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 SimonDes (talk | contribs) at 15:38, 12 May 2017 (→iQOS: I need to look this up.). 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


    Infobox update April 2017

    Example of the medicine infobox update.

    I have been working to update our infoboxes to human useful date. This is an idea proposed by User:Bluerasberry a few years ago. I have done a couple of hundred articles so far. And the plan is to do around a thousand before getting a bot to transfer the info to Wikidata so other languages can benefit. The EN WP data however will stay on EN WP. Every item gets / needs a high quality reference.

    The question is can I get the first part which is this done by bot? Ie have a bot makes this change to all articles which use the Template:Infobox medical condition. The numerical data is moved to the external links section. Amir will do the bot work, we just need community consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Support

    • looks good on Dyslexia(therefore support)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree This change involves a complicated set of issues which the Wikimedia community has found challenging to discuss in the past. In a section below "Previous discussion of medical infoboxes" I tried to list what I thought were some relevant related discussions. An element of this current proposal which has been rejected in the past is the move of the library cataloging information from the top of the article to the bottom. Although this idea has been rejected multiple times, it is a recurring proposal which has had some supporters. The idea of putting consumer information in an infobox in the lead has been made multiple times also, and rejected in the past. Things are a little different in this proposal because there has been more discussion over the years about what sort of information is and is not appropriate to present, and in this present proposal, some controversial early ideas are not present to derail the discussion. Also, the idea of pulling data from Wikidata is abandoned, and instead all information in this box is planned to be managed on English Wikipedia with citations. Based on previous conversations, the biggest opposition which I perceive to this is the standing opposition to making researchers and scientists go to the bottom of the Wikipedia article to get links that they want. However, I do not join that opposition, because I favor serving the general reader who is the majority user and feel that researchers are power users who can learn to get the same information at the bottom of the article without being unduly burdened. I support the use of the bot to move the current infoboxes to the bottom of each article, and to present this English-Wikipedia managed new variation of an infobox. I participate in this discussion because I think this is one of the more influential innovations which WikiProject Medicine can try to improve the quality of its content and make content more accessible to more people. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is much more useful to the general reader than the current infobox. Sizeofint (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. More detailed and useful content for our readers. QuackGuru (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support as proposer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:05, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - I like how this includes more information that readers care about. Mamyles (talk) 20:15, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - good idea IMO. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support - Definitely a good step, as User:Bluerasberry has so eloquently explained above. E.g. a Wikipedia Zero user deserves more useful and potentially life-saving information at his fingertips. A researcher can scroll down to the bottom of the page and get cataloging data. There's no critical rush in what he's doing.--Saintfevrier (talk) 23:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppose

    Discussion

    While I strongly support the move to a more useful infobox, I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of this bot is. I'm guessing it is useful, but for the sake of those who don't know what the end-goal is: what specifically do you intend to do?

    • Will the bot clear or copy the content of the infoboxes moving that information to a {{Medical resources}} at the bottom of the articles?

    There is a difference between clearing and copying. Copying may make the work much easier in the future if we wish to fully migrate, while still preserving functionality for now. Clearing however may end us up with entirely useless infoboxes for now, risking them being deleted.

    The other question is what you mean that infobox statements need sources. This is very often overlooked, and I would actually like to suggest we force sources into the infobox. This has been done before on other language Wikipedias, but the idea is to create a field for each statement so that you fill in: 

    mortality rate =
mortality rate source =

    and if the source isn't entered the rate isn't included. This could potentially solve lots of problems, and would also make it easy to handle sources in the infobox, for example by forcing them into a group source so they don't cause clutter. It maybe very profitable to introduce such a source-requirement at the same time as we migrate to new infoboxes, which is why I'd like to take it a little slower. Best, Carl Fredrik talk 23:09, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • The bot would just convert the old infobox to the new one, right? And the adding of sourced content would be done subsequently by editors, right? Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per Jytdog, yes. It just converts and editors need to fill it in.
      • THIS is what the bot will do.
      • I am not a big fan of a separate line for sources. Sources should simple go after the statement in question. We just as a community need to remove unreffed stuff from infoboxes / add a ref if it is missing as we do for other areas of an article.
      • Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        1. On the bot: Copying stuff from an infobox at the top an article and into a box at the bottom of the article is easy, and that's all that's done there. I think people may be confused by all of the new parameters like |symptoms=. So to clarify, the bot's not filling in those new parameters. It's keeping things like name and image, and adding blank parameters for things like |symptoms=. This is actually a feasible task, and it should be (very) easy to skip any articles that would otherwise end up with an empty infobox at the top if the links are moved.
        2. Using a separate parameter for the source would make it easy to automatically check for the absence of sources. If if |mortality-rate= used, then you could make |mortality-rate-source= display either the source or automatically add a {{fact}} tag or display an error message.
          I'm not sure what the larger community thinks about adding sources in infoboxes. The idea has always been that almost nothing should go in the infobox unless it's already in the article, and sourced in the article (making sources in the infobox be superfluous). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank WAID. With respect to source. A good portion of our readers / editors want every line referenced. The same argument that nothing in the lead should not be referenced in the body just leads to the lead being fill with [citation needed] tags. If we are going to move this information to WD it needs references. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I prefer the old infobox, but this is only because I prefer that the ICD-10, etc. be linked in the infobox and I don't think readers are likely to look for it in the External links section. Also, the cause(s), treatment(s), etc. of/for a disease or disorder can be complicated and/or disputed, and listing them in the infobox can subsequently prove to be problematic. I worry about the new infobox leading to WP:OR and edit wars. But I'll get used to the new infobox. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it'll take some time for everyone to get used to it. For example, things like |cause= shouldn't be used unless it's clear and simple (e.g., HIV causes AIDS), but it'll take a while to get the message out that this isn't a good spot to fill in hundreds of suspected causes in the Cancer article.
        Would you be more satisfied with having all of it in one long infobox? Infoboxes for chemicals are unusually long, with a bunch of codes stuff in the end, and that doesn't really seem to bother people much. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean the ICD-10 stuff, etc. in one long infobox? I wouldn't mind that. And, yeah, your cancer infobox example is something to be worried about, but that article is well-watched. The articles that are not well-watched are the ones I'm more concerned about. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    For cause of cancer in the infobox we say "Tobacco, obesity, poor diet, lack of physical activity, excessive alcohol, certain infections". I am thinking we should keep it to the top half dozen only. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I made this change to the infobox on cerebral palsy, does that mean that it has also been added on wikidata? (There is a thing at the bottom of the new infobox saying 'edit on wikidata') --122.108.141.214 (talk) 10:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    No, that's just a convenience link to cerebral palsy (Q210427) for editors who want to update Wikidata as well. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Eventually the hope is to update Wikidata based on the details we add here. Not sure how that will work yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:23, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks RexxS and Doc James! --122.108.141.214 (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Previous discussion of medical infoboxes

    I think that the core of this proposal is moving the library cataloging information from the lead of the article to the bottom, and to fill the space left behind with information for the general consumer.

    Proposals which were similar to this one have been both well discussed and controversial in the past. Personally, I would characterize past discussions as being progressive for change and protective of current practice from different perspectives and because it seemed like any one change for one group of stakeholders would also cause several changes affecting other groups. Because memories fade and because I think it is useful to try to track some history of discussion, I linking to some past related discussions which led to this one. These discussions could be useful for anyone joining the conversation and who wants to know what other things the wiki community has discussed or tried. Other people would have their own memories and perspectives of past conversations and I probably missed linking to some. These ones that I am featuring here are ones that I either found in search or remembered.

    1. "Helpfulness of data in infobox", November 2011 in WikiProject Medicine. Mamyles argues that infoboxes should not contain classifying numbers and instead should have consumer information.
    2. "External links in infobox", June 2014 in WikiProject Medicine. Diptanshu.D proposes to remove library cataloging information from the infobox in the lead. This is much like the current proposal. It got opposition at the time.
    3. "Proposal of retaining and fixing eMedicine template under Infobox disease", June 2014 at WikiProject Medicine. Diptanshu.D proposes to add a link out to a particular website in the infobox, and the WikiProject Medicine community reflects on what kinds of sources are appropriate for linking in the lead of an article. This discussion is relevant to this one because it demonstrates the context of taking for granted that Wikipedia should prioritize linking out in an infobox in the lead, which is the practice being questioned in this discussion.
    4. ""MalaCards www.malacards.org", November 2014 at WikiProject Medicine. A representative of an external organization Marilyn Safran asks about adding external links to their health content to the infobox. There is more discussion about the purpose of an infobox, including whether it should have cataloging links at all.
    5. "This infobox is incomprehensible", January 2015 at {{Infobox medical condition}}. Bhny says, "It is completely unencyclopedic. It just has a bunch of codes and links."
    6. Adding further parameters", January 2015 at {{Infobox medical condition}}. Doc James starts this response to that other January 2015 talk on this page. Here there are a range of opinions about what an infobox should be.
    7. "Perhaps this infobox should not be the primary medical condition infobox", February 2015 at {{Infobox medical condition}}. I, bluerasberry, make a similar proposal to what is being discussed now.
    8. "Seeking comment on a new kind of drug infoboxes", June 2015 at WikiProject Medicine. It seemed to controversial to start with medical conditions, so instead, I proposed starting with drug infoboxes.
    9. "Making the template more useful for people", August 2015 at {{Infobox drug}}. Doc James proposes that drug infoboxes have consumer information rather than cataloging data.
    10. "Testing new infobox" November 2015 at Gout. Doc James presents an infobox which pulls data from Wikidata.
    11. "Wikipedia for Health and Safety Research and Data," in-person meeting at the United States National Archives in November 2015. 5-10 WikiProject Medicine contributors joined this meeting. One of the major outcomes was that Emitraka from Portal:Gene Wiki and ProteinBoxBot demonstrated how English Wikipedia infoboxes can be populated with Wikidata information, as happened in the Gene Wiki project for Wikipedia articles about genes.
    12. "Another reform proposal - split infobox into 'human readable' and 'non human readable' and call from Wikidata", December 2015 at {{Infobox medical condition}}. Here I propose something like what is here, except also assume that calling data from Wikidata would be less controversial. I was wrong about Wikidata being the less controversial way forward.
    13. "Wikidata for pneumonia (failed experiment maybe)", December 2016 at WikiProject Medicine. Doc James tries a new way of pulling Wikidata information to post in English Wikipedia infoboxes. There were problems.

    Printed on paper, all of this discussion and the examples cited in these discussions might be the equivalent of 200 paper pages of content. It is a lot to digest. If others remember more or other previous relevant conversation then please share. Wikipedia is not well-equipped to manage a conversation of this sort which has happened in multiple forums over a period of years. I am guessing that not fewer than 50 users have commented in these discussions, and almost every comment is a substantial statement by a highly knowledgeable user. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks Lane. Excellent overview. One of the important side benefits of this effort is that it moves eMedicine and ADAM hosted on medlineplus to the external links section (giving them less undue weight). GPnotebook has been placed in like 1,000 external links section (I have already moved 500). They used to be open access but have now moved to a closed access subscription model. If they were added via the Template:Medical condition classification and resources we could remove them with a single code change. Instead I have another 500 edits to make. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:34, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    RfC

    Because of the changes made in putting the classification and resources at the bottom of an article, there is already a challenge based on WP:CONLOCAL that consensus here can't override the site-wide guideline WP:ELT. To settle the issue once and for all, this is now the subject of an RfC at Template talk:Medical resources #RfC on placement of Medical condition classification and resources template. Those commenting here may wish to voice their opinions at the RfC. --RexxS (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Please help with Eddie Eagle good article effort

    You are invited to help close a good article effort at Eddie Eagle, a pediatric gun injury prevention program.

    In December 2016 an editor warred to:

    See also WT:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_95#Eddie_Eagle from 12 April 2017 (@Doc James:, @WhatamIdoing:).

    More recently on the verge of a good article nomination the same editor has returned to:

    These recent edits are very clearly not improvements to the encyclopedia. Additional participation may be necessary to salvage good article recognition for this editorial effort. Please help. Thank you! 35.163.21.246 (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The article is very much based on primary sources. People should be using secondary source per WP:MEDRS.
    The image was non-free and therefore needed to be removed per policy. What was listed as "review articles" were not reviews but primary sources.
    Can you list the MEDRS compliant sources that were deleted? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your collaboration. MEDRS compliant sources removed or summarization curtailed:

    In 1992 the Committee on Injury and Poison Prevention of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) adopted a position critical of the program, discouraged its use, cited the lack of evidence demonstrating efficacy, and recommended an absence of guns from children's homes, or trigger locks or gun safes, as more effective alternatives. The AAP renewed its recommendations in 2000 and 2012.[1][2][3]

    References

    1. ^ "Firearm Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population" (PDF). Pediatrics. 89 (4). American Academy of Pediatrics: 788–790. 1992. ISSN 0031-4005. PMID 1557283.
    2. ^ "Firearm Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population". Pediatrics. 105 (4). American Academy of Pediatrics: 888–895. April 2000. ISSN 0031-4005. PMID 10742344.
    3. ^ "Firearm-Related Injuries Affecting the Pediatric Population". Pediatrics. 130 (5). American Academy of Pediatrics: 1416–1423. November 2012. doi:10.1542/peds.2012-2481. PMID 23080412.

    Jackman et. al (2001) wrote in Pediatrics that although the Eddie Eagle program "has been promoted heavily, it never has been evaluated formally to prove that it works. If gun safety education gives parents a sense of complacency without fundamentally altering child behavior, then it might do more harm than good."[1]

    References

    1. ^ Jackman, Geoffrey A.; Farah, Mirna M.; Kellermann, Arthur L.; Simon, Harold K. (June 2001). "Seeing Is Believing: What Do Boys Do When They Find a Real Gun?". Pediatrics. 107 (6). American Academy of Pediatrics: 1247–1250. doi:10.1542/peds.107.6.1247. PMID 11389238.

    A 2002 survey article by Hardy published in the journal The Future of Children in a special issue on the topic of "Children, Youth, and Gun Violence" identified the Eddie Eagle program as "perhaps the most popular" gun avoidance program for prekindergarten through the sixth grade but said the program "does not give children a reason for avoiding guns (such as that guns are dangerous)" and that "The NRA offers no empirical evidence that its approach is effective."[1]

    References

    1. ^ Hardy, Marjorie S. (2002). "Behavior-Oriented Approaches to Reducing Youth Gun Violence". The Future of Children. 12 (2). PMID 12194605.

    Himle et. al (2004), in the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, wrote "...few investigations have evaluated the effectiveness of programs designed to teach children appropriate safety skills to use when they find a firearm. The few investigations that have been conducted have shown existing programs to be ineffective..."[1]

    References

    1. ^ Himle, Michael B.; Miltenberger, Raymond G.; Flessner, Christopher; Gatheridge, Brian (2004). "Teaching safety skills to children to prevent gun play". Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 37 (1): 1–9. doi:10.1901/jaba.2004.37-1. PMC 1284473. Retrieved December 7, 2016.

    A 2004 survey of the literature and critical review of prevention strategies for unintended firearms injuries to children in the journal Education and Treatment of Children concluded "existing child-based firearm-safety programs do not reduce children's injury risk...Although knowledge of what one should do may be valuable, research suggests that knowledge of skills often does not correspond with actual behavior."[1]

    References

    1. ^ Himle, Michael B.; Miltenberger, Raymond G. (2004). "Preventing unintentional firearm injury in children: The need for behavioral skills training". Education and Treatment of Children. West Virginia University Press: 161–177. ISSN 0748-8491.

    Glatt (2005) in the Journal of Pediatric Nursing wrote of the Eddie Eagle program "The NRA believes that it can be effective by teaching children the simple, straightforward message to stop, do not touch, leave the area, and tell an adult when confronted by the presence of a firearm...This is an unrealistic expectation based on the cognitive abilities of children in this age group."[1]

    References

    1. ^ Glatt, Kathleen (December 2005). "Child-to-Child Unintentional Injury and Death from Firearms in the United States: What can be Done?". Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 20 (6): 448–452. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2005.08.006. ISSN 0882-5963. PMID 16298286.

    File:Eddie Eagle cover.jpg

    The image is the book cover of the program workbook, Eddie Eagle Kids' Activity Booklet, Pre-K and Kindergarten edition. The use of this image in this article is policy-compliant; the image was reviewed and accepted with a use rationale for use in article Eddie Eagle.

    Thank you again. 52.201.205.110 (talk) 17:57, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed it primarily because this is how admins have been dealing with edits made by this IP [[5]], [[6]], [[7]]. Also this topic would fall under HughD's current topic bans (above and beyond the edit block). I also would argue it is a big stretch to include a public education plan in project medicine. The program is a social/education program, not a medical program. I don't think we put other public safety programs such as swimming pool safety, bike safety, or driving safety programs into project medicine. (edit: I see Automobile safety includes project medicine - added by HughD during an edit war shortly before his block) Gun safety does not include project medicine. Springee (talk) 19:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have a SPI on HughD and these IPs?
    I am happy with the adding of gun violence prevention programs to WPMED. Same applies to swimming pool safety as both of these drowning and guns, are major causes of deaths. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:18, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) - SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/HughD/Archive - 52.201.205.110 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is not mentioned among them, but it looks likely.
    The problem is, Springee that the majority of sources that establish the notability of the programme focus on the controversy over its effectiveness, or lack thereof, in helping children learn. Those sort of issues are very much within the purview of WikiProject Med. You may feel that WPMED ought to limit itself to articles on diseases and drugs, but the editors who make up the WikiProject don't agree with you – for example, the sixth most popular medical article of the last week was Project MKUltra, not a traditional med article, but sufficiently in-scope to be tagged; just as Eddie Eagle is. it's not your place to decide on behalf of WPMED what is in its scope. While I sympathise with your intentions in combating disruption, I fear you may be losing sight of what improves the encyclopedia. For example, in your most recent revert at that article, you removed: (1) an image that had a perfectly acceptable non-free use rationale; and (2) a link to online content for a news source, as well as other sourced content. The other sourced content may be debatable in terms of its value, but nobody is going to agree with you that removing the only image from the article and deleting a convenience link to an source that is also available online is improving the article. Please have another think about the impact your editing is having on articles. I've also removed your collapsing of the contribution from 52.201.205.110 here because I object to the title text that you used. WP:ILLEGIT a policy, not a label for editors, and you're getting close to a personal attack in making those kind of statements merely on suspicion. --RexxS (talk) 19:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    MEDRS might be applied to this article in a very limited way, such as for sources which state if the program is effective or not, and even then this is not really the type of content that MEDRS is supposed to cover as it's not a medical intervention or anything like that. All other content in the article shouldn't need MEDRS compliant sources imo. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you. It's a health-related topic (so it interests people here and should be tagged for the group to track the article), but whether six year olds will reliably follow instructions presented during a one-time school lesson is not WP:Biomedical information by any reasonable definition of those words (so MEDRS is not exactly relevant). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, agree w/ WAID's point --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to move Urinary bladder to Human urinary bladder

    Verticle section bladder wall

    There is a discussion taking place on the talk page of the article Urinary bladder on whether this article should be moved to Human urinary bladder and the content of a new more-generalized article on bladders (located here) be used to replace it. Your input is welcome! KDS4444 (talk) 22:09, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    IMO, for anatomy articles it is more appropriate to have the human anatomy topic as the sub article, and a more general physiology type article as the main article. For pathology, depends if the topic is more related to humans or other animals. Pbsouthwood agree with you, an encyclopaedia should have encyclopaedic coverage, not partial coverage. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    This is what we currently do with brain and human brain. I think for anatomy articles this is a sensible suggestion. Whichever direction we go, we need to standardize. Sizeofint (talk) 00:18, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do we need to standardize? Why don't we consider the individual subject, and then decide to split the brain-related articles (they're large), but keep, say, gallbladder merged together? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:51, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    We need to standardise so that we don't have to check every time we make a link about exactly where it goes. Personally I think we should standardise on Urinary bladder (human) for humans and Urinary bladder (anatomy) for the general sense. We can then argue independently over which of those should be a redirect to the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:COMMONNAME. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's all in the same article, then you don't need to check anything. We could additionally create redirects to a standardized naming system, and then we could write good articles and you still wouldn't ever need to check: if everything's in one place, then both redirects point to the same page, and if it's been split, then each points to the most relevant article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:27, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is no problem if there is one article. However, I think many participants here are interested in the case in which there are multiple articles on a topic. The standardized naming system is precisely what we're interested in. Sizeofint (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WhatamIdoing: when you say If it's all in the same article, then you don't need to check anything. you appear to be missing the point that a maintenance bot has no way or automatically determining whether it's all in the same article. If there were standardised redirects, that would be possible. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we actually have a maintenance bot that is capable of determining whether a given link in an article ought to refer to a general anatomical object or specifically a human one? (I've got nothing against creating lots of redirects; however, I strongly oppose splitting one decent article about anatomy into two incomplete ones, just to segregate human anatomy from everything-else anatomy.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WAID is absolutely right. Readers first. Editors second. Bots a distant third, until they manage to vote to alter it. Where there is so much material in the Other animals section that splitting off a daughter article is sensible, then we do it. Otherwise a single article is the best bet for everybody, including any other animals who may be reading our articles. FWIW, I don't consider the three brief sentences in Urinary bladder #Other animals justify a separate spin-off article. --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Opposite of PRN?

    Does anyone know whether there's a medical term for (more or less) the opposite of PRN, i.e. when a a medicine is supposed to be taken daily (whether the patient feels they need it that day or not)? --Philologia (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    OD is once daily; QD is once daily in the Latin tradition (quaque die); BID is twice daily; TID is three times a day; QID – sometimes confusingly shortened to QD – is four times daily. In vet med, SID (semel in die) is used for once daily. Note that you shouldn't really use any of these, because they're impossible for normal people to understand and have created serious medical errors on occasion (especially when handwritten). You especially shouldn't use OD, because that has other meanings (like "overdose" and "right eye"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Opposite of "as needed" is "scheduled". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    When I look at a prescription bottle, is there any real difference between "take one tablet daily" and "take one tablet daily as directed"? (Both medicines were prescribed by the same M.D., I always discuss any new prescriptions with my doctor, and, not being an idiot, I always do whatever I am "directed" to do.) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    -User:Guy Macon fair question. The difference is "take one tablet once a day as needed" versus "take one table once a day" The two you mention are typically the same. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The "as directed" language sounds like you should take one tablet daily and additionally follow some other directions (e.g., "take one tablet daily until X happens"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for all these replies! I've just tried to clarify the significance of "scheduled" as an antonym in the article. As a non-medical expert, it helps me understand PRN better. --Philologia (talk) 23:01, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Immunocompromise, immunosuppression and immunodeficiency

    Assumed clear definitions distinguishing these terms, e.g.:

    However, former article lists examples of "non deliberate immunosuppression" such as HIV/AIDS. If it is possible to be "immunosuppressed" because of medical conditions rather than it being a term restricted to an artificially created condition by medical interventions, then what is the difference between immunodeficiency and immunosuppression? And the next question would be do we need separate articles in the encyclopedia? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think that the terms have been used very precisely in most sources. If we've got a top-quality source that specifically defines them, then we could create compare-and-contrast sections in the two articles and try to improve our own precision in other articles, but if you frequently read, e.g., that people with HIV are "immunosuppressed", then you will expect them to be mentioned in that article. (Ten seconds with Google suggests that sources are nearly 50–50 on that example, with slightly more Ghits for "immunosuppressed" than for "immunocompromised".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    If sources are commonly using the terms interchangeably, then this begs the question should we merge? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    It makes more sense to talk about the subject of the article(s) first, and to find a title later.
    The possible subjects could be divided up like this: deliberate immune reduction (e.g., lupus), accidental/side-effect-y immune lowering (e.g., chemotherapy), and pathological low immune system (e.g., AIDS).
    Completely ignoring the terms, does it make more sense to you to have an article about all of those together (lupus+chemo+AIDS), or to separate them in various ways? And if you split them, do you split them into two or three groups? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Context

    Inhaled corticosteroids causing isolated candidial lesions on the dorsum of the tongue and the palate, presumably the steroid flowing over these surfaces while it is being inhaled, and altering/suppressing local/mucosal immune function and allowing commensal candidal species to become pathogenic. Since the lesion is caused by what is effectively topical rather than systemic use of steroids, is this still considered immunosuppression? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Any opinions/thoughts/ evidence on this? Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:07, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Oral allergy syndrome

    This article is badly in need of "MEDRS-ing and MEDMOS-ing" if anyone is interested in this topic. Epeefleche perhaps. It would be great to interlink this topic with Stomatitis#Allergic_contact_stomatitis since this seems to define at least part of the condition. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    [8]might help--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:35, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Specific carbohydrate diet

    more eyes would be useful here. thx Jytdog (talk) 04:21, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    will watch--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Opinions needed!

    Looking for opinions on: Talk:Psychiatric pharmacy#Name change. Biochemistry&Love (talk) 01:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Management or treatment

    Please see Talk:Gluten-free_diet#Management Jytdog (talk) 18:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    I see management as more long term and less curative
    While treatment is more curative and generally shorter term
    But both mean more or less the same and are frequently used interchangeably. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There are multiple ways to understand those words. For example, "managing your blood sugar" is the most important way of "treating Type 2 diabetes". There's also an idea that you manage symptoms and treat diseases, or that you "manage" a disease when the interventions are largely ineffective, but "treat" the disease when they work for most patients. None of it's official jargon with a One True™ Usage.
    The specific question at this article seems to be whether every single word related to treatment should be excised from the article and replaced by the word management, or whether it should be the other way around. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Free accounts for PsychiatryOnline (American Psychiatric Association) now available!

    Hi all, just wanted to let you know that you can now sign up for free access to PsychiatryOnline (from the American Psychiatric Association) through The Wikipedia Library! And a reminder that recommendations for databases we don't have available yet are welcomed. Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    And just to clarify, you'll get access to the Premium Package, which includes just about everything (including DSM-5)! Samwalton9 (WMF) (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    WMF Board

    Hey All For those who have not noticed board elections have begun. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Voted for my first time! JenOttawa (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Placement of the Template:Medical resources

    There is a discussion going on HERE. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:30, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    An RfC is being conducted that will seek consensus for an exception to WP:ELT for Template:Medical resources. The discussion is at Template talk:Medical resources #RfC on placement of Medical condition classification and resources template. Opinions and constructive suggestions are welcome. --RexxS (talk) 10:29, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion of the use of easier to understand language

    Here. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


    Wikimedian in Residence at the Physiological Society and at The History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group

    I have two new Wikimedian in Residence roles, both related to medicine:

    I'll be doing some work as a Wikimedian in Residence at The Physiological Society over the next few months. As part of that, I have added a list of prize winners to the article about the society - there are lots of red links there for folk to work on! Please see also Wikipedia:GLAM/PhySoc and note there any articles you create in response to this initiative.

    Also, I'm now in residence at The History of Modern Biomedicine Research Group; see their announcement. In this case, there are too many notable people for a list of red links, but see items with Wikidata property History of Modern Biomedicine ID (P3885); list at [9]. Again, please note any you create at Wikipedia:GLAM/HMBRG.

    I'm happy to act as a conduit for any queries you may have, regarding either organisation.

    One or two editathons will be held, in London, later this year. Watch this space! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Andy Mabbett congrats on the new positions Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ditto. Let us know about the editathons. Bondegezou (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Opinions sought with regards inhaled steroids as a cause of oral candidiasis

    Well meaning editor wanting to make info on inhaled steroids more findable in the article. Thoughts? (please respond on talk page). 19:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

    Added comment Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SSRI increased suicide rate??

    Serotonin
    There is controversy around the benefit-versus-harm of antidepressants.[33] In young persons, the newer antidepressants such as SSRIs appear to increase the risk of suicidality from 25 per 1000 to 40 per 1000.[131]

    Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide#Prevention

    This is very unprofessional and should be treated unreliable and to be deleted from the article. =) --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 09:12, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    @It's gonna be awesome: Both citations in the quoted passage meet the quality standards outlined in WP:MEDRS. Would you mind explaining what you find unprofessional about these statements? —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
    credit    › 13:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    SSRIs is not new at all. =) --It's gonna be awesome!#Talk♬ 09:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Although SSRIs were introduced in the 1980s, they're still referred to as newer antidepressants in contrast to the older Monoamine oxidase inhibitors and Tricyclic antidepressants. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
    credit    › 13:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree newer versus older adds little and trimmed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Your edit unfortunately made it sound like all antidepressants have this effect, which is not true.
    Shelley, do you happen to know offhand whether the "newer" antidepressants include any category other than SSRIs? If not, then we could re-write this as "SSRI antidepressants" or "SSRIs (a type of antidepressant drug)" or something like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:07, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    @WhatamIdoing: As far as I know, the "newer" category includes all antidepressants from the introduction of fluoxetine to present—SSRIs, SNRIs (e.g., venlafaxine), maybe other small classes of drugs. There's a bit of information at Antidepressant#History, but not necessarily enough to be helpful. I agree the "newer" vs. "older" terminology is frustratingly vague. There's a roughly equivalent MeSH term, Antidepressive Agents, Second-Generation, also defined as antidepressants that aren't MAOIs or TCAs. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
    credit    › 13:39, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Adjusted further. Wait I realize you already fixed it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Might be worthwhile to add a link to Antidepressants and suicide risk in there somewhere, or it might not. I'll let someone else make that call. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
    credit    › 02:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure link added Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Goat Yoga

    Makes a categorical claim for health benefits based on a Yoga journal. I removed it but it was restored. Doug Weller talk 15:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually at Goat Yoga – even that's wrong. Seems that an axe has been taken to the synth and unsubstantiated claims, but might be worth keeping an eye on for a while. --RexxS (talk) 21:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The "categorical claim for health benefits" appears to be that yoga (in general) is a form of physical exercise. Do you actually believe that yoga doesn't have any demonstrated "health benefits, from increasing flexibility to reducing stress" (a line you removed as unreliable)? I'm pretty sure that the mainstream medical POV is that yoga does have these benefits. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to ask Alexbrn, as Doug hasn't edited the article. Nevertheless, I'd hazard a guess that making claims about health benefits of yoga really ought to be sourced to something better than http://www.yogajournal.com/article/health/count-yoga-38-ways-yoga-keeps-fit/ - wouldn't you agree? (If you think that source is reliable enough, perhaps we can start an article on Rex Schneider, based on this.) --RexxS (talk) 23:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, a stronger source could have been added in the two-sentence-long ==Health Benefits== section that Doug blanked (six hours before Alex's first edit), but Wikipedia doesn't get better through wholesale blanking of factual content just because someone didn't put "the right" kind of source behind it on the first try. (The other source in that section was the US CDC, which I believe is still listed by name in MEDRS as a generally desirable secondary source.) We use tags like {{better source}}, {{unreliable medical source}}, and several others when we think that some otherwise acceptable content would benefit from a stronger source.
    (One of the problems with blanking relatively restrained content, such as "Yoga practice has many proven health benefits, from increasing flexibility to reducing stress", is that the absence of any information sometimes prompts people to put in something – and half the time, to put in something worse.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    But the problem with focusing your criticism on the removal of each sentence independently is that you miss the real problem: the juxtaposition of a crap source saying "Yoga is good for you" with a decent source saying "Petting animals is good for you", thus begging the conclusion "Doing yoga while petting goats must be very good for you." It's implicit SYNTH and it has no place in the article. If goat yoga really has health benefits, then we might expect a reliable secondary source to have noted that. Otherwise, the whole article is just an advert for a single company who is trying to promote an unproven medical technique. Do we have a tag for {{selling snake oil}}? --RexxS (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is lots of mainstream news coverage. I not sure why we continue to call it the "news" though. Meh, as long as there are no health claims I guess we can document its existence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to User:RexxS for clarifying the problem with using a reliable source on pets and health. And although yoga probably has health benefits, does that really apply to all forms of Yoga? I don't know. In any case, the health benefits of Yoga are still unclear, see Yoga#Exercise and health applications and Yoga as exercise. If those main articles don't state "Yoga practice has many proven health benefits..." I'm not at all convinced this one should say that. Doug Weller talk 16:29, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Should likely be merged to the article on yoga. By the way the article appears to be paid for. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge it into Yoga#With other animals? --RexxS (talk) 21:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "Otherwise, the whole article is just an advert for a single company who is trying to promote an unproven medical technique"
    The article says that there are (so far) two of these businesses (unrelated). Furthermore, they're not "trying to promote an unproven medical technique": they're trying to get people to pay for yoga classes, which are not "medical techniques". It is an unfortunate truth that WP:CORP makes such subjects notable if they can cobble together two news articles, at least one of which isn't their local newspaper.
    Doug, I think that the main article may be outdated and perhaps a little overly detailed (e.g., listing levels of evidence for individual conditions) in the way that suggests the existence of a long history of true believers fighting with true skeptics. I glanced through a few recent reviews last week, which say things such as practicing yoga (but not necessarily expensive yoga classes) is not only efficacious for reducing pain in people with chronic back pain, but also cost-effective. It's a very common recommendation in the "you all should get some exercise" advice. When the NICE guideline for low back pain was updated a few months ago, they named yoga as an example of what people with low back pain should be doing as first-line treatment.[11] The NICE guideline on multiple sclerosis recommends yoga for MS-related fatigue.[12] If the main article isn't leaving you with the overall impression that yoga (at least as practiced in Western countries) is a form of physical exercise, and that, like many other forms of physical exercise, it has many health benefits, then the main article probably needs to be re-written.
    (Disclaimer: I've never done yoga. So let me say this a different way: all the sources say that it's exercise, and whenever I walk past a yoga studio, it looks like exercise to me. If someone here has personal experience and can assure me that it's much more like lying in a hammock with a good book and a bowl of strawberries, then perhaps I'd consider doing a little OR for the cause. But until then, I'm just going to assume that the sources are correct on that point.  ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with chronic lower back pain is that nothing is really effective in the long run, but lots of things can yield an improvement (even chiropractic). I do a little yoga every so often when I'm feeling creaky and stiff – the combination of stretching, tensing, breathing and focusing the mind seem to work well for me (anecdotally of course). I doubt that anybody would not consider it physical exercise, but I guess it would be relatively unusual to see it recommended for improving health in the same way that something like swimming is. You can burn 500+ calories an hour swimming, but yoga probably burns only around half of that. I wonder if anybody has patented "swimming yoga" yet? --RexxS (talk) 16:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are the chances of a successful AfD of all this "Goat Yoga" for failing the notability criretion? Because if it survives, I promise I will propose an article on, say, Morning Cereal Yoga or T-Shirt Yoga, complete with a (sponsored) article in some third-class online tabloid. — kashmiri TALK 02:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • IMO, chances at AFD are very low right now, and would probably still be low (but higher) in, say, a year or so (assuming that the current flurry of news articles are the usual flash in the pan). Chances of making a bold WP:MERGE stick are IMO much higher. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Waiting a year to take down blatant advertisement? This "goat yoga" is not any actual school of thought or Yogic practice but a commercial product sold by two enterpreneurial individuals. Can't see why we should carry its ads here for a year. I intend to CSD it under G11. Sorry, I have sort of sufficient knowledge and living experience to tell apart an actual Yoga school and a business that misuses the word. — kashmiri TALK 13:10, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          1. Good luck with that.
          2. Perhaps we're using different dictionaries. I've got a "blatant advertisement" on my table here. It tells me the prices of products and the hours during which I can buy them at a particular store. It even tries to tell me why I should buy them at their store instead of buying the identical product at a store that's a ten-minute walk away. The Goat Yoga article doesn't do anything like that. In fact, at least 99% of the people who read that article have no chance of buying the product, because they don't live within a reasonable distance of the in-person classes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh no, per WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion), "promotion does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organization, a point of view, etc.". Here we are seing a certain product (Goat Yoga classes) being advertised and promoted. Additionally, a product that fails N - not being noted in multiple independent reliable sources - because not a single reference there complies with RS (none is independent or reliable). Such a product, listed on WP by a person with suspected COI, is clearly an advertisement/promotion. Going ahead with CSD. — kashmiri TALK 18:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge to another article might be easiest as it is more or less trivia and there is not enough for a stand alone article. They have done an amazing job getting media coverage. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, will propose merge should speedy get declined. I am in shock how anything can be sold these days. BTW, someone found a diet supplement "DNA/RNA" being sold on Amazon for $3, and a serious discussion ensued in one of patient communities whether this could cure a severe genetic disorder. Folks were ready to go and buy it. — kashmiri TALK 18:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Visible citations for every sentence

    Our readers appear to want at least one citation supporting every single sentence for medical content.

    When a single ref supports multiple sentences in a row I used to hide all but the last one. I however am going to stop doing this as this happens SO often [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed Wikipedia_talk:Citation_overkill#Citations Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just an essay James. I think we might be better off writing our own essay at WP:MEDCITE, explaining that we prefer having references in the lead (because we actively translate the lead into other languages as a priority), and that one source may support multiple sentences, especially in the lead. We could mention that hiding references inside hidden text has become less useful since the advent of the visual editor. We could recommend using brief named references like (<ref name="Smith 2016"> at the end of each sentence, in order to lessen the maintenance work of the regular editors like yourself. If the essay gained support as a practice in medical articles, we could later propose promoting it to a subject-specific guideline. What do folks think? --RexxS (talk) 21:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:45, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:LOCALCONSENSUS is going to be a problem. We'd need to make a WP:PROPOSAL that medical content be exempted from MOSLEAD, and I'm not sure that's a fight that's worth taking.
    Especially since the IP's problem wasn't the hidden source, but the fact that the article was self-contradictory. The lead said more men than women, and the body said more women than men. That needed to be fixed. (Whether it's correct now is more than I know.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure there's a fight to be had. MOSLEAD (or more precisely WP:LEADCITE) says "Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article." In my book, that's pretty much carte blanche for WPMED to explain why we prefer to have citations in the lead, and how medicine tends to be complex, so justifies a greater density of citations than some other topic areas (see also User:Piotrus/Wikipedia:Why most sentences should be cited) --RexxS (talk) 17:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    There is an important gap between "explain why we (a group of self-selected individuals with no authority to make other editors do what we want) prefer to have citation in the lead" and "make other editors accept and provide such citations, despite the widely supported tradition of avoiding citations in the lead".
    Anybody can write an essay; a WP:PROPOSAL is a sounder method of changing the guideline, and changing the guideline is what other editors are going to expect from you, if you demand the use of citations in the lead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm really not suggesting we "demand the use of citations in the lead". Honest. Read what I wrote again. I just want to make other editors aware that there are good reasons why medical articles may benefit from having more citations in the lead. There's a mistaken meme on Wikipedia that we don't have citations in the lead, and that needs to be balanced with cogent arguments of why that may not always be best. --RexxS (talk) 21:51, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    What the editor saw when removing the self-contradictory sentence.
    How do we know that "Our readers appear to want at least one citation supporting every single sentence"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Because I review 100s to 1,000s of medical edits per day and fairly frequently see stuff like this.[14] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a link to an edit – the fourth edit made from that particular mobile IP address – which means that it's what an editor did (i.e., not what a reader wants). Furthermore, the edit summary states that self-contradiction was the reason for removal. That sentence (or the one claiming the opposite) needed to be removed. Have a look at the screenshot: The "hidden" notes are visible, and if you double-click them, they expand to fill the whole screen. Or try it out yourself: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens%E2%80%93Johnson_syndrome#/editor/0 will work even from a desktop computer. Use the pencil icon in the upper right of the toolbar to switch back and forth between wikitext and visual modes. (Switching to visual mode is very handy for getting past the infobox.)
    Have you talked to non-editing readers about whether they expect little blue clicky numbers, and/or whether they ever look at them? I have a couple of times, and I find that people don't exactly care about sourcing. They want our content right, and sources are an appropriate and effective means to that end, but readers don't use those as much as editors do.
    For that matter, many editors, including me, will leave an edit summary of "uncited" as a euphemism for "This is factually wrong" or "This does not belong in an encyclopedia". So even if you're seeing a lot of "uncited" edit summaries from me, that doesn't mean that I actually care about whether a citation has been spammed into the end of that sentence. It could just mean that I want the sentence gone, and I am engaging in a policy ritual that makes restoring it slightly more BURDENsome on you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah thanks WAID. VE is getting nice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Re: "We could mention that hiding references inside hidden text has become less useful since the advent of the visual editor", what percentage of edits are done using VE? Is there any reason to believe that that percentage might be higher or lower for edits to medical articles? --Guy Macon (talk) 21:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    VE editors are higher among new editors who simply do not notice the comments.
    How frequently VE is used is an excellent Q though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Use varies by platform and language. Here at the English Wikipedia, maybe 5% of mainspace edits use the visual editor, and (because the configuration here essentially hides it) new editors have difficulty figuring out how to switch to visual editing. As a result, here (and at a few other projects: Meta, Commons, most of the Wiktionaries and Wikisources, a handful of Wikipedias with dual-script languages, etc.), using visual editing could be taken as an indicator that a "new" editor is not exactly new.
    For comparison, I've heard that about 40% of non-bot edits on desktop in the mainspace involve "power user" tools such as AWB. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Readers might think the text is original research per this. On controversial topics editors intentionally replaced sourced text with text that fails verification, especially in the lede. Sources in the lede is the best option. QuackGuru (talk) 01:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Bundling too many citations at the end of the sentence will cause mass confusion. See "Aluminum,[31] barium,[68] cadmium,[71] chromium,[1] copper,[11] iron,[11] lead,[71] manganese,[68] mercury,[72] nickel,[71] silicate,[11] silver,[11] strontium,[68] tin,[11] titanium,[68] zinc,[68] and zirconium have been found in the vapor.[68]" That's the way to do this. QuackGuru (talk) 20:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support citations for everything I support a default expectation that all claims in Wikipedia's medical content should be backed with citations to sources. I think the citations should be visible in all cases, and not commented out. I think that anyone is justified in striking any sentence without a citation, putting the burden back on anyone who restores it to add a citation. I do not think it would be appropriate at this time to remove all content which is not backed by a citation, but I do think that anyone is justified in always using citations after every sentence. If each sentence in a paragraph is backed with the same source, then I support having visible citations for all sentences. I support the use of citations for every sentence in the lead despite older wiki arguments that they are unnecessary. I acknowledge that this goes against wiki tradition but I think that the situation has changed and that there are good reasons for piloting reform of the citation system in medical articles. Having more citations increases the quality of Wikipedia's medical content. So far as I am able to understand, the major argument against using citations is that the presence of citations makes text more difficult and less attractive for readers to use, and that citations are a barrier to reader access to information. I am not persuaded that either that or other arguments against citations outweigh the reasons for having them. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Draft:The Hallmarks of Aging

    I'm not 100% sure of what is going on at Draft:The Hallmarks of Aging,but it looks like they need help. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:59, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    commented[15]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    School class Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Goucher College/Seminar in Mechanisms of Aging and Cancer (Spring 2017)
    Maybe it should go at Wikiversity or Wikibooks? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:10, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    wikibooks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Are they trying to write an article about Aging by summarizing https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3836174/ or are they trying to write about the paper (the way that we might write an encyclopedia article about a book such as the On the Origin of Species)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:41, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    iQOS tobacco heating device

    Possible MEDRS violations. See iQOS#Health effects. QuackGuru (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Yup trimmed poor sources that are making health claims. At least User:SimonDes discloses that they work for the company in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello, I got a notification that I was mentioned here so I hope I can chime in. I don't know what MEDRS stands for, but thank you for having made corrections. I'm learning on the fly here and trying to copy from what I saw in other articles, so obviously a lot still totally evades me. I just have two questions:
    • How do we remove the banner (a major contributor appears etc. etc.) on top of the article? I quickly looked around and it looks like it appears only when there is suspicion of non-declaration of COI (we did put what we thought was the appropriate banner on the talk page): other articles that were edited by companies with the appropriate declaration do not seem to have this. Also people have made substantial edits so considering how short the article is the cleanup request seems a bit moot, lest the whole thing gets deleted. To be honest, the wording of the text feels a bit demeaning (or at least isn't very clear about the right thing to do for a connected contributor).
    • the other thing, and I really don't know how to present it, relates to Heat Not Burn article: there was a Heat-not-burn (or something with a slight spelling variant) article that got deleted about a month ago because apparently the editor had not declared he was commissioned to write it (and apparently had a long history of this; I can't find the discussion so maybe it got deleted after the case was closed). But this new article is almost word-for-word identical to the one that was deleted! (I can email you the text: there was, when we first saw it, much internal discussion trying to figure out who wrote it). Is there anyway you can check? I wanted to create a HnB article anyway (it is an important topic in the field right now and there's already a couple of related items on Wikipedia), so I made a draft here. Thanks for letting me know if I can post it without having the demeaning Connection banner and if it is okay to rewrite the whole thing (much of it is plain wrong).
    Sorry for the long post, thank you for your time, and have a nice day, SimonDes (talk) 11:29, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The COI tag can be removed by an editor who does not have a COI.
    User:SimonDes, iQOS is the correct wording for the article. It is a lower case i not I.
    The Heat Not Burn article is a mess. If there is anything worth saving I recommend you merge it with your draft right away before it gets deleted. We follow WP:MEDRS. That means we usually use reviews for medical claims. QuackGuru (talk) 14:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the quick reply QuackGuru! What would you need to feel comfortable removing the COI tag then?
    IQOS is all upper case, and it is written like this all over the website and packaging, but I'd be hard-pressed finding a source saying there is no lower-case "i" (generally speaking, proving a negative is a difficult thing). I also suspect a lot of people will make the mistake, and at some point some newspaper is bound to make the confusion as well: I have no solution for that. Should I add a note saying it's not a typo and link to the website or to the trademark registration (for lack of a better option)?
    We have normal peer-reviewed publications relating to toxicant levels. I thought general press was more appropriate for a general encyclopedia article, but I can give a few proper references, if only to explain why the company applied for MRTP status.
    You can delete the Heat Not Burn article if that's the procedure, it's apples and oranges and even the images they used are horribly bad. Thank you, SimonDes (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The iQOS is lower case for the i according to the packaging and per this. If the company recently changed it to all upper case I want proof.
    Peer-reviewed publications is very different than reviews per WP:MEDASSESS.
    The Heat Not Burn article was recently edited and cleaned up. There are some mistakes in the article such as the content about Ploom. QuackGuru (talk) 15:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) I've just spent a miserable two hours+ trying to clean up Heat not burn. Can I suggest to SimonDes that he takes a look at what I cut out and (reading my edit summaries) why. He really ought to read WP:MEDRS as understanding the quality of references needed to support bio-medical claims is essential for him if he's going to be editing in this area. Would an uninvolved editor please take a look at the article and decide whether I've made sufficient changes for the {{advert}} banner to be removed now, please? I'll go and take a look at IQOS. --RexxS (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: The IQOS article looks reasonable to me: it's no more promotional, IMHO, that any other article about a product (somebody remind me again why we have such articles?). Doc James has surgically removed the bad sources and unsubstantiated claims, so I don't see any point in having the {{COI}} banner in place: it's not going to attract more editors to do any more cleanup, so I've removed it. Please feel free to replace it should the state of the article deteriorate again. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 15:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks RexxS, and sorry you had to spend so much time on this. I would certainly not open up the Heat not burn article with "Philip Morris wants" - the product category is older and it is a broad industry trend. I'll take this specific discussion to the talk page if that's okay with you.
    I will also look more closely at the renaming issue - it might be fairly recent and/or market specific. I know they're dropping the Marlboro peg as well, but the Japanese picture still shows it as prominent. SimonDes (talk) 15:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    Docusate Sodium

    As an engineer who sometimes attempts to improve medical articles, I would like some advice.

    I was looking at our Docusate article, and comparing it with what is available in local drug stores in Southern California. Around here, only Docusate Sodium is available OTC. Yet the article leads with "Docusate, also known as docusate salts or dioctyl sulfosuccinate", followed closely with "It typically comes in the form of a sodium, calcium, or potassium salts". Yet the reference given[16] lists one example of Docusate Calcium and twenty five examples of Docusate Sodium. Should we change the lead to reflect the most common name, or are different forms of docusate popular in different parts of the world?

    The reason I was looking at the page was to find out how much dietary sodium is in a 100 mg Docusate Sodium dose. This ref[17] says 6mg. This is usefyul information for peoplem on low-salt diets. Would it be appropriate to add this to the article? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    The various salts are equivalent, absent data to the contrary, and I would avoid over-specifying if not useful. A low-sodium diet would be about 2000 mg per day, so 6 mg is not relevant to a low-sodium diet (it's a round-off error for any other food). — soupvector (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You might be able to use https://books.google.com/books?id=N_YoDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA746&lpg=PA746&dq=%22docusate+sodium%22+%22clinically+insignificant%22 to support a sentence that the amount is "clinically insignificant". WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=780040092"