Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 109.153.156.71 (talk) at 23:21, 27 October 2014 (→MalaCards: add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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
Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine
Recent changes in WP:Medicine
Articles and their talkpages:

Not mainspace:

 Top  High  Mid  Low  NA  ??? Total
 100  1,070  11,568  38,959  20,094 1,290  73,081 
List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

Neglected Tropical Disease Task Force Proposed

Dear Wiki' ites . I invite you all to Join the proposed Task Force on neglected tropical disease More details and Sign up here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Task_forces#Neglected_Tropical_Disease — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsoumyadeepb (talk • contribs) 08:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Barium meal, swallow, follow through

We have Barium follow-through, Barium meal and Barium swallow. The first is completely unsourced, the second very poorly sourced and the sources for the third are not exactly medrs either. In any case two articles too many for the same procedure imo. Ochiwar (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to merge the articles if there are no objections. Ochiwar (talk) 18:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. What name should we go with for the final article? I'm in favor of Barium swallow. Cannolis (talk) 23:21, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of merging the above named articles together with Barium enema and double contrast barium enema under the title Barium contrast imaging. Ochiwar (talk) 10:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC) I had started a draft along those line in my sandbox, hoping to present it here for approval when it stands on solid feet. Feel free to expand and edit. Ochiwar (talk) 11:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm perhaps. Although the swallow looks at the upper GI while the enema looks at the lower Cannolis (talk) 02:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that and the route of application of the contrast medium are the major differences between the enema and the swallow. Medical uses, indications, contraindications, adverse effects, mechanism, interpretation, accuracy and specificity are largely similar and in most cases identical for all. A sub-section on each under the heading "Types of Barium contrast imaging" should high light the differences. The terms Barium swallow, meal, and follow through are used somewhat ambiguously or interchangeably in the literature, but most authors use the term swallow for studies of the pharynx, larynx and esophagus,(and sometimes stomach) while the terms meal and follow through are most frequently used for examinations of the stomach and small intestine. Ochiwar (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ochiwar These are different studies used for different indications. I am unsure if a merger is definitely the way to go. A "barium swallow" looks at the swallowing mechanism in real time and may identify problems with the oesophagus. A "barium meal" is a longer contrast investigation under fluoroscopy that has effectively been replaced by the upper GI endoscopy. A follow-through study is generally used to look for abnormalities in the small bowel and requires a number of fluoroscopic exposures to identify strictures and fistulae.
The "barium enema" studies examine the large bowel, and could be merged into one. JFW | T@lk 19:29, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jfdwolff, I am also unsure if a merger is definitely the way to go, that is why I am mentioning it here for discussion. I am aware that swallow, meal, follow through and enema examine different areas of the anatomy. After having gone through the available literature it also appears that the terms are often used ambiguously (at least as far as the first 3 are concerned) which complicates the issue. When you say fluoroscopy has been largely replaced by endoscopy, you are certainly right if you are considering only the part of the world you live in but in many other parts of the world this may not apply yet. While I am not sure of the definitive way to go, I had hoped to be able to combine all these terms and terminologies, similarities and differences in one single well referenced article leaving redirects, because at the end of the day there are more similarities than differences between these procedures. And as you have pointed out, they are being replaced by more advanced technologies as we speak. I have started a draft along this line of thinking (I have not gone very far yet) in my sandox and would appreciate if you could take a brief look at it. Let me know please if you think a merger along these lines is useful to the encyclopedia or rather not. I would not want to be wasting my time. In any case I feel the present state of the named articles is not up to encyclopedia standard and updating each one individually would entail unnecessary duplication. I will put my draft on hold until I get some feedback and face other projects. Ochiwar (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ochiwar I agree that I was exhibiting systemic bias by presuming that some barium studies are now almost obsolete. You are also correct that the terminology is confused - in the UK the studies called "barium swallow" and "barium meal" are typically combined, although "meal" is also used for small bowel follow-through. As such I am willing to support a merge of all the "proximal" studies, but I would leave the large bowel studies separate. JFW | T@lk 21:43, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. In that case I would suggest "Upper Gastrointestinal Series" as the title for the new merged article of proximal procedures. Ochiwar (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In addition we also have Upper gastrointestinal series, Small-bowel follow-through and Enteroclysis which I also hope to merge to the article on proximal procedures Ochiwar (talk) 09:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The draft is ready for peer review in my sandbox. Will be moving it to Upper gastrointestinal series in the next days. Ochiwar (talk) 10:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic cigarettes

Is the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports reliable for the content? User:LeadSongDog explained it at the Talk:Electronic cigarette page here. Other editors claim the CDC reports are unreliable.

  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (April 2014). "Notes from the field: calls to poison centers for exposures to electronic cigarettes--United States, September 2010-February 2014". MMWR Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 63 (13): 292–3. PMID 24699766.
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, (CDC) (6 September 2013). "Notes from the field: electronic cigarette use among middle and high school students – United States, 2011–2012". MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report. 62 (35): 729–30. PMID 24005229.

The two sources above were removed from the article. The relevant part of MEDRS is Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Medical and scientific organizations. Read under: "The reliability of these sources range from formal scientific reports, which can be the equal of the best reviews published in medical journals, through public guides and service announcements..."

Can we go back to the version before the original research was reverted back into the article? Trying to remove original research from the article should be easy at the electronic cigarettes article if there were more collaborating.

"While some raised concern that e-cigarette use can be a cause of indoor air pollution,[2] the only clinical study currently published evaluating passive vaping found no adverse effects.[37]" Original research ans misleading text.

"A 2014 review found that at the very least, this limited research demonstrates it is transparent that e-cigarette emissions are not simply "harmless water vapor," as is commonly claimed, and can be a cause of indoor air pollution.[3] As of 2014, the only clinical study currently published evaluating the respiratory effects of passive vaping found no adverse effects were detected.[38] A 2014 review found it is safe to presume that their effects on bystanders are minimal in comparison to traditional cigarettes.[38]" Sourced text and neutrally written text (that was blindly reverted). See Electronic cigarette#Second-hand aerosol.

I removed the original research and replaced it with sourced text. I clearly explained it in my edit summary the problem with the article. I removed the POV selected quotes. I expanded the safety section a bit. I replaced original research with sourced text for the second-hand aerosol section. Then another editor recently blindly reverted back in original research and deleted sourced text. I think we should go back to here before the blind revert was made. I hope editors at WikiProject Medicine here will help remove the original research from the electronic cigarettes page and help restore the sourced text. Another editor blindly reverted back in the original research and other problems. QuackGuru (talk) 18:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First objection to QG's statement above: His statement
"back to the version before the original research was reverted back into the article"
Should more accurately be read as:
Please go back to my preferred version, with all the changes i've made to the article, that have been reverted.
The latter would have been the correct description, while the former is unsubtle canvassing. --Kim D. Petersen 20:35, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Second objection here: It seems like QuackGuru at the moment is cherry-picking every negative source that he can find, without actually putting them into context with real secondary review papers. The CDC material that he is quoting here, is handled within several review papers, that he chooses not to use. That would be a rather blatant breach of WP:MEDRS's don't use primary sources to contradict secondary sources. In my eyes QG is using this forum to win an edit-war to keep his own version of reality, instead of working with other editors to find material that actually would gain consensus, and be supported by the WP:WEIGHT of secondary sources. --Kim D. Petersen 20:43, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Final note: The claim that another editor "blindly" reverted is incorrect, since that editor has taken part in every thread where QG's changes to the article have been discussed. And the OR version that he claims, is the original version of the article, before QG's edits. --Kim D. Petersen 20:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The other discussion shows that there is WP:CON that the Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)#Medical_and_scientific_organizations including the CDC are generally reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Translated as "QuackGuru reads that discussion as a blanket OK to use all material on the CDC's website no matter what other sources say, or whether it is primary material (such as the weekly "Notes from the Field" is)" - i would read the consensus differently as: "Material that the CDC produces is generally of high-quality and can be used when the content and context is appropriate", which i agree with completely. I would be very surprised if any source is generally reliable for all material, and context. --Kim D. Petersen 20:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would assert that any source that states:
The data in the weekly MMWR are provisional, based on weekly reports to CDC by state health departments.--Kim D. Petersen 21:04, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is a primary source, and should be used with caution, and certainly not to contradict or expand on secondary review papers. --Kim D. Petersen 21:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me quote the authors guide[1] for the Weekly reports that QG wants to use:
D. Notes from the Field
Notes from the Field are abbreviated reports intended to advise MMWR readers of ongoing or recent events of concern to the public health community, without waiting for development of a Full Report. Events of concern include epidemics/outbreaks, unusual disease clusters, poisonings, exposures to disease or disease agents (including environmental and toxic), and notable public health-related case reports. These reports may contain early unconfirmed information, preliminary results, hypotheses regarding risk factors and exposures, and other similarly incomplete information. No definitive conclusions need be presented in Notes from the Field.
That to me reads almost the very definition of a primary source in WP:MEDRS. If this can be used without caution, then i'm not sure why other sources are being rejected. --Kim D. Petersen 21:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As detailed above by Kim D. Petersen and extensively debated on the Talk Page, there is no evidence that the MMWR "notes" meet the reliability criteria for MEDRS. Even if they did, we cannot possibly consider they hold enough WP:WEIGHT to be used against multiple secondary sources.

Otherwise, User:QuackGuru has been engaged in a sustained pattern of disruptive editing on this article, as discussed on the talk page [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. I'm inclined to view his post here as an attempt to feign an interest in constructive discussion and reaching consensus. Mihaister (talk) 22:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "Notes from the Field" is a primary source. It's a great primary source—for its intended audience, which isn't encyclopedia writers. Not only is it a primary source, with all the uncertainty that implies, it's also a WP:RECENTISM trap. You may use them, but only in highly limited, explicitly qualified ways. You should never use them to "prove" something biomedical. You can use them to make statements of the "Somebody said this" type. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@WhatamIdoing and Jmh649: But i've just been told that "Notes from the Field" is somewhere between a primary source and a position statement[8], and thus perfectly useable in articles for medical information... so it is apparent that this needs more input. --Kim D. Petersen 06:50, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medicine recent changes: lists updated

I have updated the lists behind the MED Recent Changes box (previous update: Feb 24, 2014). Number of pages has increased greatly (total: from 28.569 to 29388).

Lists sources are in Category:Medicine articles by importance. Lists were composed & formatted using WP:AWB (you can do too!; does not require an AWB licence, just install AWB & create lists ;-) ). The "top 1500" was changed into "top 1000"; that one is updated separately & more frequently. -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If deemed useful, I could add another Recent Changes option to the box, that follows these pages: all MED pages with quality Start and above, plus the Lists, plus their talkpages. That's ~16,000 × 2 pages. 32,000 pages listed is about the max we can handle (a 1 MB wikipage). That RC list would miss: stubs, redirects, pages, all non-mainspace (=non-article) pages such as WP-pages. Would anyone click on that RC link? -DePiep (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy with all medical pages. Doubt I would use talk pages added in. Do not know about others. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really all WP:MED pages are already there, click link: "in all Medicine pages (not talks)". That's 30.000. This addition would select quality articles only (Start to FA; 16.000 p) plus their talkpages (16.000 p). Personal opinion: I don't think we should add a link for these 16.000 articles only (no talks). Too confusing. -DePiep (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simple English

The question of the type of English we should use in the lead has arisen again on the Ebola article.[9] My position is we should use simple English wikilinked to the technical term.

Other options are using the technical terms followed by the simple description but that can clutter the lead. Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is to always give the simplest commonly used terms with the medical jargon in parentheses - either then may be wikilinked. The point of showing the medical term is that it helps the reader familiarise themselves with the jargon, so that they understand if they encounter the term later in the article (and we often need to use the exact term in the subsections for reasons of accuracy). We should never rely on wikilinks to explain a word; it can be very disruptive to the reader if they have to follow a link then find their place again in the main article, just to make sense of that article. This is sometimes compounded by having to follow another link in the linked article because it doesn't explain its jargon either. --RexxS (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I support doing that in the body of the text. It can however clutter up the lead to always have both technical and simple terminology.
Agree that the simple should always be there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with James here, and think we should avoid using terminology for terminology's sake. There is a whole lot of jargon out there that doesn't fill any purpose, and it needs to be a matter of judgement where to use medical terminology and where not to. The lede should try to avoid anything overly complicated and wikilinking lay descriptions is a good way to do it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing multilingual AIDS advertisements

Wellcome Trust is a UK-based charity which promotes health research. In February 2014 they were kind to host an editathon and over the past 1-2 years Fae has been working with them on their Wellcome Images project, which is an effort to make some health-related media archives more available. Wellcome wanted the media they collected to be available under Wikimedia-compatible licenses. There were some questions about that and I trust Fae when he tells me that Wellcome was more diligent than most in sorting their rights to share these images, and that their images are appropriate for sharing on Wikimedia Commons.

Wellcome shared about 300 GB of health images. Sharing this much content was complicated. These files should be sorted somehow, and perhaps someone in WikiProject Medicine would like to comment on what should become of this donation. I cannot say what should happen with them. Not all of this is uploaded to Commons yet.

All of the images from this donation are in Commons:Category:Files from Wellcome Images. Files which need categorization are in Commons:Category:Files from Wellcome Images (categorization needed). If anyone wants to help, browsing that category and adding more categories to interesting pictures would make it easier for others to find and use those pictures. I am interested in Commons:Category:AIDS posters, which is a collection of AIDS public health advertisements in many languages. Many of these posters have never been publicly available otherwise, so this is a unique opportunity to add images to Wikipedia articles on a popular health topic in many languages.

This collection of AIDS posters is probably going to be featured in a post on the WMF blog. Could someone please give a comment about their impression of the collection and how it could be used, so that WikiProject Medicine members can be quoted in accounts of this donation? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WPMEDF helped fund some of this effort. Great to have more images. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to bulk-add categories to a list of files? There are hundreds that belong under commons:Category:Medical books, for example. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:50, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the "Cat-a-Lot" tool is very good when you are used to its little ways (Commons preferences, gadgets I think). As so often with bulk uploads the categories now are a bit odd. I'd have made "Images from Wellcome" an open, not hidden category, & made it a sub of "History of medicine", for a start. The books category above should distinguish between printed and manuscript books, & a "Category:Illuminated medical manuscripts" would probably be a good idea. Johnbod (talk) 00:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ruscus aculeatus – unsupported claims

Could someone with more time than I have right now look at Ruscus aculeatus#Medicinal Uses? I suspect the whole section may need to be removed. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct, the whole thing was horribly sourced. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 13:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Greger

I would appreciate it if some additional editors looked at this article and chimed in on the state of the "Criticism" section. A dispute has arisen over the addition of text refuting criticism of Greger by Harriet Hall (see the talk page for the discussion.) Brianyoumans (talk) 13:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cystogastrostomy

I started cleaning this new article up, then began to realise that almost every sentence I was reviewing appeared to be a copyvio from the various sources it cites, some dating back to the 50's. In this situation does one continue to try and salvage the article (effectively rewriting it) or submit to AfD? Basie (talk) 00:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a serious, unambiguous copyvio, then you get to choose between {{db-copyvio}} (which can be delivered by Twinkle's CSD item) or cleaning it up. You could also leave a friendly note to explain the situation, and seeing whether the new editor can help clean it up. It's a new editor, so s/he might just not know that it's a problem. In some parts of the world, what we call plagiarism is showing your faithfulness to and respect for the source, and the rules at the English Wikipedia are actually stricter than required by the law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's more like the editor selected a few sources of variable quality, then lifted passages directly from them. I'll see what I can do. Basie (talk) 01:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Extracting PMIDs

Hi folks, relaying a question from a Stanford Medical researcher:

"Do you know if it is possible to extract [all] PubMed ID (PMID) or PMCIDs from Wiki references? Furthermore, could you dump those IDs out into a list for analysis?"

Thanks, Jake Ocaasi t | c 03:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does s/he actually want PMIDs and PMCIDs, or is the goal to find all the PubMed-cited sources (which will include thousands cited by URL instead of by magic word)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew West has sort of done this for me for all medical articles. We will be publishing the results soon. Appears we need to get this paper in as others are also working on the topic :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am guessing, but I believe Jake wants the actual PMIDs since there are excellent programming tools for extracting bibliographic data including URLs from PubMed if one has a PMID or PMCID. I am also guessing Jake wants to calculate impact factors based on how many times a paper has been cited in Wikipedia. JL-Bot creates statistics for how many times each journal is cited as a Wikipedia source. Perhaps that bot could be extended to extract PMIDs so that a list of the most cited papers in addition to the most cited journals could be obtained. For efficiency, the bot works on a dump of Wikipedia rather than interactively parsing one article at a time which would take forever and puts a lot of strain on the wikipedia.org servers. Boghog (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Altmetrics say they might start doing this in the spring. Basically list how many times each article has been cited in Wikipedia as part of its impact. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As WhatamIdoing alluded to, PubMed indexed articles that are used as refs on WP but the PMID or PMCID is not given would be excluded. There are some bots running around adding those parameters, but in my experience, there are many refs to articles that are in PubMed that don't give the PMID or PMCID. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
True, but at least within the scope of WP:MED, there is a strong bias to use citations that include PMIDs. The advantage of using PMIDs is consistency and ease of obtaining related bibliographic information. For completeness, for citations that do not contain PMIDs, it would be good to extract DOIs. These in turn can be used to query PubMed for the PMID. Boghog (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, would it be possible to have a bot or semi bot go around and add PMIDs when they exist? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might consider doing that. The low lying fruit would be to add missing PMIDs/PMCIDs to {{cite journal}} templates that have DOIs. It may be possible to locate other PMIDs with the PubMed citation matching tool, but this method is not fool proof. Boghog (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would support/encourage Boghog adding PMID/PMCID's in {{cite journal}} templates with DOIs. Yeah!!! This would be a help in verification and useful in roughly evaluating the basic quality of sources for a particular article not to mention the more general questions hinted at above. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, please, Boghog!
I'd also like to see non-templated citations have PMIDs and DOIs added at the end, just in plain text. This would be easy to do for the ones that have the PubMed URL that already contains the PMID number. The batchcitmatch tool looks interesting, but the work looks like it would be tedious, and we could be talking about tens of thousands of these. If someone sets up a simple system for reviewing them (i.e., does this citation match what the tool thinks it matched?), I'd be willing to review a hundred of them. I don't think I can realistically commit to more than that in the near future. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let me first do some tests on citations with PMIDs to see how accurate the citation matcher is. I am far more concerned about false positives than false negatives. Also it will be trivial to flag citations where citation matcher returns more than one possible match. If the citation matcher looks fairly accurate, then the process can be full automated. Parsing of URLs for PMIDs and DOIs and adding them at the end as plain text should also be fairly easy. Boghog (talk) 06:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually already written a little Python script to parse through ref cites, extract PMIDs and then do a lookup using them against PubMed to get the article type, etc and dump the output in a nice formatted table. I did a few of those last year but because the library I was using was buggy I didn't "productionize" it. But happy to send the code if desired. Zad68 06:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DDT

A little off the beaten track for the Medicine page, but would appreciate some eyes on DDT with regards to MEDRS sourcing and what I regard as some well-out-of-the-mainstream interpretations of the motivations for banning DDT in the U.S. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this text "The hearings produced a 113-page decision, in which Hearing Examiner Edmund Sweeney wrote: “DDT is not a carcinogenic, mutagenic, or teratogenic hazard to man. The uses under regulations involved here do not have a deleterious effect on fresh water fish, estuarine organisms, wild birds, or other wildlife. The evidence in this proceeding supports the conclusion that there is a present need for essential uses of DDT.” [1]" ?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for looking. My impression was that this was added to introduce the fringe idea that DDT is completely innocuous, as it followed some discussion on the Talk page suggesting that the DDT ban was part of a conspiracy. Its possible I'm reacting to that more than to what was actually added to the article. If you think its fine, I'll drop it.Formerly 98 (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have not bee able to check the source have you?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I always hate it when people source potentially controversial statements to obscure books, but I guess its allowed. I guess I'm not sure what that particular passage is supposed to add to the article - I initially thought he was adding it to make the agency look silly, but it turned out he really believes that DDT is innocuous. IF this is being added as a health related claim or to imply one, it falls under MEDRS, but I'm not sure I can make that case. Thank you again for your help. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
20-30 years ago there was an American activist whose party trick at lectures & on tv was to eat it like breakfast cereal. I wonder if he's still with us? I think he was the Arizona prof mentioned (unrefed) in Mickey Slim. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's so obscure the book exists at only one place in the UK (at the British Library) [10], (checked in case it was anywhere near John, but it might be a stretch to get there). Sheer luck has it that there is actually a copy in Gothenburg at Chalmers Technical College (which I pass every morning). I could check the source if you wanted, but I feel this is thoroughly undue and obscure as it is, and should probably be deleted. The book is sufficiently old that it shouldn't bear much weight. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lehr, Jay and Janet, Standard Handbook of Environmental Science, Health, and Technology, McGraw Hill Professional, 2000, p. 6
Actually I go through the tube station by the BL every day, and have a ticket, but all the books you ever want are in storage 200 miles away, & take time & faf to retrieve, so I'd rather save that for referencing emergencies. But I can do it if necessary. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed ICD10 template linking change

If anyone has any input, I proposed a change to {{ICD10}} at Template talk:ICD10#Parameter simplification. It concerns the parameters passed to the template and how the link is displayed. Please reply there. --Scott Alter (talk) 17:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears everyone copies from Wikipedia

Here is a 2011 "Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses: Biology, Clinical Practice, and Public Health Control" by "Oxford University Press" in 2011.[11] Appears to be the first edition. It says:

"Plants, arthropods, and birds have also been considered as possible reservoirs; however, bats are now considered the most likely candidate. Bats were known to reside in the cotton factory in which the Ebola index cases for the 1976 and 1979 outbreaks were employed. They have been implicated in Marburg infections in 1975 and 1980. Of 24 plant species and 19 vertebrate species experimentally inoculated with Ebolavirus, only bats became infected (Swanepeol 1996). The absence of clinical signs in these bats is characteristic of a reservoir species. In a 2002–2003 survey of 1,030 animals, which included 679 bats from Gabon and the DRC, 13 fruit bats were found to contain EbolavirusRNA (Pourrut 2009). As of 2005, three fruit bat species (Hypsignathus monstrosus, Epomops franqueti, and Myonycteris torquata) have been identified as carrying the virus while remaining asymptomatic. .... Reston ebolavirus—unlike its African counterparts—is non-pathogenic in humans. The high mortality among monkeys and its recent emergence in pigs makes them unlikely natural reservoirs."

Here is the Wikipedia article in Dec of 2010.[12]. We said

"Plants, arthropods, and birds have also been considered as possible reservoirs; however, bats are considered the most likely candidate.[43] Bats were known to reside in the cotton factory in which the index cases for the 1976 and 1979 outbreaks were employed, and they have also been implicated in Marburg infections in 1975 and 1980.[41] Of 24 plant species and 19 vertebrate species experimentally inoculated with Ebolavirus, only bats became infected.[44] The absence of clinical signs in these bats is characteristic of a reservoir species. In a 2002–2003 survey of 1,030 animals which included 679 bats from Gabon and the Republic of the Congo, 13 fruit bats were found to contain EbolavirusRNA.[45] As of 2005, three fruit bat species (Hypsignathus monstrosus, Epomops franqueti, and Myonycteris torquata) have been identified as carrying the virus while remaining asymptomatic. They are believed to be a natural host species, or reservoir, of the virus.[46] The existence of integrated genes of filoviruses in some genomes of small rodents, insectivorous bats, shrews, tenrecs, and marsupials indicates a history of infection with filoviruses in these groups as well.[5] Reston ebolavirus—unlike its African counterparts—is non-pathogenic in humans. The high mortality among monkeys and its recent emergence in swine, makes them unlikely natural reservoirs.[47]"

Investigating further. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the content was added to Wikipedia in 2006 in this edit [13]. This was not however the version they copied. Thus it appears they are copying from use. The added edit was supported by the refs in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, and a major publisher as well. Is this the only section copied? Can we contact the editor who added it to the WP-page, to make sure they aren't author of the encyclopedia? I think those would be necessary steps before moving ahead, because this is potentially much bigger than the previous cases of plagiarism. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And they are the author of the WP passage. I'd think the same author was quite likely. User:Rhys, apparently an Australian virology type, not edited for some years. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The passage that was lifted was written by two Wikipedians, User:ChyranandChloe and User:Rhys. I have emailed User:Rhys and the last name that bounces back from his email is not G. Lloyd. I have verified his name in other words. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have tracked down his current email and spoken with the Oxford University Press. Will hopefully have things verified in a day or so.
The Wikipedian is not mentioned anywhere in the text. Neither is Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty blatant plagiarism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Am meeting with the legal team at the WMF next week to discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The 2011 edition was not the first! OCLC 37546636 and OCLC 645892527 were dated 1998, way before the WP article. I suspect p.387-389 is where the text in question would be. Graham Lloyd was the author of that chapter. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Finding more passages which have been copied and pasted:

We stated "March 12, 2009, an unidentified 45-year-old female scientist from Germany accidentally pricked her finger with a needle used to inject Ebola into lab mice. She was given an experimental vaccine never before used on humans. Since the peak period for an outbreak during the 21-day Ebola incubation period has passed as of April 2, 2009, she has been declared healthy and safe. It remains unclear whether or not she was ever actually infected with the virus"
They stated "in 12 March, 2009, when an unidentified 45-year-old female scientist from Germany accidentally pricked her finger with a needle used to inject Ebola into lab mice. She was given an experimental vaccine never before used on humans. It remains unclear whether or not she was ever infected with the virus or if the experimental vaccine proved beneficial
This text was added by this IP address on Mar 28, 2009 [14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doc James asked me to take a look at this. Good work. :/ I have no doubt that what you're seeing here is a backwards copy. And it happens. I've seen backwards copying in extremely reliable (even governmental) sources, although I don't know if I've ever found it in an Oxford UP publication before. It all comes down to the ethics of the individual contributor. I did a few changes to the source text above, as there were some minor variations. The Wikimedia Foundation, as it indicates at WP:C, does not claim copyright over any of this and has no legal standing over the use of Wikipedia text. It simply has permission to use the content. The copyright owners are the contributors who put the content here, who have required the right of attribution and free license of derivatives. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks talks about this. I will be very happy to hear what Oxford UP says about this, since I can't imagine they're any happier about it than we are. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What would the WMF legal team have to do with it? So far I don't see 300 words - it ought to count under Fair Use. Professionally I understand of course plagiarism is often a kiss of death, but that's a different matter. Wnt (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How would it be fair use, without attribution? Also, does English copyright law accept that doctrine? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see anything in Fair Use (the article) about attribution. If you put a figure from a paper on the overhead projector, do you have to include the citation to make it legal? (I admit, I do believe copyright lawsuits are decided at random, so I won't say that you're safe, but there's no particular reason for that) Wnt (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For the benefit of other readers: I was unfamiliar with the phrase "backwards copy". After some digging around, I eventually found "Template:Backwardscopy". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, "fair use" is "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research." The copied text is not being used for any of those. It is being used to expand their ebola coverage to help sell copies of the book. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If writing a textbook isn't scholarship, what is? It is true that the commercial purpose weighs against Fair Use, but these snippets of text are quite small. Not everything disreputable is actually illegal, nor should it be. Wnt (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair dealing applies in the UK. Although there is an allowance for "instruction", it cannot be for commercial use (e.g. text books), also an attribution is required.[15] Little pob (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wnt, I am not sure which definition of "scholarship" you are using. Here are some. I would consider a postgraduate student writing a PhD thesis to be "scholarship". Even then, there should be attribution to the original author. Otherwise, it appears as an attempt to pass off the work as the scholar's own.
The "Fair use" article also includes the statement "Courts, when deciding fair use cases, in addition to looking at context, amount and value of the use, also look to the standards and practices of the professional communities where the case comes from." The community of book publishers does not permit verbatim copying of text without attribution.
Actually if the book had quoted the text and referenced/attributed it, then there would not have been any problem. The issue with this text is really about plagiarism, not fair use. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We also require what is produced to be under an open license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the requirement for a free license only applies to actual derivatives, not to entire works. It's not like plagiarizing a single sentence out of Wikipedia means that your entire book gets "infected" with a free license. Only the (in this case) one paragraph needs to be given an open license. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The whole chapter is someone similar it appears. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's rather a different problem. Attribution is a necessary part both of avoiding plagiarism and of complying with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License. Without it, a fair use claim cannot be based on commentary or review justifications. Parody justifications fails if the reader cannot identify the object of parody. Certainly OUP won't condone even plagiarism. We should not either. But we do still need to verify which is the original and which the copy. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

course dealing with amino acids maybe?

This morning there were some major changes to Asparagine‎ with some strangely named users. Turns out there is a bunch of them. Some class perhaps..., BQUB14-Asegui, BQUB14-Iabad, BQUB14-Agrabosky, BQUB14-Mnezcollado, BQUB14-Ccarmona, BQUB14-Lbusquets, BQUB14-Martigues. Not sure that is all. Primpol is an example of their work. Jytdog (talk) 12:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some are active on the Spanish WP too - [16]. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also editing protein articles (FERMT3‎, RAB6A‎) where they are adding a lot of content, but no sources. Boghog (talk) 13:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit worried about the article construction for Primpol. The lead sentence ("Researchers from the Spanish National Cancer Research Centre (CNIO) and researchers from the Severo Ochoa Molecular Biology Centre (CBM-CSIC) have recently discovered...") very much has the feel of a news article or press release – possibly translated from another language – and we should probably check for plagiarism and copyright violations before we get too far in to copyediting. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
they just reached out to me, here they are medical students.Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HIV/AIDS research

Is this article under the umbrella of you guys WP:MED? If not, should it be? A lot of it seems to relate to possible treatments and other research related to HIV, so it would seem helpful if it conforms to the usually strict sourcing and other guidelines required here.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All "biomedical" information is covered by MEDRS, even if the article is not supported by WPMED. MEDRS belongs to the whole community. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bannered/Tagged it for MEDS. On a quick look, a mixed bag, short with lots of subsidiary articles, but I've seen worse. Needs tlc for sure. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:28, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ZMapp - more eyes could help

What's going on here it seems that this article is being prepared for a DYK. To that end there seems to be a desire for it to say something "meaty" about Ebola treatment, and this requires some judgement calls on the use of sources. Experienced med editors could no doubt help ensure any such judgements are soundly made. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 06:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I read through the article. Overall, it looks okay. It has a non-promotional tone to it and seems to be suitably referenced, although I have not checked the references. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's in Template:Did_you_know/Queue. If you/we aren't happy, get it pulled at DYK talk now, or it will run shortly. They are usually responsive there, but need to be told. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:33, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's okay right now, but from recent editing activity worry that could change fast. Could probably just benefit from being watched - particularly if it's about to enjoy a big traffic spike as a result of a DYK. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
John, it is ready. But there are lots of people with strong feelings who don't understand drug development/medicine and we can expect some turmoil when the DYK goes live. i went to the brink of 3RR with such a person yesterday. Am grateful to Alexbrn for posting here to get more eyes on it! thx for that! Jytdog (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's up. The hook text makes imperfect sense: "[DYK] that the experimental Ebola drug candidate ZMapp is manufactured in the tobacco plant Nicotiana benthamiana in a bioproduction process known as 'pharming'". Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 12:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Someone have PMID 23949286 available? Needed to clean up a bunch of old primary sources there. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LeadSongDog I've found it in a collection. How do I get it to you? Basie (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

i've got it to - will respond on the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jytdog, I'll leave it in your paws :-) LeadSongDog come howl! 18:14, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifying language

Tried to simplify some language here] at abortion. Wondering what peoples thoughts are? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I like it (although I see it got reverted), with one exception: I think 'termination' is useful in context because it's become part of the vernacular surrounding abortion. The phrase 'terminate the pregnancy' is in such common usage that the word seems fitting in the lead, and shouldn't present much of a barrier to the non-clinical reader. Basie (talk) 10:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tuberculoma

What to say? Something of a record here. And the English needs sorting. Permalink to current state. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 01:25, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whew, what a mess. One of the worst examples of citation overkill I've ever seen. Got it started but there's a lot more to do. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Gah! (It's ironic that someone has now put a "citation needed" tag for the pancreas.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Traditional medicine and Folk medicine

There is a (so far limited and dated) discussion about merging Traditional medicine and Folk medicine at Talk:Folk medicine#Merge. I would like additional input from this Wikiproject, please. – Maky « talk » 03:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New entry on ACTH for retinopathy of prematurity?

I'd like to write a new entry on ACTH as a treatment for retrolental fibroplasia, later known as retinopathy of prematurity (ROP). Experimentation and later trials on ACTH for ROP in the 1950s (described in the middle of this source) had a major impact on the development of neonatal evidence-based medicine. The associated RCT is sometimes described as the first RCT in neonatology. I think there is plenty of material to support its own entry. If this sounds like an okay idea, what would I title the article? ACTH for retrolental fibroplasia? ACTH for retinopathy of prematurity? ACTH retinopathy trial? Babies' Hospital ACTH trial? It seems that trials of this era didn't have the catchy names of some of today's trials and I haven't run across a particular name for the trial. Thanks! EricEnfermero HOWDY! 06:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

COI concerns at Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine

WP:COI concerns at Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine and another associated article raised by nominator of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Council for Nutritional and Environmental Medicine (2nd nomination).

Perhaps WP:WikiProject Medicine members would be best suited to look into this.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 19:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Acute flaccid myelitis

I've been trying to scrape together the available news about acute flaccid myelitis. I say "news" because in this breaking story there's certainly nothing like the sources people here usually favor, but given that I've expressed the tentative nature of the data, I think it is very worthwhile to collect what's been reported by what really is a pretty impressive group of doctors, released via the CDC and professional societies. Since I started the article today I still have a few days to mull over how to DYK it; since it's an issue of public interest I think that is appropriate to do. I'd welcome hook suggestions. Wnt (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've now started the DYK. Wnt (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing women to "people with ovaries"

What do people think of this [17]? The person has been edit warring this back into place. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little mixed on this. Where "women" can be swapped with "people" without injury to the text ("people with PCOS") I see no harm. However, "people with ovaries" seems rather awkward, yet the proposed changes still haven't dealt with other text like "daughters" and "female" in the genetics section, which are then inconsistent. Rather than going back and forth I think it may be preferable to take the bull by the horn and say, early on, that "women" refers to biological sex rather than gender. Except... it's possible that this isn't always true; for example, it's possible that in an older general health survey the distinction between gender and sex wouldn't be considered. Ratios like "5-10% of women" may not even technically be valid if the number of people diagnosed with PCOS is divided by the number of "women" listed by a national census, though of course with a range that approximate the error is insignificant. Using a term taken from a source is never really wrong, but it might be improved on with an accurate explanation. Ultimately my feeling is that changing the summary of that many sources all at once based on a global find-and-replace is hazardous, and the flow of the article is adversely affected. Wnt (talk) 15:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The IP has actually been changing the titles of the references. While the first reference is Terms and thresholds for the ultrasound evaluation of the ovaries in women with hyperandrogenic anovulation, it has been changed to Terms and thresholds for the ultrasound evaluation of the ovaries in people with hyperandrogenic anovulation by the IP. I think we should stick to what the sources say. Ochiwar (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm against changing "women" to "people with ovaries", and have recently commented similarly (being against wording like that) at the Tanner scale article: With Grayfell commenting along the same lines, I relayed the following there: Anatomy does need to be gendered, or, more precisely, be clear on what is a male or a female body and the pubertal process involved in that when it comes to talking about puberty. Male and female bodies biologically exist. This page is about biology, not about gender identity. The sex and gender distinction exists for a reason, though not everyone subscribes to it. And like I recently stated here at the Same-sex marriage talk page, "biology is more complicated than just, for example, 'You have a Y chromosome, so you're a male.' But there's also the fact that, like I stated near the end of this section at the Transsexualism talk page, 'Intersex people are usually biologically classified as male or female (based on physical appearance and/or chromosomal makeup, such as XY female or XX male), and usually identify as male or female; it's not the usual case that an intersex person wants to be thought of as neither male nor female. Being thought of as neither male nor female is usually a third gender or genderqueer matter.' The same applies to transgender people (at least when you exclude genderqueer people from the category of transgender); they usually identify as male or female and/or as a man or a woman. 'I'm not aware of science having actually identified a third sex, though intersex people and hermaphroditic non-human animals are sometimes classified as a third sex (by being a combination of both)... ...but gender is a broader field and researchers have identified three or more genders (again, see the Third gender article).'" For how we are generally supposed to treat anatomy and medical topics on Wikipedia when it comes sex/gender, see Talk:Phimosis/Archive 2#Definition.
As seen in that Phimosis discussion, I brought up the recent occasional push of people of giving WP:Undue weight to intersex and transgender matters at anatomy and other medical topics. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 37#Phimosis article again and gender identity, including gender identity at other articles; the discussion did not flourish. Flyer22 (talk) 15:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We should use the language of the sources. We could switch to male and female rather than men and women if that would make a difference. People with ovaries is silly.
Explaining this matters on every page in which we mention these terms is very much undue weight. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are there MEDRS references covering it in non-women? If not, could be OR to do this. Johnbod (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be easy to find both "women" and "females" in sources.
This comes up regularly. Flyer's probably right in assuming that this is a question of intersex and transgender issues. There's also the question of whether "females" or "women" would be better writing style or easier for English-language learners to understand. This is something that MEDMOS should address directly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see these issues come up only occasionally, but definitely more frequently as time goes on. And all of these aforementioned cases, including the ones noted in the previous WP:Med discussion, concern presenting inclusive wording for intersex, transgender and genderqueer people. This is despite the fact that, like I've stated above, the vast majority of intersex and transgender people (excluding the genderqueer categories) identify as male/man or as female/woman. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, i looked at the edits and it is clearly about female to male transgender. the other edit brought sources (not very good ones) but one of them was an interview with a doc at Mt Sinai in NYC who said he is gathering data for a study he intends to publish showing that fTm transgender have higher prevalence of the condition, probably due to testosterone treatments. which is plausible/interesting but that is like a pre-primary source. i searched pubmed and there are no secondary sources on the increased risk nor any primaries yet. if there were i would be 100% in favor of figuring out better language. as it stands, b/c we don't have good sources for the transgender issues for this condition, it is trickier - it is all about what editors prefer. i would be in favor of language that is more inclusive. "people with ovaries" is sure clunky but it does the job. "XX males" is more compact but I think it is jargon. and btw, flyer22, for somebody who is going through or has gone through sex reassignment treatment - the gender identity would be clear, but to me, the sex would not be clear at all... Jytdog (talk) 22:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog, I'm not sure what you mean by "for somebody who is going through or has gone through sex reassignment treatment - the gender identity would be clear, but to me, the sex would not be clear at all." The chromosomal makeup will not change, and the person is either going to pass as that gender, not pass, or not pass well. As for wording, "people with ovaries" is jargon, in my opinion. My issue regarding these topics is what I have stated above -- we should be sicking to what the WP:Reliable sources state with WP:Due weight. In the aforementioned WP:Med discussion above, for example, I pointed to Talk:Human penis/Archive 1#"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth"; that was a WP:Due weight issue. I worked out a compromise wording for the lead in the case of that article, as seen in that discussion. But as for the rest of the Human penis article, we should not be stating "people with penises" throughout the article and avoiding the word "man" and/or "male." If we are talking about anatomical sex, then it stands that a trans woman who has not undergone reconstructive surgery to change her genitalia has a penis; this does not mean that she is a man. What it does mean is that her genitalia is male...at least going by the vast majority of definitions for male and female sex organs. Stating that the penis is a male sex organ is not negating her gender identity. And in the case of trans men, they usually know (once they become well-informed on the topic of transgender issues) that not having a penis does not mean that they are any less of a man. Transgender people often distinguish anatomical sex from gender identity, and often state that their bodies do not align with their gender identity. For many trans women, the penis, as a male sex organ, is a body part that is somewhat foreign to them and is not something they want to own. And, generally, anatomy and other medical topics should distinguish anatomical sex from gender identity in cases such as the ones noted above; by that, I mean, for example, Wikipedia editors should not edit with a WP:Undue weight approach regarding intersex, transgender and genderqueer people simply because they assume that "because we are calling this a male sex organ, it means that we are calling that individual male or are stating that all men have a penis." or that "this condition being exclusive to anatomical females means we are stating that this person is therefore a female/girl/woman, plain and simple." Flyer22 (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On a side note: WhatamIdoing has started a discussion about this topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#People, women, and females. A WP:Permalink to that discussion here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic cigs

Wondering if more people could comment at Talk:Electronic_cigarette. A couple of accounts are trying to edit war changes into the article without consensus or discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:06, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, as opposed to this, this right here, could be construed as canvassing. --Kim D. Petersen 17:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
actually kim if you take the time to read WP:CANVASS you will see that posting to relevant Projects is "appropriate notification" Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not, if the issue at hand is that you just lost an edit-war by running out of reverts, and without any real attempt at solving it at the talk-page of the article. --Kim D. Petersen 18:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
kim you are still not reading. i have not been involved in that edit war. if this is how you are conducting Talk at the e-cig article it is bad news indeed. You should calm down a bit. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually i was referring to Doc James there, and not you. When someone is in an edit war, then calling on "friendlies" is canvassing. --Kim D. Petersen 22:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Doc James on this one. Much need for external input. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a much wider viewpoint is needed on the e-cigarette article on its categorization, wider than this catagory. IMHO it appears that a medical agenda is in charge of what is a consumer device and is dictating exactly what point of view should be thrust into the face of visitors. This is sad because for the most part little is known from a medical point of view. The article imho and the medical category need to be separated. The health effects section would still be governed by WP:MEDRS regardless of what category its in. But the involvement in the structure of the article, which is now a medical style for a consumer device that does not require a prescription, and is not sold as a medical device is just just wrong. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i am staying the hell away from that. it is as bad as most alt-med topics. joyless wikipedia hell where editors have completely lost track of the mission and key principles, like that we actually try to work toward consensus. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except of course that this isn't an alt-med topic, and that some classify it as such, might explain rather a lot. No one is claiming that this has alt-medical effects, and nothing in the article is sourced to alt-med sources. In fact all medical/chemical/etc. material except some negative material (from the CDC "Notes from the Field") is sourced from respected secondary review articles by WP:MEDRS. --Kim D. Petersen 22:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
for fuck's sake, kim i said "it is as bad as alt-med" - editing alt-med articles is unproductive and ugly because people who work on them don't listen or try to reach consensus and often don't understand or apply policies and guidelines well. and you are a case in point kim. you are now 0 for 3 on this board with regard to dealing with what i've actually said and your understanding of policies and guidelines, yet you are adamant as hell. which is par for the course for what i am talking about. Jytdog (talk) 22:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have known that when you say "as bad as alt-med" that you aren't including this topic - you are just going for hyperbole then. Ok. I take your word for it. But i'm a newbie who has never edited controversial subjects, and never read our policies and guidelines, so i obviously don't understand them. (last part was sarcasm btw). --Kim D. Petersen 22:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with AlbinoFerret. The article on the devices should be separated from the medicalized section on health effects, which is currently largely based on hypothetical or imaginary risks put forward by a single "review". Mihaister (talk) 23:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ Jytdog I will agree that the article has become "joyless wikipedia hell where editors have completely lost track of the mission and key principles, like that we actually try to work toward consensus.". Consensus isnt being used as a principle, but like a weapon.
By the specific way the article is presented you would think the title isnt Electronic Cigarette, but Health effects of Electronic Cigarettes. I have had to remove health effects claims that are repeated from the health effects section from almost every other section including Components. The NPOV was long gone before I started editing last night. The article read like a jumbled up number of claims with no direction and no focus other than to be negative.
Another editor Levelledout on the talk page had commented that the way the topics on the page were setup added to the NPOV problem. I changed the order to match the lede of the article and avoid the problem because it made sense to me. Only to have that changed in an edit war. Now we have editors removing NPOV tags and banners when there is a RFC on them only days old with no consensus either way. The prominence of the Health effects section is a NPOV problem. Not its existence, not the reliable sources. To Doc James credit he left a lot of the changes to the page alone and only changed the order of the sections back.
I dislike editors posting to other pages when it looks like they are the lone party to disagree and bring in people who dont really edit the page, but revert. So ya, its hell. I dont like when editors use warnings on other users talk page to stop them from acting, and then do exactly what they warned others about. I dont like others using a guideline clearly designed for something completely different (medical devices on a consumer product) to force changes that lead to NPOV problems. Ok I think I have said enough. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
you can like what you like or not, but posting to a relevant message board is 100% OK in Wikipedia. Getting mad about people doing what is OK, is unproductive - it is being part of the problem. You can choose to be part of the problem or not. On the health thing -- I think that the #1 reason anybody thinks about using an e-cigarette is health. The #1 controversy over them is health. I don't see how you can get around having the most WP:WEIGHT (if you have never read that, please do - it is an essential part of the policy, WP:NPOV) in the article be devoted to health. That's my perspective, anyway. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the number one focus of most people with E-cigarettes is a health issue. There is a large and growing community of users that doesnt revolve around health related information. I said I didnt like things, that doesnt indicate anger. But it does point out what I would probably not do. That it seems to be the only way forward, I may have to use all those tools even though I would rather not. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
try to stay cool.. and Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures are (to me) good and wise. Try to work in good in faith (really try!) on the Talk page, and if you cannot come to consensus, move smoothly into the pathways offered there. DocJames did that by opening the RfC. There are other ways to (but generally one way at a time, per issue!) but the goal is never to win - it is to reach consensus. those are different things (Wikipedia is weird that way) Jytdog (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying, but the new RFC on the page is a problem, Its like asking the mice if they want to keep the cheese. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree that the section needs to be at the top. It only adds to the problem, and I have long ago read those links. AlbinoFerret (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addiction is health. These things contain nicotine generally thus it is a health thing. Editors which try to say that it is not health is part of the issue we are dealing with. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I never said some of the sections were not a health topic. What I said is the page is about a consumer device, not a medical one. That it contains nicotine does not prove it is a medical topic. Name one other consumer product article that contains nicotine that is categorized as in the medical catagory. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hell, the asbestos and even the cigarette article's sections do not follow that kind of order that Doc tries to force on the e-cigs article's layout. When it reaches a point where common sense ends and personal POV + agenda takes over it's time to intervene, not to embrace.TMCk (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I think the simplest way to look at this issue is to follow the WP:NPOV advice of looking at how it is being treated in reliable sources. Try the following Google searches:

  • NYTimes e-cigarette
  • WSJ e-cigarette
  • Newseek e-cigarette
  • Time Magazine e-cigarette
  • CBS News e-cigarette

There are few or no media stories leading off with a discussion of what sort of fashion statement e-cigarettes are making, how they are constructed, what the latest e-juice cocktail is, where they are made, etc. 90% of what you will see in the media is stories debating the health effects. And leaving aside Pubmed, searching Google scholar for "e-cigarette" will bring up no article on the first page of hits that are not health related.

The argument that this is not primarily a health-related article flies in the face of what strongly dominates the result of every search you can perform on the internet. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you double post here I should post my reply to you here as well:
:Strawman. By that measure almost every article [if not all wiki content] is health-related; And health-related is the point: It's related only so it warrants a health section just as in "asbestos" and "cigarettes" but it's not a straight and plain med-article!TMCk (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have never denied that it has health effects sources and notability. But it is still a consumer device. Forcing a WP:MEDMOS style to the page as you did here is just wrong. Its using a guideline as a weapon. I also know that for over 4 years it was not categorized as medical and was placed there by an editor that only edited medical articles without any discussion. AlbinoFerret (talk) 03:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have started a RfC here [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The pool of editors is to small for a consumer product. Only informing medical editors is like asking the mice if they want to keep some cheese. AlbinoFerret (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Only the "rats" will show up I guess :)) TMCk (talk) 05:45, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well on the topic of who "shows up", this may not be the place to raise it, but there is something odd about a couple of accounts that have just showed up at the RfC. Newish with only a few (token?) edits in other areas before majoring on the e-cig article. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 14:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is a billion dollar product. It is in somes best interest to not have a neutral article. Thus agree all the new accounts are could be a concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm reading that right, Doc seems to be insinuating all new wiki editors are industry shills. How many Wiki policies does that go against? wp:agf, wp:bite, not to mention a bunch of etiquette guidelines. I must say this is very disappointing. I expected some professionalism from an established editor with his standing in the community. Mihaister (talk) 02:04, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's well established and common sense, Mihaister, that WP:SPAs (as yours is) suggest something problematic might be happening, maybe a WP:COI. Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 05:13, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You must have a different understanding of "common sense" than I do. The way I see it is most new editors start editing with a small number of articles, just like you did too [19].Mihaister (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be checked

Jonathan Mcrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has edited numerous medical articles to introduce sources (sometimes not needed or helpful) all from the same author (Robert Mendoza), but on diverse medical conditions. I don't have time to check them all; the first I checked wasn't helpful or needed. COI? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:19, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the Male reproductive system article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Male reproductive system#Requested move. A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

British Society for Ecological Medicine

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Society for Ecological Medicine. — Cirt (talk) 08:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine in the New York Times

Story is here. Good work, everyone who edited ebola virus disease. Jinkinson talk to me 13:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Doc James, Jfdwolff, and AminMDMA for contributing to this article.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! JFW | T@lk 20:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Global health statistics (revisited)

I think there's consensus here that we ultimately aim to provide a broad and balanced global picture. Often that's easier said than done... For esophageal cancer at least, I found the distribution statistics listed in the 2014 World Cancer Report (kindly suggested for sourcing by James) somewhat sketchy: in particular, the summaries of regional data are not stratified by the main histological types - a key variable.

I believe a reasonable editorial case can be made for considering a publication such as PMID 25320104 as a reliable secondary source (and, potentially an "ideal" MEDRS), in that it systematically collates data made available by a major international body (IARC - [20]/[21]). While I appreciate WAID's cautious response ([22]) and I too fully accept the need for caution when using such registries (as acknowledged by the authors of the paper - sorry, full text is paywalled), I feel the authors' recognition that the information documented in the paper is largely in keeping with other sources provides another argument in favor of its use, per the guiding principles of MEDRS. Imo, this sort of source could help bring together a section which is somewhat typically fragmented.

I'm raising the matter here again, as I feel it goes beyond any one particular disease. 109.153.156.71 (talk) 16:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I think there must a misunderstanding because at first look, the source you are presenting is not controversial and sources of this type should be presented on Wikipedia in top-level articles in the epidemiology section. MEDRS does not cover this kind of information, and standard Wikipedia rules do. MEDRS covers information of the sort which individuals can use to gain insight into the nature of medical treatments. The source you shared is about population health. It says "These first global estimates of oesophageal cancer incidence by histology..." and that seems valuable and not likely to cause concern. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out Bluerasberry. Doh, 109.153.156.71 (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

National Operation Anti-Vivisection

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Operation Anti-Vivisection. — Cirt (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MalaCards

A proposal was made in 2013 to modify {{Infobox disease}} to link to a repository called MalaCards (GeneCards but for maladies). This is a site (http://www.malacards.org) that pulls together data from sources such as Wikipedia.

Now it suddenly appears as an identifier in the infobox after Pigsonthewing modified the infobox.[23] I have no very strong views on this, other than that I believe it was discussed in the wrong forum and that MalaCards is not particularly authoritative. Heck, it doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article. Views, anyone? JFW | T@lk 20:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Sources such as Wikipedia" is misleading, and something discussed over a period of a year is not "sudden". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Pigsonthewing It attracted a small number of responses, in the wrong forum, and it stayed on that proposals page for months until it unexpectedly was incorporated in the Infobox. In that sense, it was "sudden" to me.
Incidentally, the methodology behind the database was published in 2013 (doi:10.1093/database/bat018) which is probably why it doesn't yet have widespread name recognition. JFW | T@lk 20:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I'd take a look at a mitochondrial disease [24]: MalaCards: Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy... is related to leber hereditary optic neuropathy with dystonia... (and unhelpfully, the link provided to the latter is blank). Further down the page, under the heading "Related Diseases" [25], we seem to be informed that LHON is "related to" a range of conditions based on "text searches within MalaCards or GeneCards/GeneDecks gene sharing" [?]. Hmm...
Per the compilers of this, as yet, young database [26], "A well-known disadvantage is the extraction of irrelevant data. One example is the extraction of genes that are annotated to be ‘unaffected’ by a specific disease to be associated with this same disease. Another example is extraction of genes related to ‘non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma’ for ‘Hodgkin’s lymphoma’ because the close lexical resemblance between the names of these diseases." Wouldn't linking to such content be likely to represent a potential source of confusion to the general usership of the encyclopedia? 109.153.156.71 (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy's and Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy's impact on each other and WP:MEDMOS

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2014‎ Flyer22 (UTC)

People there seem rowdy. I would not want them tagging article talk pages with a project banner, but otherwise, I see nothing wrong with them trying to organize. I would not want to step into their mix until they calmed a bit. I commented earlier and one person said that they wanted distance from WikiProject Medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=631389689"