Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Welcome to the WikiProject Medicine talk page. If you have comments or believe something can be improved, feel free to post. Also feel free to introduce yourself if you plan on becoming an active editor!

We do not provide medical advice; please see a health professional.

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 4 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

Merged Archive WikiProject Preclinical medicine: 1 Merged Archive WikiProject Clinical medicine: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 WikiProject Medicine Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172

Recent changes in WP:Medicine

Articles and their talkpages:

• In all Medicine articles (not talks)
• In articles with Top-, High-importance
• In articles with Mid-importance
• In articles with Low-importance
• In pages with NA, ???=unknown importance
• In the 1000 most popular articles (source)

Not mainspace:

• In all non-articles
• In all templates
• In Medicine navigation templates

Top	High	Mid	Low	NA	???	Total
101	1,073	11,573	38,994	7,611	1,299	60,651

List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

Copy and paste detection bot

The bot is up and running and returning helpful results. There is still a relatively high rate of false positives that we are working to reduce. These fixes should be fairly easy. False positives to true positives is about 1 to 3. It is definitely worthwhile as I have been able to provide feedback to a number of users. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Hey All. I need to know if you support or oppose this bot running on medical content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is a fabulous idea. There's been a number of recent high-profile users whose edit count was largely based on difficult-to-detect plagiarism. JFW | T@lk 13:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is a very good move, James. Thank you. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Still requires work but it is a start. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• I like running this bot to detect copy and paste. I looked through the list and it seems that the results (both true and false positive) are doable to manage. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 16:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• It's clearly a useful step forward, James. The false/true positive ratio is not bad for such early results - and there is little harm done when a false positive is reported, other than the time taken to check it out. Keep it going! --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Fully support trying it out. It's so very annoying how many sites copy Wikipedia content to try to drive search results their direction, resulting in false positives! Zad68 20:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• A step in the right direction, but we need to consider in a systematic fashion how WP should respond when we find our content mirrored, or even reverse copyvio'd in low-quality journals or even republished, as by Books, Inc. and its ilk. It's become far too common an occurence that threatens to undermine wp:V. There are a number of existing tools that should be made to play together better. The subpages of Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and talkpage transclusions of Template:reverse copyvio could be part of the picture, but we really need a database tool that can track such instances with little or no human intervention, and an easy way to respond. WP:REUSE for free purposes is one thing, but this is something else, being exploited by AOL, Google, and other major corporations to the detriment of WP's quality and reputation. In some (or possible even most) cases what is going on amounts verges on clickfraud, with a reader driven to a google advert-laden page that only slightly resembles the WP page it was based on. In many cases the fraudsters hijack all the wikilinks except those for images, leaving the bandwidth burden on WP. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Great idea using Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks. We will need to speak to Turnitin about this. User:Ocaasi? With respect to others copying from use, agree that is an issue but one this effort does not yet address. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey folks. Great work James taking this project through to an actual working product!! I spent many days compiling a list of over 3000 mirrors and forks that we could 'whitelist' as non-infringing. There were two issues with this approach. One, the list of mirrors is ever-growing and changing. Two, Turnitin did not have a way for us to mass-add the sites on the whitelist. They would have to be entered literally one by one. It would take them a development cycle to prioritize this and it wasn't a high priority for them as it distracted their core developers. With Andrew and Madman, we pretty much decided that we should be doing the screening for mirrors. Turnitin gives us a list of 'positives' and then we remove any from our known whitelist during bot post-processing. That is something which we can certainly discuss with Eran or other coders involved. Turnitin, btw, whom I spoke with this afternoon, is very excited to see their software out in the wild on Wikipedia. Thanks again for the sustained effort and focus to make it happen :) Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

• Good work. We need more bots to help out. I support the bot reviewing on medical content. QuackGuru (talk) 02:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support the end result I have only used the bot's work twice but the output it gave was so good and saved so much time that I was able to do tasks that I wished to do, but would not have otherwise had time to do. I am really pleased with the assistance that the bot provides.

I regret that the bot has to operate using the commercial Turnitin database. Turnitin is a commercial product, and while I am grateful for their giving us access to an API which permits us to check for plagiarism, I feel that also Wikimedia projects are acting as a kingmaker in this instance and the usage that we are giving to Turnitin has a value which will earn a large amount of money for their commercial products which they will not get otherwise. Although this seems like a free trade on its face, I also feel that we the Wikimedia community are positioning Turnitin to corner their market and perpetually make many millions of dollars which they would not be able to make with such certainty were it not for this relationship with Wikipedia.

I wish that it would be possible to raise a million dollars for this community to develop its own comparable in house non-profit project, so that this educational resource could be freely available to everyone in the world. I have tremendous respect for Turnitin and their commercial model, but also I fear the implications of a small segment of the Wikimedia community leveraging our community resources to empower and develop a particular commercial product. Undoubtedly the Wikimedia community benefits from this partnership, and undoubtedly what we are providing to Turnitin is of no value to this community, but a relationship with Wikipedia means something and can have a lot of value. I feel like in partnering with Turnitin, we are shaping the marketplace of the future to disallow any room for nonprofit checks on plagiarism and ensuring that this space will only be occupied by commercial services. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Bluerasberry: Turnitin is a commercial service, just like our Wikipedia Zero partners, and our Wikipedia Library Partners, and our t-shirt manufacturers, and our server hosts. There is simply not an optimal non-commercial solution to all of our needs. Turnitin, in my evaluation is the best available plagiarism-detection program that exists. Most importantly, our use of their services comes with no advertising and no agreement which prevents us from using other tools (paid or free) at any time for any reason. This is as lightweight as a donation gets. So, while I see your concerns, I have to admit that Turnitin has already cornered this market (at least in Education), and I don't see how we best serve our mission of sharing knowledge by refusing the donation with no strings attached. Best, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

This case is fundamentally different. The Wikimedia Zero and Wikimedia Library offers go to everyone; this is a much more exclusive arrangement. The merchandise and hosting are just services bought in the open market and do not obviously favor any one seller. Yes, I agree that Turnitin already has already captured this market, and perhaps they would keep it without Wikimedia community support. With support of the largest testbase in the world they are definitely in a better position now, though. The string they have attached to this is they want our usage data, and they are definitely getting the best usage data the world has to offer.

I confirm that Turnitin is the best available plagiarism-detection program that exists and that there is no better service available to meet this very pressing and urgent Wikimedia community need. I can only praise the value of the service we are getting. I only disagree that this is a lightweight donation - I am not aware of the Wikimedia community having such intimate exclusive ties with a commercial entity in any other context. I still support this project.

I think I feel this would be more in line with Wikimedia community values if I thought that the data we were giving to Turnitin were somehow made publicly available, so that conceivably other entities could develop competing products using the same data we are providing to Turnitin in exchange for access to their service. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am completely grateful for Turnitin's help. I feel guilty for criticizing this gift. It is wholly beneficial to editors and provides a lot of benefit. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

What more data are we giving them that they do not already have? They have all of Wikipedia and likely every edit that has occurred to Wikipedia in their database. We at Wikipedia already provide this to everyone including Turnitin. Not sure how this bot that uses their API changes things? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but yes, I was suggesting that this relationship gives Turnitin an inside track to information which is not available to others. If I am mistaken then that would relieve a lot of my worry.

I think I could ask the question like this:

Assume that there is some public bot which calls the Turnitin API, and the Wikimedia community promotes this bot.

• Where is the public log of every request that this bot delivers to Turnitin?
• Where is the public log of every response which Turnitin returns to the bot, even if it returns a null response?

My concern would be to make the actions and operations of the Wikimedia bot public to everyone. I know this is an unusual thing to ask because in almost any other case, no one would want the logs of these things because I expect they are 99.99% useless, but because I think Turnitin as a software company is in a unique position to improve its reputation with this relationship, I would like for all information managed on the Wikimedia side to be logged and available. I make no request for any information from the Turnitin side.

I have a lesser but still significant concern about Wikimedia projects being dependent on a third-party commercial partner, but in this case because the need is so great and the benefit so complete, I would want to find a way to make this work. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You just want everything the bot sends to Turnitin and everything returned from Turnitin to the bot published? Much of it is here [1] I am not sure if there is more but I am sure Eran can provide everything if you want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I expect that the bot's operator has this information. What I do not see is the null results, which would be when someone asks about plagiarism and Turnitin says that there is none. A monthly or quarterly file listing all of that information would satisfy this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Diet and cancer

The article Diet and cancer starts with, "Almost all cancers (80–90%) are caused by environmental factors,[1] and of these, 30–40% of cancers are directly linked to the diet.[2] By far, the most significant dietary cause of cancer is overnutrition (eating too much).[3]" Ref 1 is 14 years old. Ref 2 is 5 years old and is to a general page not a specific source supporting the content. I am not sure this information is really correct or that such overarching statements are supported by current medical consensus. As there are a number of editors here with extensive knowledge I thought someone might take a look. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Here is a 2008 review [2] that supports. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The most recent UK data has [attributable to lifestyle and environmental factors] "an estimated 43% of all new cases of cancer in the UK (approximately 134 000 new cases in 2010), and about 50% of all cancer deaths." "The fraction of cancer attributable to lifestyle and environmental factors in the UK in 2010". Click Table of contents on the left for the whole thing, which is free access. You can't just say "100% minus (heritable) genetic = environmentally caused", there's a sizeable "don't know/just happened" as well. The CRUK pages, on a quick look, say "diet" "nearly one in ten UK cancer cases are caused by unhealthy diets.", "obesity" "more than one in 20 cancers in the UK are linked to being overweight or obese." and alchohol "causes 4% of cancers in the UK", see menu at here. Another one for the list. And 80% isn't "almost all" anyway. The detail of the article is poor too - no sections on red/processed meats or salt, for example. Wiki CRUK John/Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes different sources give different estimates. In such a situation it is best to use a range like 40 to 80%. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

2014 World Cancer Report has a section on diet. It states that excess weight is responsible for 4.2% of cancer in men and 14.3% of cancer in women in the USA. Among non smokers this is an even greater proportion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Reference 2 goes to the main page of the huge section at the AIRC/WCRF site, dated 2009. This seems the current equivalent, with figures about 50% of those quoted. For now I'll just remove these first two sentences, which clearly are not "supported by current medical consensus". Johnbod (talk) 16:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We go through this every year or two. You can 'just say "100% minus (heritable) genetic = environmentally caused"', because that's exactly how the specialists define it: in this worldview, the only options are genotype and phenotype, and if it's not the one, then it is (by definition) the other.

The description of the Nature paper is incorrect. It does not describe "The most recent UK data has [attributable to lifestyle and environmental factors]". It describes "The most recent UK data has [attributable to lifestyle and environmental factors] mostly choosing only things that that we, the researchers, have decided are both within the control of UK residents and not culturally inappropriate, and only as applies to 18 out of a couple hundred types of cancer." That's seriously different: They have excluded certain causes, like the number of breast cancer deaths that could be prevented if women chose to have more children, because it would not be socially "acceptable", not because choosing to have zero children is not a scientifically accepted cause of breast and ovarian cancer.

They did not look at all environmental causes, and therefore their numbers are automatically an under-representation. They claim to have looked at exactly 14:

1. tobacco,
2. alcohol,
3. consumption of meat,
4. consumption of fruit and vegetables,
5. consumption of fibre
6. consumption of salt
7. being overweight or obese,
8. lack of physical exercise,
9. occupation,
10. infections (hardly any in the UK, but about a quarter of cancer deaths worldwide),
11. ionizing radiation from (only) medical sources and two natural (radon and cosmic background) sources
12. UV exposure (which they calculate against people born in 1903, some of whom also got UV-induced melanoma),
13. use of "female" hormones (only as it affects "female" cancers), and
14. breast feeding.

At a glance, these controllable things appear to have been ignored: pesticides, smog and other forms of air pollution (except tobacco smoke and what you inhale at work), water pollution, number of children, age at which a first child is born, and your choice to take (or not) some drugs to reduce cancer risk. I'm sure there are more. They also omit non-controllable factors, like age at menarche (which at least gets mentioned) and menopause.

They also looked at only 18 of the most common cancers in the UK, and they only looked at specific factors for some of these cancers. This is mostly sensible, since we want them to be working with respectable data, but it systematically underestimates effects. For example, obesity increases the risk for many cancers, but they only looked at its effect on seven, so the cancers caused by obesity in another dozen cases (or more?) are omitted.

In other words, this paper does nothing to change the fact that worldwide nearly all causes of cancer are non-hereditary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

So this ref says 20-30% are preventable [3] which is close to 30-40%. Agree it needs updating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

"You can 'just say "100% minus (heritable) genetic = environmentally caused"', because that's exactly how the specialists define it: in this worldview, the only options are genotype and phenotype, and if it's not the one, then it is (by definition) the other." – This isn't quite my field, but I'd have thought it should actually go something like risk of getting cancer = genetic contribution + environmental contribution + interaction of genetic and environmental contributions. The final term is needed because genetic and environmental contributions to cancer susceptibility are not strictly additive. For example, particular genotypes might be more or less susceptible to particular environmental influences. Some genotypes might even be advantageous in one environment but disadvantageous in another – think skin pigmentation, UV levels, skin cancer risk, and vitamin D production. What I'm trying to say is, I wouldn't be comfortable with simply subtracting genetically caused cancers from 100% to get environmentally caused cancers. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This is how the sources operate. The one that John notes above, for example, explicitly refuses to count UV exposure on the job as an occupational cause of cancer. In this area, every cancer gets assigned exactly one cause. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

First thanks for devoting some attention to this article. While I agree (to some extent) with WhatamIdoing's analysis it runs up against OR and V. I think it is an important analysis of the quality of sources which is entirely appropriate. I'd like to see some sources that make the same sort of evaluation and address cancer epidemiology. Unfortunately (or fortunately in most cases) on WP we are bound to represent "how the specialist's define it" and the mainstream academic consensus per WP:DUE. I'd think there are significant viewpoints that raise the issues presented by WhatamIdoing and if identified they might be evaluated for due weight. I do think some of the major reliable sources do not calculate environmental level of cause by 100% - hereditary = environmental some I have read clearly identify an area of we don't know. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to see my comments in an article. However, I also wouldn't want to see "50% of all cancer deaths are caused by environmental factors" in an article when what the source actually says is that 50% of all cancer deaths in the UK and for only 18 types of cancer are caused by fourteen selected environmental (including lifestyle) factors.

There are a lot of cancers for which the cause is unknown. However, there are almost none for which the hereditary vs not issue is unknown. For example, with breast cancer, there is a sizable fraction of "unknown", but it is known (using US stats) it's about 10% hereditary and 90% environmental. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No one has suggested putting a 50% figure in. Instead a first sentence that was not sourced to MEDRS standards, was by no means necessary for the topic, and actually meant something a very long way from what the average reader was likely to think it meant, was removed. It should not be replaced with any alternative figure at all. There are too many such over-simple unexplained statements that are likely to mislead (even if up to date) in medical articles. The 2nd sentence has now been replaced, although its reference seems now unverifiable. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that a lot and maybe most cancer is "enviromental" (not inherited from one's parents) is excellent as that means that it can potentially be prevented. This means not smoking, improving chimneys, immunization against certain infections, improving ventilation in underground living spaces, covering ones skin from the sun, etc. All measure that are well in the means of most people globally.

If most cancer was "not environmental" (in other words inherited from one's parents) than gene therapy / after the fact treatment would be the only option. Something which is very expensive and out of the possible range of most people globally. The War Against Cancer concentrated mostly on treatment rather than prevention unfortunately for whatever reasons. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is "Diet and cancer" and there is no need to widen beyond that topic in the first sentence, especially in a severely under-explained fashion. Johnbod (talk) 01:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Not to be flippant, but two issues that I think are worth making explicit:

• The most important cause of cancer is not dying of something else. The risk doubles wtih every decade of life, and as recently as 50 years ago the number living into the highest risk decades was quite small.
• By this reasoning, statins inevitably "cause" cancer as do antibiotics. When the rate of cardiovascular deaths fall, the rate of other causes of death must go up, because everyone dies of something.

Also, while I don't have the references at hand, I don't think cancer has to be either "genetic" or "environmental" unless you consider your own body part of the environment. Any good molecular bio text will tell you than every cell replication is accompanied by transcrption errors, and normal metabolism produces a plethora of electrophiles such as formaldehyde and unsaturated ketones that are able to alkylate DNA. If "chemical" exposure where responsible for a large percentage of cancers, we should have seen a precipitous drop since the bad old days of the 1950s and 1960s when a large percentage of the population had occupational exposure in manufacturing jobs that where performed in the near complete absence of any sort of chemical hygiene measures. It hasn't really happened. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

With regard to disease causation, "environmental" just means "not genetic". It's a tremendously broad term that includes everything from diet to infections and even somatic mutation, whether caused by external mutagens, ordinary metabolites, or replication errors. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and conveying this highly technical usage of the word "environment" to our general readership isn't straightforward. Environmental factors isn't really a helpful link imo; Environmental epidemiology may perhaps be more helpful, if suitably piped.

Leaving aside for a moment the broader considerations raised by WAID and others above, I feel this query illustrates the difficulties we almost inevitably come up against in communicating highly technical considerations effectively to our broad general readership. A somewhat analogous case is under discussion at Talk:Obesity#Genetics. The fact is that we endeavour to address a plethora of sensitive editorial tasks with a limited number of dedicated volunteers. We desperately need to multiply our human resources... But how? My own feeling is that we need more direct contributions from organizations whose aims overlap with our own (Cancer Research UK and Cochrane being just two prominent examples). For this sort of involvement to happen I think awareness needs to be raised across the scientific community (and general public) of the real-world role of Wikipedia's health-related content. 86.134.200.29 (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I have formatted up the references and in doing so added links to free full text versions of quite a few of them. This may be useful in improving the article. I also added a possible ref I don't have access to on the talk page. I also added some material from 3 Cochrane reviews. I have Cochrane access if further information from those refs is desired. Thanks for the help and attention to this article. I think there are several sources already in the article that could be used to address some of the issues raised above. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - it would be nice to see improvement throughout - putting factors that reduce and increase risk in different sections would seem one way. The present mixture reads rather confusingly. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

New attempt at RFC on medical articles disclaimer

An earlier RFC on medical disclaimer failed, but I and a couple of others believe we have a strategy to start a new one that would help prevent a repeat of the same problems. That discussion is here: User talk:SandyGeorgia#Any new developments in the medical disclaimer initiative? The main proposals are summarized at the bottom of that discussion. We would welcome anyone in the Medicine WikiProject to weigh in before we start the drafting process. --Holdek (talk) 16:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

This was proposed not that long ago. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

About eight months ago. --Holdek (talk) 12:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it's time for another, more focussed RFC, based on what we learned from the last one. James (chair of m:Wiki Project Med Foundation) and Jacob (founder of this en.Wikipedia medicine project), you were strongly opposed to most of the suggestions in the last RFC. Would you support something more modest at the top of each medical article, such as

Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information in this article. It may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields.

(That's a paraphrase from our general disclaimer.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 08:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I am supportive of adding a tag for authors / contributors as being discussed [4] (which would increase transparency to our readers)

I would also be supportive of a trial of one line box that said

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including you!

This basically says the same thing as your above quote except it also invites people to contribute. (ie if anyone can contribute it may be wrong / there may be vandalism, we do not need to spell it out more). Also my version would have a better chance of increase editor numbers and thus maybe fixing issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

While I agree a prominent invitation to edit is a good thing, your wording doesn't say the same as my wording. Some readers may get the implicit corollary that "therefore it may recently have been changed, vandalized or altered by someone whose opinion does not correspond with the state of knowledge in the relevant fields." Many won't. Perhaps

Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, including you, without any prior fact-checking or verification that what you contribute reflects the current academic consensus

--Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to have the one line box like Doc James suggests, combined with moving and enlarging the disclaimer links from the bottom to the top of the article, which may accomplish both goals? Holdek (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That would definitely be an improvement on the present situation and of course I'd support it. What do you think, James? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

(←) I think moving stuff to the top is not a good solution. I am willing to support a small disclaimer about medical articles, and I was wondering if {{Infobox disease}} would be a good place. It would need to be specific about health information and issues on reliability, because reminding people that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone can be done in lots of other places. JFW | T@lk 21:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better for disclaimers to be seen before a person begins reading the article, rather than after, if at all? --Holdek (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

That Wikipedia can be edited by anyone is the reliability issue. There is no more accurate way of expressing the nature of the site's reliability than telling the reader anyone can live edit what they're reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Before this discussion gets out of hand again, I very strongly suggest that an RfC is held about whether a disclaimer should be more prominent in general. After the results of the RfC, then a more specific proposal can be put forward. I am neither for nor against the proposal, but one of the main reasons the previous RfC failed was because it got lost in technicalities and multiple proposals. I very strongly suggest first a general RfC is held, and then some specific proposals are discussed and tailored to the comments received in the initial RfC. Otherwise we will spend months meandering through tends to hundreds of suggested disclaimers without first clarifying if this is what the community wants; and when presented to the community, the community will be giving an opinion not on whether a disclaimer is needed, but on the wording of the specific disclaimer which is provided, neither of which would be desired. --129.94.102.201 (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

That said, a small notice on the infobox may be the most easily implementable and least intrusive. --129.94.102.201 (talk) 00:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Somebody's been reading my mind!

I don't have energy to read through all past discussions, and really only can give a reader's opinion. As a sexegenarian (and hypochondriac) I do end up at these articles a lot, usually after looking at much higher quality sources). As an 8 year editor I should know better than to take them as anything more than a snapshot, and check references before believing much of any thing. But I don't always do so, so I'd like to see a reminder or disclaimer prominently placed. And others who don't understand the way of the wiki need one even more so... My suggestion:

I see there is a long Wikipedia:List_of_infoboxes/Health_and_fitness with lots of info boxes listed. I'm sure many articles have no info box at all. I don't know if I missed a "part of wikiproject medicine" box. In any case every article needs some sort of info box (including in alternative medicine). And on the top of any medicine-related info box should be something like: Reminder (or "disclaimer"): This article is for informational purposes and may contain outdated or inaccurate information. That's really true of all but (or even?) the highest quality peer reviewed articles. So it is the responsible thing to do. And if it's at or near the top of an info box, it won't be quite as alarming. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I think 129.94.102.201 is right in his or her first post. Let's just ask should our medical articles have a clear and prominent warning about their unreliability. Thank you, 129.94.102.201. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I am no for "warning about unreliability" and am yes for "explaining that anyone can edit". IMO they are more or less the same but the later has potentially greater positive benefits. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Linking to reviewed versions of our articles

Soon, a version of the featured article, Dengue fever will be published in the Canadian journal, Open Medicine. When that's done, James will be putting a link to the Open Medicine version at the top of Dengue fever. James, can you please link me to the version of Dengue fever that Open Medicine will be publishing? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

If only we could get all our articles to such a high standard, which I doubt is going to happen anytime soon.-A1candidate (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I think the link to the published version shouldn't be too prominent. Perhaps worth considering to integrate it into the infobox. Or perhaps a separate box the same way we indicate that spoken versions exist. JFW | T@lk 20:47, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes I was thinking to do it like spoken Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Merging of Heart & Human heart

So, this has been a peeve of mine for a while now, and I've finally decided to do something about it. Instead of simply complain and get someone else to do the merge I've written up a massive expansion, primarily sourced from a quality CC-BY source. After having it almost eclipse other work I've been doing it is at a level where I can show it to others who might be interested in helping out. Basically the article is at around 160kb, and if it wasn't for the reliance on a single source I would push for it to reach FA within short.

What needs doing is the following:

• Wikilinking the content on Physiology onwards.
• Fixing image #s as has been done in the structure section
• Merging the content from the 3 sources on Embryology (the first section is all from CNX and refernced, if merged please only merge with other referenced content.
• Copyediting for language which speaks directly to the reader (same as the points about, should be done on the Structure section).

So, if anyone is interested the article can be found here: User:CFCF/draft/Heart

-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Ping! Iztwoz - Mikael Häggström? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently focused on other articles right now, but I believe this is one of the core medical articles that needs to be of at least decent quality so I'll drop by to make improvements every now and then, but I cannot guarantee any commitments to the article. -A1candidate (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Upon a quick review of the draft, I think it looks fine. I support the merge of Heart and Human heart, since the amount of text in Heart that is not applicable to humans is almost non-existent. For some strange reason, only three sentences in the section "Invertebrate heart" actually deal with that subject, the rest of the text there is about "the fully divided heart" that is found in humans and not in invertebrates.Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Heart article needs an infobox, "see also" should be merged into the text if notable and deleted if not. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The article is now live at Heart! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Adding a link to "authors" / "contributors" in Wikipedia's by-line to just medical articles

Screenshot with the small proposed change to the page circled in magenta to make it easier to find.

It appears that getting consensus for making this change to Wikipedia generally will be difficult.[5] It appears that most within WPMED are supportive. A suggestive has been put forth that we should only add this to medical articles. While a little more complicated technically would be happy with this.

Once more an example of what this could look like is on the article on heart failure. If there is support for this proposal the word "authors" or "contributor" and link to the list of authors would go after the text "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia".

When a person clicks on the word author it takes you to X! tool here [6]. Preferably the heading "top editors" would be changed to "authors" and that section would be moved up to below "general statistics". I am not sure what punctuation should be used and am open to suggestions / variations. What are peoples thoughts to just do it for medical articles? A lack of transparency regarding who writes Wikipedia's medical content is a concern I frequently hear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:15, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

• Support Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support – Boghog (talk) 08:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support -- Looie496 (talk) 14:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support There are other proposals about cosmetic ways to do this. I might favor changing "From Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia" to "From contributors to Wikipedia, the free Encyclopedia" because we already have a problem with people providing attribution to either Wikipedia or Creative Commons rather that people who applied CC licenses to content they shared on Wikipedia. Xaosflux said things in the above cited discussion which made me think this way. The way this is proposed is good also. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support for all articles, actually, not only medical space.--cyclopia^speak! 15:21, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Makes what is already available in two clicks (Page information -> Contributors) available in one click instead, and makes that link more visible. As this information is already available and all this proposal is doing is making the access to it easier, I don't understand the arguments that this will somehow be dangerous or encourage glory-hounds, at least not any more than what the normal page presentation already does. Would be very happy to see this deployed in a trial run on selected WP:MED articles, for example, and see what the feedback is, or see whether the contributor profile of those articles changes (RCT anyone)? Zad68 18:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support, although I would prefer it next to the "History" tab at the top (which would require MediaWiki intervention). JFW | T@lk 19:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support per the discussion at village pump. Transparency to readers, credit to major contributors, a tool for seeing how an article was developed that provides a snapshot not available by using the history tab. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support but weakly, as the information is already available, and actually pretty difficult for novices to interpret sensibily. Plus there are normally no declarations of any COI, as well as the other issues raised here and at the pump. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be good for all of us to have COI declarations on our talk pages. I have one sort of already but will clarify it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:25, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

It's an interesting proposal. Regarding terminology, a broader term like "contributors" or "editors" would probably better capture the sense of the information than "authors". (For instance, someone reverting vandalism is making a useful and worthwhile contribution, but I wouldn't think of them as an author.)

On placement of the link, while I appreciate the appeal of adding a specially-placed 'byline', I am inclined to suggest that it is better placed next to the 'History' tab—the same location where someone gets the rest of their information about the way the article has been edited.

On the concept itself, I am of two minds. Seeing the major contributors is potentially interesting and potentially useful, though the vast majority of our editors are working pseudonymously—I am reluctant to believe that a reader who discovers that most of an article's edits come from "Boghog" or "TenOfAllTrades" or "Xaosflux" is necessarily going to find it more credible, or that the authorship is more transparent. (Not that I have anything against Boghog or Xaosflux.)

As well, the issue of ordering the list of contributors by number of (non-minor?) edits is kind of clunky. It's probably the best automated compromise we can use, but it has some problematic aspects. (Yes, one can sort the table on the other columns, but few people are likely to do so.) If I have an article on my watchlist and regularly revert vandalism, it's entirely possible that I will be the top 'author' without having made a single contribution to an article's content. A pair of edit warriors could be the top contributors without ever actually getting either one's content to stick. Editors will be rewarded for the practice of breaking edits up into lots of tiny chunks, and for failing to use the 'minor edit' flag.

In the fringier areas of medicine, we still come across articles that have been lovingly crafted by true believers over the course of many months or years, only to be brutally cut down to a reality-based stub when finally discovered. Most of the edits and most of the additions will be credited to the fringe editor, but most of the current content will be the work of a small number of recent authors. We actually look worse in such situations, because a naive reading of the 'contributors' list will put the fringe wackjob's name first.

Honestly, I suspect that this type of information isn't going to have a big effect on the perception of Wikipedia articles by people from outside Wikipedia. The sort of people who edit this talk page are experienced editors, who know about article histories and vandalism reverts and content policies...and who likely recognize dozens of usernames and know which of them have their heads on straight. To us, the list of usernames and edit numbers makes some sense because we have the necessary context and experience. It can be useful to us because we know the environment and can recognize green lights and red flags. For individuals looking in from the outside...I am more skeptical. Just some thoughts. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I must admit I have doubts about the wisdom of this proposal too. For the reasons TenOfAllTrades has laid out above, any ranking of contributors by number of edits may be misleading, and I suspect might even be exploited by the small section of contributors who seem to consider their personal edit-count as some sort of 'score'. I'd be very wary of changing current practice in a manner that might encourage 'game-playing' edits in subject matter where we have a particular responsibility to ensure the best possible content - and experience has shown that such game-playing has disrupted Wikipedia content on other subjects, as with the problems we had with Wikipedia:Getting to Philosophy being used as an excuse to edit-war over the lede of multiple articles. Further, as TenOfAllTrades also notes, Wikipedia user names are unlikely to mean much to the average reader anyway, and a ranked listing may give a false impression of our collaborative article creation process - where discussions in the background (on talk pages, project pages etc) may sometimes be as significant as the actual editing of individual articles.For those that need this information, it is already available via history tools. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Which is why the metric for text added is also displayed. This isn't about needing the information, it is about making it visible for those who don't know how to find it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a fair number of us here who have our real life entities on our user pages. Having surveyed our editors we also know that many of those who make up the core community of medical editors have a fairly significant medical background.

We already have a link to "contributors" under the history tab. If people were going to "game" this they could already. I am not convinced that moving it to the by-line will make much difference. If we do a trial this is definitely something we will keep an eye on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll just add that it would be nice if there were some ability to recognize contributions other than adding text. Sometimes the articles desperately need copyediting or just flat out removal of inappropriate material. Having spent hundreds of hours on the quinolone articles myself, I'm noted as being responsible for 2- 5% of the added text. A former user who added many tens of thousands of bytes of case reports, animal studies, in vitro studies, and primary research reports (which my time was mostly spent cutting out) is listed as responsible for slightly over 50% of the added text, though he would likely not recognize the articles in their current form, and they contain almost none of the text he added. If something could be done here that does not make the software too complicated it would be nice. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

LG is listed as first and you as third [7]. You however or the most recent of the major contributors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

User:IiKkEe

Appears to be refusing to use references or follow WP:MEDMOS. Article in question is Zinc deficiency. Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Pharma/Wikipedia web story

"Citation needed: pharma needs to make the most of Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia is an increasingly important source of knowledge for patients and information [which must be kept accurate and up to date"]. Nothing too exciting. I'll cross-post to Pharma project. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:49, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Simpleshow Videos

Contraception – How to Prevent Unwanted Pregnancy

We have recently had a video donated to Wikipedia. Am also in discussions with the Khan academy about their releasing their content under a license we can use. Wondering what peoples though are on the placement of these sorts of videos? This one is a little "how to" in nature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This group posted a lot of videos to YouTube which someone brought to Wikipedia. In a lot of ways they seem to know what they are doing but in some others I wonder about their understanding of CC licensing. I wrote to them and asked for a chat because I want to confirm that every part of this video is CC licensed. If copyright is in order then I would like these videos everywhere and perhaps translated to other languages also.

Old news about Khan Academy is that in Wikipedia:GLAM/smarthistory a lot of their videos are presented by having external links in the body of Wikipedia articles to their videos. I would hate to press Khan Academy, but as best as I can tell, no one there has ever made a public statement about why they only use non-free licensing when so much of their branding suggests that they want to make content freely available. I have sometimes wondered if perhaps the people making decisions there really have not thought about the issue, because I expected that if they did, they are big enough to issue some kind of statement on this striking choice of theirs. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes am currently pressing these issues. The Khan academy is starting to work on medicine. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:31, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

We are thinking about CRUK videos too, but the existing model release terms are an issue. At the least we may change the standard forms to allow videos shot in future to be on fully open licenses. Ones like this - a nice animated 1:09 on "having an endoscopy" should be easier. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea of videos, and think their placement should be based upon content. A general video, or a well sourced one could go in the article, similar to images. I really like the CRUK animation, but when it comes to the how to video, I have to admit it is very US-centric. Gynecologists in much of the world aren't involved in informing people about contraceptives, instead this is done by nurses. I would suggest we try to stick to content that is applicable internationally if we are to link it in our articles. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree CFCF, the difficult with video is that they are hard to edit collaboratively. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Cheilodynie

Does anyone know what Cheilodynie is? It redirects to Disease, and I'm guessing that's wrong. (I've been cleaning out inappropriate redirects by redirecting from "Disease" to more relevant pages; there are only a few more to go.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a term that isn't internationally used - something to do with a disease of the lip? http://www.gloggnitzer.com/icd-10/K00-K14.html, and cheilo = lip, dynia = pain - lip pain? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

ICD 10 code is K13.0 [8] which is the same as cheilitis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

It's probably a misspelling or a non-English word. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"Dynie" sounds like it might refer to pain. So pain in the lips perhaps. Never heard the term before though. 92.40.94.197 (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, as CFCF suggested. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A word for some sort of pain in German, it seems. Whatever it is, these are what you take to relieve it. Johnbod (talk) 23:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Need help of a German-speaking altmed editor

A BLP of a fringe altmed practitioner at Ryke Geerd Hamer crosses several boundaries. Much of the sourcing is in German. The article contains many unpleasant statements about the subject person that are not as well cited as they should be to have a place on wp. Can someone please pitch in?LeadSongDog come howl! 03:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Are there any specific souces and claims that you want to verify? -A1candidate (talk) 03:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Any statements that could be construed as a BLP violation. Do we have RS for the assertions that he's said and done these vile things, or is this just an attack piece?

After taking a brief look at the article, I've noticed that:

• Many of the links are dead
• Bild is a tabloid that shouldn't be used for a BLP
• The assertion that the German Medical Association disagrees with Hamer is unsourced
• The fact that Hamer promotes anti-semitic views and is responsible for the deaths of several people is supported by an article published on the website of the German Cancer Society
• The BLP is generally accurate for the most part, but it should be reduced it size to summarize important points only.
• It should also be noted that some of his supporters view him as a "genius" and a role model. There have been public demonstrations in support of Hamer and he seems to be a popular lecturer too.

-A1candidate (talk) 01:40, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sure it is unpleasant work to do, but it is clearly necessary. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Anybody reviewing Medgirl131's edits?

Cross-posting Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Anybody_reviewing_Medgirl131.27s_edits.3F FYA. Thanks. Samsara (FA • FP) 10:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

• [9]. 188.28.130.189 (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

From were do you think? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason to think it is plagiarism. The only question might be whether it is appropriate, since the editor who added it has the same user name as one of the authors of the paper that is cited. Looie496 (talk) 19:50, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:Redirect for discussion concerning the Gender identity disorder article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 August 31#Gender dysphoria. WP:Med has been involved with the gender identity disorder vs. gender dysphoria issue before, and this WP:Redirect for discussion is the next phase of this matter. A WP:Permalink is here. The two WikiProjects that have been alerted to this discussion are this one (WP:Med) and WP:LGBT, as seen here. The gender identity disorder topic is a sensitive topic, and sometimes the Gender identity disorder article can be subject to WP:Activism, so more eyes on that article from neutral editors can also help this issue. Flyer22 (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Frontotemporal dementia and Frontotemporal lobar degeneration

Do we want to keep these as separate articles? I'd like to hear other opinions about this because these two articles appear to have a rather significant amount of overlap and I'm of the mind that we could merge these two articles. Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:23, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

They are the same thing similar enough and need merging. Would merge to Frontotemporal lobar degeneration Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:29, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

They are not the same. FTLD refers to a group of neurodegenerative disorders that includes FD. Other forms of FTLD are semantic dementia and primary progressive nonfluent aphasia. Please do not confuse the terms. -A1candidate (talk) 17:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - FD is a form of FTLD. There are other types of FTLD as well. -A1candidate (talk) 17:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that A1, the FTD article mentions there are subtypes including the semantic and primary progressive confluent aphasia as you say. My point is that the frontotemporal lobar degeneration article doesn't really say much that's different from the FTD article. So, that's why I'm questioning the need for separate articles here. If they need to be separate, then it's important that the FTLD article is developed and has content in it that differs from the FTD article. Don't you think? No sense in having two articles say practically the same thing. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Give me some time to improve on the articles. We can't merge two articles just because we do a poor job of writing them. That's not the path that WP Medicine should take and I hope you understand. -A1candidate (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I did say in my last comment "if they need to be separate, then it's important that the FTLD article is developed and has content in it that differs from the FTD article." It's fine if you need time to improve the article, but I was raising the issue here because it just came to my attention. I'm not pushing for a merge this second. If you want to take it on as a project and develop the FTLD article so that it differs enough from the FTD article to merit being its own page, then by all means do it. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes there are three types of FTLD per [10]. I would merge all three.

Per the ref FTLD is the broad category. We seem to have FTD playing that role. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

FTLD should be written from a pathological viewpoint with focus on histology, genetics, and disease mechanisms. FTD should cover signs, symptoms, diagnosis and treatment -A1candidate (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. Frontotemporal lobar degeneration is the overriding term it appears and all 4 can be discussed on the same page until such time that they need to be split off. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

As long as FTLD doesn't get merged, I won't object to that -A1candidate (talk) 22:37, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

How new editors can help?

Hi everyone! I am new to whole wikipedia medical editing experience. However, I am really excited to get involved. Any ideas for a relatively simply page that I can help to work on? I'm sorry if this exists elsewhere, a point in the right direction would be much appreciated. Pishoygouda (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, we add new sections to the bottom, so moved! There are really thousands of articles on medical conditions where the language needs to be simplified, and the WP:LEAD expanded to summarize the main points of the whole article. If you know anything at all about surgery, I find articles in this area especially in need of this, and often really unclearly expressed. Many epidemiology stats can be updated from the current version of the page already referenced - for example the US ones at Childhood cancer. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw a number of editors had posted on your talk page and I suggest you go through the material they linked to, be it the MEDHOW–Medical How to guide, the MEDMOS–MEDical Manual of Style or the MEDRS–MEDdical Reliable Source guideline.

Once you've done that there are a large number of high-importance subjects that are in great need of improvement. A good start would be to tell us a little about your focus area/specialty or areas of interest. Finding something to improve in any area will likely be easy. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome! Is there anything that you're interested in? I mean, if you're interested in anatomy, then I don't want to suggest a disease article, or if you're interested in heart disease, then I'd rather not suggest an article about cancer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Well I am a final year medical student from Ireland, so my interests are pretty broad. However, cardiology and medical education are my research interests! I'll give the WP:MEDRS a look! Pishoygouda (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)