Schools. It is my opinion that local hospitals and medical centers are at least as worthy of Wikipedia articles as high schools, and I would like to see articles on them developed. I would also like seeing articles on regional health projects developed.
  • As personal advice, whenever you make a post, try to summarize your point in the first sentence. This is an international board and honestly people get distracted. If you have a question ask it immediately, then give background and context. If people can form an opinion more quickly then they are more likely to respond. If you fail to get a response that more often means that the issue seems too complicated to address, and not that there is lack of interest.
Thanks. I support what you are trying to do and think that you are going in the right direction. I would suggest sharing an example and continuing to probe for feedback. Another place to go is Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals, and perhaps to any regional WikiProject for any given review that you would share. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:MEDCOI might be interesting. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Kinetic proofreading

I know this article, "Kinetic proofreading" , has been on Wikipedia for awhile, but I am wondering if someone here can check its accuracy. It uses a lot of jargon and is therefore hard to follow. Also, there is no project banner on the talk page. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 06:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This article is probably more within the scope of WP:MCB than this project. In any case, the lead was almost incomprehensible even to a chemist ("naive thermodynamic bound", huh?) . I have edited the lead so that it is hopefully clearer. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Health in India

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Currently with reference to health in India , there are two article - Health in India and Public health system in India . But , they dont have a specific structure .Requesting help from Wikipedians to help in formulating a structure or outline .

Commons sibi (talk) 16:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You've already notified (one of) the relevant WikiProject(s); there's no need to simultaneously call for help from all over Wikipedia. The articles seem rather well-structured to me. One deals with health issues in general (which would include an overview over the public health system), the other focuses on just that system. Huon (talk) 18:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)


There's currently a deletion debate regarding ePlasty (formerly known as Journal of Burns and Wounds, Journal of Burns and Surgical Wound Care, and Journal of Burns). It would be great if people could help assert if the journal meets WP:NJOURNALS (or failing that, WP:GNG). Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 18:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Consistent referencing style

One of the requirements for GA/FA is that an article should have a consistent reference style. Are editors obliged to use the same referencing style of a well established article? And should we do anything about it if they wish not to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not feel that articles should require consistent reference style. A health article may use template:cite doi which gives one reference style, it may use a technical citation style for any science content, a humanities citation style for cultural aspects of the health condition, a journalist's citation style for other content, and Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki's style for more content. There is no benefit to forcing a single style onto different content. Citations are supposed to serve the reader and editors should not be forced to serve citation formats. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules if the rules are in the way of helping readers and enforce the GA guideline if it seems best for readers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay so the date order does not need to be consistent. If some refs are simply bare urls, some use template and some don't this should make no difference? If some contain links to pubmed and other ref do not. All that in your opinion is okay? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
No. All references have to serve the reader and thus must be complete from the point of passing GA. Bare URLs should never pass GA. The ideal URL should contain a URL if it exists along with traditional citation information including author name, date, title, and work. It does not serve the reader to omit URLs when they exist, and for papers archived in PubMed they always exist and should be required. The time and work burden of making proper citations does fall to anyone who wants an article to pass GA. It would be great if anyone who cited articles in PubMed to use Template:Cite PMID to avoid any appearance of a shoddy citation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
This is (perhaps unfortunately) not true. GA requires that material of specified types (and only those specified types) be supported by an inline citation to a (barely) reliable source. It does not require anything about the citations, except that, as a purely practical matter, the reviewer has to be able to figure out what the source is, because otherwise it's not possible for the reviewer to check that the source actually supports the material. "GA" means "meets the specified six criteria". It does not mean that the article is "good" in the opinion of any individual editor or reader. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:Citing sources says "Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style". Bluerasberry's idea of a different citation format for different kinds of subject/source within an article sounds a complete nightmare. Why would anyone do that how would that help any reader or editor? This isn't GA/FA guidelines, it is MOS common to all articles. Simplicity please. The last thing we need is someone edit warring over whether a source is humanities so they can use one citation format over another. Also we only url-link the title if the source is free -- there are url-links for the PMID/DOI that serve for all such indexed articles. It does the reader no favours to follow links to a demand for $30 for three sheets of A4. :-) Colin°Talk 21:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
According to WP:SOURCELINKS: "If the publisher offers a link to the source or its abstract that does not require a payment or a third party's login for access, you may provide the URL for that link." If substantially more useful text is provided than what's available from, say, PubMed I feel it can be worth linking despite the paywall. (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Consistent citation formatting is a requirement only for FA status. See Wikipedia:What the Good article criteria are not#.282.29 Factually accurate and verifiable, third bullet from the bottom. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Self-consistent citation formatting is desirable for all articles, stub, start, GA or FA, per MOS. Picking fault with them is not be part of GA review criteria, but if one is improving an article to GA, it makes sense to do some spring cleaning if the citations are a mess. Colin°Talk 09:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:MOS, style and formatting choices should be consistent within an article and per WP:CITEVAR, citations within any given article should follow a consistent style. These are basic fundamental common sense principles that apply to any type of document. Boghog (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


I do not feel that articles should require consistent reference style. A health article may use template:cite doi which gives one reference style, it may use a technical citation style for any science content, a humanities citation style for cultural aspects of the health condition, a journalist's citation style for other content, and Wikipedia:Cite4Wiki's style for more content. There is no benefit to forcing a single style onto different content. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

First, feelings aren't the issue here, because the GA and FA crit. require consistent citations for a professional presentation. But second, as Colin says, consistency is desirable for all articles for a number of reasons. For example, even at the DYK level, when odd or incomplete citation formatting is used, it is harder to verify that reliable sources are used. And, when approaching the GA level, why have to do a massive cleanup just because random citation styles were employed throughout when they could have been made uniform earlier? And so on ...

Next, the {{cite DOI}} and {{cite PMID}} templates can be user-filled and they return errors... I found so many of them (as in, the wrong article listed for a given PMID) when reviewing FACS that I regularly asked nominators to verify that every citation was correct before promotion if they used those faulty templates which, besides returning errors, result in inconsistent citations (different editors fill them in differently, and whenever you use these templates, you run the risk that someone earlier filled in the data incorrectly). The Diberri template filler which is routinely used on medical articles returns consistently well-formatted and accurate citations ... yet we mention it only in passing at WP:MEDMOS, which needs to do a better job at describing citation formatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we should rather point to the reftoolbar, which has been enabled for all users for the last two years or so and does this without having to go to an external website. Will see if I have the time to update it. Only a bit problematic that the visualeditor does not have anything like it yet. --WS (talk) 13:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
PMID autofill in the cite journal pop-up
Yes, fixing the PubMed citation glitches in the reftoolbar that the Diberri filler seems to override by default would be good imo. (talk) 14:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
By 'it' I meant the medmos documentation for referencing, not the reftoolbar ;-) --WS (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, thought we were talking about the cite journal pop-up, which is great but has a few glitches which Diberri overrides. (talk) 15:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Thanks for comments, everyone. I acknowledge that I said something controversial and against Wikipedia tradition so I posted my thoughts here - Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Reconsideration_of_WP:CITEVAR_and_consistency_in_sources. I do not feel that I am being radical but I do feel that it is different. Thanks for hearing me out.

  • User:WhatamIdoing and User:Colin - thanks for clarification. GA does not require consistent citation formats; FA does. Currently this is recommended for all articles.
  • User:Colin and User: - I disagree with you that toll access or paywalled content should not be linked from Wikipedia, even when there is no abstract. Colin, I feel that you are right that users should not click a link if it leads to the disappointment of a pay barrier, but I feel that it is worse to not share the link at all. Recently at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Marking_articles_with_open_access_icon there was a discussion of some proposals to more clearly mark free and unfree links. I know of no good solution to this problem but some are better than others.
  • User:Boghog You are correct about the policy you cite and correct about almost everything else you say, but you are completely incorrect in suggesting that common sense led to the development of all the competing citation formats and their uses. Please reconsider when you say that "basic fundamental common sense principles" would lead all sensible people to the same conclusion about how citation should work. I also acknowledge that you are expressing the majority and most popular opinion and that I am taking a minority (or totally fringe) stance on this.
  • User:SandyGeorgia - When I said "I feel" then I should have said "It is my opinion that..." Sorry for the confusion. There is more confusion about GA criteria - you say it requires consistency and others say it does not. I also find problems with the DOI and PMID bots but I still feel that leaving citation generation to bots is superior to leaving it to humans. Correcting human messes is more difficult than correcting bot messes and if everyone preferentially used the DOI and PMID citations when possible then there would be fewer problems. Users should double check to see that they work and are correct. I was unaware that Diberri returns better citations that the citation bot does. Is that the case? Do you know why that might be?
  • WS The Wikipedia:RefToolbar is awesome but it only generates a single citation format. I wish that it were universally acceptable.

Thanks and feel free to join at Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#Reconsideration_of_WP:CITEVAR_and_consistency_in_sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I never said "that toll access or paywalled content should not be linked from Wikipedia, even when there is no abstract". I was responding to your "It does not serve the reader to omit URLs when they exist, and for papers archived in PubMed they always exist and should be required". Not all PubMed-archived papers have urls -- they index papers that aren't always online. In that case, the url to the abstract is handy but isn't actually a link to the source. The fact that a URL exists doesn't mean we have to include it. There are sometimes lots of ways of getting to a paper via URLs. The DOI is the most universal. The PMID works for medical papers but you go via the abstract. A direct link to the publisher's page may be useful (though can break) but I would url-link the article title only if in addition to the DOI or PMID links, if it was free.
Let me be clear: the ability to easily distinguish freely accessible sources is vital to me, and shouldn't be lost simply because someone felt the need to add another url when often have two already. Colin°Talk 15:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
What you say is correct and you have thought about this more deeply than me. I agree - emphasis should be on freely available sources, and if an "official" source is behind a paywall but an unofficial source is freely and legally available - such as by self-archiving or green open access - then Wikipedia should prefer to link to the free source rather than the official source. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Colin completely, disagree that correcting human error is easier than correcting bot error (bot error is rarely corrected and is often a big mess), and don't know when the heck GA dropped citation consistency, whatevs ... believe it best to encourage all folks to do things right at any level ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
GA technically never had a requirement for properly formatted bibliographic citation. What it had for a while was people making up their own semi-secret personal criteria and failing articles that didn't meet them. The main GA folks are trying to produce a bit more consistency these days.
Of course, the best practice is for even substubs to have consistent and full citations. As we say, GA means a good article, not a great one. We'd all be happy if all articles exceeded the GA standards. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Agree with WhatamIdoing that GA has to set a threshold somewhere for what is vital for a good (but not necessarily great) article, and the format of citations is far down from the list of things that are really important. Colin°Talk 22:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

IMO we need greater consistency in reference formatting. If a PMID is available it should be in the ref and cite PMID should be used. Using multiple different formats is a disservice to our readers and our fellow contributors as it makes text harder to edit and harder to verify. I personally think it would be a good idea to have consistency across subject areas. But at a minimum within an article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

James, by "cite pmid" do you mean the Cite pmid template or the PMID autofill in the Cite journal pop-up (illustrated above)? I've heard the template affects page load times, and it seems to me far less flexible for editing than the pop-up (or, I think, Diberri). (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I mean the PMID autofill which gives a fill cite template such as seen in all the GA/FA's I have done. I have concerns with just having the PMID as 1) it is not in use across all languages. 2) I like to see the details of the reference.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
To expand on's comments, as currently implemented, the {{cite pmid}} and {{cite doi}} templates are hardwired to format authors differently than what the diberri filler produces (diberri follows the Vancouver system author style, see this discussion for more details). The pop-up uses the deprecated coauthor parameter and also renders the authors differently than diberri. As many med project articles contain citations that have been produced by diberri's tool, adding {{cite pmid}} templates to existing articles (or using the pop-up) results in articles with inconsistent citation formats. One potential solution is to add flexibility to the {{cite pmid}} templates as proposed here. As already mentioned, using {{cite pmid}} increases page load times, but may still be acceptable for shorter articles that don't contain many citations. Boghog (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
So perhaps it would be nice to have the page pop-up working with the diberri parameters? But if I understand correctly that may not be feasible now, and if even if it were it might be a big job for a potential volunteer... Imo, some intuitive solution like that would be a good thing to facilitate consistency, and the current choice is not really so very new-user friendly (a relevant consideration). (talk) 11:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned here, getting rid of the deprecated coauthor parameter generated by the pop-up is on the "to do list". However further modifications would be required to return Vancouver style authors. The present tools generate an inconsistent mixture of different citation formats. In an ideal world, each tool would be flexible and allow users to generate citation templates that match the preexisting sytle in each article. Boghog (talk) 12:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Just from a WP:MED perspective (imo!)... In an ideal world, we'd have one simple "on-page" autofill tool that returns Vancouver style well across articles that are primarily biomed. Plus, presumably, manual options for bespoke referencing and accessibility solutions for people with particular disabilities. (Personally, I don't mind changing basic styles between, say, science and humanities pages, but being expected to adapt from one page to the next within the same subject area seems an unnecessary hassle...). (talk) 12:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
In an even more ideal world, perhaps we could just have a user setting for the reference style, with wikipedia (or wikidata) storing enough information (using autfill functionality) to display them in any style you would like. --WS (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree that when the PMID or similar is right, it should be used. However, there are many occasions when for example, a publisher has provided incorrect information (happens very often with Cochrane reviews for example, which will frequently not have the right version of the review lodged with PubMed - and we correct it at PubMed Health by using a different system to overcome the publisher issues, but not at PubMed). Or when the publisher has provided an incorrect linkout to the article - or it doesn't say it's free full text (perhaps because it was after an embargo and the publisher is not keeping it up-to-date). I get frustrated when I've carefully curated a link so that it's right, and then someone comes and changes it back to the inferior/incorrect one by enforcing a standard without realizing it's lowering the quality of the citation. Hildabast (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
Why not report the link errors directly to PubMed so that the problem is fixed on their end? Boghog (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
PubMed can't fix the broken links - they come from the publishers. They are reported back to the publishers, but it's up to them to fix them. Nor can PubMed change the citation data that publishers send either - it is their data, but NLM does a lot of QA and works with the publishers constantly. For Cochrane, for example, I did tackle them on their policy of not providing all updated abstracts - see here - but that took a lot of time. And it doesn't fix the problem retrospectively - it will be 20 years easy at this rate till all Cochrane abstracts are right in PubMed. The dating is misleading at the publisher's website too (and in their recommended citations - but again, that's publisher data and only they can change it). We've tried to make the "vintage" of the Cochrane review prominent. I'm collecting up ideas though, about suggestions to consider that might help make really accurate citation - including to free full text - easier for WP editing. Hildabast (talk) 10:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't realize the nature and extent of the errors. Thanks for the explanation and for your proactive efforts to fix the problem. You are doing both WP and the wider medical community a real service. Boghog (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Ref issue

This user refuses to use the same style of references as found in the rest of the article [47]. It appears as if opinion is mixed as to if this is an issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

CITEVAR does not say that every single editor must get every citation correct. In fact, the top of that page says that what's most important is to get the information about the source into the page. Someone else can come along and fix the citation formatting later if that's needed.
I see that you recommended the ref toolbar to him. That frequently doesn't work for me, and I suspect that I'm not the only one who has largely given up on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Non-verbal leakage

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Non-verbal leakage has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Utterly unsourced for over three years; not even enough content for readers to comprehend what it is.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have edited the stub, added a reference and removed the PROD. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:16, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

New dental editor

We have a new dental editor. Have not looked that closely at their edits but a few are concerning.[48] Some are removing infoboxes with no explaination.[49] Other include changing the "cause" heading to "etiology" [50]. Have provided feedback but they do not seem to have read it.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure the editor in question is aware of the existence of their talkpage, since they have blanked it in the past. I also have seen a change in behavior since I questioned their repeated use of the same source, and now there is a variety of sources... so I think the advice is being seen, just with no response. This is fine, all editors are volunteers after all and need to define their own level of involvement. On the whole, edits seem constructive. Removal of infoboxes is possibly an artifact of visual editor bugs? Lesion (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
This is great, because our dental pages are seriously neglected. This edit summary proves she's listening and responding to messages. The infobox blanking is a VisualEditor misfeature: a template is one "character" and it's much too easy to accidentally backspace over it. They're trying to come up with solutions, so feel free to suggest any you have. As for not replying on the user talk page, the WMF's research shows that most new users have trouble figuring out how. There is no "reply" button. They don't know what page to reply on. It's a mess. WP:Flow will solve this, but not until next year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree, many pages are a mess. There seems to have been some activity building dental pages in Wikipedia's early days then interest has died out... WP:DENT is basically inactive now. As for oral medicine topics, most seem to have been started as stubs by WP:DERM from dermatology textbook sources, so it's a very nice area to work in if you prefer building articles from scratch. Lesion (talk) 15:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes a bit of guidance is all that is needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Blog post about Wikipedia

I have a new blog (at Scientific American) and did a brief post about Wikipedia. Hildabast (talk) 10:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Hilda. Wish you were coming to Wikimania :-) Next year in London hopefully. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Liked the post. I also share James' hope that we will see you in England next year. Peter.Ctalkcontribs 00:48, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
I liked the post, too. But please ask Percival not to teach his grandkids to cite dishonestly Face-confused.svg. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT isn't just for Wikipedia – it's fundamental to academic integrity. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 13:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)


Could use some eyes on Acupuncture. Some editors are trying to elevate some unsupported or poorly supported explanations to the level of "theories". A lot of the material in the section on "Proposed mechanisms of action" is not supported by sources complying with WP:MEDRS, and the most widespread explanation, the placebo effect, is played down, probably violating WP:NPOV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

New SPA and experimental therapy

a new SPA just created irreversible electroporation. I hadn't heard of this, but it seems vaguely promotional in tone. I'm not sure what exactly to do with it. There is a reference to a specific product, but everything i'm seeing on pubmed suggests it's experimental at this stage. suggestions? -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 11:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

  • As a number of review articles and a monograph [Rubinsky B (2009). Irreversible Electroporation (Series in Biomedical Engineering). Berlin: Springer. ISBN 3-642-05419-6. ] have been published on irreversible electroporation, the subject of this article is notable. Since this article clearly states that this technique is still at an experimental stage and has not been rigorously tested in humans, the need for secondary sourcing I think is less critical. Of course, the sourcing could be improved by citing the available review articles. Boghog (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The most serious problem with the article is that it gave the impression that the FDA has approved the NanoKnife product for the treatment of cancer. The NanoKnife has only obtained a Investigational Device Exemption for the testing of this device in clinical trials. I have corrected this error and also added information about the clinical trials that are currently being run. Boghog (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Dennō Senshi Porygon seizure video

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please see: [51] for the ongoing deletion discussion and post your feedback there. This discussion had already been opened in three places (WP:FORUMSHOPPING) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

This is an episode of Pokémon known for having caused seizures, headaches, nausea and mass hysteria. On the article is a video clip of the relevant portion of the episode that caused seizures. I have not bothered to view it because it caused seizures in people with no history of epilepsy. Should it be removed? Curiosity could do some harm in this instance. For reference, neither Seizure trigger, Epileptic seizure, Epilepsy, Seizure types, Partial seizure, Simple partial seizure, Complex partial seizure, Generalized epilepsy, Absence seizure, Myoclonus, Clonus, Tonic–clonic seizure or Atonic seizure contain any images or videos that may trigger a seizure, so this Pokémon article seems to deviate from the norm on articles of this nature. A still-frame of the scene exists on the article Photosensitive epilepsy, should this replace the video?

Long discussions have been had on the article's talk page but these have not seemed to attract people from WP:MED, so I am bringing it up here. User:Dream Focus brought up some notable points about the health risks, namely: 1) it is known to cause seizures, 2) a person will not know they will suffer from a seizure until they view it, 3) people may view the video without being fully aware of the health risks and 4) people may view the video thinking they are not at risk and may turn out to be. This user also received a response from a WP co-founder that it should be deleted, but as another user pointed out in the talk page discussion, it is not known whether Wales read the entire discussion or not. The most recent discussion was in May 2012 when a user said the video remains there for encyclopedic value, but should this "value" put some people at risk? ComfyKem (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

If there is any risk, it should obviously not be included, as dictated by common sense and decency (never mind any WP:* arguments). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 08:47, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree with Alex, regardless of its encyclopedic value we should not host content that has the potential to harm the viewer of the content. Peter.Ctalkcontribs 10:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm surprised someone added it back in. Thought we had dealt with this. Anyway, the proper venue is a deletion discussion for the file, which shouldn't be hosted on Wikipedia at all. I have thus nominated it at [52]. Dream Focus 11:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
At least one source from the article is reliable about this cartoon causing epilepsy to surface, [53] so I would agree that it be removed (as I see someone has already done) as the potential that it will trigger a seizure in a minority of viewers is not just theoretical. Lesion (talk) 11:06, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't a still frame be preferable from a copyright/fair use perspective, too? It's also more accessible to people with limited computing resources. I think replacing the video with a static image would be appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Good to know there is a discussion here too. Well, first of all the issue of seizure-inducing media is covered explicitly by our standard disclaimer. Second, the video has been there since 2009, and all discusson on the Talk:Dennō_Senshi_Porygon in the following 4 years has been reinforcing consensus that the video oughts to stay. Third, what is (somewhat) sourced is that the original TV transimission caused the seizures, while we have no evidence at all that our (much reduced, much lower res, much smaller) version could do the same, despite the article been viewed by many readers every months. Fourth, there is also substantial evidence that the video brings a much smaller risk in general. And no, a still frame is not giving readers an idea of what kind of video the article talks about. Also, this discussion should honestly take place at Talk:Dennō_Senshi_Porygon -don't know how many editors of that article are also following this page, and I've seen no link of this discussion there. -- cyclopiaspeak! 12:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because there are legal disclaimers, does not mean we should deliberately set out to post a video that could induce seizures. I wonder if the other articles about this series have videos. Per Alexbrn's comment above, delete. Still frame is an appropriate and harmless substitution. There is no reason to include the video that is not also provided by the still frame, and per WAID's comment above it has other advantages over the video in terms of accessibility and copyright.. Lesion (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Given that it is dynamic features like the flickering etc. that caused the (alleged) effects, a still frame hardly conveys what the article is talking about. What happens in the other articles of the series is hardly relevant, given that most probably they weren't at the center of a similar controversy about a few seconds of video. -- cyclopiaspeak! 12:47, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mitragyna speciosa

Can someone please semi-protect this article, preferably indefinitely. We have a recurring problem with a hopping IP who returns every few weeks to try and transform this article into an advert for a herbal remedy. His most recent efforts have centred around removing a sourced critical section for no reason other than calling it "superfluous". I would do this myself in a heartbeat but have become WP:INVOLVED through reverting the damage. Basalisk inspect damageberate 11:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Will watch the article in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:33, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Apparently I'm on the anti-Mitragyna speciosa/kratom side (I've been accused of bias by pro-kratom editors for one of my edits to the article), but I support the IPs elimination of the content that Basalisk reverted/readded. There really hasn't been a problem with hopping IPs in recent months; there certainly have been several registered editors with an explict pro-kratom POV. User:ThorPorre is a major recent contributor and very pro-kratom but they added the negative "Media attention" section in a show of good faith. I've debated with ThorPorre regarding whether the inclusion of reports of a possibly kratom-related incident in Kelso, Washington is really notable. The other sources cited in Mitragyna speciosa#Media attention are primary; ideally, there should be secondary sources which characterize the coverage of this plant in the popular media as negative. I'm removing the Kelso content, and would like to see a secondary source describing the tone of media coverage.Plantdrew (talk) 04:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
It sounds like discussion is needed. I do not have any opinion either way. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:56, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nepal Journal of Epidemiology

The above article has not been improved for many months, and may be deleted soon. It seems like a notable topic - is there someone here who could improve its referencing? Or is there another more appropriate project to notify? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

potential CoI editor at QT interval

An SPA by the name of Cardiacsafety has made a few edits to this page that link to [54], what appears to be an industry consortium. I've already posted at WP:UAA about the name and rolled back their edits, though there could be some useful additions in there. What I was most concerned about was the non-MEDRS stuff and EL's to their website or consortium members' sites. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 23:59, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikimania 2013 meet-up

There will be a medicine meet-up at 1:00pm (lunch) Sunday 11th at Wikimania 2013. The board of Wiki Project Med have a couple of items to discuss, but the aim will be to have general discussion about medicine and Wikimeda among any interested parties. I'll post the venue here on Friday or Saturday, when we've had a chance to see what's available. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Low back pain nominated for GA

FYI, Low back pain is now nominated for GA and looking for a reviewer. Zad68 00:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm signed up. =) Biosthmors (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Lichen planus and related conditions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The lichen planus family of conditions is in need of attention. I wonder whether many of these pages can be merged into one or 2 main pages?

I feel that it would be better to have less stubs and more main pages. I am in favor of applying a more clear classification structure, but only if this does not divert from the sources.

Essentially we are talking about 2 main groups of conditions:

  1. Lichen planus and its subtypes, and
  2. Things which look like lichen planus but are not Lichen planus

So why not take all our LP stub pages and put them into the main LP page? Most of these stubs are one or 2 lines, and usually start by saying "is a rare variant of lichen planus". Better to expand the classification section of LP with all this content? Notable subtypes can have their own subpage, such as oral lichen planus (according to my sources, LP presenting in the mouth is more common than LP presenting on the skin), lichen planus of the nails, etc.

Into the second category go all the things that look like LP but are not LP. I feel that all the local and systemic causes of lichenoid reaction could be better dealt with on a single article. Another similar potential parent article could be Lichenoid dermatitis

What we have at the moment all seems unnecessarily complicated.Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

So why not take all our LP stub pages and put them into the main LP page? Most of these stubs are one or 2 lines, and usually start by saying "is a rare variant of lichen planus". Better to expand the classification section of LP with all this content?. That sounds like a good idea to me. Biosthmors (talk) 19:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree Merge. If there are no objections I'll begin merging the one and two-sentence stubs into the main article this week. A separate article can be created in the future if these articles expand. LT90001 (talk) 09:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Lichenoid syndromes

Many thanks for some help with this. I would say however that I think only lichen planus subtypes should be merged into the main lichen planus article. There is also a separate page for oral lichen planus which had more content than a stub, so did not merge that. So far I have merged vulvovaginal-gingival syndrome and penogingival syndrome into the main article. I see you have tagged annular lichen planus for merge. Agree with that, however you also tagged 2 lichenoid reaction pages for merge into lichen planus. I don't fully agree with this, because it is not the same disease, even though the lesions are clinically and histologically identical, lichenoid reactions have an identifiable local or systemic cause, lichen planus has no identifiable cause. You could think of it as primary (idiopathic) and secondary processes resulting in a similar type of lesion, but I personally would keep them separated. By all means linking to each other. Can usually read in the stub if it is "true" lichen planus, or just something which resembles lichen planus (lichenoid), and if not a source will clarify. I think all these should be merged into lichen planus:

  • Linear lichen planus
  • Hypertrophic lichen planus
  • Atrophic lichen planus
  • Vesiculobullous lichen planus
  • Ulcerative lichen planus
  • Follicular lichen planus
  • Actinic lichen planus
  • Lichen planus pigmentosus
  • etc

Propose merging all lichenoid reaction stubs into a new parent page called lichenoid reaction:

  • Drug-induced lichenoid reaction
  • Lichenoid reaction of graft-versus-host disease
  • etc

Would like to hear a few opinions more on this to check not against consensus. Particularly would like to hear a dermatologist opinion on this, since I am not sure if/where to merge some things like Lupus erythematosus–lichen planus overlap syndrome. Lesion (talk) 10:34, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That seems reasonable enough. If you're worried about that, an alternative could be to expand the 'lichenoid reactions' section in the lichen planus article. LT90001 (talk) 23:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
I've started to work on the lichen planus article. I'll hold back from integrating the lichenoid reaction-related articles per your reservations. If you have any thoughts or would like to change the article, please feel free. LT90001 (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the spam. As the last contribution to this discussion for today, I think that these should be all maintained on the same article. Lichen planus refers to the symptom presentation and they all share the same presentation; lichenoid syndromes have an associated trigger but still no known pathophysiology. I think it's appropriate to treat them on the same page but happy for other views to be heard too. LT90001 (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Have commented on the talk page of lichen planus. Lesion (talk) 23:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


Right, I've integrated the non lichenoid-reaction articles. The lichen planus main article needs to have some unified terminology, it seems it's still stuck nominally in a quandary between Latin and English. I'm considering moving all latinate terminology to a single table indicating their English equivalents and placing that in a new Terminology section, instead of devoting what seems like a significant portion of the article to a discussion on terminology. Any thoughts? LT90001 (talk) 07:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Article is looking much better, thanks. Agree rm synonyms to a table might be good. With regards unified terminology, would be good to follow a good source, maybe a major dermatology textbook or something? I checked ICD-10 for terminology and it is not great. AAFP might be a good mainstream source to follow terminology wise.[55] Would comment that a full discussion of both lichen planus and all its subtypes and the lichenoid reactions on the same page might result in too long an article, but happy to wait and see how it looks. Some sources discuss them together,[56] but most discuss one or the other, or mainly one and gloss over the details of other. Lesion (talk) 10:16, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, let's move the discussion to the lichen planus talk page. LT90001 (talk) 09:35, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

International emergency medicine Priority rating

Hello. I'm AmericanLemming. I tend to be long-winded and verbose, so if you want the bottom line look at the end of this post. (Hey! That almost rhymes!)

I recently got the article International emergency medicine (IEM) up to GA status, and I'm looking to take it to FA status. However, that is not the primary purpose of my post here. Rather, I would appreciate some feedback on the Priority rating for the article.

The Priority rating for WikiProject Medicine is currently Low-importance, and I agree with that assessment. However, I went to the Emergency medicine and EMS task force to possibly get some feedback before the FAN and was surprised by two things. One, the task force is essentially inactive (likely the case for most of the other task forces, too), with only 5 out of 25 members having edited in the past month. Two, IEM wasn't even categorized as an article within the task force's scope!

Anyway, I spent some time organizing the members' list so other people will have an easier time finding the task force's few active members, and I added the category Wikiproject Medicine/Emergency medicine and EMS to the bottom of IEM's talk page.

Bottom line: What should the article's Priority for the task force be?

I categorized it as Top-importance, which might be too high. The only other one that fits is High-importance, but that might be too low.

Additional request: I would appreciate any feedback any active members of the task force have before braving the rigors of the FA nomination process: Jmh649, Maddiekate, owain.davies, Peter.C, and Tyrol5. Any other editors who wish to comment on the article's talk page toward that end are certainly welcome, but those five are the most likely to do so, seeing as they're members of the task force. AmericanLemming (talk) 02:19, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure were to take it from here. I typically work on disease related articles rather than ones about organizations. Low importance is reasonable for WPMED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Few readers will ever see the importance rating. Of the editors who see the rating, most will make their own subconscious assessment of the article's importance, regardless of the rating that a previous editor assigned. (Usually the new editor's rating will be the same as, or at worst one step away from, the previous rating.) But the rating itself isn't all that important. You should be bold and don't worry about it. If someone strongly disagrees with you, they will let you know, you can discuss the matter and reach a consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:28, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
IEM isn't an organization. It's more like a subspecialty. Normal (mid) importance is probably correct, on par with other specialties like Cardiology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I'll leave it as Low-importance for Wikiproject Medicine and Top-importance for the task force. AmericanLemming (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Overthinking syndrome

The article "Overthinking syndrome" is proposed for deletion.
Wavelength (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I couldn't find any sources about it. I would be happy to see it deleted. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:14, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, publicizing and imparting respectability to pseudo-diseases is NOT what WP is about. (talk) 06:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

High-altitude medicine physicians

I've just created the category High-altitude medicine physicians; now I'm not sure that the name is correct, per Specialty (medicine). Could someone who knows more about these matters either confirm it's OK or let me know − here − if it's not? (This category also needs populating; if anyone could add some names to the cat it'd be great.) Thanks, Ericoides (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Phimosis article: Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#"Not censored" again

One of you might want to weigh in on the linked discussion in the heading of this section. For the archive, this is what the section currently looks like. I have the Phimosis article on my watchlist, and I came across that discussion after this edit. Flyer22 (talk) 20:30, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not was already on my watchlist as well, but I didn't check there to see what the "Not censored" again discussion was about until the aforementioned Phimosis edit. Flyer22 (talk) 22:18, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Foie gras and human health

The Foie gras article contains the following

A recent study demonstrated oral amyloid-A fibril transmissibility which raised food safety issues with consumption of foie gras over "concerns that products such as pâté de foie gras may activate a reactive systemic amyloidosis in susceptible consumers".[68][69][70][71] Foie gras as an amyloid-containing food product hastened the development of amyloidosis. Amyloidosis may be transmissible, akin to the infectious nature of prion-related illnesses.[71] However, a correlation between foie gras consumption and these diseases has not been confirmed.[72]

It seems the human health concerns are sourced to this article and its coverage in popular science publications. There has been some to-and-fro about whether this material should be included. Wise eyes would be appreciated. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 07:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A more recent review than those sources states: "[ AA amyloidosis] is not uncommon in cattle, geese or ducks, and AA amyloid can be found in pâté de foie gras [33]. Amyloid-containing foie gras induces AA amyloidosis in susceptible mice [34], so AA amyloidosis can theoretically be transmitted to humans by the same route; thus, such food might constitute a hazard for individuals with chronic inflammatory disorders such as [active rheumatoid arthritis]." [57] We could replace that paragraph with a sentence from that secondary source, User:Alexbrn. Biosthmors (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I was part of the to and fro. I was glad the issue was brought to this noticeboard, but apparently User:Alexbrn decided to disregard the feedback here. Any advice on a next step? petrarchan47tc 18:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, no - I didn't disregard it ... in fact I used the 2010 stuff to replace the old article content as suggested. But then when another editor (Zad68) raised the concern that this animal-based material wasn't strong enough sourcing for human health information I reconsidered, agreed with the concern, and removed this content altogether. I think if we're going to include some content on the human health aspects of foie gras, we need good, strong, WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Fine by me. I could go either way. Biosthmors (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The application of the Wikipedia biomedical sourcing guideline, WP:MEDRS, is to summarize well-grounded scientific consensus, which normally avoids carrying content with human health implications that is based only in speculative animal studies. The original content was sourced to PMID 17578924, a 2007 primary source covering research done in mice, plus some popular-press cites based on it. That sourcing was clearly not strong enough to support the previous content that was there. The newer source provided, PMID 20870462, was a 2010 secondary source - a review article - but still appeared to be based on the same animal-based primary source, had a lot of hedging and qualifiers in it, and appeared in a journal (Trends in Molecular Medicine) that covers "emerging concepts and ideas" and argues new theories. In the article abstract, the authors state "we explore the possibility that human prion diseases and more common maladies associated with amyloid deposits might be transmissible by seeding or perhaps even by crossing species barriers." So even this secondary source appears to be based on only the one single animal study, and the article itself is arguing new theories instead of reporting on the existing scientific consensus. In my edit I paraphrased the secondary source but really do question its value to the article. Based on our guidelines, removing it altogether is perfectly reasonable and I don't disagree with Alexbrn's removal of it. Zad68 19:06, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
petrarchan47 if you're interested in the topic of the intersection between foie gras and human health, why not consider developing the nutrition part of the Nutrition and health section at the article? The article has next to nothing on it, and that's a pretty big omission for an article on a food product. As covered above, the sourcing for foie gras and human AA amyloidosis risk is not very strong, but the nutrition information needs development. A lot can be written about its fat, cholesterol, and other nutrient levels, with cites to strong sourcing. Just something to consider doing if you're interested in the topic. Zad68 19:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
So, it could go either way according to policy. My leaning is to offer more, rather than less information in an encyclopedia. Does the inclusion of this information harm or help? I would rather be allotted this info, as a reader, than to have some arbitrary decision by an anonymous editor dictate whether i am privy to it or not. But that's just me and my inclusionist POV. I don't care enough about the subject to spend any time on it, but apparently Alexbrn has an interest in making things right, so I will leave the reconstruction of Foie Gras health effects to those who are interested enough in the article to be actively editing it, like Zad and Alexbrn. petrarchan47tc 23:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Well no, I'm seeing editors who think the content should not be here (I include myself), and editors who have no strong view: so the consensus is to remove it. Despite saying you were leaving this issue alone, I noticed you had again re-instated all the biomedical information discussed above (even the mice study stuff) without any specific reason but on the basis it is "long-standing"; that is not a sound reason for its inclusion and I have again removed it. Do you have some sound reasons why this non-WP:MEDRS-compliant material needs to be included in the article? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
    • ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Diet11 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
    • ^ Kushi LH, Byers T, Doyle C, Bandera EV, McCullough M, McTiernan A, Gansler T, Andrews KS, Thun MJ (2006). "American Cancer Society Guidelines on Nutrition and Physical Activity for cancer prevention: reducing the risk of cancer with healthy food choices and physical activity". CA Cancer J Clin. 56 (5): 254–81; quiz 313–4. doi:10.3322/canjclin.56.5.254. PMID 17005596.