Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 47

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 40 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50


Replace "cite pmid" with "cite journal"

I know we have discussed this many times before. I am wondering if there is consensus to replace the "cite pmid" with the "cite journal" template by bot for our top 1500 most viewed articles? I am offering a $200 dollar reward for a bot that does this. Before I can get this bot made I need a clear consensus.


  • Support not using "cite pmid" as it not support in most other languages while cite journal is. For example here, here and others. Its use thus hinders those of us who are working on getting medical content into other languages. To emphasis the importance of getting content into other languages, only 35 languages of Wikipedia have more than 1000 medical articles per here. I am working to create simplified versions of 1,000 key medical articles for translation per here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:00, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support-- I tried these and didn't like them at all. Difficult to see what source is being referred to when editing the page... you need to visit another page to alter the reference. Seems a less editor friendly method than cite journal. Lesion (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes agree horrible for new editors. Templates are one of the most difficult things for non coders to figure out. I still cannot figure out how to get complicated ones to work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • support if it means that translation can happen I'm in favour, however, as a new editor I found "cite pmid" (and "cite isbn") much easier/intuitive compared to cite journal. Proveit helped, but imo you're taking away something that makes referencing easier for newbie's. Ian Furst (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
The hope is to eventually have a bot that comes and covert these automatically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • support--Worth doing irrespective of translation. These templates are a disaster for reasons of error tolerance, which directly degrades wp:V.LeadSongDog come howl! 01:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support--It is something that I feel is strongly needed, and a bot to do it is just ideal for the task. It would add consistency to the citation style. A further suggestion would be to replace the vertical style with a horizontal style for the parameters within the template. DiptanshuTalk 11:09, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Agree completely :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support --WS (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support obvious benefit. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 14:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for consistency, not having to wait forever for the template to be filled in automatically, and not having to see those annoying little "edit" things at the end of each journal reference. Jinkinson talk to me 14:08, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – {{cite pmid}} is often at odds with consistent formatting. Boghog (talk) 14:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support. {{cite pmid}} makes it hard to edit because you need to open a new window/tab to even see the name of the authors and the title! JFW | T@lk 22:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support as above hard to see what the ref is when editing, consistency. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support Peter.Ctalkcontribs 16:20, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support for streamlining and uniformity. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


  • Oppose My oppose changes to support if there is no other opposition by Monday 24 March. See below. I just want to make time for other people to comment and I support the intent behind this proposal, but this is a complicated issue. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
This long discussion confused some people.
  • Oppose My oppose changes to support if there is no opposition Monday 24 March. I can work with any technical tool for citation but I do appreciate the benefits of the templates being discussed for deprecation even though I also acknowledge the many problems they cause. I propose to check in with WMF development staff to see if anyone else is looking at this issue and get opinions from anyone who is already thinking about this, if anyone is. It is my expectation that in the future, Wikipedia will have no citations whatsoever as they all will be stored on Wikidata. While there are serious problems with the DOI and PMID templates in the editing pages, when those templates are used Citation Bot also copies those citations to a template for reuse. I expect Wikidata to use this model of locally stored citations except the citations would be stored be in Wikidata and not on Wikipedia.
The advantage of putting citations in Wikidata is that the translation of citations can happen automatically interwiki, such as on Commons and Wikipedia or between languages. Interwiki connectivity can never happen automatically with the method proposed in this discussion, so this model could only develop with special bots to do this on each of the 200 Wikipedias and even still that is not true interconnectivity or a route to keeping citations up to date if they are updated. The stored citation model also allows broken citations to be fixed, whereas no other citation tool does so when citations are broken and reused, then the broken citation gets propagated everywhere. I fix about 1 in 20 citations and in general, it seems like journals are just not careful with metadata. Cochrane publications, for example, often tag the titles of their papers as "chapter" which is unorthodox so the titles do not render. Daniel Mietchen also is proposing a major project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Open Access/Signalling OA-ness in which citations on Wikipedia are better connected with metadata about them, and perhaps automatically updated to indicate when a paper moves beyond a paywall to become free to access.
Before this proceeds I propose that this discussion to linked to a Wikidata board and shown to the Wikimedia Foundation's Wikidata developers. It might be the case that they have no intentions to sort interwiki citations for Wikimedia projects anytime soon, in which case this project could proceed. But if something is in the works or perhaps if they have put thought into this in a big way, then they should comment. I just emailed Wikidata-l and asked for comment. If anyone can think of others to email I think it would be worthwhile to check for thoughts of others, so note any other people contacted in this discussion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
If and when Wikidata begins to store citation data, I think the best solution is to keep a local copy of the citation data stored directly in Wikipedia articles (as originally proposed above) and add an extra Wikidata parameter to each of the local citation templates. A bot similar to CheMoBot could then periodically check for consistency between the local citation data and the central Wikidata and flag any inconsistencies. There is no need to have an extra layer of data stored in template space. Boghog (talk) 08:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Boghog I think we are in agreement, except that when you say "There is no need to have an extra layer of data stored in template space" I think you mean on Wikipedia but that you would like that extra layer in a centralized place on Wikidata, which is what I want. I want the local copies but the other side to this proposal is removing the ability to centrally manage citations, which is something I would not like to lose. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:26, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry Yes, I think we are in full agreement. What I meant by "template space" is the space in English Wikipedia where the {{cite pmid}} citation data is currently stored. Hence long term, the data would need only be stored in two places: (1) directly in the individual Wikipedia article(s) and (2) a centralized depository in Wikidata. In other words, the data currently stored in Wikipedia template space (that is part of Wikipedia mainspace) would be replaced by Wikidata. Both local and centralized copies would be maintained and bot checks could be made between the two to ensure that the data is consistent. Boghog (talk) 12:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
This is exactly what I want and the sooner the better. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure one could put a full copy of the ref on Wikidata. But that does not have anything to do with this propose. There also needs to be a copy within the Wikipedia article itself. Jmh649 14:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I do not think you intended this when you made this proposal, but this proposal also deprecates the automated creation of citation templates hosted on Wikipedia. That is a direct effect of this proposal. I do not want to lose the benefits of having those. A counter proposal could be that the cite PMID and cite doi templates are substituted into articles rather than removed and replaced, which would have the same effect to readers and editors but also retain the centralized citation. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The current proposal definitely does not deprecate the {{cite pmid}} automatic citation creation mechanism. First of all, the proposal only applies to the "1500 most viewed articles" that are within the scope of WP:MED, not all of Wikipedia. Second, editors would still be allowed although perhaps discouraged from adding new {{cite pmid}} templates to these 1500 articles. The bot could be run on a regular basis to substitute newly added {{cite pmid}} with {{cite journal}} templates. This will make life easier for newbie editors while minimizing frustration for experienced editors. Boghog (talk) 21:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
User:Bluerasberry I have tried replace cite PMID with subst:cite PMID. It did not work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:49, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

user:Boghog If this is naive, please excuse, I'm new to the discussion but is the data normalized in the central repository (e.g. each field name corresponds to a field in a relational db)? If so, is the long-term goal to have one-instance of the data (centrally) and the issue becomes how to input/show the data so it's most useful to the editors. Or is it stored in some non-relational way? Ian Furst (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Ian Furst This is not naive. Yes, that is exactly what Boghog and I are discussing. You seem to understand, except the issue behind this proposal is that it is difficult for editors to read a citation when in the code it only says {{cite doi|10.1016.2Fj.jacc.2010.11.002}}. Within WikiProject Medicine there is agreement that citations in the code should be expanded because we all have difficulty when they are not. The problem I have with this is that the proposed method of expansion deprecates the existing system for storing an instance of the data in a central place on English Wikipedia. I actually use these templates and think this model could be expanded for inter-wiki and interlanguage use, but I also agree that using just the template to call citations rather than having the entire citation in an article is problematic. Look at the history of Template:Cite doi/10.1016.2Fj.jacc.2010.11.002 for an example of how users work together to fix broken citations. This can only happen with centrally stored citations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Bluerasberry Since the current system is ineffective, anything to normalize the data will help, so the proposed change is net good imo (although the name issue may become bigger). Personally, I like the idea of a central repository of data (e.g. it could be sync'd with the library of congress db) In theory, an editor should be able to enter anything. If, say, the last name and uniqueID (ISBN/PMID/DOI) match, a bot can synchronize the central against the "local" (article info). Two (among many) issues would be how/who decides a "ref name=" (if it's to be the same in all articles) and how conflict resolution works (e.g. if local has better info the central db). Interesting db problem that needs immediate, medium and long-term goals. If there a working group for this? Ian Furst (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Ian Furst Yes exactly what you are saying. This is how I feel. The ref name could be automatically generated, but even if it is changed, the citation would be identified by a field which it contains (perhaps just the existing doi field when there is one), so varying ref names may not matter. Very few people will fix citation references and anyone who would think to do this is likely to be a person capable of resolving disputes with others, so I do not think conflict resolution will be an issue. No, there is no working group for this, but yes, there should be. I think we could ask the WMF for funding to do this if we made a proposal and wanted a coder. In return they would likely just want a statement of need and good community input and I think already we have that. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
BluerasberryI'd be interested in helping assuming it's not stepping on any toes (and I have no idea if it is). Is it possible to set-up a page to define the existing problems with citation management? The glaring ones seem to be citation variation, appearance in wikicode, non-normalized data, ease of entry, variation between articles of the same ref and repetition of data between articles. Ian Furst (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Ian Furst Yeah, you get the idea. Because part of this problem takes coding because we probably need help with that, a public presentation and summary of this talk should be made at meta:Grants:IdeaLab so that we can start the process to get comments from a coder and be ready to ask for funding or WMF staff time for such a person if we want their help. It so happens that they are reviewing project proposals posted there at the end of this month. Backing up the project proposal there is this discussion on this board and as you say, a project page, for example at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/citation reform. Once we have a proposal for reform and get comments from WikiProject Medicine then we show it off elsewhere on Wikipedia. After getting those comments we ask the WMF for a coder. It is my intuition that most people are likely to want this. The citation infrastructure needs to be updated and I think we can reach good agreement about how this should be done in stages now and with time as you propose. Either you can start these pages or I will later. I think you are spot on. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I think this discussion is fascinating but since its scope is far wider than the WP:MED, it should probably be moved somewhere else. I will just make one additional brief note here. In addition to the Library of Congress was mentioned above, synchronization with PubMed data would be essential. Klortho may be able to help with this (see also WP:NIH). Boghog (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────If you start the page Lane (so it's in the correct place), I'll start to populate with some definitions and a statement of the problem. Ian Furst (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I still see what you are proposing Blue as separate from what we are discussing here. Also I am not entirely clear on what you are suggesting / how your proposed suggesting would work. If you make a mock-up of the proposal would be happy to look at it further.
In principle I am supportive of using Wikidata for refs. This could even mesh with holding CC-BY and CC-BY-SA published papers locally so that the 750 million people who will soon have free access to Wikipedia without data charges via Wikipedia Zero could read these papers and thus become involved with Wikipedia as editors. (this is also a method which may convince publishers to release there content under a CC BY SA license) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
The original proposal has two parts.
  1. Expand citation templates to full references. I support this, and it seems there is consensus to do this.
  2. Deprecate the local storage of citations in a template independent of a given Wikipedia article. I oppose this, and it seems that others do not even recognize that this is an inherent part of the original proposal.
I want for part 1 to proceed but also to see if there is a way to keep local storage of citation templates.
Boghog, I disagree that I have talked about anything other than the original proposal, but for clarity, I hid all the discussion about preserving localized citation templates and just left the note above that I oppose this. Jmh649 and Ian Furst, I made a proposal at meta:Grants:IdeaLab/Reform of citation structure for all Wikimedia projects which mentions this Wikidata problem and also a lot of the other citation structure problems which are currently in discussion. That proposal is not about this proposal specifically, but I am sharing it to show that there are other stakeholders in the outcome of this. I intend to write more about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/citation reform in a while. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Support I originally opposed and now I support. I think the proposal is better than doing nothing or any available alternative, but I also feel that it just relieves some symptoms without addressing other real problems. I documented two problems in this proposal which are left unaddressed by it, but not made worse.
I also solicited comment about this in a message board and I proposed to organize a panel about this at Wikimania.
I support citations being expanded, but I also wish that they could be transcluded from a database to which readers had access so that citations with flawed metadata could be fixed by users. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)


  • As long as the predominate style was {{cite journal}} before the first transcluded {{cite pmid}} or {{cite doi}} template was added, no consensus is necessary to substitute the transcluded templates. WP:CITEVAR is sufficient justification. It is difficult for a bot to determine what the first established style was, but certainly it should be possible for a bot to determine the current predominate style, and if {{cite pmid}} or {{cite doi}} are in the minority, go ahead and substitute these with {{cite journal}}. Boghog (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Will make the programming more complicated but ok. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:23, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
It is really not that much more complicated. It is very straight forward for a bot to scan an article and count the number of {{cite pmid}}, {{cite doi}}, and {{cite journal}} templates, and determine which is the predominant style. Boghog (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately (or fortunately), WP:CITEVAR does not give "predominant style" as a means of deciding which style to regularise to. It's far too easy to game to ever gain consensus. We're left with "defer to the style used by the first major contributor" to guide us on what style to use. Nevertheless, both {{cite pmid}} and {{cite doi}} render eventually as {{cite journal}}, so we could easily justify updating them to the full reference as merely a stage in the process. If that were generally accepted, we could encourage the use of these templates for simplicity without worrying about later improving them to {{cite journal}}. --RexxS (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Given that {{cite journal}} (February 2005‎) predates {{cite pmid}} (January 2009) and {{cite doi}} (May 2008)‎ and given that most of the "top 1500 most viewed articles" are also likely to predate the transcluded templates, it is very likely that {{cite journal}} was established as the predominate style in the "top 1500 most viewed articles" before the {{cite pmid}} and {{cite doi}} templates were even created. Hence it is very likely (although I must admit not guaranteed) that the "current predominant style" matches the style used by "first major contributor". Boghog (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2014 (UTC) Not as hard as I originally thought (see below). Boghog (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The pertinent part of Citevar is that this is "Improving existing citations by adding missing information". LeadSongDog come howl! 02:18, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What about cite doi templates? Would those get replaced too? Jinkinson talk to me 03:16, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

add "cite isbn", I used to use it and it causes the same problem. Ian Furst (talk) 03:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes the hope would be all three. The bot would simply need to copy the template into the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── It turns out that has a function "fullVersionHistory" that "returns all past versions including wikitext". Hence it should be possible to search the article history and determine if any {{cite journal}} or {{cite book}} templates were in use before the first {{cite pmid}}, {{cite doi}}, or {{cite isbn}} template was inserted and if so, substitute the transcluded templates with {{cite journal}} or {{cite book}} respectively. Of course, the bot should transfer all of the data contained in the transcluded template to the new in-line template. This behavior should be completely compatible with WP:CITEVAR.

One issue that may be controversial is what author parameter to use. The transcluded templates use "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters. In my opinion, if the predominate author format is a single "author" parameter to store the author data, this style should be preserved. The advantage of a single author parameter is that is much more compact. The disadvantage is that proper metadata is not generated (although Module:Citation/CS1 could in principle be modified to parse the author data field to generate correct metadata). Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 10:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no preference on how the author parameter is formatted. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I have a strong preference for |first1=, etc. because of the microformats and the consistency in formatting it brings to the author field(s) (last1, first1; last2, first2; etc.) which otherwise gets left to editors to sort out manually. I see no value in compactness in the wikitext when the resulting output is the same size, particularly now that references can be defined in full outside of the main article text. --RexxS (talk) 19:19, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
The value of compactness in the raw wikitext is for editors. It makes the templates smaller and less distracting so editors can focus on the content and not the templates. With large number of authors, the number of parameters becomes ridiculous. Also editors need not concern themselves with author formatting. In the present case, the bot will handle this. They can also use template filling tools that insure consistency. Furthermore, how many consumers of microformat/metadata are there? I suspect that the number of editors far exceeds the consumers of metadata. Finally list-defined references suffer from the same drawback as {{cite pmid}} templates (separating the text from the references). Boghog (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I personally hate Help:LDR#List-defined_references as they do not work in other languages. We do not need to address this now though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:23, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Assuming the consensus is to avoid cite PMID and ISBN is it worthwhile agreeing to a single format for WP Medicine? I never realized I could put all of the references at the end (and just use the ref name throughout). I agree with the sentiment that compactness in the text matters. Does everyone use Proveit or just me? Ian Furst (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

I have also been thinking about a recommended format for WP Medicine. Many of the references in these articles was generated using Diberri's template filling tool which generates both compact templates and also more compact output in the rendered citations by adopting Vancouver system author formatting. One possibility is to use something like {{Vcite2 journal}} template which enforces Vancouver system output no matter how the authors are input. (Note this template uses the same Module:Citation/CS1 that {{cite journal}} uses.) This template could also be modified to parse the single author parameter to produce proper author metadata. This would allow both compact templates and full metadata making everyone happy. Boghog (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to describe something that happens to me all the time, and I want to know if it ever happens to anyone else:
    1. You add a citation to a study using the cite doi template.
    2. You get tired of waiting for the bot to complete it, especially since it says it will be completed in "a few minutes" (which never actually happens).
    3. You decide to fill it out manually, but realize you can't use the template filler because the journal isn't indexed in PubMed, and the filler only uses PMIDs.
    4. You therefore have to expand the template by hand (i.e. create it yourself and fill in all the parameters), but some of the characters in the doi get changed in the title of the template (especially slashes, which get turned into ".2f"), so you have to go back into the article and change the real doi to that in the template's title.

When this happens to me, I can't help but wonder if there's not an easier way to do this--ideally, whoever manages the template filler could reconfigure it to allow dois. Jinkinson talk to me 21:10, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The RefToolbar will fill in a citation based on dois. User:Diberri was the creator of the template filler tool. Unfortunately David Iberri no longer has time to maintain the tool. I have stepped as the caretaker keeping it running on the tool server. I might be able to add this functionality to the template filler, but as my perl programming skills are rusty and I am busy in real life, this will take awhile. Boghog (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
I never use "cite doi" and this would be replaced with "cite journal". Do not like refs all in the ref section at the end as it is not compatible in other languages. I know that some people do though. This proposal has nothing to do with changing this type of formatting though.
vcite is also does not work in most other languages thus I wish to stick with cite journal and cite book. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Jmh649, I think you misunderstood Jinkinson's request. The request is not to produced cite doi templates, rather to add doi as an input option in addition to pmid, pmc, etc. The output would be the same filled in {{cite journal}} template. Also {{vcite2 journal}} ≠ {{vcite journal}}. They are completely different beasts. Vcite2 is a alternate front end for Module:Citation/CS1, the same module that is used by {{cite journal}}. Victe2 is considerably simpler than vcite and it should be easy to port this to other languages. Boghog (talk) 05:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
If it works in all languages would be happy to consider. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
TBH, what I was requesting doesn't really matter now that I know about this REFTOOLS thing, which I will use for dois pretty much every time I need to do so from now on. Jinkinson talk to me 05:21, 16 March 2014 (UTC)


Okay it appears we may have consensus. So to summarize what we plan to do is:

  1. Replace "cite PMID" and "cite DOI" with "cite journal"
  2. Replace "cite ISBN" with "cite book"
  3. Placing all refs that occur over many lines over one line
  4. Probably not a good idea to address the author issue as this will require more discussion and is a separate issue (we will just use whatever author format is already present)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"use whatever author format is already present" – I assume this means the predominate citation style used in the article (or more properly the first established citation style) and not necessarily the style used by the {{cite pmid}} template. Correct? Boghog (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Your #3 is going to cause dirty diffs (diffs in which nothing really changes, but the diff takes up many screenfuls anyway). I suggest skipping that one. You're on thin enough ice with WP:CITEVAR without making pointless changes to internal formatting. In fact, to deal with CITEVAR, you should probably have a list made of the pages that you'd like to change, and post messages on the articles' talk pages, to give people a chance to object. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing I do not see how this proposal has anything to do with WP:CITEVAR. CITEVAR only talks about reader experience and this proposal is entirely about editor experience. Can you say how CITEVAR applies? Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
CITEVAR does distinguish between templated and non-templated citations and the output of these two can be made to look very similar. Hence I think CITEVAR can reasonably interpreted to also apply to the format of the wikitext citations. At the same time, if the first established citation template style was horizontal (citations on one line), then CITEVAR can be used to justify the conversion of vertical (citations on many lines) to horizontal format. The objection concerning dirty diffs can easily be overcome by a having the bot make two sets of edits, one to substitute {{cite pmid}} templates, and a second to convert vertical to horizontal style. Boghog (talk) 13:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Background: I wrote CITEVAR. I've followed WT:CITE for years. So, with that in mind, I'm going to tell you two different facts about CITEVAR:
  1. When I wrote it, I did not intend for it to apply to trivial aspects of internal formatting, like whether or not there is a space or a break in between parameters. I intended it to cover templates vs manual formatting, but not really trivial things.
  2. Since then, there have been multiple discussions on whether it applies to these trivial aspects of internal formatting, and the discussions always end with a rough consensus that it does apply to basically anything and everything. One reason for this (NB: not "the only" reason), is that the realistic alternative is that we allow people set up AWB to make trivial changes that affect every single templated ref in an article, so long as they are also making some "real" change while they're present. And that means that you get 158 lines changed in Schizophrenia, along with one spelling correction, and nobody can find the spelling correction to review it because it's lost in a sea of trivial changes.
Also, you might notice that only you (Doc James) and one other person have supported this particular change, which the BOTREQ folks are not going to consider an impressive consensus. It would be unfortunate if your entire proposal were derailed because you overreached. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I think vertical vs. horizontal formatting is more than a trivial change since it has a major impact on the readability of the wikitext. I agree that the dirty diff issue is important since it makes it more difficult to see exactly what the bot has done. Hence I think these two types of edits should be done separately. In fact, it would probably be best to make two separate requests to the bot committee, the first to substitute the templates, and a second to reformat vertical citations horizontally. That way if objection are raised to the second proposal, it will not derail the first. Finally, just to be clear, {{cite pmid}} currently uses a vertical format (which makes sense for isolated citation data), but the intention is that substituted {{cite journal}} template will use a horizontal format. Boghog (talk) 16:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Vertical vs. horizontal formatting is only an issue if you insist on placing full reference definitions in the middle of article text. It's a self-inflicted problem. For several years now, we have had the ability to define our citations in full in the references section which is the natural place for them - after all that is where they are rendered. I simply don't buy the argument about separating the ref from the text, as we've been doing that for even longer with named references (and a sensible ref name like "Smith2012" would make clear which reference supports the text). You can easily look at list-defined references as named references where the full definition is in a predictable place: how many times have you gone to copy from the first occurrence of a reference used in multiple places and not found the definition there? I know I have, lots of times. James is right about the problem of other languages not implementing list-defined references; but as with any useful feature, the solution is to implement them on the other language wikis, not to stop using them on English Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Vertical vs. horizontal formatting is also an issue if placed in list-defined references. I occasionally use these myself in exactly the same way you suggest (see for example nuclear receptor references). For an article with large number of citations, I cannot imagine using vertical formatting even if using list-defined references. It would take forever to scroll through this list. It makes sense to use the vertical format if the citations are isolated in a transcluded {{cite pmid}} template. It does not make sense to place these in an article, even if they are placed in list defined references. Finally, how often are references edited? The citations are frequently created by template filling tools and the most errors can be detected and corrected by bots. Boghog (talk) 19:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, when the article has a large number of references, I also use horizontal format even in list-defined refs. Nevertheless I know of other editors who prefer the clarity of vertical format in LDRs, which has few drawbacks for articles with fewer references (especially for editors who are fast-scrollers), and I'm always cautious about trying to impose what may be seen as a personal preference on other editors. I find myself editing references far more often that I ought as the various tools do seem to exhibit many problems, including failing to discriminate between authors and editors, adding access dates to {{cite book}}, mistaking publishers for works, and so on. I also update access dates whenever I check online references, as I hope everyone does. --RexxS (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
I can't help thinking that the ver vs horizontal wiki text layout ought to be a personal pref/gadget, not a fixed feature of the wiki text. For that matter, the problem with using LDRs, separation from the supported text while editing, ought similarly to be remedied by a fix to the editing environment. If I could work on both a citation and the LDRS supporting it in a single section edit, I would have no problem with LDRs. Ultimately, we need a better editor that understands foot noting. For the present however, switching between LDRs and inline citations is going to be seen as disruptive, so please, baby steps . . . LeadSongDog come howl! 00:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
@LeadSongDog: The problem you describe is not due to LDRs, but with Named references which separate the full reference from the text except in one place. We couldn't manage without named refs so never hear "... the problem with using named refs, separation from the supported text while editing ...". At least with LDRs we know where to find the full ref when we need to. --RexxS (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, named refs suffer from the same problem.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
WP:VisualEditor solves that problem by letting you edit the ref from any place on the page (unless the citation is in a gallery or infobox in which case things get complicated at the moment). However, it can't autofill citations yet. A redesign is in the works, and once the new manual citation dialog is working, they're supposed to start work on autofill, but it may be several months.
Perhaps VE will get there someday, but som of us will still edit with the existing editor.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
If you want to know the current four-click "cheat code" for pasting in Diberri's output into VisualEditor's refs, then let me know. I can't promise that it will work forever, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  •  Comment: There are multiple issues discussed in this thread, which makes it difficult to determine what appropriate solutions might look like. The proposed bot action would help remedy some symptoms (and relatively quickly) but do nothing to address the underlying problems of a more general nature, for which Lane's IdeaLab page looks more promising in the long run, albeit more complicated.
But even in terms of doing away with the symptoms, I am not convinced the proposed replacement of {{Cite doi}} with {{Cite journal}} is helpful, as it would have the unpleasant side effect of decentralizing the curation of bibliographic metadata even more. A string like {{Cite doi|10.1016.2Fj.jacc.2010.11.002}} in wiki text is clearly not friendly to human readers, but what about something like <ref name=Douglas2010>{{Cite doi|10.1016.2Fj.jacc.2010.11.002}}</ref> ? That would give human readers the orientation they need, and we could keep the advantages of curating references in one place. The same goes for {{Cite pmid}}. While the latter is rather specific to WP:MED, the other two templates are not, so broadening the discussion (as Lane has done) seems appropriate.
Yes, Cite doi and Cite pmid are missing in most Wikipedia languages, but Cite journal does not work entirely the same way across languages either, so if harmonization across languages is the goal, then some Wikidata-based approach seems to be the way forward. As for hosting local copies (if that is indeed necessary), I agree that the template namespace is not ideal, and would rather be in favour of a dedicated namespace, even though the French model may need some tweaks.
-- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 03:46, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 Comment: From what I read, most agree that a single source for multiple uses of a common reference is a good idea. The practical solution to that seems to be a Document-oriented database hosted on Wikidata (as proposed by Lane) which can be used interwiki. My thought is that our focus should be on finding compromise to a consistent citation structure for a (short?) period of time so we can progress to the long-term desires of citation management. Moving a single form of citations to a db should be easier than 4 or 5 structures? Ian Furst (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm all in favour of an open, centralized, multilingual bibliographic resource that can be verifiable. Something hidden in template space on the English language Wikipedia is not it. Wikidata, or perhaps wikisource? Citations belong with the supported text for the obvious reason, but the amount of bibliographic data to be packed in each citation is not an absolute. An identifier linked to one published article, together with a page number would be enough if it was not for vandalism issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talkcontribs) 17:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm concerned about making automated changes to en:wp references simply because "other languages lack XXXX". I've seen this before where Doc James proposed a change and it was trivial to fix the template for the other language (can't remember which now). Surely effort should be made to ensure other languages support a core set of templates, which will benefit many topics not just medicine. Or for there to be tools that translate existing en templates into wikimarkup to be placed on any language regardless of template availability. I'm confused about the whole business of trying to find out which citation style was in-use first in order to make changes. The "pick the first rule" is just an arbitrary argument-solver where editors can't come to agreement, rather than some way of picking what is best. The main thing is to not fiddle with articles in ways that risk pissing off contributors for the sake of change of no benefit to the reader. And this is one. No readers at en:wp will benefit. The readers on other wps would benefit if templates were translated or the translation tools avoided the need for en templates. I've no experience with references in other languages but wonder whether the translators of medical articles will face the same issues of reference mixup/change when they move translated text over. In short, this seems like the wrong solution to the problem. -- Colin°Talk 13:08, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Nearly all the editors here dislike the "cite PMID". If we get rid of it and we are able to edit content more this will be good for readers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:17, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Should we change the ref layout during the above bot work?

Should we change refs that are over many lines and put them over one line in the 1500 medical articles we run this on?

This is a ref over one line:

Text.<ref name="Uyoga2006">{{Cite journal|author=Wambua S|title=The Effect of α +-Thalassaemia on the Incidence of Malaria and Other Diseases in Children Living on the Coast of Kenya|journal=PLoS Medicine|volume=3|issue=5|pages=e158|date=May 2006|pmid=16605300|pmc=1435778|doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0030158}}</ref>

This is a ref over many lines:

Text.<ref name="Uyoga2006">{{Cite journal
| author = Wambua S
| title = The Effect of α +-Thalassaemia on the Incidence of Malaria and Other Diseases in Children Living on the Coast of Kenya
| journal = PLoS Medicine
| volume = 3
| issue = 5
| pages = e158
| date=May 2006
| pmid = 16605300
| pmc = 1435778
| doi = 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030158}}</ref>

Support changing layout

  1. Support: I find refs over one line take up less space and thus make the text easier to edit.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:34, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. Support Ian Furst (talk) 15:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. Support – The vertical format fragments the wikitext making it a pain to scroll through and much more difficult to read and to edit. Boghog (talk) 15:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  4. Support Can't see any reason not to. Jinkinson talk to me 16:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  5. Support with additional proposal to promote this generally There are various automated tools on Wikipedia which generate citations. Users of these tools use them because they like the tools, not because they are thoughtful about citations. I propose that there be agreement between the citation tools when they are intended to produce identical citations. The current situation is that the creators of tools intended for them to generate identical code, but in fact, every tool generates different code for no reason and without regard to anyone's preference. In cases in which people would like to use identical code, there should be a standard expected output and anyone making a citation tool should be directed to make their tool give that standard output. Anyone knowingly wishing to make different citations should, but people wanting to do it a standard way should be able to also. I do not think anyone likes vertical citations and these should not be encouraged as a default as they currently are. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:43, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    Agree completely. Little steps. We can work on this next :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:00, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  6. Support. I find references that take 7 lines very disruptive for editing. JFW | T@lk 20:27, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  7. Support agree this is very disruptive. --LT910001 (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  8. Support I find it is easier to read through the reference in the one line format than the several line format. It's far more conducive to editing and IMO just more pleasant to look at. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
  9. Support on the condition that the one-line output has a space either to the left or on both sides of every pipe | separator so that word-wrap works in a sensible manner both in the code edit screen and in diffs. -- (talk) 18:41, 28 March 2014‎ (UTC)
    Further comment: When converting from vertical to horizontal format, please take out spaces found directly either side of all "=" signs. -- (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
    To maximize the likelihood that "url=https://something-extremely-long" will screw up the word-wrap, as well as increasing the difficulty of reading the template text? I don't think that this is a good idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    I also think it that removing spaces is a bad idea. To facilitate word-wraping and increase template readability, I was planning to pad both pipe symbols and equal signs with a single spaces. This partially mitigates the loss of readability in converting from a vertical to horizontal format and hence I think it is a reasonable thing to do. Boghog (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
    Long URLs wrap on colon, slash and hyphen so are already taken care of. I see no need to add three unnecessary spaces per parameter. -- (talk) 20:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
    This test edit compares several styles. Where there are spaces around the equals, the parameter name often becomes split from the parameter value on a different line, making it harder to read. -- (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  10. Support, I agree with the last poster: please put spaces on both sides of every pipe symbol. Klortho (talk) 01:50, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Oppose changing layout

  1. Don't put the reference definitions in the text and then all the problems of taking up space and making the text hard to edit simply disappear. I like vertical citations because they are easier to read than all-on-one-line, but I'd never place them in article text. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
    Many of us like refs within the text. Last time I looked putting them all at the end was not supported in many languages.
    This above proposal however is not about putting refs within the text or in the last section. This is only about one line versus many lines for those within the text. If they are over many lines at the end the proposal is not to change them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    I don't believe that's true. You just need to stop using the {{reflist}} template (which exists pretty much only at en.wp) and set it up in the standard <references> (LDRs go here) </references> wikitext. All Wikipedias have the same MediaWiki code. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    Thanks will try. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
  2. I don't think you should go creating a mess of dirty diffs on up to 1500 articles. I also know that multiple discussions at WT:CITE have defined this kind of change as being a violation of WP:CITEVAR, so doing this would require a discussion in advance at each and every affected page. Finally, I disagree that a mushed-together string of gobbledegook is necessarily "more readable" than the vertical format—and if it really is, then why don't we (ever) use that style for infoboxes? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
    Comment The reason we don't do that for infoboxes, Whatamidoing, is that infoboxes are supposed to be vertically oriented, so it makes sense for the template to be the same "shape". References are not, so them being "mushed together" would be consistent for the same reason. Jinkinson talk to me 15:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    That's a nice story, but it's not actually true. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    Oh really? And why not? Jinkinson talk to me 17:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    There are three problems with the infobox/citation analogy. Problem #1: The number of infoboxes is generally far fewer than the number of citations. Problem #2: Inboxes generally are inserted at the beginning of articles, not in the middle of wikitext. Hence the disruptions of vertically formatted infoboxes are generally far less than vertically formatted citations. Problem #3: info boxes generally need to be edited far more frequently than citations. Hence readability of infoboxes take precedent (vertical formatting) while compactness of citations (horizontal formatting) make the most sense. Boghog (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
    I'm not sure how to answer your question, Jinkinson. Why is your made-up history of wikitext formatting conventions not true? Well, your made-up history isn't true because it isn't true, just like most folk etymologies. Infobox conventions predate your first edit by about a decade, so I don't know why you would even assume that you know anything about it. They started as plain old tables (using HTML originally, and eventually using wikitext table formatting [i.e., after the markup for wikitext tables was created]). Those tables are normally (not just at Wikipedia) arranged with one row per line so that humans reading the source code have a chance of finding the information they're trying to edit. When templates for infoboxes were later created, people retained the readable vertical organization. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    I never said that what I said was the way it was "designed" when infoboxes were first implemented or anything like that, nor do I think I would know anything about it. I was just giving my opinion. I guess the way I phrased it in this section made it seem like I was 100% positive of it, but I really wasn't (and am still not), sorry if that was unclear. In any case, the fact that infoboxes use vertical formatting and are vertically oriented, regardless of the original reason why this was implemented, still serves a purpose. That purpose is to make it much easier to read the information in the infobox, both when you're editing it and when you're just reading the page.Jinkinson talk to me 16:50, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
  3. I like having the ref within the text, but it does make it difficult to find one's place in the edit box. I've often thought that the only change needed would be showing the refs in another color or font or font size. Refs in a very small font size would allow for easy reading. --Hordaland (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    All you have to do is turn on WikEd under preferences and gadgets. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
    1.Thanks, James. I'll try that if I ever get 'round to trying Firefox, Safari or Google Chrome. --Hordaland (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, because 1) full citations don't belong in the text in the first place (as RexxS said), 2) I find vertical format more readable (why should I have to do it your way?), and 3) I'll be really pissed when someone starts running a v2h bot over all of Wikipedia. :-0 ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


I know something of this: I was a programmer for some years, where the "text" must be absolutely accurate (else it fails), and accuracy, clarity, and ease of reading and writing is crucially dependent on formatting. And having not only written a few WP articles (with lots of citations) but also cleaned up some real messy articles written by a multitude of others, I have worked out some useful practices. While Your Mileage May Vary (especially as we all often get tuned in to some particular format), I will note some points of general applicability.

First, full citations (with all the bibliographic details) are inherently long and messy, no matter what format. To avoid space and clutter problems in the text, do as RexxS suggests: don't put full citations (templated or not) in the text! For space and clutter problems in the text horizontal vs. vertical is the wrong question. Rather like rearranging the chairs. It would be time and effort better spent to move the full citations to a separate section, replacing their in-line usage with short cites.

But if you do want to make citation templates easier to read (and write), consider these points. First, for each parameter close up (leave out the space) between the pipe (vertical bar), parameter name, and the equals sign. (Just as {{para}} does: |title=.) But keep a space before each pipe, and after each "=". E.g.: " |first1= Tom |last1= Jones". (Having just enough spaces, not too many nor too few, makes parsing easier, and word-wrap more reasonable.) Note that this applies to both vertical (multi-line) and horizontal (single line) formats.

Now it perplexes me that some of you seem to think horizontal is easier to read than vertical. Perhaps because you have more practice with horizontal? Or have only seen really crummy vertical formats? Well, YMMV. But for vertical format I strongly recommend the following: begin each template at the left margin, and end it with the "}}" also at the left margin. Also have each line in between indented a space. If you need to use "search" to find your templates, or their closing braces, you have a problem.

But I allow this: names should not only be parsed first/last (not clumped into |author=, as in the example at the top), they absolutely should be all in one line. Else it is much too easy to mix them up. I also recommend that for journals and such volume, issue, and page(s) be bundled on one line.

~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't like the word-wrap produced when there is a space either directly before or directly after the equals sign. I prefer to avoid having a new line between a parameter name and its value. A space either to the left or on both sides of the pipe works for me. The former also gives the smallest byte count while still giving a useful word wrap both in the edit window and in diffs. -- (talk) 20:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
  • As discussed here, there are pluses and minuses to using list defined references. The main drawback is that it separates the citations from the text making it harder for editors to check one against other. The 1500 most accessed med articles tend to be both long and citation dense. In these cases, it is often more convenient to edit individual sections and keeping the citations with the text in the same edit window can be a real advantage.
  • I don't think anyone above has claimed that horizontally formatted references are easier to read. What is clear however is that vertical refs inserted within wiktext makes the surrounding text harder to read. Furthermore if there are a large number of citations, the vertical format become impractical even if list defined references are used (see for example this section). IMHO, the only place where the vertical format makes sense are in transcluded citation templates.
  • Finally how is parsing " |first1= Tom |last1= Jones" easier than " | first1 = Tom | last1 = Jones"? I think the later is more readable. If one is worried about byte count (and I think compactness is important for in-line citations), " author = Jones T" is far more concise than " |first1= Tom |last1= Jones". Boghog (talk) 04:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't find the references on the left easier to read. Indeed, I am initially drawn into believing the parameter value is missing from |date= and |url= because there is a gap after them. I don't mind a long parameter value being split over multiple lines. I do mind the parameter name and its value being split apart on separate lines. -- (talk) 09:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Removing white space from a template makes it more readable? That does not make any sense. Boghog (talk) 17:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I think the word you're looking for is "counterintuitive". -- (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Then I guess we need to agree to disagree. Boghog (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll point out again that every scheme using named references separates text from the full citation, not just LDRs. In fact, that's the very point of named refs - to avoid repeating the same reference when it's used more than once, and therefore to reduce clutter in the text. Densely cited articles benefit even more from removing the mess of full citations from the text. If you edit by section, you'll regularly find that there's a named reference that's not in the section - and quite often you'll not find the full citation easily; while with LDRs you always know where to find the full reference. If you follow the guidance at Help:List-defined references #Guidelines, and use a sensible naming scheme like "Author Year", nobody will have any difficulty in working out which reference is being used. --RexxS (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Neither the removal nor the addition of whitespace in itself makes a template more or less readable (though the overpowering boldness of this new font hardly helps) , but only its appropriateness. Consider a sentence with no spaces at all, or a sentence with double or even triple spaces between every letter: neither is very readable. A space after the "=" helps the eye separate the datum from the parameter name. A space before "=" invokes another, superflous parsing. I allow that presence of a precedent space is not as significant as absence of an antecedent space, and that there can be a trade-off with word-wrap considerations. But many years of reading code have inclined me to favor this style. I note that in my earlier articles I tried vertical alignment of the "=" (useful in some kinds of coding), but found the excess whitespace not so helpful. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


I found this edit summary for Samskara (Ayurvedic):

"moved Samskara (Ayurvedic) to Samskara (ayurvedic): we don't capitalize the names of medical disciplines".

I think it might be disrespectful not to capitalize "Ayurvedic" and "Ayurveda" as Ayurveda is an ancient philosophy that has religious overtones, and some overlap/association with Hinduism. Collins dictionary and have these capitalized, and I find no dictionaries that show these in lower case. I'm fine with "homeopathy", but "Ayurveda" appears to be a proper noun. Have I missed something? Chris the speller yack 15:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Lesion 15:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Encyclopaedia Britannica capitalizes it. The Merriam–Webster dictionary doesn't, but says that it's often capitalized. I think that more sources capitalize than not, and the main article uses capital letters. Why don't you start an WP:Requested move discussion on the article's talk page? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
The OED gives both, with etymology "< Sanskrit āyur-veda < āyur- , combining form of āyus life (in the sense of ‘lifespan’; cognate with ay adv.) + veda (sacred) knowledge". I don't see any indication that disrespect should enter into it any more than for Biology vs. biology comparison. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
But biology has no religious connotation; Ayurveda does. Chris the speller yack 20:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
NCCAM capitalizes it. [1] So does PBS. Sounds like a compelling case for capitalization to me. Jinkinson talk to me 20:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Almost everything in life (or is that Life) has religious connotations of one sort or another. Is there some evidence that the lower case spelling will cause particularly egregious offence to someone, or is it just a presumption? While most pubmed mentions are uppercase, the lowercase usage is not rare, and better fits our usual wp:AT practice on wp. In either case, redirects should of course be provided.— Preceding unsigned comment added by LeadSongDog (talkcontribs) 20:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I never claimed "particularly egregious offence". But one of the foundation texts on Ayurveda, Sushruta Samhita, has a "Hindu scriptures" template on its WP article. This seems to be a little more religious than, say, chiropractic. If Oxford always capitalizes, and Merriam-Webster often capitalizes, would it not be the right of a Wikipedia project to specify whether it should be capitalized or not? I was hoping that this would be a good forum to settle this, but am getting brushed off to "WP:Requested move" for one article title, and I don't think that's a better forum for deciding whether "Ayurveda" and "Ayurvedic" are proper names. If there is really a better forum than this, please point it out, otherwise let's decide if these are proper names, requiring capitalization. There are other articles using a mishmash of upper and lower case. Lacking guidance from this project, my instinct would be to make them uniformly upper case. Chris the speller yack 16:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Oxford uses both upper and lower case. Looking through Monier-Williams (see p.168), this begins to make some sense. The Ayur-veda is a proper noun, being the name of a text. We should capitalize it just as we would do for The Bible or War and Peace. The adjective form, ayurvedic we would not capitalize, any more than we would biblical. He's also clear that the Ayur-veda is one of the four profane Upa-vedas, subordinate to the four Vedas proper. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Chris, it is never the right of a WikiProject to specify anything except which articles its members choose to work on. A WP:WikiProject advice page has just as little binding authority as an essay written by anyone else.
If you want to establish a "rule" for this that applies across multiple articles, then you probably need to take the question to the community-wide Manual of Style or perhaps WP:Article titles. If you're just looking to change the one article, then you need to propose a move at that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
The directly relevant guidance is at WP:NCCAPS, which is pursuant to WP:LOWERCASE.LeadSongDog come howl! 15:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Relevant guidance is also provided at Proper name: "Words or phrases derived from proper names are generally capitalized ... Which of these items are capitalized may be merely conventional. Abrahamic, Buddhist, Hollywoodize, Freudianism, and Reagonomics are capitalized; quixotic, bowdlerize, mesmerism, and pasteurization are not; aeolian, and alpinism may be capitalized or not." Looks like "Ayurvedic" might fall into that last group with "aeolian". Some of us feel that "Ayurveda" is a proper name. By the way, in WP:LOWERCASE, the instruction "Use lowercase, except for proper names" should really specify "Use lowercase, except for proper names and words or phrases derived from proper names that are usually capitalized". An article titled "List of Christians from Namibia" would surely have "Christians" capitalized even though it is a common noun, because it is derived from a proper name (Christ). It is interesting that NCCAPS says that WikiProject Birds makes recommendations on capitalization, and that goes beyond specifying which articles its members choose to work on.

NCCAPS misleads you; bird names are capitalized because WP:NCFAUNA, which is not a WikiProject Birds page, says "A de facto naming convention (following the International Ornithologists' Union) of capitalisation for the common names of birds has been applied to titles of species articles and ornithology-related articles". (That's also a regularly disputed provision, since non-bird editors often either want to de-capitalize the bird names or to copy that style for non-bird names.)
It is a little silly to spread the bird-related naming conventions across three pages, but project pages are often somewhat disorganized. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
There's right now a huge discussion on the capitalization of bird names going on here. --Randykitty (talk) 16:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Lipid hypothesis

This article appears to have a distinctive POV against the medical consensus that lipids play a role in CAD, etc. Needs more eyes and a rewrite. Yobol (talk) 13:15, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Couple of recent reviews have found no concerns from dietary lipids except for trans fats. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The lipid hypothesis is much more than just about the role of saturated fats in diet; it is about the pathophysiologic role of lipids in atherosclerosis and CAD as well as the role of lowering LDL in prevention/treatment of heart disease. Yobol (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Certainly agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Haigh's Triad: a hoax AfC?

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Haigh's Triad. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

No Ghits, no real references in submission, doesn't appear to be a real disease. Jinkinson talk to me 20:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Zero Google hits, zero Bing hits, zero Google Books hits, zero Google Scholar hits. Without any sign of supporting evidence I can find, this appears to either be a hoax, or to fail WP:N by a mile. Is there some way the review process can be expedited to deal with this soon? -- The Anome (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Also nothing searching PubMed or ScienceDirect, which searches the full text of journal articles. Given the scatological subject matter and that this was submitted right after April Fool's day, I'd say the best way to expedite the review process would be for the first admin who reads this to just delete this as a blatant hoax. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 09:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Carefully done though. One of the authors in the refs was called Haigh, single purpose account so no previous vandalism by the user could be assessed, utilized some medical terminology. Probably some med students somewhere who probably should have better things to do. Lesion 09:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I read thru the full text that Haigh was a coauthor on, and it mentions nothing about a "triad" (it's about using botox for anal fissures). The other reference is from 1990 and the text was unavailable to me but seems to be a simple epidemiological study. Imo it's either a hoax by someone with medical knowledge or some term he used during class. Either way, the references provide no support to the article. Ian Furst (talk) 12:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

While I have long suspected that med students are taught to write illegibly, I only recently became aware they are also taught creative spelling for typescript, as seen in the drafts of this afc. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Sub-optimal health

I am concerned with this article since it cites almost universally Chinese sources, some of which seem definitely unreliable (especially the one dealing with WTO recognition). Furthermore, the idea is rather exclusive to Chinese authors, both in discussion and in scientific papers. I'd like to know what our medicine experts think about it: is it a valid topic to be included? Should it be merged or deleted? M. Caecilius (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Jinkinson talk to me 22:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Apparently a neologism, used exclusively in China See here. Yobol (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
It seems that there may be cause for including this term, but I still move for a very clear explanation of how this term is used widely only in China, and the possible ramifications of that (using the article you linked to as source). As it stands now, it merely serves to popularize the Chinese viewpoint, possibly promoting relevant industry interests, while posing as neutral. M. Caecilius (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree that a rewrite is in order to place the term in context; the conclusions in the page need to be written so as to not imply that the belief in this concept is necessarily correct, but in text attributed to adherents to this concept. Yobol (talk) 19:14, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Uhm... ignoring all other problems, the article really needs to be renamed if its kept. There is no benchmark/criteria for optimality in "optimal health" (i.e., optimization is always performed w.r.t. something - see first sentence of the lead). Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 16:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Diverticulitis questions

I get that we don't do medical advice here, but some of you know me, and I could really use some help understanding diverticulitis. It's not ER time ... the fever is a lot lower, the pain is almost gone, I'm on cipro and metro, and I've got some good doctors. I've still got some difficult questions and some difficult judgment calls. If anyone wants to offer to help, please email me or leave a message on my talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 02:56, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Our article does not answer them? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Doc, our article was really helpful during my first attack, many thanks to everyone who has worked on it. - Dank (push to talk) 12:44, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Mechanism of Acupuncture

There's an edit war running at Acupuncture over the section Acupuncture #Mechanism of action. I removed the the section several days ago as it looked to me like primary speculation dressed up with a pile of synthesis, but I may be wrong and I'm unwilling to revert again - although I must admit I'd be very surprised to find that a mechanism of action of acupuncture had been demonstrated. I'd be grateful for any other eyes on the issue. --RexxS (talk) 21:39, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Several mechanisms have been demonstrated, for varying levels of "demonstrated". In a general article like that, it would be appropriate to briefly describe the main theories (nerve stimulation, endorphins, placebo effect, and whatever other explanations seem to be commonly advanced; remember that NPOV requires us to describe the existence of non-scientific ideas about how it supposedly works, too, like "chi") and to say that there is no widely accepted mechanism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
This content is also at Purinergic signalling#Therapeutic interventions. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:17, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks both. I'd love to do that, WAID, if I could find the sources that say all that (I can't). You're right Alex, that's just the content I found troubling:
  • (Acupuncture) = (poking the skin with needles); (poking the skin with needles) = (release of ATP and adenosine); (effects of ATP and adenosine) = (anti-nociception). Therefore (acupuncture) = (pain relief).
Sourced to: an article on electroacupuncture; a book on adenosine; an article on topical analgesics; and an "expert opinion" on adenosine patents. None of which has more than a passing reference to acupuncture. Is it just me finding it troubling? --RexxS (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Will look further at this when I get home Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
PMID 18803495 might point you towards some things, but I think it assumes that you already know the general outlines.
BTW, PMID 23528116 is a review of the relative strengths and weaknesses in acupuncture research, and it might be useful for ==Research directions== or something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The Infography

Six "superlative" sources are mentioned for each subject entry at
Wavelength (talk) 01:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify the issue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
(The website called "The Infography" is not to be confused with infography [redirected to "Desktop publishing"], so I am restoring the heading to its original unwikified form, and adding "The" in an exception to the guideline at MOS:HEAD about not using "The" at the beginning of a heading. It also discourages links in headings. These are links to my post and your wikification.)
I am not certain about whether I would call this an issue, but I am suggesting a website that recommends sources on many subjects, including medical subjects. For example, when I searched for cancer, I found 22 results, of which I selected "Radon" at The rationale for recommendations by the website is explained at
Wavelength (talk) 19:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Guideline for notable sufferers

Is there a relevant guideline that explicitly states we should not include lists of sufferers? I refer here to the demi-notable list of people who have fractured their hamate bone: Hamate#Clinical significance --LT910001 (talk) 01:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has Category:People by medical or psychological condition and Category:Lists of people by medical condition.
Wavelength (talk) 01:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists.
Wavelength (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Notable cases. If you were hoping for a simple, explicit ban, you'll be disappointed, but it encourages high standards. Its claim that people normally refuse to list redlinked BLPs is accurate, but not a prescriptive rule; it actually follows the same list-selection criteria options as any other list. Actual criteria for inclusion are determined on each page. The suggestion to include only people who have changed public perception of the disease is your most restrictive (and IMO most interesting) option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Should not use the term "sufferers". Maybe "notable cases" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps "people diagnosed with" would be better--this is used on, for example, List of people diagnosed with cystic fibrosis. Of course, this won't work for people who broke a bone. Jinkinson talk to me 18:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The list is not "Notable cases". It is "List of notable baseball players who happened to fracture their hamates". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)


Somewhat surprised that WP didn't have an article for this... Lesion 09:22, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The first I've heard of them Ian Furst (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Bruxism, mandibular advancement splints and the such like? Myrtle. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I found the choice of acronym amusing. I guess it's not that funny. Lesion 11:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
lmao - didn't even notice. you delete your user page? Ian Furst (talk) 17:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
As wikipenance I added the redlink to List of dental organizations#United States. Can't believe people are paying for this exam to get the letters "ABDSM" after their name, but apparently ... [3] Lesion 12:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 07/04

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/ADULT (Acro-dermato-ungual-lacrimal-tooth) syndrome. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

FoCuSandLeArN: ADULT syndrome sounds like a type of ectodermal dysplasia. That article doesn't currently mention ADULT syndrome. Suggest merge this content there? Not sure how others feel. Lesion 12:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Under Ectodermal_dysplasia#Genetics there is a list of other articles that discuss the specific variations. Suggest we create the adult article and add the link under the subheading in ectodermal dysplasia. Also for consideration, it's a group of genetic disorders rather than one specific one. Should we move the main page to "Ectodermal dysplasias"? Ian Furst (talk) 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Review my work

I just edited Vaginitis. Would someone please review it?--Sporter04 (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sporter04 nice additions, great references. Thanks. (I moved this comment to the bottom of the talk page, usually most current is at the bottom). Ian Furst (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Advice on an anatomy illustration?

Hi. I'm thinking of commissioning an anatomical illustration of a nerve from Blausen Medical or another medical illustrator, because I can't find a good, reliable, comprehensive free one. Your thoughts would be appreciated at Talk:Nerve#Proposed illustration. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:01, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting thread on Reddit right now about WP's accuracy

A wordcloud from the discussion on Reddit (see thread here) about Wikipedia and its reliability as a source.

Someone started a thread whats_a_fact_thats_technically_true_but_nobody understands correctly. 5th comment down is "Wikipedia can be edited by anyone" which lit off a firestorm of comments (all very complimentary). Interesting perspective. Ian Furst (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Fun read. For ex: "To use an analogy: peer review is like a gatekeeper. Once it lets you in, you're in. Wikipedia is like a police officer: once you're in, you still have to obey the rules."
But there are almost as many definitions of primary and secondary sources as there are commenters. What confusion! --Hordaland (talk) 16:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Funny how even under a comment called "Wikipedia can be edited by anyone", you still get a comment like "I've always wondered, how does Wikipedia manage to patrol and review an insane number of articles when the Wikimedia foundation has less than 150 employees?". Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 01:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have argued and argued on the talk page, but I don't have that much time to devote to it. There's a guy that calls himself agent orange or something like that, he doesn't know wtf he's talking about. But he's a mod and deletes a lot of crap, so they don't question him when he deletes relevant info. Unless you have an ID that has vast amounts of credibility it's nearly impossible to get things to stick on Wikipedia. I don't have time for that.[4]

I think the more people make this experience the more will turn away from WP. And it propagates to others. We have a pessimistic view of new authors and mainly focus on fighting against vandalism. By this, we also turn away the clumsy ones that come in good faith, but fail to meet our basic editing standards. They just find their edits have been reverted the next time they have a look, maybe week later, never to return again as authors, maybe a rather knowledgable author sees he's been reverted by amateurs. We lack a concept of dealing with those.--Aschmidt (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Been there! One of my very first edits was harshly criticized - "Wikipedia isn't the place for your pet theories" - by a person it turns out is a Very Important Person here. Not sure why I stuck with it. Except that my "pet theory" was and is scientific fact, and I guess it's my "I'll show 'em" attitude.
Some people here are welcoming and kind, others are arrogant. --Hordaland (talk) 00:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Whenever I revert someone, I make an effort to go their talk page and leave a suitable message, often a level 1 warning customized to the particular issue. Here are a couple: [5] & [6]. (The former message refers to a reversion made by another editor.) I typically remove the bit that says "If you think I made a mistake...". Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I downloaded the comments and created the following wordcloud. Personally, I thought the discussion they had about using Wikipedia as a resource was insightful. I was surprised that most authors knew how leverage the articles and the references. The specific thread can be found here — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian Furst (talkcontribs) 15:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Moved & enlarged wordcloud. --Hordaland (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I usually just leave a comment in the edit summary. Especially when I am travelling as opening up new pages is slow. We cannot allow the including of everything as a way to keep from turning people off. Yes you need to use high quality references for medical content you add to Wikipedia. I didn't when I first began and was rightfully reverted and corrected. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed the apparent contradiction between some of the comments?

My stupid edits have been there for years. In fact, my edit suggesting that a large bottle of wine holding he equivalent of 9 regular bottles is called a "Mordechai" has been in Wikipedia so long (2008) it has been referenced and cross-referenced to the point that it looks completely legit. Trust me, it's not.

— TheBoldManLaughsOnce, Source
Compare that to the Agent Orange comment right above it (which is quoted a bit earlier in our discussion here). I guess it really depends on the page which happens. I know whenever I go looking for vandalism if I see a user vandalize one page I (generally) check all of their edits ever to ensure that they didn't slip something in somewhere. Overall I tend to tell people they can trust Wikipedia, but for anything where they need to be sure, it never hurts to actually check the sources. Zell Faze (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
While the policing of sources may turn off some editors, the credability of them seems to be the major topic of discussion among the general public. The former can be corrected with better procedures for new editors. Imo, anything that diminishes credability is bad. It amazed me that Wikipedia's sources was the major topic of discussion and the most common word used. Ian Furst (talk) 02:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The main interest seemed to me to be in citing WP itself, or not. On that, at a rather higher level, see "References that anyone can edit: review of Wikipedia citations in peer reviewed health science literature" in the British Medical Journal last month, plus related editorial by our own Blue/Lane Rasberry "Citing Wikipedia", and in the editor's letter "Unethical, a guilty secret, and still crazy after all these years" (we're the "guilty secret"), also an online comment on the paper by me. I don't this these have been mentioned here before - apologies if they have. And now Lane's got another piece there. Johnbod (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This month's oddity

For this month's "Honorary User:Lesion strangest edit on a medical/anatomy article" award, I present the above reference to Wikibooks cookbooks. Found on Placenta. Yes, recipes relate to human placenta.

Removed per WP:FRINGE, ie. do not provide excessive attention to fringe activities and beliefs. --LT910001 (talk) 10:12, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

For oddness, there is other stuff too - fortunately not (yet) covered in the wikiverse it seems. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Cats eat the placenta after birth, presumably to get back the protein. According to human placentophagy, the placenta must be eaten raw for any nutritional benefit. Lesion 10:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I understand several animals eat the placenta as a source of iron (to help replace blood lost in the delivery). Placenta or stout? I think I'd rather stay anaemic, sober and vegetarian. :-) Myrtle G. Myrtlegroggins (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Most of us no longer live in caves. Those who do can't read the Wiki article, so it's fringe info that serves no benefit. Animals will continue to do what they do for whatever reason they do it. Atsme talk 12:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps we should move that to human placentophagy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes mothers eat placenta. It is an alt med practice that is supposed to help with depression. Agree this link is best on the human placentophagy page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I put the link on that article. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This section... o.O Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 15:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Seppi333, sadly there seems to be a need for such a section. E.g. today I read on wikipedia that apparently exorcisms cause drooling [7]. *Sigh* Lesion 20:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Is a massive heart attack the same as heart failure?

What did Jim Flaherty die of? XOttawahitech (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

To answer the question of this section, no, a massive heart attack is not synonymous with heart failure though heart failure could easily be a consequence of a massive heart attack if myocardial infarction is being referred to rather than sudden cardiac death. Regarding what killed Jim Falherty...I have no idea. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The newspaper reference used in the article states: "A source said he died of a heart attack." Tyler is correct. Heart attack is not the same as heart failure. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Is Heartbleed a medical condition?

I'm being told it is, but I'm unconvinced - Talk:Heartbleed#Proposed_move_to_.22Heartbleed_bug.22 - hahnchen 18:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not in the conventional sense. Left ventricular rupture would cause a heart bleed. It is universally fatal. JFW | T@lk 22:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
What JFW said. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Would left ventricular rupture or any rupture of one of the chambers warrant a subtopic of myocardial ruptures? I think we should, at the very least, compile some reliable documentation of such incidences in our articles so interested readers would know what we are talking about; they might just copy and paste that into the search bar. TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 06:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd been wondering if perhaps "heartbleed" was a literal translation of a medical (or popular medicine) term from some other language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Does everyone agree with adding these terms to the Heartbleed (disambiguation) page? And subsequently, my removal of MI from that list? I just don't see a doctor ever describing any of these issues as a "heart bleed", and google searches for each of these terms in conjunction with "heartbleed" seem to reflect that. Cannolis (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree they should not be on that DAB. Heartbleed is not a synonym for such conditions as far as I am aware. Those adding them should have to provide a source as evidence imo. Lesion 16:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't think any of the medical terms should be included at Heartbleed (disambiguation). I noted at the move request, where it is described as a "common term", that nothing came up on Google Books or Google Scholar. It looks like the nominator decided to double down on being wrong instead of just being wrong. While a term such as brain bleed is used to refer to a cerebral hemorrhage, and there are plenty of sources to back it up, I'm seeing nothing for Heartbleed. - hahnchen 17:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Hahnchen: A combative approach is not really helpful here, and I honestly think you should have consulted the community first before moving the page. --TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 18:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
@Lesion: I did that on the advice of Xeno and I don't think, based on Wikipedia:Citing sources#When and why to cite sources, that such a page needs a ==References== section. --TeleComNasSprVen (talkcontribs) 18:52, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps not necessarily citing it, but providing a reason on the disamb talk page or here would be a good idea. I understand somewhat similar terms such as "brain bleed" and "GI bleed" are frequently used for other medical conditions, but their use for such is easily verifiable, whereas the use for "heartbleed" is not. Cannolis (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Shivanath and Shivram Sahu

I propose an article about Shivanath and Shivram Sahu, similar to the one about Abigail and Brittany Hensel.

Wavelength (talk) 15:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wavelength I see a flurry of recent news, perhaps all derived from a single source, and nothing else. I am not sure these two meet notability criteria. If you see multiple sources then ping me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Blue Rasberry, thank you for your reply. I have searched on the WWW, and I have found that most reports about the twins are disappointingly similar in wording. This one is very similar to the one that I first mentioned.
This one has an embedded YouTube video (3:00) that I was able to play.
This one has an embedded You Tube video (measured as having a duration of 3:01), which appears to be at least partly the same video as the one in the previous linked page.
Wavelength (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
That video was in the first link provided also. I think all of these are just derivatives of a single report with no additional journalism. These all seem like one source to me. I read Indian news - if I ever see them again I will let you know. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Is BioMed Central an acceptable MEDRS? Is their "Open Access Charter" compatible with our CC BY-SA 3.0 Licence? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Dodger67 Their content is not compatible with either of Wikipedia's licensing schemes, so it cannot be hosted in Wikimedia projects.
BioMed Central is a respectable publisher. There is not a way to give a blanket evaluation of BioMed Central as a reliable source as they have a huge range of publications of varying quality. With regard to medicine, it is most important to find secondary sources which are typically mixed the rest of the articles of any publication. If you have questions about a particular source then bring it here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Feedback requested for students

Hello, I presented in person to the class described at Education Program:Harvard University/Obgyn bootcamp (April 2014). The students participated experimentally while I was in the class with them. As with all classes, students appreciate feedback. Could I ask please that anyone review the work of these guys? As you can see with the education program interface, students are in a list at the bottom along with the articles they edited. Comments on their talk pages are especially helpful, even if only for acknowledgement of them as new users.

There is another class with more active editors at Education Program:University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)/Expanding WikiProject Medicine (April 2014). These guys also would appreciate review! Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So, in a nutshell, do something like this? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 01:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Seppi333 Yes, exactly that. Posting notices on their talk page is extremely encouraging. I am also seeing that one student from a previous UCSF class is still around a year later supporting new students coming into the class. I would like more people participating here in this WikiProject and med school outreach seems hopeful if the students have a positive experience. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enhanced Primary Care Case Management Program (EPCCM)

Dear medical experts: Is this a notable topic, and should the Afc submission be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Anne Delong Thanks for bringing this here. I cleaned it up and and moved it to mainspace. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, great! One more off my list. —Anne Delong (talk) 13:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oxford UP - free access for a week in North America

to celebrate National Libraries Week - see here - Medical stuff near the bottom of the page. 13-19 April. -Johnbod (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Though the site says the offer is only available to USA and Canada, I've logged in from Australia using that password. Maybe it's accessible from Europe/UK too? (Thanks for the tip off, John). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hurrah for Australia! I'm in Norway and I can't get in. :( (Still, maybe EU countries can?) --Hordaland (talk) 14:40, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Geolocation systems are not entirely reliable. People who work for multinational companies, for example, may be considered in the corporate headquarters' country because that's where the corporate network ends up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've just tried it out from Germany, and I've been asked for a login with an e-mail address, not for the libraryweek login. So it does not seem to work for me. :(--Aschmidt (talk) 15:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It didn't seem to work from the UK just now. Johnbod (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh well. :) We are, to all intents, the 51st state so that's fair, I guess. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Humph. They just bumped me off. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


Do any users have access to Turnitin, and would they be able to use it to check this article: HIV/AIDS in Malawi? I am doing a GA and I have found some instances of paraphrasing that is quite close to the original text, and would like to do a full check before I continue the review. --LT910001 (talk) 01:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried running it through as a .doc or a .txt, but in both cases I got "OriginalityCheck isn't available for this submission because Turnitin could not extract enough text to generate an Originality Report." If anyone knows what that means or how to overcome it, perhaps I can be more help. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 09:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
How did you make the .doc or .txt files? Did you try copying and pasting, and then manually removing any stray wikitext remnants (like "[1]")? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Originally I just copied and pasted straight from the article (not the edit window), but after your suggestion I tried stripping all the [#]s from the .txt and resubmitting. Same error Face-sad.svg. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 06:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks for trying. I still haven't been able to get access myself. I'll have a think about what to do over this week and then update the review accordingly. --LT910001 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Rakeshyashroy

This user may need some guidance as they are using a lot of primary sources they are an author on themselves. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I and another user are talking to this person as I noted on the userpage. That is probably enough of an initial response but others may join if they like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Copy and paste issue

User:Truebreath has copied and pasted some content. Have not had time to review more of the edits. If anyone else could would appreciate it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Experienced eyes needed

Please have a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Thecharisp. The website promoting the device is hosting some studies (including one from Springer) which seem to use the device in question. --NeilN talk to me 15:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Random MM backpage

I was kind of dumbfounded when I ran into this until I checked the edit history - Wikipedia:MED/med250 - what kind(s) of messages is this system intended to relay? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 05:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It's a list for a one-time message to people who have edited a lot of medicine-related articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
These are all the editors who have made more than 250 edits to medical articles in 2013. Better formatting can be seen here [8] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

"Nomination" of steroidogenesis article in Wikiversity to be used as reference

A discussion at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard came to the result that it seems appropriate to have a discussion in Wikipedia before any usage of a Wikiversity page as reference in Wikipedia. I have suggested that such a "nomination" can be done at Wikipedia Talk:Wikiversity and leaving a note at the aforementioned noticeboard, as well as at any closely related Wikiproject. Therefore, I'm now leaving a note of the following "nomination":

I hope you can make a visit and leave a comment there. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

(I made a strike now, since it seems this is the proper location for this discussion) Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Discussions regarding the reliability of sources, when not conducted on the relevant article talk page, should be conducted on the reliable sources noticeboard. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
That's not strictly true. WP:Identifying reliable sources #Medical claims shows WP:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) as the {{main}} page for that specific context. And MEDRS is quite clear:
In practice, you're more likely to get an informed opinion on the reliability of a given source to support a medical claim by asking here. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I've made a separate section for this discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:Wikiversity#Location_for_"nominations". Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Hum. Is this not covered in a medical textbook? I have concerns with people frequently adding references to Wikipedia of which they themselves are an author. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is substantially based on what was written in Medical Physiology: A Cellular And Molecular Approach, but it also entails additional details and considerations as described in Wikiversity:Diagram_of_the_pathways_of_human_steroidogenesis#Method and as taken from several other references as listed at its reference list. Thus, using only the Medical Physiology textbook as a reference would not be enough. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
And yes, there is obviously a potential conflict of interest in that I am citing myself, but I think the transparency of the peer review process makes it possible in certain cases like this. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
'Transparency' would start with you making clear your personal involvement when discussing source material written by you. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so I want to contribute to actually building the world of knowledge in addition to "merely" summarizing existing scientific works made by others. I believe Wikiversity can be the platform for such work, and since there was no established system for it, I created it, as well as authored the articles. I'd say that's my personal involvement in summary. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I hove no objection whatsoever to you 'building the world of knowledge'. You appear to be well qualified to do so. That doesn't however alter the fact that Wikipedia has specific policies concerning sourcing, which currently rule out using Wikiversity material as sources for article content. If you wish the policy to be changed, make a proposal in the appropriate place. We can then collectively decide how to proceed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree there is any established policy saying that Wikiversity material can never be used as references in Wikipedia. So far, all discussions I've seen have come to the conclusion that Wikiversity is not a reliable source, and the only Wikipedia namespace mentioning it is the very scarcely edited Wikipedia:Wikiversity, saying that such usage is "generally not advisable", but that still leaves the possibility to such usage on a case-by-case basis. In comparison, having no reference at all does not constitute a reliable source either, yet it frequently occurs in Wikipedia. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Unless I am missing something, this is not peer review. Peer review involves someone else besides the author reviewing the work. Who else reviewed this work? Featured articles undergo a much more rigorous review process and despite this rigorous review, featured articles cannot be cited as a reliable sources. The reference list contains reliable sources. These should be directly cited. The Wikiversity source is an unnecessary intermediary step. Boghog (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps I should make the link more clear - it's at the upper right corner of the article in Wikiversity. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I already followed this link. "Other participants in diagram creation" are coauthors, not reviewers. Boghog (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It's in the box at upper right, in this case saying "Peer review statement is located at [9]". Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
It is also not entirely clear that is has several pages, by subsequently clicking "next page" at right. I know it should be made more clear. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I also followed those links. The history of the peer review indicates that you uploaded this file. There is no evidence that someone else wrote this review. The provenance of this review is completely missing. Boghog (talk) 19:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
If you're in doubt about the provenance of the peer review statement, you can request Wikiversity:Peer review verification. By doing so, a member of the Volunteer Response Team will contact the peer reviewing entity directly to assert that this was the origin of the statement. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Below you are claiming the system is transparent. In a transparent review system, it should be immediately obvious that someone other than the creator of the document wrote the review without having to request verification. The current Wikiversity review system is fatally flawed. The reviews can be anonymous, but someone other than the creator of the document (e.g., an administrator) must be responsible for uploading the review. Otherwise the review is completely meaningless. Boghog (talk) 06:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, this would decrease the need of verification. For future external peer reviews, I'll ask to have them sent directly to an administrator to have them uploaded. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

To return to the subject, it seems we have four main choices: 1: Accepting the Wikiversity article as a reference in this case. 2: Continue having the diagrams unreferenced. 3: Using the reference list in the Wikiversity article directly for each entry in Wikipedia. 4: Deleting the diagram altogether from the articles where it is used.
I think the 3rd alternative causes a terrible loss of information regarding what part of the diagram is referred to by each individual reference. For anyone who doubts the validity of the diagram, it would require a lot of hard work to trace each diagram component back to each reference. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It's getting rather late in my timezone, so I'll be back tomorrow to answer any further questions. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
(1) is contrary to existing Wikipedia policy. (2) Would be open to challenge and removal as lacking a reference. (3) Would amount to declaring that the diagram was original research - a synthesis of material from different sources. That leaves us with option (4). Unless of course you wish to propose that Wikipedia changes its policy. Which rather begs the question. Why exactly aren't you proposing that Wikipedia changes its policy regarding the use of Wikiversity as a source? You are clearly in favour of it, but seem reluctant to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:30, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I think this controversy would be over if/when the journal is MEDLINE indexed. Should be treated like any other source form a journal then. Lesion 19:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
In practice, just about every image on Commons released as CC-BY-SA or PD-Self is original research as they completely lack any reliable source to verify what they portray. It is quite normal for editors to create images to illustrate specific points in articles - for example, every {{chembox}} contains user-generated images - you'll find that WP:OI exempts many images from the OR restriction. --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
I think some of this has been discussed elsewhere, but as a "reviewer" for a professional journal I see a lot of roadblocks for effective peer review based on Wikipedia's culture. 1) We are all equal here but professional peer review defines "peers" (as least from a scientific point-of-view). Who/what process arbitrates the definition of "peer" for effective reviews? Do we really want to create classes of editors who can/cannot participate in reviews? On the flip side, do we want peer review that is little more than a discussion of copyedit points? 2) There is no clear cut policy on the declaration of conflict of interests (something that is crystal clear in most journals) 3) many journals use a double-blind process so that a disproportionate amount of respect or disrespect doesn't cloud the review (see here for a counter arguement for open-peer review) 4) Reviewers generally don't need/want to build consensus so that the most effective (?comprehensive) review is completed. Many of the tenants of peer review seem to fly in direct contradiction to Wikipedia's most sacred values. While I applaud the idea of putting something foward, I worry that giving a "peer review" stamp of approval without an agreed procedure for review could be misleading to the legitimacy of the work. {{subst:unsigned| Ian Furst|20:22, 6 April 2014‎]
I've made a separate entry about the policy itself about entries like this at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Policy_on_using_a_Wikiversity_article_as_a_reference. Regarding definitions of peer, there are specific criteria at the Wikiversity:Peer review, including conflicts of interest. Even with a policy that can allow articles in Wikiversity Journal of Medicine to be used as references in Wikipedia in certain cases, each article will practically have to go to two reviews; one in Wikiversity:Peer review and another one at this talk page. In contrast, the anonymity and lack of transparency of many "peer reviewed" journals out there makes me more worried about references to articles that are not created on a wiki. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

We paraphrase text. We can paraphrase images. Thus you simply provide the sources that support the diagram you have created. Yes all pictures are OR. This is allowed on Wikipedia. We must be careful not to confuse the rules around text with the rules around images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not really accurate to say that "all pictures are OR". It doesn't take any "original research" to take a picture of an apple and say that it looks like an apple. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
At least I'm glad we can keep the image itself. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Pardon me, Mikael, but if you want to publish an article on any scientific subject please feel free to do so with any peer-review journal that would accept it. Wikiversity has been set up as wiki webspace for conducting research and other educational projects. It is, however, not a publishing platform. Everyone there is just as anonymous as on Wikipedia, so there cannot be a review process as you do not know who's reviewing whom and on what basis. There is no editorial board that would ensure editorial standards. It will not do to produce your own sources for quoting on Wikipedia. We've just had a "test" of German Wikipedia on such matters when a journalist made a local newspaper publish a report that was then used as a "reliable source" in an article. This is no good. I think we can cut it short here.--Aschmidt (talk) 11:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

There are many differences between Wikiversity Journal of Medicine and a local newspaper, and the peer reviewing entity is not anonymous. The purpose in this case was to create additional quality assurance of content already existing in Wikipedia, since conventional journals do not accept submission of content that has already been published in Wikipedia. If I had known that the sum of my edits would eventually lead up to something that can potentially constitute a scientific article, and the inability of Wikiversity to being compared to a conventional journal, I would definitely have turned to such a journal directly. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Support what is happening here Mikael is framing this as a "cite Wikiversity" issue, but I think no general case can be made for that and have no comment about citing Wikiversity. What is happening in this specific case is that someone made a technical diagram, just as has been done in hundreds of other articles, and for the first time there is extensive documentation of the derivation of the diagram. If that diagram had just been posted it would have been accepted without process and appreciated. In 2009 Mikael did the same thing with File:Blood_values_sorted_by_mass_and_molar_concentration.png, which is sort of referenced and sort of a novel presentation of something extremely complicated. That image has been accepted for 5 years with no great review even when it was granted featured image status on :en, and such things should have linked review if a review is available. It seems like dozens of sources were synthesized to make that diagram.
I am not suggesting that diagrams without review ought to be removed but an illustration is not harmed when its review is documented. Despite the claim that the image has passed a "Wikiversity peer review" I think the Wikipedia community should scrutinize the image just as it would any other information submitted to Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons.
I myself have no comment on this particular image other than it seems to pass "AGF" and if it is making original claims or includes original research or synthesis, I do not immediately see it.
Wikiversity is not a reliable source at all, but I am not seeing original publication here. For this diagram I am seeing transparency in how information from reliable sources is being presented on Wikipedia, and I do not feel harmed by that. The review on Wikiversity in this case seems to me to be the equivalent of having a discussion on a talk page. I see this diagram as being analogous to the many maps on Wikipedia which have no citations, such as File:Non-Native-American-Nations-Territorial-Claims-over-NAFTA-countries-1750-2008.gif. That map's quality seems good enough but without documented review I simply can say nothing about its accuracy. All images are better if there are creation notes with them. If someone wishes to make the argument that during the creation of this image OR or SYNTH has been violated then that would be a different argument, but on its face I think this image is within the community's historical tolerance range for remixing of data. I really cannot say; I feel like I would need to study this for two hours at least to check it, and I am not going to commit that amount of time to this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the things I've noticed with this particular image is it's evolution since 2007. It's had slow steady improvment, much of it from Mikael. If it was stamped as Wikiversity peer-reviewed, I wonder if it would have the perverse effect of discouraging future editors from evolving it for fear of taking something that is "peer-reviewed" back to a non-peer reviewed state. I agree with adding references to the actual image (in Wikicommons). Mikael, I mean no disrespect to the immense amount of work that must have gone into this images' creation, I don't think image creation, by itself, constitutes a scholarly review of the subject or an experimental design. Ian Furst (talk) 02:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of a "Wikipedia Journal" that publishes both reviews and primary sources. Before we should consider using it as a source however I think it should be pubmed indexed at least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Why would a PubMed-adoption of the journal have anything to say about the appropriateness for WJoM articles as references? What matters is that an author and one or more peer-reviewer(s) vouch for the content. To me the peer-review process on WJoM is not transparent. Or maybe I have not understood it. The teaspoon study is better. I can see names signing a PDF files. Why not do the signing on the wiki instead: The peer-reviewer logs in on the wiki and ok's a specific oldid once s/he is satisfied? — fnielsen (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Peer review is rarely transparent. Pubmed indexing is a weak sign of quality. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Platelet ...

...more watchers needed please. A well intentioned new editor is working on the article. No citations are being added at the moment. Graham Colm (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

ICD-11 copied from Wikipedia in some places?

  • ICD-11 draft does in this instance appear directly copypasted from the Leukoplakia wikipedia article, minus our inline citations. They also copypaste from the lead for their main entry on Leukoplakia. Lesion 08:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
That is interesting. If they are using Wikipedia text then they ought to give attribution. Some WikiProject Medicine members asked for input into ICD-11 and they actually sent representatives to Wikimania in 2012 to discuss this. Perhaps we should send them an email and ask them if they use Wikipedia, and if they do, then perhaps we should re-engage them. I wish for collaboration with the WHO. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Another possibility that we shouldn't immediately discount is that the same person authored both bits of text. In that case, there's no copyright or plagiarism issue in play—certainly none that we should have a problem with. Contributors to Wikipedia retain copyright in their own edits, and are free to relicense and reuse their own work however they see fit.
Yet another possibility is that both our article and the ICD-11 draft have both copied (or plagiarised) some earlier, uncited third source—that, of course, would be problematic both for us and for ICD-11. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
TenOfAllTrades I checked WP:WikiBlame to see that Lesion is most responsible for this. Lesion edited existing text - it seems not possible that this particular version could have come from anywhere other than Wikipedia, right? Could others comment on the likelihood of the above text having been created anywhere other than here in the Leukoplakia article? Lesion, do you knowingly write WHO health specifications, or do you do this only unknowingly? I notice that you did not cite copying this from another source in your edit summary. Did you copy this from somewhere? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe that User:Biosthmors knows the most about ICD-11 stuff. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah I can confirm this paragraph in Wikipedia came from several sources, and did not plagiarize any of them. This particular block of text and wording is (was) original on Wikipedia ... since maybe last Summer. It was not me who added the text to the ICD-11 draft, and whoever did has simply highlighted the text and deleted the inline citations.
I don't have a huge problem with this for this particular article because I am confident it is well sourced and mainstream (because I worked on it a lot). I worry that the ICD-11 might be copypasting from WP articles which are not well sourced though ... because it is the ICD. If they copy some error from us the whole world would have to follow it 718smiley.svg. Lesion 16:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
(ec) No need for the snark, Blueraspberry. There was nothing in the post above to identify who the contributor to the Wikipedia article was. And I've seen a number of instances of both types of duplication – a single author posting their own writing both on Wikipedia and elsewhere; and independent plagiarism of third sources by Wikipedia and non-Wikipedia writers – in the past, where Wikipedia editors have been too quick to jump to the someone's-copying-Wikipedia! conclusion.
My comments apply to the general case, rather than being aimed solely at this specific situation. Our default response in these situations should be to say "We need to figure out what's going on here" and not "Someone copied Wikipedia". TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry - it was a bad joke. Sorry Lesion. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I looked at the history a couple of hours ago (sorry, I didn't save diffs - 30 April 2013 rings a bell) and it's very clearly Lesion's formulation - you can watch the evolution of the expression from the pre-existing text through various versions to the current article's language. I share your concerns about the ICD using Wikipedia as a source, Lesion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is there anyone here who thinks that the content in the ICD-11 draft could possibly have come from anywhere other than a copypaste from Wikipedia? There is no reasonable explanation for this except that the content originated here and is replicated in the ICD-11, right? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm very confident our text is Lesion's original. (It's very late here so I'll do it tomorrow but) I'll take another look. Scroll through Lesion's edits to that article on, I think, 30 April, and see what you think. We definitely do need more eyes on this and opinions because if it is what it seems, it's important. Very, IMO. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 17:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There is also the additional issue that whoever contributed this to the relevant ICD working group/committee may have contributed summaries from other non-Wikipedia sources. If there is some confidence on our part, the ICD or relevant organisation ought to be notified so that they can review the work of that committee, if necessary. --LT910001 (talk) 21:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I've got at least 3 major Oral Path textbooks at the office (Neville several editions, Marx and some atlases) - I'll pull the relavent text for comparison tomorrow. Lesion, LT910001, is it just the non-homogenous oral leukoplakia text? Ian Furst (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I just happened upon the leukoplakia, so not too sure. Doing some google searches of the ICD definitions below this one shows the definition for Lichen planus: [10] is also contained in this research paper "Lichen planus and lichenoid reactions of the oral mucosa", although I don't have access to full text. --LT910001 (talk) 00:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll see if I can get at it tomorrow. I couldn't find my current edition of Neville, should have a ?2nd edition though - not sure if one of the other docs has it. I've found Marx and regezi, someone should check Carlson. More tomorrow. Ian Furst (talk) 02:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
On the bigger picture, I'm not worried about the ICD copying "some error" from us. Those items are reviewed by teams of experts, and (I believe) with extensive comment opportunities. If they sign off on it, then there probably aren't any actual errors in it. They might miss an issue of balance (over- or under-emphasizing something), but factual errors are really unlikely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

From Neville & Damm (1st addition, I can't find my 2nd). They don't use the term non-homogenous (they consider thick leukoplakia homogenous). They call it granular or nodular, "The latter develop surface irregularities and are then called granular or nodular leukoplakia." will add 2 other textbook quotes for comparison. Ian Furst (talk) 13:14, 16 April 2014 (UTC) Both Marx&Stern and Regezi & Sciubba make have no description of non-homogenous leukoplakia. Ian Furst (talk) 17:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ian, sorry it took a while to get back to you. Speckled leukoplakia (erytholeukoplakia) is also non-homogenous, although agree Neville appears to only use homogenous, and gives no justification for not using the term non-homogenous, which is atypical for the normally meticulous attention to detail in that textbook. Usually, they are very careful to list all synonyms of conditions, and if they don't like a synonym for a condition, they say so and give clear rationale. I don't have access to the other 2 textbooks, but wouldn't mind borrowing them if you have them as pdf. Happy to share Neville 2nd edition (note there is a 3rd edition now I think). I can assure you that other major textbooks (e.g. Burket's oral medicine, a reputable and trustworthy source) and Cochrane do use the term "non-homogenous". Lesion 17:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes we are sort of working with WHO. I gave a talk there 2 years ago. Bio was a WiR there for 6 months. The ICD is expanding their scope for the 11th edition. And yes they were planning on using some material from Wikipedia as a starting point. They do need to attribute us though and release the content under our license. I am hoping that this will happen. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
That's wonderful. I guess this would be documented somewhere on metawiki? --LT910001 (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the lack of attribution is one thing. The lack of transparency about how these were derived at is probably contributing. If content is direct lifted, who knows if other material is also lifted from other sources? Additionally I would be a little concerned if definitions were word for word what was present on sources, without any alteration. --LT910001 (talk) 10:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I will email them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Lesion, I'll scan Marx and Stern's page on it. The use leukoplakia, stippled and erythro-leukoplakia. I've got a buddy that's full time oral path at a University, I could get him involved too if this is going to morph into a discussion on the classification of leukoplakia (we can move it to the talk page). Anyway, will scan and send. Ian Furst (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
That's helpful of you. We don't currently mention the term "stippled" in the wiki article so it would be good to read that source. Thanks, Lesion 21:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia: what it is and why it matters for healthcare" in BMJ

Hello. BMJ published an article which I wrote.

  • Rasberry, L. (8 April 2014). "Wikipedia: what it is and why it matters for healthcare". BMJ. 348 (apr08 3): g2478–g2478. doi:10.1136/bmj.g2478. 

BMJ has excellent reach to persons interested in health who would not otherwise read about Wikipedia, and I hope that what I said is useful to them and people here. The article is behind a paywall. I can give a copy to any colleagues who email me requesting a copy. Thanks Johnbod for informing me on this board that this was published.

Here is a summary of the article:

  • The Choosing Wisely health campaign supports Wikipedia. This is my project at Consumer Reports.
  • The Cochrane Collaboration supports Wikipedia
  • Wikipedia has a system of quality control, including WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS
  • WikiProject Medicine is the place to go for an introduction to contributing

I continue to state that both Wikipedia's quality and popularity should be considered by anyone who cares about public access to health information. I wish that it would be possible for people with good health information to share it through Wikipedia according to community guidelines. Thanks for your attention. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Great job =) Lesion 09:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
BMJ is an awesome publication and people should support journalism. I have a pre-preprint version of my paper which is not as good as the final BMJ version but could be borrowed by my colleagues. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I have just read the draft paper. It is a nice paper. Thank you, Lane. (My only minor concern is that verifiability is a policy, not a guideline.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Male rape article

The Male rape (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article was recently created by Okkisafire; it was previously a redirect to the Rape by gender article, and is in need of attention from WP:MED editors because, like I noted here at the Rape by gender talk page, I'm certain that some of the medical sources (including the mental health sources) used for it are not WP:MEDRS-compliant or what WP:MEDRS considers satisfactory. Flyer22 (talk) 19:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Ow, sorry for that. I think i must pending this article after we get the resolution. Okkisafire (talk) 08:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Plus, sorry, english is not my mother language. i think i just lost the neutrality of the article. I though i would fix it today, but it seem that i have to pending it, at least after the next issue. Okkisafire (talk) 09:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


User:Pharmaraj is adding refs to this journal [11]. Not sure if it is reliable but does not appear to be pubmed indexed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks less like a journal than a blog. Oh yeah, and the ISSN given on the website doesn't exist. Not a good sign. Jinkinson talk to me 14:19, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

ISSN 2347 - 7881 is exist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmaraj (talkcontribs) 19:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Pharmaraj: If so, then I must have formatted the URL wrong. Do you know how I would access the WorldCat listing? Jinkinson talk to me 19:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jinkinson: that i dont know but you may check issn listing on Indian Issn website on:

There one link is available, where you may see ISSN listing: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharmaraj (talkcontribs) 19:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It however is not pubmed indexed which raises concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jmh649:Dear Doc James, you are right that it is not indexed in pubmed. But Pubmed indexing is possible only after 12 months of accessibility (minimum after total 12 issues release). And PharmaTutor has completed total 6 issues at this stage. But PharmaTutor is indexed in Google Scholar & CAS.
It's a content managed site using Drupal, a bit messy with its metatags, which is often a sign of an amateur publication. I'm not encouraged by the popup adverts that it tries to serve either. The February 2014 issue claims to be "Volume 2, Issue 2", which begs the question of why there are only 6 issues completed - I assume then that there just 4 issues to a volume? In that case, it will be another 18 months before 12 issues are complete. Perhaps by that time, it will have earned "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" that we require from our reliable sources - and we can revisit the question of whether it's usable as a source then. In the meantime, I wouldn't be happy seeing it used a source for medical articles. --RexxS (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Dear RexxS - Meta-tags are served as per google scholar need. And 1st issue was published in Nov 13 which was (Vol1, Issue1)..likewise 2nd in Dec 13 which was (Vol1, Issue 2).. And afterwards for 2014.. Jan 14 (Vol.2 Issue.1), for feb 14 (Vol.2 Issue.2), for Mar 14 (Vol.2 Issue.3), for Apr 14 (Vol.2 Issue.4), and very soon on 1st may it will release (Vol.2 Issue.5).. So each Volume will have 12 issues. Reputed & Higher level professionals from India are in PharmaTutor's advisory panel. You may check it on: (talk)
No. Google scholar doesn't need you to duplicate the Content-Type metatag. It's only a small point, but indicative of a lack of attention to detail that warns us about the quality control on the site. We're not looking for an advisory board, but a policy of editorial oversight and peer-review. We need confidence in the quality of the articles published, not the quality of the advice that you're getting. --RexxS (talk) 14:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


If someone has a while today, would you please look over Endoscopic thoracic sympathectomy? You'll need to start with the May 2013 edit, which introduces a small grammar error. This article isn't very high volume, but it has a history of extreme POV pushing, and I've unfortunately not noticed any of the changes since last summer. (I've got to do something about my watchlist...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are surgical procedure articles usually a POV mess... Either surgeons promoting something, like we had with that Otto Placik, or advocates against the procedure try to take it over for their own purposes, like we had on LASIK. Lesion 18:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Asserting "facts"

I've been in some edit skirmishes recently and just want to double check what the consensus is on how WP:ASF applies to biomedical claims. Put simply should we, in general, write:

  1. A systematic review of 2009 found no evidence that eating strawberries prevented the onset of ingrown toenail[ref] or
  2. As of 2009 no good evidence had been found that eating strawberries prevented the onset of ingrown toenail[ref] or
  3. There is no good evidence that eating strawberries prevents the onset of ingrown toenail[ref] ?

And would the wording be affecting by the knowledge that there was ongoing research into the topic? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 10:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Good question. The examples at Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Citing_medical_sources and WP:MEDPRI suggest #3, in the context more of what sources to use, than how to describe them or their conclusions. A longer list of worked examples of recommended style would be very useful, but I'm not aware of one. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Agree, given a good-quality, up-to-date, strong WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary source, just state the result. Where strong sources are available, don't clutter up the article with distracting references to the kinds of sources, our readers generally don't care/can't tell the difference between a systematic review or a meta-analysis, etc., and shouldn't have to. The interested reader can click through to the sources themselves to find out more about them. Zad68 14:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Zad68, at least most of the time. For instance, our article on autism doesn't say that a literature review found that there is no evidence to support a link between it and vaccines. Instead, it says, "these theories lack convincing scientific evidence and are biologically implausible." (sourced to [12]). However if you want to "soften it up" with regard to the way you convey the conclusions of a MEDRS compliant source you could just say "A systematic review found/concluded/whatever..." Jinkinson talk to me 14:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jinkinson Indeed, in the WP:FRINGE space I can remember on past occasions editors pressing for "softened" formulations such as:
  • A study of 2009 found that because of the heterogeneous nature of the underlying research, there was not yet enough evidence to recommend for or against the use of strawberry eating as a ingrown toenail prevention modality, and that "more research is needed".[ref]
This is one that comes down to editorial judgement, and depends heavily on context. (No matter how convenient it would be, there is not – and will never be – a magical mechanical algorithm for deciding 'reliability' and the appropriate 'strength' with which we represent results.) Speaking generally, we should avoid watering down or equivocating on the conclusions of high-quality sources. Format #3 is likely to be the best option when dealing with high-quality secondary sources, where no commparably reliable, robust, or recent countervailing sources exist. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Unless there is an equally reliable source that supports the notion that eating strawberries prevents ingrown toenails, there is only one formulation that meets our guidelines:

  • Eating strawberries does not prevent the onset of ingrown toenail.[ref]

The relevant guidelines/policies are at Wikipedia:Citing sources #In-text attribution, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view #Attributing and specifying biased statements and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ #Assert facts, not opinions. All POV-pushers love to dilute unequivocal findings that they dislike by attributing them as if they were mere opinions: "A 2013 Cochrane review found no evidence that X does Y" should be recast as "X does not do Y". It's easy enough to qualify or attribute later if equally good contradictory evidence ever turns up. In the meantime, let's not give the wrong impression to our readers. --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The opposite is true to, we had a discussion (finally settled by Hidabast from NIH) where a Cochrane study found "insufficient evidence to support or refute.." something. When you read the study, the inclusion criteria excluded all but one small study. In this case, the Cochrane review could make no analysis but it was often misquoted as being evidence that there is no evidence of benefit to the therapy. I agree the summary should be based on the study. If you have a Cochrane or meta-analysis with adequate data and conclusions, I believe #3 would apply, otherwise #1. Ian Furst (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of the time we should just state the facts. Only if there is significant disagreement or the text does not support stating it as fact should we not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for your responses, which have been very helpful. Some material here for that MEDRS FAQ, maybe ... ? Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 11:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Primary source published as a ppt in the e-cigs article

Discussion is here [13]. Wondering what others opinions are. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Those 2 just don't give up. Why no topic ban? Lesion 17:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Possibly because we're not the ones pushing a POV. There is not ONE study that even suggests e-cigs can lead to nicotine addiction or smoking, or may be harmful, but the article is still riddled with these "concerns" on the basis of a handful of press releases and one "secondary source" that turns out to he a blatantly slanted WHO FAQ with no primary sources behind it.--FergusM1970Let's play Freckles 18:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, WHO is wrong, you are correct. This is why you need topic ban. Lesion 19:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Notification of topic ban discussion on AN/I

Excellent idea. Has my support. A user who continually tries to argue for the removal of WHO as a reference source needs to not be editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:16, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Sharing health media

an English language poster for patients about antibiotics
the same poster translated to Spanish

Many health organizations which do educational outreach produce various types of media to reach different audiences. I feel that one thing health organizations should do to reach their audience is to appoint staff to manage health outreach through Wikipedia in accord with Wikipedia community policy and as peers to any other Wikipedia contributors.

Beyond Wikipedia, the Internet gives potential for distributing all kinds of health educational materials through many channels. A perennially popular channel is in paper printings of information through posters, brochures, or one-page summaries. One might expect that if some health organization or group wished to do health educational outreach then it would be easy for them to borrow a health publication from another group and then develop it for their local audience and redistribute it. However, you may also know that health organizations are very hesitant about allowing the media they produce and distribute to be shared in channels like Wikipedia where it could be adapted, remixed, and redistributed outside of their oversight. There is also perpetual concern about the possibility of commercial exploitation of any organization's messages which would be allowed with something like a Creative Commons license that does not forbid noncommercial use. For this reason, it is actually difficult to find health media online which has free licenses of the sort used in Wikimedia projects.

To see Wikimedia's existing collection of health posters see Commons:Category:Educational and health posters. There are currently 80 files here and low participation by any contemporary health organization. In the sexually transmitted subsection even there the messages are outdated. Outside of Wikimedia Commons the available resources are again restricted in that it is never easy to get them for remixing and redistribution purposes. I think this collection is meager and would like to see it grow on Wikimedia projects, beyond on the Internet, and to everywhere off the Internet where they are desired.

As a test to see what happens when an organization's health messages get free licenses, my employer Consumer Reports permitted me to upload one of their health posters in English and Spanish. I inserted this poster in these articles

I feel that these articles are improved by including relevant contemporary health media from Wikimedia Commons in them. So far as I know, no organization has done this before.

I would appreciate any thoughts from anyone else about the extent to which it is useful to put health media on Wikimedia Commons and use it to illustrate Wikipedia articles. If this seems useful then I would like to encourage all organizations to consider doing this while also having their staff continually ask the Wikipedia community what is useful for developing Wikipedia. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope that all my patients don't start asking me those questions. Clinics and ward rounds would become interminably long. Perhaps I should design a poster with generic replies to go alongside? Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would it take longer? Is your Spanish not very good? Yes design as you like. I and I think every organization is curious if anyone would actually remix posters if they are shared. Practically every organization with which I have talked does not want this and cites it as a reason for not sharing on Wikipedia, but I doubt that it will happen. Wikipedia hardly has regular contributors much less media remixers. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, an obtuse and sarcastic response to my cynical one. Very good. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
I was a bit skeptical of adding these and was going to suggest adding a link under ==External links==, but the ones I looked at actually improved the article as illustrations of relevant concepts, rather than merely providing the documents.
(Axl, I don't know how many patients you see in a day, or whether they have special needs, but for a basically normal middle-aged adult, I'm guessing that this list of questions would add two minutes to each antibiotic prescription: "Do I really need antibiotics?" "Yes." If you're dealing with, say, someone who has early dementia and hearing loss, any question could be difficult. But in that case, it might be even more important.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing There are hardly any guidelines about integrating non-plaintext text, like this PDF, into Wikipedia. The general rule is Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Avoid_entering_textual_information_as_images, and the most standard practice is to just put a link to a Commons category in the external links. In the past I have argued that primary documents giving results of court cases could be displayed in this way in Wikipedia articles about the case, and the feedback I go was that those should be in the external links. Thanks for the feedback in this case. I rarely see supplemental documents used as illustration anywhere else on Wikipedia, and I wonder if that is because this kind of media is not desired in the article space or only if it is because these are rarely available. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
It's worth looking at the reasons why we recommend certain practices. We don't use an image to display text because it's not searchable, is invisible to screen readers without alt text and takes far more bandwidth to download. Some PDFs are simply an image of a page of text, wrapped inside a pdf - which suffers from the same problems as a bare image. The PDF you uploaded is mainly text and is readable by a screen reader, but isn't searchable by the native browser methods when part of a page. It is also 375 KB in size - about ten times the size of the text in a large article, so we would have to be sure that the value it brings to a page outweighs the burden of downloading for folks who have low bandwidth. Obviously if its content is all we are referring to, then it simply needs to be a url in a citation. If we are making a point about the presentation of the poster, then being able to see it is important, and there's a case for embedding it in the page with the File: method. A compromise would be to include a link either to the original as an external link (saving hassle over licensing) or to Commons if we have it uploaded. This allows anyone interested to see the poster without forcing a big download on those that have problems with bandwidth. It's always going to be a judgement call on a case-by-case basis. --RexxS (talk) 21:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
RexxS I thought about this too. If there is an audience which wants documents like this - printable posters and brochures - then there are ways to better integrate this. I did not do this because I wanted initial feedback about whether this sort of media was even desirable.
If I took next steps and made an example of best practices, I would convert the PDF to a DJVU, which is the native format for Wikisource and machine readable there whereas PDF is not. This format automatically generates a plain-text version on Wikisource so people could remix it and there would be connected English and Spanish versions to start. Just being a DJVU file would make it smaller. Licensing for Wikipedia is a mega hassle as you say, but a bigger hassle is not having free information available online at all and having to make these things from nothing. I am not sure this belongs here but wanted to start the conversation as I had never seen text documents shared in this way. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Saint's Triad

Hello. I am a "sort-of" Wikipedia editor. I limit my contributions to minor corrections of spelling and grammar in articles I read. I have found the word " pathophysiosology" in the article on Saint's Triad. I believe that there is no such word and that it is a misspelling of "pathophysiology", but not being any kind of medical expert I do not want to change it myself. Could some medical professional please check it out and correct it if necessary? Veronicafitzrandolph (talk) 05:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was a misspelling of pathophysiology. Pathophysiosology is not a word and this error has been corrected on the Saint's Triad page now. Thanks for letting us know. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Please see User:Luckysunshinegurl505/sandbox

It's a draft about "effects of substance abuse" that clearly needs a lot more help than the generalist regular reviewers at AFC can give it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

We have Substance use disorder, Drug addiction, Combined drug intoxication and Substance abuse, some of which are tagged for merger. I doubt that the effects of substance abuse deserves a stand alone article in view of that, but will have a look. Ochiwar (talk) 06:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Non-Klinefelter XXY article is up for deletion

Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on the state of the Non-Klinefelter XXY article and with regard to weighing in on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-Klinefelter XXY. Flyer22 (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

New user Qnq

User Qnq started editing yesterday. I've undone his/her edits to Ramelteon and Melatonin and made note of that on his/her talk page. I don't know what to do with the rest:

(It would appear that Qnq knows more about working at Wikipedia than your usual newbie...) --Hordaland (talk) 16:36, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Hordaland I looked at all these things and they seem friendly enough. I will watch their userpage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Class of 60 students

Hey all. We have a class of 60 medical students editing a bunch of Wikipedia's medication articles. They need some guidance. Please email me and I will send you the list of articles if you want to help. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:26, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Are the Sexual dysfunction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Anorgasmia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) articles two of them? I've recently seen what are no doubt WP:Student editors editing those articles -- brand new editors with a red-linked username, a personal sandbox, and big or otherwise significant expansions that follow (or sometimes precede) the sandbox work. And I already know of the student work going into the Vaginismus, Cervical cancer and a few other vaginal-related articles, as noted here not too long ago. Flyer22 (talk) 05:22, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Following Terp1a (talk · contribs) from the Sexual dysfunction article, I also see that the Penile prosthesis article has also been a focus. Flyer22 (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

No this is a different class. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:13, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Please share with me. I would be happy to message the professor also and give them an online video tour of health content on Wikipedia if they like. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I have gone over all 60 articles. Have connected with the prof to offer support. This class was significantly better than many. Would love to see some of them turn into long term editors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

OBGYN class page Education_Program:Harvard_University/Obgyn_bootcamp_(April_2014) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

For Interest: Tracking flu levels with Wikipedia

McIver, David J.; Brownstein, John S. (2014). "Wikipedia Usage Estimates Prevalence of Influenza-Like Illness in the United States in Near Real-Time". PLoS Computational Biology. 10 (4): e1003581. PMID 24743682. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003581. [Tracking flu levels with Wikipedia Lay summary] Check |laysummary= value (help)ScienceDaily. 

RDBrown (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks RDBrown. I integrated this into Health information on Wikipedia and listed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Research publications. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cardiometabolic Risk

Dear medical experts: This old draft was never submitted to be in the encyclopedia. Is this a notable topic that should be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:14, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Of course it is a notable topic. The Wiki already has a page on it at metabolic syndrome. There is some overlap in the two articles, but merging my be reasonable and so does splitting the topic with the new page focusing on global trends with a new heading to reflect that. I have not read both articles yet. Snowman (talk) 18:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, Global variation in metabolic syndrome rates maybe. The lead on the old article is very short, & some of the new might benefit that. Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for checking this out. I have postponed deletion of the old draft. It can either become an article on its own, or, if content is moved to one of the ones you've mentioned, it can be turned into a redirect. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Duct tape for warts?

Duct tape occlusion therapy discusses a "home remedy" for warts. It is an ambiguous discussion about duct tapes, which come in hundreds of varieties. There has been some material in medical publications but it seems to me to be to be very incomplete. Problems abound:

  • The article talks about "regular" duct tape: there is no such thing. There are "standard" duct tapes that conform with technical specifications such as ASTM D5486/D5486M-06(2012) Standard Specification for Pressure-Sensitive Tape for Packaging, Box Closure, and Sealing, Type IV; these are usually for government use. Reasonable medical research would also go far beyond this and ask about the specific type of rubber in the adhesive: butadiene-styrene, butyl, polyisobutylene, nitrile compounds, isoprene, etc. What was the chemical composition of the tackifier? Does residual organic solvent play a part in the possible medical effects?
  • What is the mechanism of the observed effects? Is it chemical or just the covering of an Occlusive dressing?
  • Many of the listed sources seem questionable in light of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Solid secondary sources (reviews) are required. Please check these.
  • Typical hardware-store duct tapes are not hypoallergenic nor latex-free. These tapes are not manufactured under the Good Manufacturing Practices required for all other medical products. The formulation and processing of these tapes are not controlled to have any uniform medical properties. It is not kept sanitary. It is not a medical product. By contrast, surgical tapes have closely controlled manufacturing as required by regulations.

Assistance would be appreciated here. Grantmidnight (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Reading that article, strongly suspect there has been a lot of OR and POV editing going on. The story basically reads like this: "The first study said it worked better than cryotherapy, but then all the later studies failed to replicate these results, but the later studies are all lies". Lesion 07:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
I have reworked the article a bit, basing the lead on the highest quality source (latest cochrane review). There may be a case for merging into the main article wart now, which would prevent the article going wandering into POV/OR land as more editors would be able to easily keep an eye on it there. I am always in favor of discussing one possible treatment in the context of all the other options anyway.
I note the category "alternative medical treatments" is placed on this article, while at no point in the article does the suggestion that it is alt med occur. If it is Alt med we should mention this prominently in the lead. If there are no sources which state it is alt med, then that category should be removed. One source does call it alt med. Lesion 08:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Outstanding work on that, Lesion. TJRC (talk) 23:50, 22 April 2014 (UTC)


  • I have noticed this in the Sugar article (permanent link); "In 2013, Murandu et al. found clinically that sugar is an antibiotic, and pouring granulated sugar on necrotic wounds can help ulcers heal faster.[95]". The in-line source is the MailOnline. Any Comments? Snowman (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Of course delete it. Health claims should not be supported by the popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I wanted to make sure, partly because it is a GA and also because I am thinking about starting a GAR. Snowman (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
There is this pilot study, and apparently an bigger trial under way, but it's too early to include anything. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It shouldn't be "too early" to find secondary sources on it, since that treatment has been used for centuries. PMID 21479349 is a free 2011 review that discusses the use of sugar as an antibiotic (mostly to compare it to honey). The short version, for those that don't want to download the pdf, is that bacteria generally don't thrive in massively hyperosmolar environments, which is why marmalade and raisins don't rot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Western diet and Alzheimer's disease (I have only seen the abstract), a paper from 2002, sounds rather speculative about the role of a western diet in AD to me, but the Wiki "sugar" article uses it as in inline reference to support text outlining a suggested role for a western diet in the aetiology of AD. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Looks like there is a bunch of primary sources and a GAR is reasonable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I have to rush now, but I plan to look at it again and I would probably start a Community GAR sometime in the next week. If anyone is minded to start a GAR themselves, then I would welcome that. Snowman (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Is the "Sugar" article within the scope of WP Medicine? The talk page does not have a WP banner. This may influence a possible GAR. Snowman (talk) 15:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I would say no it is not in the scope of WP Med. All health content however needs to be supported by secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
When I raised the Redback Spider article here some time ago (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_39#Venomous_spiders), I was told that "... they [non-WP medicine articles] are not covered under Wikimed, we still promote the use of evidence as described by WP:MEDRS." by User:LT910001. This sounds optional and so differs from the reply above. Snowman (talk) 12:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS applies to biomedical material, regardless of whether the page has been tagged by this project. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Yep, Anthony's statement was also the intent of my statement quoted above. --LT910001 (talk) 03:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Need help with citations

The live chat room referred me here: they couldn't help me and thought maybe someone at this site could. The citations I added to the Platelet page yesterday are not "completing". It says "Citation will be completed automatically in a few minutes. Jump the queue or expand by hand". Is there anyone who could go to that page and fix those 8 uncompleted citations? Thanks.

IiKkEe (talk) 00:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

This explains WP:MEDHOW Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The bot which completes these sometimes takes more than a day. There is also an option in the citation next to that text you quoted to force it to complete if you click through. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The cite PMID template is not preferred by most of the editors at WPMED. Thus better to use the other ones in the link above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Improving the leads of all WHO essential medications

To get them ready for translation I am planning on improving the leads of all these articles.

Have encounter an interesting issue. On cephalexin we stated that it was introduced in 1967.[14] Some sources have already copied and pasted from us so we see this repeated on google books. This ref [15] shows that it was introduced under 4 brand names by 4 different companies. Was it not patentable? Or was the law different back than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

An old friend is an IP lawyer. I've sent him the question hoping he might be able to offer some insight. Ian Furst (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The 1970 launches are by Glaxo in UK & France, plus 2 Japanese companies in Japan. These would presumably be under licence from the patent-holder, which was & I think still is quite common, though Big Pharma is much more international now. Lilly seem to have actually developed it, which is one thing the article doesn't say. Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
The story of the patent for cephalexin can be found here, last sentence of page 40 and all of 41. Lilly had the original patent, but Glaxo seems to have marketed it concurrently in the UK. My friend says that, it may not be easy to sort out what happened. Here are his words on the topic,
"It could have been a battle vis a vis patenting different things and whether one infringes the other, or it could have been "we don't have this type of market in your country, so you put it out and pay us a few cents on the dollar etc.". Remember, just because you have infrastructure in one country to pump out a drug, doesn't necessarily mean you can do the same thing in another country for a variety of reasons, including import / export, and other crippling regulations.Also, especially back then, patentability in one jurisdiction did not necessarily equate to patentability in another jurisdiction. The best source of information on what happened would be an industry insider because details or existences of licences etc. won't necessarily be in documentation you can easily find. Granted it may be out there, but you might burn lots of hours of research to find it."
Hope that helps. Ian Furst (talk) 14:42, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Your source says Lilly had "a commercial monopoly for 18 years", which doesn't suggest any legal disputes, just licences. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
It may well be. It didn't explain Glaxo's role specifically so I wasn't sure. Also, it seems to be a US publication, so I was not sure if they are referring to the US patent only. Ian Furst (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe. Anyway, since it is now well-referenced to the sources linked here that Eli Lilly were the developers, shouldn't that go in the article? Johnbod (talk) 10:38, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure this book is right. Here is the paper from Chauverre from 1971 [16]. I do not believe he figured it out in 1962 and than sat on it for 10 years. I am unable to find other sources that back up [17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

We do have this paper [18] from 1962 though Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
This book says after 1964 [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:56, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay found another ref that says 1967 [20]. There appears to have been a number of steps in its developed which were done by different companies. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:59, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, seems complicated, so perhaps best left for now. Johnbod (talk) 14:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
I keep hoping that we'll get more pharma employees around here, so that people who actually know the answers to these questions (or who know someone who knows) can help us figure out the history for some of these older drugs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
The place to find this (the marketing/licensing detail) may well be Glaxo's annual reports of the day. If not the Wellcome Library might help. They have extensive archival collections - box 308 in the ephemera collection (drug advertising collection box 34) (shelf mark EPH308) contains items relating to Keflex. Also found there a link to Med Lett Drugs Ther. 1971 Apr 2;13(7):25-6 which may help if you can get hold of it. All the best: Rich Farmbrough00:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC).

Opinion about abscesses and MRSA

Hello. Could I have an opinion at Talk:Abscess#When_to_use_antibiotics_with_an_abscess_and_MRSA? Lesion used to hang out there and is missed. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: Anatomy article

I deleted some un-referenced text from the article partly because it seemed out of context to me. My point of view is that the unsourced text blurred the study of anatomy and the study of pathology into just the study of anatomy. The editor who is also the GA reviewer for this article has started a discussion at Talk:Anatomy#Preservation_of_content, and I would welcome more opinions over there. Snowman (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

The GA reviewer has put the un-sourced text back. I have copied this to the WP Anatomy talk page, where it might be more relevant. Snowman (talk) 09:43, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/dcGO

Dear medical experts: Once again, here is an old Afc submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Should this page be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Anne Delong The problem was that the article creator was making promotional claims not backed by citations. After I removed those claims there remained other information about the article's subject backed to scholarly publications. I moved the article to mainspace upon verifying them. Thanks for bring this article here - I do think it should be kept. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I have not heard of this before. The article needs improvements. dcGo itself appears to be well organized and useful, so I would think that it is notable. Snowman (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/APS ACTION

Dear medical experts: Is this old Afc submission about a notable topic? It'll be deleted soon unless someone takes an interest in it. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Anne Delong Thanks for bringing this here. I reviewed it and tagged it for deletion. This organization is in the scope of this WikiProject, so thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Great. One more off the list. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Would it be better if there had been more time for other people to have look at the article before it is deleted? Snowman (talk) 21:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 25/04

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Temporary Manic Displacement Disorder. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds a bit too new. I would say delete it. Best to get more opinions. Snowman (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Respiratory Rate Ranges

The "normal" range of respiratory rates on the respiratory rate article are seriously incorrect. An adult with a respiratory rate of 18-22 is not normal, they are in respiratory distress. The normal rate of respiration is 14/minute. I am studying for my neurology exam right now so I don't have the time to dig up all the sources or learn how to write a wikipedia article so if someone else could take point on this I would appreciate it. I thought I would at least do my part and bring it to everyone's attention.,P00866/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right. The article "Respiratory rate" is incorrect. Once I am back with my books, I shall find a suitable reference and fix the article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:35, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I have corrected the article and added a reference to Ganong. Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Society and Medicine Categorization

HasteurBot has finished a trial run through tagging WikiProject Medicine talk pages with the "Society and Medicine task force" sub parameter. The bot does not make judgments on importance. Please review Category:Unknown-importance society and medicine articles to assign an appropriate society task force importance parameter. Thank you. Hasteur (talk) 00:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Eating pulses might lower risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, cancer or diabetes

Some dispute about whether Wikipedia should be saying this at Pulse (legume). More eyes would be welcome. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 17:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes agree some issues with sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians

Dear medical experts: This article about a medical society has no references and so will shortly be deleted as a stale draft. I am posting it here on the off-chance than someone from this project will take an interest in it and fix it up. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't take much - this, this and this might help. Johnbod (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I've added them to a further reading section. Anne, I think that article is now more than adequate for article space. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I have move the article to mainspace. I also removed the external links from the body of the article. It could use some inline citations and some categories. Thanks for your help. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Three new accounts

Are trying to add material to hypercholesterolemia with very poor refs. Query need for protection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Salbutamol inhalers

After the discussions on patents yesterday, I found this article on Albuterol as well as this one in the New York Times. According to the article, the makers heavily lobbied the US government to have CFC based inhalers banned which resulted in a second patent and delays in generics. It's an interesting saga, but I'm not sure if a politcal fight is appropriate for the article. Thoughts? Ian Furst (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course it is. Just tread gently, so that you are being very careful to represent what the sources say, focusing on the bare facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
The transition away from CFCs in inhalers is covered at Inhaler#Propellants and Metered-dose inhaler#Propellants; those may be better target articles. I second the good advice from WhatamIdoing. --Mark viking (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Nebulizer and Montreal protocol may also be of (limited) relevance. Please use care to ensure that if primary and viewpoint sources are used, statements are attributed accordingly and to avoid wp:COATRACKing. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Mark viking, I didn't see it's coverage. I'll add in the new references, to Inhaler#Propellants as well as the lobby efforts quoted in the NYT. Ian Furst (talk) 00:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an issue specific to the USA (and possibly some other countries?). In the UK, generic salbutamol MDIs are typically prescribed and used. Please try to avoid a US-centric rant. If this information is to be included in the article (and I think that a brief mention is appropriate), it should be kept brief—perhaps no more than two sentences. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the article mentions "generic Augmentin" and "generic Concerta" whatever that means. As far as I am aware, a ban on CFCs in inhalers started a few years ago (? world wide ban). The changeover to non CFC's has also happened in the UK. I would try to correlate what the newspapers say with other articles, before adding anything to the Wiki. I would not use the newspapers as sources for the Wiki. Apparently the use of generics is increasing in USA; see 2011 Health Care Costs. A generic salbutamol 200 dose inhaler costs £1.50 to the NHS in the UK (there is also a dispensing charge). Snowman (talk) 22:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Augmentin is a proprietary preparation of co-amoxiclav, made by GlaxoSmithKline. I am not familiar with Concerta but it is a proprietary preparation of methylphenidate made by Jannsen Pharmaceuticals (owned by Johnson & Johnson). "Generic Augmentin" is somewhat loose terminology—it really means "generic co-amoxiclav" as opposed to "proprietary Augmentin". Axl ¤ [Talk] 22:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I did not write my previous comment very clearly. The sloppy language in the newspaper articles does not inspire me with confidence and that is why I would suggest that the newspaper articles should not used as sources on the Wiki. I would not have been irritated by something like "the generic equivalent of Augmentin". Snowman (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────The original point I was trying to make, stemmed from our discussion the previous day related to patents on WHO Essential drugs (the first discussion was wrt Cephalexin). What I found interesting wasn't the banning of CFC inhalers, but the use (manipulation?) of that ban to gain a patent extension. The New York Times piece is investigative journalism (I'm not sure that the motherjones piece has any true investigation or is a repeat of the other sources) and I'm not sure other sources will seek out the same information. Ian Furst (talk) 16:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

If the drug companies change the delivery system to CFC free, then they patent it. What is wrong with that? The problem seems to be that branded drugs are more expensive in the USA. Presumably, the license of salbutamol was unaffected. Can they prescribe generic dry powder salbutamol devices in the USA? Snowman (talk) 19:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Branded drugs are more expensive everywhere—not just in the USA. That's how the pharma companies make money. I don't think that there is any "generic dry powder device" at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I see; the dry power salbutamol devices are all branded, even though the salbutamol license has expired. Branded drugs can be different prices in different prices in the world. If the prices were they same, then there would not be any parallel importing. Snowman (talk) 21:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Ah, your implication was "Branded drugs are more expensive in the USA than they are elsewhere in the world", not "In the USA, branded drugs are more expensive than non-branded drugs". :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
That is one thing that the newspaper implies. Snowman (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Urine therapy and Urophagia

Yesterday I reverted User:Amruth M D who added, amongst other material that "This age old natural therapy can prevent and cure cancer, AIDS, Renal failure, gall bladder stones, cerebral palsy" with some non-RS sources. Can someone here more familiar with the subject counsel him? He's replacing this material today. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


The usage of Microbiota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Microbiota ; as the term "microbiota" is used in medicine, the usage of the location "microbiota" may be of interest to you. -- (talk) 03:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Osteopathic manipulative medicine‎

Some questions have come up about sourcing, and the presentation of sources' findings. Could use more eyes. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 18:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, more eyes would definitely be welcome. Thank you. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
We really need a few more eyes. The conversation is beginning to become circular and isn't really going anywhere. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 08:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

World Cancer Report

Does anyone have a copy of this? [21] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:22, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Found one. All good. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:41, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment for WikiProject Medicine

Hello, I have some concerns about the accuracy and neutrality of two articles perhaps of interest to this WikiProject: Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Polychlorinated biphenyl. I am in a conflict of interest, I am involved with a prominent lawsuit; but my concerns about the article relate to the Wikipedia contributions of another editor in a COI. Could more experienced Wikipedians please look at the recent discussions on the two talk pages, and the edit histories, and see if it is possible to establish a more neutral, and factually informative, version of the relevant sections? Thank you, -Kdelay13 (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

There are likely to be authoritative and erudite books or articles on these topics. Please note that the disclaimer at the bottom of every Wiki article. Not referring to your case nor your work, but as a general rule of thumb, I would guess that a lawyer could get laughed at if he or she used the Wiki as an accurate source of scientific information in a legal document. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Re-think - remark withdrawn by strike out. Snowman (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are up to. Please make it clearer what you are requesting. This does not like a simple request for an article or articles to be improved. Snowman (talk) 17:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
@Snowmanradio: Thank you for taking a look. Here's the basic situation; you can get more detail from the specific comments on both articles' talk pages and edit histories.
  • There is currently a major lawsuit underway; among the things that will be determined in the case is whether, legally speaking, there is a causal link between PCBs and non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.
  • Because of my connection to the plaintiffs, I have a conflict of interest in this case; but so does another user, Glenn Young, who previously edited both articles.
  • I initially tried to add information, cited to research, to the article; but I have been informed that due to my COI it is better for me to take a more hands-off approach.
  • There is evidence for both sides: some suggests there is a causal connection, other evidence denies it. But there are significant differences in the methodology.
As I see it, there are two general approaches Wikipedia could take that would be OK. Either:
  • Wikipedia makes it clear that there is not 100% consensus in the scientific community about whether or not there is a causal connection between PCBs and nHL; or
  • Wikipedians do a very careful review of the scientific literature in order to determine accurately what the consensus of the scientific community is, and report it accurately and with very strong citations.
The current status of the articles do suggest to the reader that there is not a causal connection; but that conclusion does not appear to have been reached through a thorough consideration of the existing scientific literature. -Kdelay13 (talk) 00:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: I've looked at the recent reviews on the subject. There were four, three of which are directly relevant. They're listed at the talk page, and I'd be happy to have other eyes there, but basically all four reviews support (to varying degrees) a causal link. The "evidence for both sides" means that there are primary sources that come to both conclusions. AFAICT, there are no secondary sources that conclude against a link. I think it should just be listed with the other causes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 29/04

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/EMA401. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society journals - subscription offer for one year

I'm delighted to say that the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for science, is offering 24 Wikipedians free access for one year to its prestigious range of scientific journals. Please note that much of the content of these journals is already freely available online, the details varying slightly between the journals – see the Royal Society Publishing webpages. For the purposes of this offer the Royal Society's journals are divided into 3 groups: Biological sciences, Physical sciences and history of science. For full details and signing-up, please see the applications page. Initial applications will close on 25 May 2014, but later applications will go on the waiting list.

Content mostly general science, and mostly primary, but some review articles. This is a recent example, and this the rather erratic "subject collection" for "health and disease and epidemiology". Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Tools for spying on your Wiki friends

At the WP:PUMP right now there is an RfC a discussion about a tool for seeing what other Wikipedians do. This is a legacy project called the User Analysis Tool, currently providing identical data to X!'s Edit Counter which is deprecated but which some of you may remember. The RfC is about privacy concerns for looking at other Wikipedians, and I think it is an interesting discussion. The tool does not actually get secret data, but it presents public data in an accessible way that creeps some people out.

I am bringing this up here because unrelated to this RfC, some researchers at the University of Washington have a competing tool in development and in their prototype they scraped WikiProject Medicine data and one of their sample exercises is to go to WikiProject Medicine and find a collaborator. I have no affiliation with this group at this time but after doing their study I am impressed, and I also like that they used this WikiProject as a testing ground. I like people doing research about health information on Wikipedia.

Anyone may read about their research at meta:Research:Finding a Collaborator. They are recruiting more study participants right now. To participate in the study, one needs to meet with them on Google Plus and take a one-hour survey and online exercise. Results of the study will be used to make tools which look users' histories for the purpose of fostering community. Message Wkmaster if you are interested and wish to participate. I participated and found what they are doing to be insightful and an option for development of tools similar to the one in the RfC. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

RFC Notification

There is an RFC at Talk:Cannabis (drug) that may be of interest to some members of this Wikiproject. Direct link here. Dennis Brown |  | WER 15:31, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

anyone to offer some help to an editor on medical subjects

I came across some edits made by an editor at Leptin who has really been making a lot of efforts to improve this article. Some warnings were however added highlighted concerns with sourcing of the medical research (see for example diff), so I suggested that this wasn't the right way to go about it - see diff. I was hoping that someone with a lot of experience in this area might be able to offer better advice and guidance than me how to go about solving those sorts of medical writing issues. --nonsense ferret 20:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)


Lactulose was organized per WP:MEDMOS. A user is trying to change it to a very different format. Is not engaging on the talk page. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that the difference (mainly whether the mechanism of action, which differs for each use, should be a subsection of each medical use, or separately at the end) is worth fighting over. MEDMOS was designed for a situation in which the mode of action was the same for all indications, and that's not true here. Either is valid.
I also wonder whether, in the presence of an edit war between an admin and a logged-out editor, semi-protecting the page is a violation of the protection policies. I believe that there at least used to be a rule that one didn't disadvantage IPs by prohibiting them from editing, but permitting the other person in the edit war to keep editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:25, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe they will than join in a discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cannabinoid Receptors

Hello again, medical experts. This old draft will soon me deleted. Is there any information that should be moved to another article, such as Cannabinoid? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The appropriate article would be Cannabinoid receptor, and it looks like the content from the AFC was already merged into that article with this edit. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:33, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that. Since it was the same editor who made the draft who moved the information, the draft can be discarded. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

University project involving a few medical articles

While checking my watchlist, I noticed a very substantial expansion of the Osteochondroma article by a new editor, Lpanchal (talk · contribs). They appear to be part of an under-the-radar university project with (among many other users) ShebaPrasad28 (talk · contribs), Sweiner02 (talk · contribs), Lszleszynski (talk · contribs), and Ecandelario (talk · contribs). They seem to be mostly writing articles in their sandboxes and commenting on each other's pages on the sandboxes' talk pages. I've edited the Osteochondroma article (mostly reference compaction), but any help with that page (or any other articles they're working on) would be appreciated. Graham87 10:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Prof is here User:Sweiner02 and she did post at the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard. Is also providing feedback to the students. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Medical foundations?

Dear medical experts: Are medically-oriented foundations such as Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Binaytara Foundation withing the scope of thos project? Or is there a better place to discuss them? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, although most people aren't interested, so they're low priority. Except for hospitals, medical orgs are WPMED and WP:WikiProject Organizations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Anne Delong Please continue to post these. I try to comment on them and I did for the one you just posted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Bluerasberry. Leaving comments on drafts that could become articles with some improvement, or have some content merge to other articles, is helpful to future editors. If you should see one that you think could never be an article for one reason or another and has no salvageable content, please keep in mind that it will disappear faster if you don't edit it. In that case it may be better to make your comment here, or, if it's db-g13 eligible, just boldly add a deletion tag. Thanks for pointing me to WP:WikiProject Organizations; I hadn't noticed that one. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)


There is a requested move at Talk:Detoxification that you may be interested in. -- (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Bone anchored hearing aid

The article Bone anchored hearing aid contains blatantly promotional content and has been largely written by a series of SPAs which appear to have a business relationship with products prominently described in the article. Without having much knowledge in this area, I would probably just reduce the article to a stub - the promotional content is so pervasive. But maybe someone with knowledge in this area could handle this better and find some content that is worth keeping. Deli nk (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't have any particular expertise in the area but have enough friends involved in the field that I should be able to work on this. I just finished cleansing Dental implant of the same problem. Added to the "to do" list unless someone else has more interest. Ian Furst (talk) 13:05, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Agree there are issues. Were present before and now getting worse. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:58, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

A little clean up done, removal to talk page of unsourced advertorial content, tagged extensively, refs formatted, talk page discussions opened, project banner added, talk page archiving set up, connected contributors template added. There are good refs available someone should rewrite this to be about the subject rather than the brands. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:44, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Post-finasteride syndrome

Given the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-Finasteride Syndrome, could someone look into the latest IP edits to 5α-reductase inhibitor? Are the given sources reliable and support the addition? Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:03, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Yobol has removed them all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


The article Osteopathy is currently rated low importance should that be moved up to mid? The sources for much of the article are proponents and the MEDRS is somewhat lacking (for non med info secondary sources are seriously wanting). There are the bones of a good article there but they need to be straightened out. The alignment of the article seems to be manipulated by promoters and advocates in some sections. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:49, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I would personally not give it anything above low importance in WP:MED, if it should be here at all. On the other hand its alt med rank should be higher than low. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:37, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

rectum area pain

I am experesing extream pain, itching and burning in the rectume area , I visited the Dr and optained medication creams to wash in and apply to effected area, however nothing seams to work. What should I do now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cecilia Ferris (talkcontribs) 12:24, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry. We are here to write medical articles, but we are prohibited from giving medical advice to individual people. Looie496 (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting question

Of what to do when the best available sources are not really right at Talk:Borderline_personality_disorder#Suicide_rate_is_dubious Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Solved Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:27, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Major depressive disorder

Further input here would be appreciated. We have 4 recent high quality meta analysis on the topic and further advice on how we should summarize them would be appreciated. A user just wants to emphasise the oldest and most critical.Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#Effectiveness_of_SSRIsDoc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I need help

with increasing accessibility/readability in the side effects and overdose sections of the amphetamine article. Since I don't have a background in medicine, some of the terms/concepts in the sections are technical, and a reviewer at FAC has been up my ass about the tiniest things, I'd really appreciate any assistance with this.

If you can rewrite any of the items in this list using simpler terminology, please note it here or simply make the relevant edit on amphetamine (using a piped wikilink).

  • anuria-> no urine production Done
  • cerebral hemorrhage -> bleeding in the brain Done
  • edema (peripheral or pulmonary) -> swelling, e.g. in the ankles, or the lungs Done
  • pulmonary hypertension-> high blood pressure in the pulmonary artery  Done
  • stereotypy -> repetitive or ritualistic movement, posture, or utterance Done
  • hyperreflexia -> brisk reflexes Done
  • bladder sphincter -> the muscle(s) which control urination Done
  • enuresis -> bed wetting Done
  • incontinence -> loss of bladder or bowel control  Done
  • gastrointestinal motility -> not a sign/symptom, essentially refers to peristalsis. Unless you want to say motility is increased/decreased?  Done as inreased/decrease intestinal movement

Thank you! Face-smile.svg Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 04:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

  • adrenergic storm -> ... fast heart beat and high blood pressure caused by a sudden rise in adrenalin and noreadrenalin
  • cardiogenic shock -> inadequate degree of blood flow to the body caused by the heart not pumping effectively
  • circulatory collapse -> ? lack of blood being pumped around the body

For these three, I'll just see what the reviewer thinks since those descriptions are a bit long compared to the technical term. Thanks for the prompt response! :) Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 12:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I had assumed that "circulatory collapse" is synonymous with "circulatory shock". I don't think that I have ever heard anyone actually use the term "circulatory collapse" though. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:05, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Might just be an uncommon occurrence. It's listed in 3 of the 7 refs to the section, most notably the prescribing info. Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 03:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)