Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 104) (bot
Line 586: Line 586:
:I added a bit of sourced content to [[wound]] and redirected it there. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 04:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
:I added a bit of sourced content to [[wound]] and redirected it there. [[User:Jytdog|Jytdog]] ([[User talk:Jytdog|talk]]) 04:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
::Cool beans! [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 18:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
::Cool beans! [[User:Alexbrn|Alexbrn]] ([[User talk:Alexbrn|talk]]) 18:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
:I'm actually interested in others opinions on if using a case report to point to notable occurrences is a reasonable thing to do. My feeling is that such a use is more like using a reliable news article than making a medical claim like oranges cause short stature. [[User:Chickpecking|Chickpecking]] ([[User talk:Chickpecking|talk]]) 06:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)


== [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 28#Category:Family medicine]] needs American input ==
== [[Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 28#Category:Family medicine]] needs American input ==

Revision as of 06:36, 9 December 2017

    Shortcut

    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.

    List of archives


    Potential new articles log

    Hello again. This post contains multiple questions so I have numbered them.

    1. Does anyone currently use these: User:AlexNewArtBot#Biology_and_medicine (specifically, User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult or User:InceptionBot/NewPageSearch/Medicine/log which are filled using articles matching the regexp patterns at User:AlexNewArtBot/Medicine?
    2. Has a better tool replaced it? I'm wondering because the only WikiProject Medicine page I saw linking to it (other than archives) (User:AlexNewArtBot/MedicineSearchResult) appears to be Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Tasks (which itself, or part of it is reported to be transcluded at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Tools, which is what the main project's menu links to (but I still failed to see the link in the latter, interestingly)).
    3. If this is still considered useful, perhaps links to these could be made more prominent (or the results transcluded on a more prominent page)?
    4. I'm wondering if the project would also be interested in tracking alternative medicine using this tool. Various reports I have made here were as a result of pages reported by the WikiProject Skepticism filters which includes some alternate medicine terms (User:AlexNewArtBot/Skepticism). While that project also deals with other fringe topics and pseudoscience, it would be possible to create a rules list specific and specialized to finding new articles related to alternate medicine (alternatively, it would be possible to add related terms to the existing main medicine rules). Of course, this also depends on if the project is interested in tracking new alternative medicine article creations.

    Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 09:04, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    tracking alternative medicine using this tool... might be useful, though you'd need more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have used those lists in the past, but not for more than a year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I use it to see if the bot catches my new article creations and to see the feed of some of the weirdest medical articles. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 17:13, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    List of genetic disorders

    Tay-sachs(genetic disorder)

    This list is long and unwieldy. There must be a better way to divide it than by listing everything alphabetically. Any suggestions? Natureium (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ditch it entirely. Carl Fredrik talk 18:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It is somehow missing the most important genetic disorder: life. Looie496 (talk) 18:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    best to keep Full list and mark those conditions on it that are 'most common'(thereby eliminating the need for the smaller list first)...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:46, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Could list just the main ones, and than have separate a b c etc lists for the full list. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind the a,b,c,d lists idea, but would you list them by gene names, each name (since most have multiple names), or some other scheme? I thought at first the it's a pointless list and just the most common should be kept, but I have no idea how most common should be defined. I also considered dividing the list by chromosome, but many are polygenic. Natureium (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not nearly as long as I expected. I think it's fine.
    If you want, you can add anchors inside the table, and put {{Compact TOC}} at the top of the full list. Also: I strongly recommend that you use the visual editor when you're working on tables. (You'll also like its automatic citation tool: just paste in a PMID and get your citation back.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    And I strongly recommend that you don't use the visual editor when creating tables until such time as the visual editor is upgraded to comply with MOS:DTT by marking up row headers and adding scopes for column and row headers. We're never going to make any progress in making tables accessible for visitors using assistive technology while it's considered okay to ignore their accessibility needs. --RexxS (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    RexxS is right. Of course, no reader on medical topics would ever need assistive devices. Oh, wait... LeadSongDog come howl! 17:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If we wanted to make progress on that, then presumably the place to start is at the top of Help:Table. VisualEditor, WikiEditor, and RefToolbar all produce the same basic wikitext that you'll find in that help page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The very top of Help:Table says "For accessibility, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial." VisualEditor does not produce the "same basic wikitext" that that link calls for. It's just the usual "let's ignore everything that doesn't affect us directly" attitude that everybody working to improve accessibility is so used to seeing. Sadly. --RexxS (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not extremely long now, but it's nowhere near complete. I started to add more, but decided to wait until a decision was made so as to not make division of the table harder. Natureium (talk) 17:30, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    complete--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, those are only rare diseases. Natureium (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Genetic Home Reference lists about 1,200[1] We can copy their list as it is PD as it is a US gov site. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:47, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I hate to say it, but it may not be that simple. Some Terms and Conditions apply that might be interpreted as requiring derivative works such as WP to carry a non-commercial license. Like many USGov sites, it is not always obvious which content items are PD-USGov and which are not. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:00, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. But does anyone have any thoughts on how to best organize the list rather than having one massive list? And is the column on what type of mutation it is necessary? Natureium (talk) 18:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    What's actually wrong with having one massive list?
    If there are useful ways to categorize them (e.g., monogeneic vs polygeneic), then you could have a column that includes that information, but I don't see a specific problem with the fact that the list is long. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate pages like that. Hate them. Not a single ref. But to use Wikidata language, it makes "claims" in associating genes with diseases and with types of mutations. We should nuke this. Jytdog (talk) 03:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    List of OMIM codes

    How should this be merged in? Does each OMIM code need its own row or can we merge rows where one disorder is associated with more than one gene (e.g. Bardet-Biedl syndrome types 1-15)? There are tons of red links in the OMIM list because each type of a disorder is listed separately, and each separate type does not need it's own article. In essence, is it a list of OMIM codes and their associated syndrome, or a list of syndromes and their associated OMIM code(s)? –Natureium (talk) 17:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Now that I think about it, I think maybe OMIM codes should be a separate list. It's really a list of codes rather than a list of disorders. For example, FBN1 is listed on 6 lines with 6 disorders and 6 OMIM codes. I think the purpose of a list of OMIM codes would be to allow someone to look something up by code. (Whether or not that's necessary...) –Natureium (talk) 17:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Any opinions on this? Natureium (talk) 21:14, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    too long[2]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but what should be done about it? Natureium (talk) 16:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Tables

    The Help page provides this as its first example (i.e., the one almost everyone copies): 

    {| class="wikitable"
|-
! Header 1
! Header 2
! Header 3
|-
| row 1, cell 1
| row 1, cell 2
| row 1, cell 3
|-
| row 2, cell 1
| row 2, cell 2
| row 2, cell 3
|}

    VisualEditor currently produces this in the wikitext mode: 

    {| class="wikitable"
|+ Caption
! Header cell !! Header cell
|-
| Content cell || Content cell
|}

    and this in the visual mode: 

    {| class="wikitable"
!
!
!
!
|-
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|
|-
|
|
|
|
|}

    In other words, where accessibility is concerned, all of the editing environments behave the same.

    You're right that Help:Table contains a hatnote link to a page that contains information about how to mark scope. (The same hatnote contains links to two other pages that don't.) But the information in the help page itself does not contain any of that information. If you want to this markup to be used, then IMO you need to actually change the help page itself, so that experienced editors will see this markup as being normal and recommended. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Data tables tutorial link gives the following basic example:
    {| class="wikitable"
|+ [caption text]
|-
! scope="col" | [column header 1]
! scope="col" | [column header 2]
! scope="col" | [column header 3]
|-
! scope="row" | [row header 1]
| [normal cell 1,2] || [normal cell 1,3]
|-
! scope="row" | [row header 2]
| [normal cell 2,2] || [normal cell 2,3]
...
|}
    That is canonical as far as accessible tables are concerned. It's also canonical as far as I'm concerned. If you think that some other pages need to be updated to reflect the consensus of our Manual of Style, then IMO you need to change those pages, for exactly the reasons you give. See WP:SOFIXIT, and ask yourself why it's always somebody else's job to try to improve accessibility on Wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 22:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's a better approach, but I'm frankly not sure that the core community will accept it. I'm not volunteering to get yelled at this week, so I'm not going to push that approach to the other pages. And by "not sure that they'll accept it", I mean that it's not even being followed in Featured Articles, all of which are theoretically supposed to comply with every single page of the MOS. See, for example, Alzheimer's disease, Acute myeloid leukemia, Cholangiocarcinoma, Dengue fever, Endometrial cancer, Huntington's disease, Influenza, Lung cancer – every single FA that I've checked from the list at Wikipedia:Featured articles#Health and medicine either has no tables or fails to mark the column or row scopes. I also mean that the column scope (which should be more common than row scope) appears in fewer than one out of 3,000 of articles. For comparison, I believe there are tables in about one out of seven of articles (not including infoboxes or other tables constructed via templates). The fact that some editor boldly slapped a guideline template at he top of the page two years ago, without any WP:PROPOSAL or even a discussion on the talk page, does not mean that the community accepts or supports this particular page (or even knows about it, which I suspect is the bigger problem).
    But my point is about your comment above, which advocated against creating tables in one piece of software. I hope that, since I've shown that all of the editing environments produce equally inaccessible code, you can agree that the visual editor is no worse (if also no better) for creating tables than the other options. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The page at WP:DTT gives a more in-depth explanation of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Tables, but the latter page contains exactly the same example. I hope you're not going to suggest next that Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility doesn't enjoy project-wide consensus?
    You'll note that the Featured Article process doesn't insist on images having WP:Alternative text for images text, either – despite Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility #Images being clear that "Images that are not purely decorative should include an alt attribute that acts as a substitute for the image for blind readers, search-spiders, and other non-visual users.", and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria requiring that "It follows the style guidelines". Your point that the FAC process regularly falls below its own requirements when it comes to accessibility is understood, and I'm only too well-aware of it. But just because the FAC process has been poor at improving accessibility doesn't meant everybody else should be as well.
    It doesn't have to be that way, and assistive software doesn't have to produce inaccessible markup. In the days when I used to use Dreamweaver to create webpages, it wouldn't allow me to add an image without explicitly supplying something for the alt text.
    I agree that the visual editor is no worse than other pieces of software that automatically create tables. I hope you will agree in turn that manually creating a table by adapting one of the accessible examples produces far more accessible tables, so that particular other option is preferable. You might like to consider as well whether there is any need for the visual editor to create tables that don't meet our standards for accessibility. --RexxS (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that everyone follows all of the advice from WP:ACCESS. But the fact remains that the community isn't actually doing this particular thing, which means that there is no evidence of community support for doing it. To put it more bluntly, "our standards for accessibility" do not appear to include accessible tables. If accessible tables were actually part of our standards, then we'd actually use them in a lot more than 0.003% of articles. The community's practice, rather than a written page, is still the ultimate source of, and the most accurate measure of, "our standards". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    De facto, only some parts of the MOS are considered mandatory at FA level. I don't know the background but judging from some comments I've read about the topic on User talk:Iridescent it's because a) the MOS is far too long and b) some people perceive it as pedantic and often not good advice in many situations. Perhaps something for WT:FA? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @WhatamIdoing: Meeting the standards outlined by WCAG for all websites ought not to be beyond the capability of a site as large and important as Wikipedia. Failing to meet those standards results in a poorer experience for those whose disabilities include blindness and other visual impairments. To be honest, I'm not prepared to accept people's excuses for not doing their very best to improve the experience of disadvantaged visitors. MOS:ACCESS is part of our standards, and it is sad that it is ignored so often. Our editing community ought to be ashamed of that fact, not promoting it as an excuse.
    @Jo-Jo Eumerus: The reason some parts of ACCESS are ignored at FAC is that it's hard to acquire the skills to produce good WP:alternative text for images. That resulted in some very over-prescriptive advice a few years ago, and the push-back resulted in the dropping of WP:ALT from the requirements. But understand this: just because something is difficult, it doesn't mean it's not worth doing. An image with good alt text and a properly marked-up table make the experience of reading an article much more pleasant for the visually impaired. Featured articles that fail to do that do not represent Wikipedia's best work, and the fact that these shortcomings are accepted does not stop them being shortcomings. Yes, the MOS is too long and too pedantic, but that does not grant a licence to ignore it when it's inconvenient, nor when its benefit is only apparent to a very small minority of disadvantaged visitors. --RexxS (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Metagenics, Inc.

    Recently declined draft about a company producing "medical foods". —PaleoNeonate – 11:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    agree w/ decline[4] based on Wikipedia:Spam#Advertisements_masquerading_as_articles--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comment, I now tagged it with CSD G11. —PaleoNeonate – 02:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: the article was recreated and is now at MfD. The article was improved during the nomination process. I'm trying to evaluate its notability. Paper mentions appear rare but [5] has a mention. Those products appear to be sold by acupuncturists and other altmed practitioners. It's possible that they're notable? The sourcing still seems suboptimal (non-independent)... —PaleoNeonate – 00:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the MfD has stalled without further updates, I am relisting it. If there are any useful updates from this discussion, please mention them at the MfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:30, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Media naturalness theory

    This AfD discussion may be of interest to this project: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media naturalness theory (has been relisted for lack of participation). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 03:16, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    commented[6](article/talk should've been tagged w/ Psycology project(Evolutionary psychology))--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:04, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kallmann syndrome

    Hello,

    I have taken a very close interest in the page on Kallmann syndrome. I am a patient with the condition and very keen to raise awareness of the condition. Since it is such a rare condition the Wikipedia page can be a very good source of information to new patients. I make no secret of the fact I am a patient with the condition and I have plenty of You Tube videos and blog sites where I talk about the condition.

    I am keen to improve the article as much as I can and raise the standard of the article. Doc James has recently made some helpful alterations to the article but I am keen to keep improving the article.

    As a patient advocate I am keen to ensure that the page is relevant and useful to all patients but at the same time I do try to keep a balanced and neutral look to the content I post there and to keep within the rules of Wikipedia medicine pages.

    I would welcome any feedback on the page.

    Thank you.

    Neilsmith38 (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    agree with Jytdog assessment of the edit[7]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:55, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I've commented at Talk:Kallmann syndrome #2 recent updates to the page. but as Neilsmith38 is proposing content – some of which is based on an article he has authored – it would be better per WP:SELFCITE if the edits were reviewed by others, and consensus reached on making them or not. --RexxS (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Let's centralize this discussion at the talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone have any idea how? Disease related articles being defined as those that have either Template:Infobox medical condition or Template:Infobox medical condition (new). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I could be wrong...but since West.Andrew does User:West.andrew.g/Popular_medical_pages he may have an idea...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have figured it out :-) Will share soon. Andrew West unfortunately has been very busy with other things in life. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Rare disease notability

    What are the criteria for notability for articles about rare diseases? Natureium (talk) 18:26, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @Natureium: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." See WP:GNG. There are no subject-specific notability guidelines for diseases that I'm aware of. --RexxS (talk) 20:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, if it's a real/accepted disease, it's notable. (If it's in the "one lab says that they've discovered this thing", it's more complicated.)
    Note that you don't have to have high-quality MEDRS-ideal sources for a disease to be notable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I read this paper [8] and was going to create an article on Neotenic Complex Syndrome, but saw that it was deleted just last year. Does one new primary research paper now make this notable? Natureium (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Not per se. WP:MEDRS specifies that Wikipedia articles should use secondary sources, i.e., review articles. If no review articles exist, there is no good basis for constructing a Wikipedia article. As soon as somebody reviews the primary research paper, or even writes a perspective about it, the story changes. Looie496 (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's real, it's notable. For something published in September 2017, that may be a bit too recent. We need reviews/substantiation/replication/something of a 3rd party source. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:48, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the opposite of what @WhatamIdoing: said above. Natureium (talk) 03:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, it is. This has been discussed before.

    WP:Notability (and related guidelines and policies) say that you can have an article if all of the following are true:

    1. you can find multiple (i.e., ≥2) sources, that:
      1. are independent and
      2. are secondary and
      3. provide "significant coverage" of the subject (think "500 words about it", although the real rule is at WP:WHYN), and
    2. editors don't want to merge it into a larger article, and
    3. it's not outright banned by WP:NOT.

    Any accepted disease will trivially meet the first and last. Sometimes editors choose to merge them, but that's pretty unusual except when we're talking about sub-types (although nearly every subtype will trivially meet all of the other rules, too).

    So, to use a rare disease as an example, an entry in NORD and/or Eurodis and/or OMIM pretty much means guaranteed notability, but two long articles in two different popular science magazines would technically be enough.

    Of course, once you've started writing, there will be a chance that someone will come along and demand that only MEDRS-ideal sources be used because it's "medical" and somebody might get hurt. You're allowed to have an article, but now you can't put any content in it, because the known review articles are more than five years old (notability is not temporary, so this doesn't affect notability), or the recent information is on a website or a magazine article (notability doesn't restrict itself to the academic literature), etc. We have collectively refused to believe that this disconnect between the guidelines is a problem. I think it's a problem; I also think that it would be difficult to solve in practice. This group and the FTN regulars don't appear to want the actual as-written notability guidelines to apply to anything that we think isn't conventional medicine. And because of NPOV, we're not really going to get community approval to have one notability standard for conventional medicine and a different notability standard for altmed. So we're stuck, and the short answer to your original question is still: if it's a disease accepted by conventional medicine, then it's notable, no matter how rare it is. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    For the specific example, there seems to be a good deal of content in Brooke Greenberg. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Not listed by NORD or NIH's rare disease databases. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    NORD's website says "NORD's Rare Disease Database provides brief introductions for patients and their families to more than 1,200 rare diseases. This is not a comprehensive database since there are nearly 7,000 diseases considered rare in the U.S. We add new topics as we are able to do so, with the help of rare disease medical experts." I didn't find a similar statement on the NIH website, but I assume it also it's nearly complete. Natureium (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WhatamIdoing really ought to have included:
    4. There are secondary sources that provide enough content to write the article.
    because we also have a requirement that "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources." (WP:PSTS). Note that the requirement that the bulk of the sourcing should be secondary applies to all articles, not just those subject to MEDMOS. --RexxS (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that you will find that my rule #1 is exactly that rule. "Significant coverage" is supposed to mean "enough to write the article". Also, both NORD entries and almost all articles in pop sci magazines are secondary sources. Secondary doesn't mean high-quality source or MEDRS-ideal source; it just means secondary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that Neoteny in humans is currently C-class, I would ask how relevant one primary article introducing a novel nomenclature for a nebulously defined syndrome could be. If I read it correctly it essentially says they've identified five mutations any of which can delay development, then called the combination of delay with one of those mutations a "complex syndrome". If others start to use the term, we might find a place for it, but a whole article for a neologism? LeadSongDog come howl! 19:39, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Maslach Burnout Inventory

    Recently relisted at AfD for lack of input. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 00:59, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    commented[9]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:06, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cancer phobia

    A deletion discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Antisperm antibodies

    needs cleanup. I removed bad refs but it needs just plain copyediting to become decent english. Jytdog (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    another ref?..[10]pg 540--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sourcing question

    The discussion at Talk:ʻOumuamua#Is the Inbound Velocity table original research.3F may interest some of you. It's an interesting case: Someone has pulled data for an astronomical object from a NASA tool, somewhat similar to how we look up information in the SEER database, and added it to the article. The ref is a link plus the search parameters. Nobody doubts the accuracy, relevance, or encyclopedic nature of the data, but an editor wonders whether extracting data from a web-based tool is technically compliant with a strict reading of WP:V. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Pulling high quality data from SEER is perfectly fine IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't quite the issue, or at least not the only one. The question is about an editor searching/plugging into an online calculator and using the results, considered OR? It's not cut and dried, as there has been plenty of criticism of online calculators in this project and others, even as EL entries. In this case, JPL Horizons is about the highest quality orbital calculator you can get. Hence it reduces to if one considers this a routine calculation or one sufficiently complex that it qualifies as OR. --Mark viking (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You can plug quite a lot into the SEER database, e.g., to extract only rates of diagnosis for women over a particular age, of a particular race, for a particular kind of cancer in each year, and presumably that trend line is being calculated on the fly, too. So while it's not identical, I think that it is (as I originally said) "somewhat similar". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand you point, thanks. --Mark viking (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah I was thinking the precalculated SEER data such as this.[11] Rather than doing specific searches. The first is fine, I am less clear about the second.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for support in 2017 Community Tech Wishlist Survey

    Annually since 2015 the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team conducts a survey to select the top 10 community wishes for coding development for Wikimedia editors. I have been pleased with the 2015 results and the 2016 results. I recommend checking out past years' wishes for insight into what ideas people have had to improve editor's experiences.

    I made a proposal for this year and I am writing to request support for it from my WikiProject Medicine colleagues. Unlike with some other Wikimedia surveys and polls, this one encourages canvassing and soliciting groups to vote. The proposal that I made is of special interest to the development of medical articles.

    The Programs and Events Dashboard is the best available tool for organizing Wikipedia meetups. The Wiki Education Foundation developed it for enabling classes to edit Wikipedia and for them to help monitor everything. Some of you might remember the chaos in the education program until about 2013; I believe that the reason why we hear fewer complaints is because of this monitoring system. Meanwhile, class participation has increased several fold.

    Personally, I used this system to do outreach to medical schools. Please check out the results which I got, which say that with this monitoring service I was able to coordinate 17 events in which 190 students and participants in higher learning programs added 90,000 words to 525 articles which thereafter got 173 million pageviews. The data is challenging to slice but generally I tried to give slices of the reports to various institutions, like for example, if a school had multiple programs I used this system to report back all that school's activities.

    WikiProject Medicine attracts more attention from partner organizations than any other program outside general university outreach. I definitely would not have done outreach of the sort I did without WP:MED backing up my programs and conversations to schools, because I knew I could always send anyone to this board. I think that WikiProject Medicine should take credit for guiding the direction of institutional partnerships and university collaboration in general, just because this project has been so involved. I feel that it is in this projects' interest to see this tool developed. For that reason I am asking for your wikisignature on the support page. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    thank you for posting BlueRasberry--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Two of my teammates track this, so I looked in on it earlier today. I strongly encourage everyone to go to m:2017 Community Wishlist Survey, pick one of the 15 categories, and review the proposals there. Here are a few notes:

    Voting is quick and easy: Find something that interests you, click the "Support" button, add a comment if you want (most people don't, and all votes are counted equally regardless of comments), and click the blue "Support" button to save the page. You can vote for a proposal in less than five seconds.

    The top 10 vote-getters – it is a plain majority-rule approval vote – "win" the right to be "addressed" (i.e., not necessarily implemented) by the Community Tech team. If you are thinking that the best voting strategy is to vote for no more than 10, then I want to say that the fact that there are now 10 proposals mentioned in this section is purely coincidental. There are more worthy proposals, but I'm out of time. I strongly encourage you to look through at least one of the categories and make your own choices. But please do consider voting, even if you don't usually get involved: Total votes are up this year (about 3500 right now, compared to just 2000 at the same time last year), and I always want this group's voice to get counted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for taking the time to summarize this for us. JenOttawa (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:AALERTS need some help on Community Wishlist Survey

    Many of you use Article Alerts to get notified of discussions (PRODs and AfD in particular). However, due to our limit resources (one bot coder), not a whole lot of work can be done on Article Alerts to expand and maintain the bot. If the coder gets run over by a bus, then it's quite possible this tool would become unavailable in the future.

    There's currently a proposal on the Community Wishlist Survey for the WMF to take over the project, and make it both more robust / less likely to crash / have better support for new features. But one of the main things is that with a full team behind Article Alerts, this could also be ported to other languages!

    So if you make use of Article Alerts and want to keep using it and see it ported to other languages, please go and support the proposal. And advertise it to the other Medicine projects in other languages too to let them know this exists, otherwise they might miss out on this feature! Thanks in advance! Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:04, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    One thing we want to add to AALERTS is notifications if images we are using within medical articles are put up for deletion on commons. This will allow us to either get proper release or find another image.
    That is HERE Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @Doc James: You realize that if that one gets on top of the WMF takeover of AALERTS on the survey, it means the commons deletion notices won't get added to AALERTS, because AALERTS will remain a non-WMF project coded solely by Hellknowz, right? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 22:45, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes so the hope is that they might combine the two... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably won't happen if the WMF takeover of AALERTS falls below #10. You'd likely have a seperate non-AALERTS bot for it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease

    CJD(Tonsil)

    This article seems to focus mostly on the infectious type of CJD, while it is reported that this only makes up <5% of cases. [12] Should this be moved to Infectious Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, or just majorly rewritten? Natureium (talk) 15:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The lead does not concentrate mostly on the "infectious type". The symptoms are the same between both, the treatment is the same between both.
    And it says "Most cases occur spontaneously, while about 7.5% of cases are inherited from a person's parents in an autosomal dominant manner."
    From what I understand the spontaneous type can turn into the infectious type so no a slit is a bad idea IMO.
    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sourcing contest

    Wikimedia Spain has just started a contest to see who can add the most missing sources to articles. It appears to be open to all editors, at all Wikipedias. More information is available at m:Referenciaton. Sign up at m:Referenciaton/Participants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Hopefully they emphasis high quality sources and ones that support the text in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're so cynical, James. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Source feedback requested

    I posted a question about the journal Alternative Medicine Review at the reliable sources noticeboard, but I haven't got a response in a few days. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Alternative Medicine Review. Could someone with more experiance with WP:MEDRS comment? Billhpike (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    [13]question was answered(you may also want to look at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Which science journals are reputable?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    MetaCure

    just stumbled over this fairly obvious UPE article about a medical device company. Needs some hacking if anybody feels up to it. I am sleepy. Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That medical efficacy information does not sound MEDRS compliant, and it seems way too detailed for a company article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:35, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Redirected to the generic and rewrote the thing. Lebovitz works for the company in question which makes his papers a little suspect. One not by him are much more reserved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:25, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    Are all urologists also surgeons? Do they (if they are surgeons) correct pelvic floor dysfunction in men? Best Regards,Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 15:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that all urologists are qualified and permitted to do some surgical procedures, but whether they get the title of "surgeon" probably depends upon the regulatory environment.
    http://www.uchospitals.edu/specialties/pelvic/faq/pelvic-floor-disorders.html#P52_3008 looks like the answer to your question of how many specialists could be involved ("it depends" looks like a safe answer). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Urologists are generally classified as surgeons. Their medical counterparts are nephrologists. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much for the reply. I was orienting myself to the topic of pelvic floor dysfunction and got confused about the medical specialty that would treat men for this. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:52, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Psychiatric and mental health nursing

    Weird behavior by:

    This is obviously the same person. It appears that they are an UPE editing on behalf of some organization trying to promote nursing as a career. Some of their edits are OK, some are not. They are not talking back. Jytdog (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    You started an SPI yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No not yet. Jytdog (talk) 20:47, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Peoples thoughts

    On a statement regarding why tea tree oil is poorly studied[14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:05, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    • more opinions(gave mine[15])--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:45, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • On a related point, does anybody know what the cost of filing the EU and FDA paperwork for a new drug is? Not the cost of doing the research, just the cost of the lawyers, etc., to write up the results. This says that the FDA charges about US $2 million to review the application after you've written it all up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a remarkably opaque process (with pharma revealing only in very opportunistic ways, IMHO), but a paper from 2010 (PMID 20308845) says "Estimated costs for bringing a new molecular entity to market vary depending on the therapy, the sponsor, and the time period for evaluation, and estimates range from $500 million to $2 billion.11,12 Included in these estimates are opportunity costs,11 those related to the conduct of clinical trials, and the vast number of new molecular entity failures during drug development attributable to unacceptable toxicity or ineffectiveness. These failures are expensive and contribute to the high cost of drug development. The time from the start of clinical testing to marketing approval is approximately 90.3 months.11" (with 11 being PMID 16522582 and 12 being PMID 15350245). A more recent analysis suggests the price tag is about US$2.6B. (sorry - I do realize you want a particular component so this may not be directly responsive, but the links might help - e.g. the Tufts analysis pointed from the latter link) — soupvector (talk) 02:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The first step is simple to gather evidence that something works via a RCT. No human RCT has been done on tea tree oil for scabies. This level of evidence is generated for non patentable stuff all the time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Simple"? Not a word I'd apply to RCT design, execution, and analysis. The penultimate paragraph in this story, and this FDA document seem relevant; there are means for assigning exclusivity based on novel clinical trial data, but that may not be enough to balance the costs/risks of such trials. As Doc James may be suggesting, governments and NGOs could do this - I'm interested to see evidence that this happens "all the time". — soupvector (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    One prominent example is the development of the treatment for malaria, Artemisinin by China. Another example is that development of treatment for HIV/AIDs was lead by the NIH.
    Some company in the US got exclusivity for showing low dose colchicine was useful despite the med being in use a long long time for gout already.[16] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we pretended that it was simple to design (multiple) clinical trials, I would think that the first step in the business decision to seek regulatory approval would look a lot more like "How much will it cost us to get this approved as a drug?" When the answer is "The filing fee is two million dollars, the lawyers are several million dollars, and the present value of the expected profits for our company are much less than that – and we haven't even started in on the cost of the trials", then no for-profit company is going to even contemplate getting regulatory approval. They might contemplate a simple clinical trial in the hopes of boosting sales, but they're not going turn it into "a registered product or approved drug", which seems to be what the actual subject of the discussion is about.
    The diff shows you removing a statement that "there are no patented or approved drugs from tea tree oil", with this kind of simple business calculation being cited as the main reason. That companies could choose to produce scientific evidence is pretty much unrelated to the question of whether they could get patent rights or whether they would choose to seek regulatory approval. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict)Artemesinins are an exceptional, not usual, example (and, btw, it's not as if there was never anticipation of exclusivity). The HIV drug example seems like a non sequitur in this discussion - e.g. I personally participated in protests against the drug companies that were charging exorbitant prices for those medicines, i.e. those companies enforced IP rights and market exclusivity even though the NIH funded early work - same was true of many of the HCV antivirals). Colchine is an excellent example of the "novel clinical trial data" path to exclusivity that I mentioned in my immediately previous comment. Perhaps this is a discussion that's run its course, but I'm listening if you have more you want to say. — soupvector (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If one separates out the active component within tea tree oil I imagine one could get a patent for it. I hope we have found wording that is satisfactory to all involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:20, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Facial toning

    It's this science reference desk discussion which led me to this article. It might be of interest to this project considering that there are some medical claims, although it seems mostly about cosmetics. I'd have to research, but I seem to remember of some devices sold for face muscles toning which were not recommended (or considered risky)... That article is not currently tagged for WikiProjects. —PaleoNeonate – 10:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    [17]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG just cleaned up most of the article. It, of course, needs more work. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

    A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_Medicine

    Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 12:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Nice work! I can't get the "FIX" button to work - due to OAuth failure (Python exceptions thrown each time; Chrome on Win10) - but editing directly is easy and I see the page updates every hour. — soupvector (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I don't know why the tool wasn't working for you (might be worth asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation), but thanks for tackling them.— Rod talk 08:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Diff viewer broken

    I have been seeing this issue occurring a lot lately. If you look at this diff[18] it simple does not format correctly.

    So to get it to function I first restore the prior text by cut and paste.[19]

    We need this fixed. User:Kaldari able to help? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for posting this. I have been having the same problem. JenOttawa (talk) 01:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc James and JenOttawa – If it's any help, under Preferences → Gadgets → Editing, you can enable wikEdDiff. It shows this diff very clearly. Between this and regular diff view nearly any edit can be easily visualised. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:46, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You are getting it to work on this diff[20] User:Adrian J. Hunter? I have WikEd on. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc James yep, that diff looks fine to me. The regular diff view is unhelpful, but the improved diff view clearly shows the added text highlighted in blue. I also use WikEd rather than enabling the gadget separately through preferences. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 07:10, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Adrian J. Hunter it is strange as it does not work for me... I have no idea why. I am using Google chrome. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:36, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WikiEd features never worked for me even when I had scripts enabled (and it obviously couldn't now that they're disabled). I'd really be nice if the standard diff feature itself was improved instead of relying on hacks... —PaleoNeonate – 21:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    User:PaleoNeonate when were they "disabled"? User:Adrian J. Hunter can you provide a screen shot of what you get for this dif?[21] Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I disabled them. (I didn't mean that they were disabled in MediaWiki, only in my Wikipedia browser instance, sorry for being unclear.) —PaleoNeonate – 22:37, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    How I see it.
    Doc James Here 'tis. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 23:47, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As so cool User:Adrian J. Hunter. All I need to do is hit that little triangle :-) You just significantly improved my day... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:23, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha, that cracked me up! I can see why the delta symbol is used, but it's a little cryptic. If anyone else has this problem, we should suggest to Cacycle that the button be changed to "show improved diff" or whatever. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 23:01, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps a different page would be able to provide more information about this since it has nothing to do with WP:MED? Natureium (talk) 16:38, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Were do you suggest? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:43, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're an admin with a much greater knowledge of wikipedia than I have, but I would assume WP:VPT could be helpful. (Edit: because it's hard to read tone, I should state that I'm trying to be helpful rather than critical.) Natureium (talk) 19:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks posted here[22] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Sugar - Tangent, medref?

    Could I get an opinion on whether a reverted edit of mine is a tangent or a medical claim requiring medrefs? I thought it was a relevant claim about political actions, but I am not as familiar as I might be with medical article convention, and I may well be wrong. HLHJ (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    That should go in the "society and culture" section not the heath effects section IMO. Good reviews will take into account those sorts of concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Skimming, with search tool, the review cited thus in the article:

    The United Nations meta-analysis and WHO studies showed contrasting impacts of sugar in refined and unrefined forms.[1]

    it doesn't really seem to support the statement. It lumps "sugars-sweetened soft drinks and fruit juices" together, and while it positively mentions "unrefined carbohydrates", the closest it gets to mentioning refined or unrefined sugar seems to be "Nutrient factors under investigation [as causing weight gain] include fat, carbohydrate type (including refined carbohydrates such as sugar), the glycaemic index of foods, and fibre". It finds "moderately strong" evidence that a high intake of sugary drinks promotes weight gain, with phrases like "It has been estimated that each additional can or glass of sugars-sweetened drink that they consume every day increases the risk of becoming obese by 60%", and says "Sugars are undoubtedly the most important dietary factor in the development of dental caries".
    It totally does not support the leading statement "Studies examining the health impact of sugars are inconclusive".
    On the smaller problems side, I will see if I can also find a medical review mentioning these problems.

    References

    1. ^ Joint WHO/FAO Expert Consultation (2003). "WHO Technical Report Series 916 Diet, Nutrition and the Prevention of Chronic Diseases". Retrieved 2013-12-25.
    - HLHJ (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Doc James, I've had a hack at bringing the article text into line with the source it cites. And I moved my text to a "society and culture" section. Comments and additional refs welcome. HLHJ (talk) 05:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sugar#Health_effects also have some rather indigestible prose, if anyone wants a go at copyediting as well as checking whether the rest of the text also doesn't match the refs. HLHJ (talk) 05:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The refs were terrible in Sugar#Health_effects. I have cleaned out the trash but that whole section needs updating with recent reviews and medical statements. There was a 1995 review, bizarre 10 year old primary sources about genetics of diabetes in Mexico. Lot of content about "now" sourced to things from 10 years ago, etc. Jytdog (talk) 07:22, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, Jytdog. The section has already changed again. Looking back at the article's history, much of it dated to the good-article review in Sept 2012. It seems to have got good article status with a health section that really needed further work. If there are medrefs, it might be possible to restore a section on macular degeneration. An unsourced but probably sourcable section on sugar subsidies has also vanished. Would a good article reassessment or any association of the article with this Wikiproject be a good idea? HLHJ (talk) 00:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It feels a little odd to need to point this out, but: articles about food should not follow the suggested sections given in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles for diseases. Sugar is a food. It is not a disease. There should not be a separate ==Society and culture== section in articles about anything with as much cultural significance as food. If you need "rules" about how to structure articles on food, then you may want to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Food and drink/Tools/guidelines, but with a few exceptions, their recommendation it to use common sense and good writing – which might, in this instance, mean putting information about corruption in health research practices right next to the other information about health research. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    A request for comments

    At Talk:Demisexuality#Should the Demisexuality article be merged into the Gray asexuality article? - Atsme📞📧 07:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]



    I have proposed this as a solution [23]. Please comment their. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:43, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Basal Body Temperture

    Could someone with more expertise have a look at the article on Basal body temperature? An older version has lots of woo, but few medical citations. I removed the weak sources and obvious woo and added a systemic review on efficacy. However, my background is not in medicine and I lack the expertise to fix the article further.

    Articles like this one really scare me. Many people lack the background to evaluate reliable medical sources. Family planning is a topic of significant interest to the general public, so it is critical that Wikipedia provide reliable information. Billhpike (talk) 03:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please give an example of the "supernatural, paranormal, occult, or pseudoscientific phenomena, or emotion-based beliefs and explanations" that you found in the earlier version of this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WhatamIdoing The previous stuff about Tracking basal body temperatures is a more accurate method of estimating gestational age than tracking menstrual periods. cited to Taking Charge of Your Fertility appears to be woo. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Do you classify that statement as:
    1. supernatural (e.g., belief in God)
    2. paranormal (e.g., ghosts)
    3. occultic (e.g., magical knowledge)
    4. pseudoscientific, (e.g., "String theory says that my electrical device cures cancer") or
    5. emotion-based beliefs and explanations (e.g., nutritional supplements work if you feel happier when you take them)?
    I happen to classify that statement as something that any competent gynecologist will agree with, when it comes to women whose cycles have an irregular length. The limitations of "last menstrual period" dating methods are well known. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps expert opinion supports that claim, but WP:MEDASSESS urges caution when citing individual clinician opinions. Regardless, it is inappropriate to use the popular press for claims regarding the relative utility of clinical techniques. See WP:MEDPOP. Billhpike (talk) 01:19, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if your goal is to have fancier sources even when the information is known to be correct, then you could swap in a midwifery textbook such as https://books.google.com/books?id=dbaNAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA663 if you don't like reputable lay books. It'd also be interesting to cite Taylor's for the fact that about 4% of pregnant women are given significantly wrong due dates when LMP is used rather than BBT or ultrasound. (These USLME notes say that only 10% of women have the 28-day menstrual cycle that the LMP system is based upon, so it's hardly surprising that a method based on this standard is frequently off.)
    But the reason I've asked here is that this was presented as being some sort of supernatural or pseudoscientific problem, not just a case of someone preferring a {{better source}} for accurate information. It's not hard to find fancier sources, but I can't remove the alleged "woo" if I can't find out what it was. It's looking like there wasn't any. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    is this a review per MEDRS

    Glycogen

    [24]opinions needed at Glycogen storage disease type IX thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I looked at it. Primary IMO. JenOttawa (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes a primary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a secondary source[25].
    This could be used a lot[26] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:53, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you both--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    COI edit request (not from me)

    I noticed this protected edit request on the Acupuncture talk page. Comments are needed, I will look at it later today as well. Talk:Acupuncture#Request_edit_on_27_November_2017 Thanks, Jenny JenOttawa (talk) 13:05, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    It looked sensible to me, so I made the edit. Do have a look as well, though, in case you can improve it. --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Cancer research list of genes

    Cancer_research#Oncogenomics.2FGenes_involved_in_cancer has a list of genes associated with cancer that were pulled from an article published in 2004. There have obviously been zillions more cancer-associated genes identified since then, and the list there is not the most common, most notable, or any other essential group. Should the list be kept as is, or expanded into a separate article, or removed altogether? Natureium (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    have organized[27]..dont think it should be removed as it seems useful...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there were a MEDRS (the currently cited one is 13 years old!) providing such a list, perhaps it would be "useful" - but this one is so dramatically out of date that I would endorse removal. To "update" it manually would be synthesis/personal research. — soupvector (talk) 22:52, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    good point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    i moved it to talk. Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK hook

    Please could someone look at the hook claim made in Template:Did you know nominations/Collaborative practice agreement and see if they think the ALT2 hook is satisfactory? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    CDC source[28]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    opinions

    omim[29] this comes from orphanet[30] in terms of Lytico-Bodig disease, there is an editor that is indicating OMIM reference is wrong ...?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    [31]indicates from clinical synopsis(click orange box)

    • Inheritance

    - Autosomal dominant

    That doesn't quite reflect the point I am making. The OMIM reference refers to several primary sources, and shows that they are far from in agreement as to whether this is a genetic disease at all. There is a familial pattern; one theory - which has been questioned - suggests it is commensal. My position is that to update the tertiary source - Wikipedia - to indicate (in the infobox) that this is an autosomal dominant disease when the secondary source indicates clearly that there is no consensus that this is the case, is misleading and therefore wrong. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:15, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    This discussion belongs on the talk page of the article, Talk:Lytico-bodig disease. FWIW, it's true that the primary sources disagree markedly on the cause and mechanism of lytico-bodig, and the secondary source OMIM hedges its bets on neurotoxins vs an autosomal dominant disorder without necessarily addressing the findings of what is probably the strongest primary source, pmid:11673323. My suggestion would be to rewrite the article to better reflect the uncertainties, but the detail of that really needs to take place at article talk where it won't be archived away within a week. --RexxS (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree the article says different things. It quotes one paper as saying "concluded that purely environmental, mendelian dominant, and mendelian recessive hypotheses of causation could be rejected; however, a 2-allele additive major locus hypothesis could not be rejected" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    removed image[32]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:08, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Emotional State

    I've got a simple question which has large implications if the answer is yes. Anyway, would a persons emotional state be considered a WP: MEDRS problem? --Kyohyi (talk) 14:44, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    MEDRS applies to general medical statements, not to ones about a single person — otherwise we would not be able to write out cause of death about anyone. However, WP:BLP applies and is quite strict when it comes to things such as "emotional state". Also the spirit of MEDRS ought apply in my reading, for example the following:

    Primary sources should not be cited with intent of "debunking", contradicting, or countering any conclusions made by secondary sources."

    I'm not sure if that is what you were getting at, or whether something such as "depression" is covered by MEDRS. That is more difficult to say, because the term "clinical depression" isn't validly the only type of depression even in the medical literature, and MEDRS covers more than "just" clinical depression. It all depends on the implication of the statement/series of statements/sentence/paragraph/article and of the health aspects associated with the statements. MEDRS does not cover something like "Happiness is the feeling of", but may arguably cover "sadness is the psychological state of" and most definitely covers "loneliness is associated with negative health outcomes". So, your answer is like most of the time: "it depends", and I'm sorry to say that your question is neither simple nor answerable with a yes/no. Carl Fredrik talk 15:03, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright, let me rephrase the question a bit then. What type of sourcing would be required to place someone's emotional state on Wikipedia? Do we need a statement from a professional in the field of psychology? Or can we just take the statement of a journalist? --Kyohyi (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this isn't a simple question. A journalist isn't qualified to make psychological assessments, but I suspect you're considering the case when a journalist interviews or reports on a statement from an expert. While we wouldn't be likely to accept the view of a journalist as to someone's state of mind, the opinion of an expert may be considered a reliable source, although our guidance at WP:SPS dismisses self-published sources in BLPs: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Frankly, if you want the best quality sources (as MEDRS tries to emphasise), you'd be better off looking for a book from a respectable publisher, or something similar to support those sort of claims.
    Actually, I'm looking at a situation that the best I can tell an individual's emotional state has only been evaluated by journalists (In essence I'm not aware of an expert who has weighed in on the subject), and we are in turn adding that descriptor in Wikipedia's voice. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like you're trying to keep this claim that she rejected her ex-boyfriend out of a GamerGate article, which has nothing to do with health and almost nothing to do with his emotional state. wikt:en:scorned (or any other dictionary) might be particularly informative here; the idea that rejected people are angry is a cultural notion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You should read the situation a little more thoroughly. The original statement from DrMies was that he was "a vindictive" ex-boyfriend. [[33]]. This was then changed to Scorned after I reverted, and I'm not inclined to believe that the intent was to describe the relationship, but to still describe Eron Gjoni's emotional state. (In this particular case a book review which used the term to describe Eron Gjoni was applied). So, no I'm not trying to keep a claim that she rejected her boyfriend from the article. I simply don't believe that we are using the term scorned in such a manner. Simply put, I think there's a push to describe Eron Gjoni as angry in some form, and we shouldn't be using book reviews to do so. --Kyohyi (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll try to make this as clear as I can: "scorned" is not a state of mind and has nothing to do with MEDRS. If there's a reliable source that describes her ex-boyfriend as as "scorned", then the only thing that would keep it out of the article is WP:DUE. I suggest the editors of that article start a discussion on the article talk page rather than participating in an edit-war. --RexxS (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying then, that scorned doesn't have the implication of being angry. In essence, saying that a person is scorned doesn't say that a person was rejected, and angry about it. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes: we (and the dictionaries) are saying that "scorned = rejected", and that people do not necessarily feel angry about being rejected. They might, for example, feel sad. Or surprised. Or, in a few situations, genuinely relieved. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless, this is not medical. Natureium (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Kidney specialist ?

    Do we have a kidney specialist who could keep an eye on Tobias Huber. The article has probably been created in return for undisclosed payments by a now indefinitely blocked user. Thanks. --Saidmann (talk) 16:20, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes the article was written for pay in an undisclosed manner. I initially assumed good faith of that account but my good faith was misplaced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Uptodate

    Wondering if we should have a soft recommendation against the use of Uptodate? The problem is that one cannot reference a specific version of Uptodate. Other websites are archived by Internet Archives and thus one can reference a static version.

    Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    yes we should(Ive never used that source)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Uptodate is an excellent resource. Are any websites that require a membership archived by internet archives? Natureium (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Disease versus infectious agent articles

    We often have an article for both the disease and the infectious agent. IMO we may need clearer guidelines around what is included in each to reduce overlap. For example:

    Loa loa

    Loa loa filariasis

    Have the stuff under disease in the first really needs merging to the second. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you meant to say that we often have separate articles for pathogens and the diseases they cause.
    I don't think that overlapping/redundant content is a major problem. Each article is supposed to be complete and able to stand on its own, which means that we need to have some overlapping content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes meant infectious agent. Reducing duplication in content will decrease work. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:58, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IUD Titling?

    Would appreciate some feedback on this question. NickCT (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:18, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Back to List of genetic disorders

    We now have 2 separate lists on the page List of genetic disorders. One list includes disorders that are notable enough for an article. One has hundreds of red links and is really a list of OMIM codes rather than a list of disorders, as there are a lot of duplicate rows of diseases with one row for each gene. How should this be organized, because it's not working as is. Natureium (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    revert back to separate articles[34]...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Evaluate this source, please

    here and thank you for feedback. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:54, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, if you're feeling cynical, then the evaluation could effectively be done with a single question: Does it claim that all abortions are always harmless? If yes, then it's a good source, and if no, then it's a bad one.
    PMID 23859662 appears to be a standard systematic review, about psychiatry and published in a psychiatry journal, by researchers with suitable degrees and working in a relevant field. For those who believe that the WP:Impact factor is a magic number, then the journal's impact factor is a bit below median for the field of psychiatry and rather above the median for psychology. The ISI Journal Citation Reports ranking for 2016 was 83rd out of 142 psychiatry journals, which puts it in the middle quintile (barely) of all psychiatry journals. It seems to be listed in MedLine, and it meets all of the other superficial "rules", at least until this time next year, when someone will doubtless complain that it's five and a half years old, and that MEDRS "requires" five years or less.
    If editors were trying to exclude this source, then they can legitimately consider whether it's WP:DUE (i.e., do other, equally good sources say something similar?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think we will ever find a MEDRS source that would state that all abortions are always harmless. We probably won't find any treatment is harmless, that would send up a red flag for me. I also don't think that a journal article that stated such a thing would ever leave the desk of an editor/reviewer of a journal. Thanks for the feedback. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    source that would state that all [instances of a medical or pharmaceutical] are always harmless - isn't that a common definition of "unreliable source making an unbelievable statement"? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 12:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We already discussed that exact reference here. Barbara actually just found a very recent source that for some reason she is not bringing here (but that she is very familiar with as she cited it 10 times at Miscarriage and mental illness and three times at Miscarriage and grief and also at the PTSD article here. That ref is PMID 27838460 (published feb 2017) and it says: The PTSD diagnosis differs from all other psychiatric disorders (expect for acute stress disorder) in that it requires exposure to a traumatic event which then serves as the source of all flashbacks and other re-experiencing symptoms. Thus, it is essential to the validity of the PTSD diagnosis that systematic reviews ensure that the studies reviewed are based on events that do in fact qualify as traumatic, rather than just stressful. The psychological response to induced abortion is not consistent with that found after acute loss or other traumatic events, and PTSD is much less common (Broen, Moum, Bødtker, & Ekeberg, 2004; Hamama et al., 2010). These differences suggest that it is problematic to combine non-medical induced abortion with spontaneous abortion and other types of acute loss
    The refs we discussed in the older discussion make that even more clear.
    Enough of this already. Jytdog (talk) 03:26, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As I always ask when someone poses this type of question at WP:RSN, how do you propose to use this source, and in which Wikipedia articles? Content and context matter. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:38, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It contradicts both older and newer high quality refs and actually propagates the FRINGE view that abortion causes PTSD. There is no good reason to cite that paper in particular. We have probably two sets of DS at play here. Jytdog (talk) 04:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The review article we are discussing doesn't say that medically induced abortions 'cause' PTSD. Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Who has decided that that's a fringe view? SarahSV (talk) 06:20, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not decided what articles to use this in. It's been removed from PTSD for reasons explained above. The review article also states that the percentage of those who have medically induced abortions have less of a chance in developing PTSD when compared to those experiencing a spontaneous abortion ten months to five years later (perhaps not so fringe?) I'm not as familiar with WP:RSN as I should be. Since many medical editors read this talk page rather than the RSN page, I thought this talk page would give me some better feedback. I'm concerned, periodically, that we often judge references that may not agree with 'fringe' or not-so-popular topics to be inferior, even if they meet guidelines for inclusion. Every once in a while, a reliable source (graduate, medical textbook) mentions the fact that some people benefit from Zinc supplements or probiotics (gasp). Or if you don't agree with the last statement, let's pretend that some reliable sources someday mentions that a 'fringe' topic might work for some people. What then? Since we at WP have decided that the whole topic is fringe - then there will never be a source good enough to support content that might hint at such a thing. It is a disservice to readers and researchers to not include a source that may not agree with others. Such a situation can be remedied in the text of an article by conveying the fact that this information is not supported by the majority of other researchers. Best regards and thank you for your feedback and opinions, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    As we have discussed before this is pro-life propaganda and if you continue trying to add this to mainspace I will see you topic banned under the DS at AE. Abortion is a morally hard issue for sure and people can and do have very strong and divergent moral stances on it, but bringing in pseudoscience like the fetal pain thing, this thing, etc. will never be OK here. Jytdog (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Paper cut / case report

    Disagreement on whether to include a case report. More eyes welcome. Alexbrn (talk) 03:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I added a bit of sourced content to wound and redirected it there. Jytdog (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Cool beans! Alexbrn (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm actually interested in others opinions on if using a case report to point to notable occurrences is a reasonable thing to do. My feeling is that such a use is more like using a reliable news article than making a medical claim like oranges cause short stature. Chickpecking (talk) 06:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 28#Category:Family medicine needs American input

    Discussion of this category has turned into me, the non-medical type, trying to explain how American medicine works in comparison to (apparently) a set of Europeans where the American system of specialization doesn't figure. People with more American expertise than I would be helpful. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=814509160"