Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine

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

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

• Unsure about something? Make sure to look at our style and source guidelines.
• Please don't shout, remain civil, be respectful to all, and assume good faith.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• Threads older than 10 days are automatically archived.
• Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Newsletter/Mailing_list

List of archives

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

Organ donation

the above article could use some edits,[1]..... thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:51, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"Could use some edits" is not helpful. What specifically are you requesting? ‑ Iridescent 12:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Any improvements to the article. It's something we do here at WPMED: if someone we know dies, then we try to improve an article related to that person. Since this editor was an organ donor, articles on organ donation are a good match.

I've worked on those articles in the past, although it's been a long time since I looked at them. Most of them have a lot of information about the sociolegal issues of convincing people to be donors. It might be interesting to see whether we could turn up some sources about how the surgeries happen, and expand the articles with that technical information. It sounds like his heart was transplanted, so perhaps that's an area to focus on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:47, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I didn't know the background about the editor who died that was an organ donor, but when I clicked over from here, the nonsense in the lead was immediately apparent. I haven't read the rest of the article yet, but if it's anything like the lead, there are probably a lot of indiscriminate trivia, medical claims without WP:MEDRS and soapbox issues. I already trimmed some trivia from the lead, but here's an example of some I didn't get to yet: ...researchers from the Ganogen Research Institute transplanted human fetal kidneys from therapeutic abortions, including from fetuses with anencephaly, into animals for future transplantation into human patients.[2] The animals were able to survive on the human kidney alone, demonstrating both function and growth of the human organ.[3] I don't know if "trivia" is the right word, but it's primary research and far from the top of the list of things that should go in the lead that aren't already there. I can only imagine what the rest of the article looks like. —PermStrump(talk) 13:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If it's going to be in the article (and why that one, rather than some more specific article?), then it needs to be moved. There's also quite a lot of work that could be done with simple copyediting, or getting more recent (or less American-only) statistics on the number of people on waiting lists.

I've just created a new ==Donation process== section that I hope will be useful for putting in the medical side of things. What do you all think about this book for some information about how to maintain the body in the post-death and pre-removal stage of the process (e.g., drugs commonly given to improve recipient outcome)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

[4]very good reference WAID(Springer, 2012)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

So far, we've had about five editors contribute to this article in response to this request, and there's still some easy stuff to fix. Please jump in and see if you can make a net improvement in an article that gets more than 500 readers each day. We still haven't used that (technical) book that I linked above, and the lead could use some basic information about pre-donation testing and consent. (I just moved all that stuff about the youngest donor down into the body. The stuff from the lead about growing kidneys from aborted fetuses in animals is now on the talk page for further discussion.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if organ donation article is the right place for this edit. QuackGuru (talk) 01:37, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

since the article covers so many related topics, I would leave it ...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

• any further edits would be helpful, the article still needs edits/references to better improve it, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Top-importance article assessments

Hi everyone. I'd like to start a discussion about the appropriateness of a few Top-importance assessments for our Wikiproject. The full list of Top-importance medical articles can be found here (this list is stratified by quality rating) or at Category:Top-importance medicine articles. Our project's guidance on rating article importance can be found at WP:MED/Assessment#Importance scale. Normally, an article rating should be based upon a combination of factors that include:

• its relevance to medicine and overall significance as a medical topic (subjectively assessed)
• the significance of the subject to the general population (could be assessed based upon epidemiology for disease articles and whether or not it's one of the leading causes of death, whether or not an article subject/topic is a "household name", and the long-term interest in the topic among our readership based upon WP:MED/PP)
• the relationship between a topic's rating and a parent article's rating or a more general topic's article rating

Most of our Top-importance articles appear to be aptly rated, but there's a few that I'd like to discuss. These include:

• Upgrading Lung disease to Top-importance (note that Common cold, Influenza, COPD, Asthma, Tuberculosis, Pneumonia, and Croup are rated Top-importance, but this article is rated Mid-importance; hence, the parent article is currently rated lower than its sub-articles)
• Downgrading Sepsis to High- or Mid-importance (note that the prevalence of clinically significant/severe forms of sepsis isn't particularly high among the general population and the disease isn't a "household name", although the article's monthly page views are fairly high) Struck out per the discussion below.
• Either upgrading Liver cancer to Top-importance or downgrading Cervical cancer to High-importance (based upon the Cancer article and the WHO: skin cancer (including both melanoma and non-melanoma skin cancers) has a very high prevalence; the most prevalent cancers in males are lung cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, stomach cancer, and liver cancer; the most prevalent cancers in females are breast cancer, colorectal cancer, lung cancer, cervical cancer, and stomach cancer. Liver cancer [est. 782,000 cases] was more prevalent than cervical cancer [est. 528,000 cases] in the general population in 2012, although if 100% of the population were female then cervical cancer would have been more prevalent during that year. The cancer article and all of these cancers except for liver cancer are currently rated Top-importance. I'm more inclined to upgrade the rating of liver cancer than downgrade the rating of cervical cancer.)
• Downgrading Hemorrhoid to High-importance (IMO this doesn't really seem like a Top-importance article topic, so I'd like some feedback on reassessing this one)
• Downgrading Cataract to High-importance OR upgrading Refractive error to High- or Top-importance (note that Visual impairment is rated Top-importance; Visual impairment#Cause notes that cataracts are responsible for 33% of all visual impairments and 51% of all cases of blindness; refractive errors are responsible for 42% of all visual impairments and 3% of all cases of blindness. I don't feel particularly strongly about downgrading the cataract article since it seems to be the primary cause of blindness or about upgrading refractive error to Top-importance since it generally isn't a major cause of severe visual impairment/blindness.)

@Doc James: I imagine you'll want to weigh in on this.

Thoughts? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 02:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

• Sepsis definitely deserves to be a top-importance article. It's difficult to get good epidemiological data on it (as a result there's virtually no data on its prevalence in developing nations), it has in the past been poorly defined and people are often confused about whether to list it as the cause of death. If you look at a list of leading causes of death in the US/world/etc, often sepsis isn't included, but this obscures it's importance since many of the deaths attributed to other diseases came from them triggering an immune response that lead to sepsis. It's probably a leading cause of death worldwide, and there are sources that say this, but honestly we just have no good numbers on it's mortality (although it is definitely large enough to be top-importance). M. A. Bruhn (talk) 04:56, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a fairly cogent argument for keeping its current rating so I'll strike the proposal. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:13, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with upgrading liver cancer. Cervical cancer is still a major cause of death in much of the world should still stay top.
• Hemorrhoids affect more than half of people so IMO should stay top.
• Agree refractive error should be top as should nearsightedness
• With respect to lung disease, as people are more interested in specific diseases than categories of diseases I am inclined to keep it high importance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Lung disease is currently mid-importance. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I would be supportive of making it high importance. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:48, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Since there's been no objection, I've upgraded near-sightedness, refractive error, and liver cancer to top-imp and lung disease to high-imp. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks User:Seppi333 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

(Off topic but...) since lung disease was mentioned, I linked chronic lung disease the other day and was notified that is a disambiguation page. Perhaps it should be expanded into a parent article that summarizes other conditions? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 16:39, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

that could be done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Seppi333 You are raising good points that it is not clear how importance should be assessed. I have a broader perspective, and it could be ignorant or uninformed, but so far as I know there is no clear WikiProject guidance anywhere for how to set importance rankings. I also think that uniformity or aligned practices across WikiProjects do not exist either. If there is no precedent, and no standard practice, then each WikiProject might do anything. I think the time is becoming ripe to develop any set of assessment criteria and to consider proposing a universal ranking system that could be used across WikiProjects. Some people were just discussing this at WP:Council at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Overhaul_of_article_assessments. It seems like other people have interest in this and are expressing needs for another system. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:25, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • The original point was to figure out which articles should go into the WP:1.0 offline releases. WP:VITAL articles, of course, but what else? A combination of subjective importance (i.e., a group of editors say that this is 'top' and this is 'high' and that is 'low') with page views was settled upon. And, secondarily, if it's important enough to go in an offline copy, then any sensible WikiProject should prioritize improving those articles. But 1.0 is basically dead AFAICT, and people generally don't use that model to pick articles to edit, so I'm not sure that there's any point behind them any longer. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

    @Bluerasberry: Determining an article's class rating is usually a lot more straightforward than determining an appropriate importance rating for a project; for class ratings, you basically just need to look at how long the article is and how well it's sourced to decide on a stub/start/C/B rating.
    The criteria that I listed above are what I use when I attempt to determine an appropriate importance rating when assessing articles for WP:MED and WP:PHARM, particularly when I'm unfamiliar with the article topic (e.g., when addressing rating requests at WP:MED/Assessment#Requesting an assessment or re-assessment). If others in the project wish to standardize the methodology for article importance assessments, I suppose these criteria would be a good place to start. However, like I mentioned above, some of the criteria are subjectively determined (e.g., importance rating based upon the medical relevance/significance of an article topic), while others are based upon objective measures (e.g., importance rating based upon the rating(s) of parent articles – such as ADHD-PI / adult ADHD relative to ADHD or Adderall relative to amphetamine – or importance rating based upon the rating(s) of very closely related articles – such as amphetamine relative to methamphetamine). Hence, if these criteria are offered as guidance, there will still be some inconsistency in article ratings given by different people; however, this would at least establish a standardized approach to rating article importance.

    On a related note, we currently offer guidance at WP:MED/Assessment#Is WPMED the correct WikiProject to support this article? for determining whether or not an article's talk page should be tagged with {{WPMED}}. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

    @WhatamIdoing: I agree that importance ratings don't really serve any readily apparent practical purpose for our project since we don't have any work groups that are focused on improving high/top-importance articles; however, we do track the progression of various article importance-based metrics at WP:MED#Metrics. As for me personally, article importance ratings have affected my editing behavior in the past: e.g., I periodically standardize the date formats and use of dashes in our top-importance articles based upon MOS:DATE/MOS:DASH with scripts as well as format them with WP:AWB. I also tend to focus more of my attention than I otherwise would on editing the top-importance articles that are on topics that I'm familiar with. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:29, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

class and importance rating are both important...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Announcing WikiConference North America in San Diego, Fri-Mon 7-10 October

I am inviting participants in WikiProject Medicine to WikiConference North America to be held in San Diego Friday to Monday 7-10 October. Here are further details:

• The conference includes a track called "Health care and science", so submissions with that theme are particularly welcome
• We are accepting submissions until 31 August.
• We are accepting scholarship applications 9 August - 23 August. About 40 scholarships are available only for people in Canada, the US, and Mexico. Last year about 200 people applied for scholarships.
• More volunteers are needed. In the usual wiki-way, anyone may comment on program submissions. At the conference in person, all staff will be volunteer and all attendees are encouraged check in with conference organizers about volunteering for the task queue even for an hour. Anyone interested may contact Flonight and Rosiestep to offer volunteer support.
• Major sponsorship for the conference comes from the San Diego Public Library who are providing the venue and a grant from the Wikimedia Foundation.
• This is the third year of this conference, with WikiConference USA being in New York in 2014 and in Washington DC in 2015. Check the schedules of those for examples of what kinds of programming will be offered this year.

Discussion about the conference on-wiki could happen at meta:WikiConference North America.

I am one of the organizers for this event. If anyone has questions or comments, then conversation can happen here at this WikiProject also. I am advocating for topics related to medicine in Wikipedia to be well represented at this event. If any participants at this WikiProject wants to talk by video about the conference, I am available to meet by video chat if you email me. I might, for example, support anyone in making a presentation submission if you are unfamiliar with the wiki conference format. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

In particular, I will be presenting about my work at NIOSH. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like fun. Unfortunately I am unable to make those dates. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I probably can't go either due to the specific dates. That's a shame :( TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:01, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

may go, not sure--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/App/Banner

How long do you intend to keep this around? I am made uncomfortable by the idea of a maintenance template that's not asking for maintenance. I suspect it may surprise readers. I would also argue it should be dismissible (similar to a centralnotice) and only visible on mobile. — Earwig ^talk 05:31, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

[5] its a good banner, giving important info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:12, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

The offline app is definitely another reason to improve Wikipedia. Have recruited a few people through this app.

Would be nice to make all maintenance templates dismissible.

Would also be nice to be able to run banners on specific subsets of articles such as those associated with WP:MED. I am not sure we have that capability yet though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

It's on seven articles plus a couple of WikiProject and user pages.

I think the information in it is unimportant to nearly all of our readers. Most readers want all of Wikipedia (not just medicine), and they don't want either the app or a complete offline copy (less room on their phones for selfies or whatever is important to them). Most of our readers are casual people who want to know what their lab result means, whether their friend is going to die, or what the news is talking about.

Templates like this can't be dismissed. However, I believe that it either is, or will soon be, possible to run m:Special:CentralNotices (which are dismissable) on specific pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

We were getting about 2.5% of our downloads from the banner with it being on 4 pages (50 of the 2,004 last week). Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

From my POV, 50 downloads out of 100,000 page views is not a lot of readers being interested in the app. Perhaps it'd help to be do some geo-targeting with it or something. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

How does one do "geo-targeting"?

By the way the medical app on a daily basis (installs - uninstalls) is 10 times more popular than the general Kiwix app for all of WP. The general app still has 3.6 times more total installs but has been around a lot longer. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

placed a banner at the top of my talk page,(it would be nice if we all did)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:13, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Are biomarkers signs or symptoms?

Discussion here Talk:Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Biomarkers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you need to rephrase the question in this section heading. The issue at hand isn't simply "is content on biomarkers relevant to signs and symptoms?"; it's more generally "where does information on disease biomarkers belong?". What we decide here with the ADHD article should be standardized in MOS:MED for guidance on where to put biomarker information in an arbitrary disease article.
In any event, the peer-reviewed article that I quoted in the discussion gives a fairly unambiguous answer to the question in the section header:

The term “biomarker”, a portmanteau of “biological marker”, refers to a broad subcategory of medical signs – that is, objective indications of medical state observed from outside the patient – which can be measured accurately and reproducibly. Medical signs stand in contrast to medical symptoms, which are limited to those indications of health or illness perceived by patients themselves.
— What are Biomarkers? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078627/

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

That article is specifically about classification for research. It is not a description of the "normal" use of those words by the rest of the world.

When biomarkers are in clinical use they belong under diagnosis. When they are not they belong under research IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I generally agree with the idea that lab test results and imaging reports are not "Signs and symptoms".

But this leads me to a conclusion that you might not enjoy: for conditions such as Hypercholesterolemia, which are defined by lab test results, the ==Diagnosis== section should probably be first, not third or fourth or whatever it is now. It's kind of silly for that article to start off with ==Signs and symptoms== when the condition is almost always asymptomatic. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

One than has a short section on "signs and symptoms" stating their usually are not any. Which is also how that section begins. How many mg/dL or mmol/L of which cholesterol is needed to meet which classification of the condition IMO should not be the start of the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you're assuming that "usually asymptomatic" is not going to be followed by hundreds of words about uncommon symptoms (as it is in this particular article). Also, MEDMOS recommends that all articles begin with ==Classification== (if relevant), so starting off with how much cholesterol meets which classification could be argued to be more compliant with the suggested order anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 09:45, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Press regarding cupping therapy

The piece says regarding cupping "Wikipedia, the world’s most trusted medical fact gold mine also says it is a pseudoscience."[6]

We have come a long way :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:23, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Haha! I found this paper in the prestigious Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine journal. There are other small RCTs that seem to show some benefit in selected situations—notably pain relief. Of the review articles, those in the "CAM" journals all indicate clear benefit, while the non-CAM journals tentatively imply possible benefit with a need for more rigorous study design & investigation. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:20, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Main term

For depression we go to a disambig page which lists depression (mood) and major depressive disorder at the top.

For anxiety IMO we should do the same as people often mean anxiety disorder or anxiety (mood) when they use the term. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that the anxiety page has it right with a DAB hatnote. Other instances of anxiety are obvious lesser items in terms of the main page being the umbrella term. Seems amiss that depression takes the reader to a DAB page when the page most often searched for will be Major depressive disorder which is a featured article. --Iztwoz (talk) 14:51, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The page views for the depression-related pages suggest a 60–40 split in what readers want, and the anxiety pages seem to be similar. I'd either go with the dab page, or with the mood page as the primary. Everyone experiences anxiety as a mood (and if you truly don't, then there are researchers interested in getting a look at your brain), but only a small minority have a psychiatric disorder from it. Going from "normal human experience" to "sometimes, it's not normal any longer" is a reasonable progression (in educational terms); the opposite feels like medicalizing normality. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

mood page as primary...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

When people are sent to the disambig page for depression they go to the disease more often than they go to the mood.[7] Even though all people experience the mood and only a lesser number the disease. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:12, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Anxiety only ranks a bit higher than anxiety disorder on pageviews[8] and that is with anxiety holding the easier to search for term. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I follow WAID's logic for mood as primary, but I think a disambig page is the best choice—distinguish between the two and let the user choose. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 20:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Are things that increase the chance of "suicide" "risks"

Discussion here Talk:Suicide#.22Risk.22 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:21, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Much confusion about "electro shock therapy"

There are 2 different "electro shock therapies":

• Aversion therapy with electro shocks (mild, but painful shocks to bodyparts) Aversion therapy can also made with drugs which make ill (like in the film Clockwork Orange). This is a behavior therapy to unlearn addictions.
  It is also used as an aversive punishment for conditioning of developmentally delayed individuals with severe behavioral problems.
  Normally is used 0,5-10 mA and sometimes short spikes with 300 mA at low voltage.
• Electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) (shocks with much more power to the skull to effect the brain, triggering epileptic events, muscle contraction, the "convulsion", like in the film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest) Until today (with some important changes) it is used for depression and shizophrenia. There are also "shock therapies" with drugs, i.e. insulin. There are no reports of good results with addiction.
  ECT begins with 200 mA until 900 mA (in history also 1600 mA).
• (And there is this scurile therapy in China: China's Gay Shock Therapy (Channel 4) There are 2 clinics in this documentation. First is clear aversion therapy. The second at ~11:43, the journalist states: "The doctor said the electric shock will threaded the sexuality by rebalancing his nervous system." )

And there is very much confusion about this first two in the world, often with therapies for homosexuals. I had even read about the non existing "electroconvulsive aversion therapy". I have seen articles and videos which talk about aversion therapy and put there pictures of ECT.

I think it should clarified primaly at the begin of the ETC-article. (Sorry, but i think my english is to bad for this.) I made an additional entry in Electroshock (disambiguation). First use of aversion therapy is not mentioned in Electric shock. Electro-shock therapy and Electroshock redirects to ETC. I think a better target would be Electroshock (disambiguation)

In Yang Yongxin it states (with a source from China, which support this) that he used ECT against internet addiction. Also here in English: "China Youth Daily reporter verifies the qualifications of physicians from other areas of mental health practitioners found that the treatment is using electric shocks to “punish” the person who has “internet addiction”, this stimulation known as aversion therapy. / [...] Using electrical stimulation to the brain as the way of treatment has been highly controversial. [...] YANG Yongxin told to the China Youth Daily reporter that his original “wakeup brain therapy” is 1 ~ 5 mA of current through the brain, such stimulation did cause pain, but very safe and will not cause any harm to the child." 1-5 mA is normally used for aversion therapy and nothing direct to the brain. The other parts in the article told clearly about about aversion therapy.

Examples of confusion (homosexuality):

• Treatments of homosexuality in Britain since the 1950s—an oral history: the experience of patients (2004): A passage is about aversion therapy. Then: "Other forms of treatment were electroconvulsive therapy, [...]" (was not so often used.)
• Treatments of homosexuality in Britain since the 1950s—an oral history: the experience of professionals "Aversion therapy with electric shock was the most common treatment:"
  • Julie Fish refers to this, but wrote in Social work and lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans people: Making a difference (2012): "Aversion therapy with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) was the most common threatment used in NHS hospitals to convert LGBT people to heterosexuality (King et al, 2004)"
• More on treating homosexuality as a sickness. Homosexuality is punishable in India (2004): "Use of aversive options such as electroconvulsive therapy for “treating gays” is not unusual here." aversive & electroconvulsive? This must be false.
• Canadian psychiatrist 'Dr Shock' stands trial on sexual abuse charges "Levin encouraged commanding officers and chaplains to refer "deviants" for electroconvulsive aversion therapy, which consisted of homosexual soldiers being shown pictures of naked men and encouraged to fantasise as they were subject to increasingly powerful electric shocks until they begged for the pain to stop."
• A historical exhibition about "homosexuality_ies" display a "Konvulsator III", a clear ECT-machine, and wrote first long about aversion therapy and then that electrical shocks are actual used against depression. [9]
• Here is described aversion therapy, but the picture is ECT.
• The video The Horrible History of Ex-Gay Cures from Max Baume talks about aversion therapy, but display a film about ECT. (at 0:51)

If you search, the confusion is so common in the world. So, i think it would be good to clarify it in Wikipedia to work against this confusion. --Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 22:04, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

any improvement to Aversion therapy or Electroconvulsive therapy is welcomed, as long as Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) is followed...upon looking at the respective histories [10][11] (you've made no edits) you should take to article/talk[12]or [13],thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Category:Phobias

As seen here and here, and with other recent contributions by Mangoe, Mangoe has removed Category:Phobias from a number of articles, stating, "not a clinical phobia." But I don't see that the category is limited to clinical phobias; there is yet no note about at the top of the category page about how to use this category. Thoughts?

I'll also contact Wikipedia:WikiProject Psychology about weighing in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Those I've de-categorized are not phobias at all. Mostly they're social antipathies which are modelled on "homophobia"; a few of them are medical reactions. Mangoe (talk) 05:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

The category could do with a note, and link to the main article. How about a List of bullshit "phobias"? Johnbod (talk) 11:47, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter if they're "true" phobias. What matters is whether a reader who goes to Cat:Phobias will be interested in this article. This is because categories are for navigation (finding articles) rather than definitions (deciding exactly which thing truly "counts" as a phobia). WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:54, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Mangoe, what do you think of WhatamIdoing's argument? I'm not overly concerned about this matter, but I would rather that the category not be arbitrarily added or removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

No, these social "phobias" aren't really phobias at all; they are prejudices. the origin of them all, homophobia, was coined to imply that prejudice is a result of fear, but that has nothing to do with real phobias. Mangoe (talk) 17:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree that a prejudice is different from a phobia and we do the reader a disservice by confounding them. Is there any reason why the social "phobias" are not simply in Category:Prejudices; that would surely be a good starting point for anyone wishing to navigate among them? --RexxS (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Skin conditions and people of colour

Looking at Cellulitis, I realised that all the images show the condition affecting white people. There are no pictures of black or other people of colour with the condition. The same is true of all 14 photographs in commons:Category:Cellulitis.

I recently read about a paper, Dermatologic health disparities, from which one news source reported " half of dermatologists report that their medical schools did not prepare them to diagnose cancer on black skin". (As a lay person, I have not read the paper.)

Has anyone surveyed our articles, to see whether this is a common issue?

What can be done to ensure representative coverage? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:01, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

This is an issue not only concerning skin conditions or Wikipedia, but a general issue in medicine — and unfortunately not one that can be solved very easily by us. There are some efforts for more representative coverage of anatomy spearheaded by Peter Isotalo, but when it comes to diseases there is no work being done that I'm aware of. I've also received a grant to work with medical images and one of the things I want to focus on are these types of systemic bias in what images we have, I will see if any health organizations that specifically target people of color to see if they are interested in rectifying this issue — they just might be. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much we can do in the short-term on the picture front, but what we could start immediately addressing is the text in these articles. In the current cellulitis article it routinely describes the appearance of the skin as red, however...

The skin is brownish-black in dark skinned people, dull red in Caucasian skin;

and...

When examining patients with skin of color, it is helpful to note that the angry red color in cellulitis or the erythema in psoriasis/inflammatory skin conditions may appear as a more subtle red or even have a purple hue to it.

The first source also describes differences in appearance in Erysipelas. There's probably a lot of diseases with issues concerning redness of skin or pigmentation disorders that should have this addressed. This might make for a good task or project for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias, perhaps in collaboration with this wikiproject. M. A. Bruhn (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Google Scholar has search results for diagnosis racial differences.

—Wavelength (talk) 21:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Some light-skinned people use sun tanning to darken their skin, and some dark-skinned people use skin bleaching to lighten their skin.

—Wavelength (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Many of those who contribute here are from areas of the world were people with dark skin are uncommon. We therefore get the pictures from the population that present to us. Would be excellent to have people upload more images of people with health conditions and dark skin. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Commons has a global population of contributors (albeit with a western bias). How can this project, with its specialist knowledge of what is needed, reach out to that community, to explain that and solicit contributions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

In terms of educational value, most skin conditions are usually easier to see on light-colored skin. I suspect that practical reason is why textbooks and journal articles use more light-colored subjects, despite having many more opportunities to get other images. It's not just "not enough black people": the photos I've seen tend to have particularly light colored skin, especially when color changes and border features are described. (But when pigment loss is the issue, then it's the opposite, as any image search for vitiligo will show.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 12:58, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That's an excellent argument for showing both. "Here is the condition clearly visible; here it is, more subtle, but you can still see it..." --GRuban (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I would be happy to show both if someone had images they were willing to donate. If you reach out to organizations some might be willing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Offline Medical Wikipedia in Persian

We just launched for Android here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

looks great--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Pterygium (conjunctiva)

Pterygium

User:Lawrence Hirst has been adding promotional content to Pterygium (conjunctiva) using references solely authored by LW Hirst. I have trimmed some of the promotional wording, but it could use a look from someone with medical expertise I think. I started a report at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard as well. Deli nk (talk) 12:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hirst, L.W.: Letter to the Editor: Beta Irradiation of Pterygium. Ophthalmology. 99(6): 841-842,1992...a lot of COI when the accountSpecial:Contributions/Lawrence_Hirst is the same as one of the authors on the paper.. (added info to Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
• BTW added diagnosis section--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

MedAccred

Please could somebody review Draft:MedAccred and see whether it is salvageable? Concerns have recently been raised that the AfC reviewer who rejected it may have been over-zealous, and I have found several articles they rejected to be worthy of publishing. In this case, the tone is promotional, but the subject may be notable. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

will look (trimmed had a lot of non-essential information)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Thank you. I've published it, but I'm sure it needs more work. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it will survive AfD in its current state. I've dropped some links and a source on Talk:MedAccred, but it needs more. --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Cannabis articles

We have some accounts that are creating articles on each strain of cannabis and including medical claims.

Accounts include:

• SteveMcQueen36 contribs
• RonaldBregovic contribs

Have redirected a bunch of them to cannabis (drug) as poorly sourced as they are supported by blogs and sources that only mention the topic in passing. People's thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Passages like "Sour Diesel is highly effective in relieving stress, anxiety, and pain. Also, there is some suggestion that it may be helpful in alleviating the symptoms associated with chronic depression."[14] Gah Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Besides the medical aspect, if these are officially registered varieties, there can be a bit of a gray zone for notability. There isn't inherent notability from that, so there needs to be something unique about it in sources. We have other examples in crop articles like Potato#Varieties, but I consider a lot of those pages marginal at best.

If the crop/variety aspect on cannabis keeps coming up for questions of notability, etc. or what's worth keeping in the article as far as text, anyone is welcome to ping me. I've been avoiding the medical side of this topic for sanity's sake, but I'd be happy to take on the crop or variety perspective to see what if anything has staying power in an article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

First discussion beginning here. User:Kingofaces43 what I am seeing is simply dozens of articles were people can say how amazing cannabis is to get around the more evidence based articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:14, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

One of the oft-forgotten principles of WP:Notability is "[Meeting GNG] ... is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article." This is one of those occasions where there are so many different varieties of a product, with so few differences, that common sense dictates that their presence in an encyclopedia should be as a group - as a section of the existing Cannabis article, or the Cannabis strains article, or as a stand-alone list article linked from the existing articles. My preference would be for the latter, which would allow a full list to be created, including varieties that are not independently notable but have reliable sourcing for their existence. Such an approach should meet the concerns of those who want comprehensive coverage, while reducing the temptation for the stoners to sing the praises of their favourite fix. --RexxS (talk) 23:43, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. I am always for merging unless a standalone article is justified. This is why I commonly cite WP:Content forking, WP:Spinout and WP:No split. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Agree I like the idea of merging them all. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. (We can partially thank Wikipedia for the spreading notion that cannabis cures all, but I digress ... ) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay will begin merging to Cannabis_strains Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Merged all but three here Cannabis strains. Non notable / poorly reffed stuff still needs trimming. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I ran out of time yesterday to really look into it, but this tactic seems like the way to go. It'll need a good combing through (WP:CULTIVAR comes to mind). I'm thinking we might be able to omit mention of all the names and focus on what the target characteristics are in breeding for varieties/cultivars. I'll see what I can do in a bit to focus things a bit from just name dropping variety names. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I cleaned up as much of the varieties as I could. Most were just outright deleted due to poor sourcing, original research, editorializing, etc. The remaining ones currently have marginal sourcing at best, so I'll leave it up to someone else to comment on those ones first before doing anything with those. One reference seems to approach a general quality I'd look for on general variety descriptions excluding MEDRS claims, but I couldn't find if this was just blog-like submissions or some manner of fact-checking was involved. That's honestly the "best" I could find though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Thoughts on Malawi Gold and Kush (Cannabis)? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:52, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge them! Merge them all! In general, the whole "cannabis suite" should I think be refactored to solve the problems of redundancy and fragmentation we have. But it's a big job ... Alexbrn (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Malawi gold has the standard issues of no reliable sources and coatracking about marijuana in general rather than cultivar. Kush has a few potential reliable sources in general, but they are all passing mention of the cultivar at best, so more coatracking there too. I would redirect both those (as opposed to any merge). I'm not sure if we should just nominate the articles for deletion outright, or if redirects to cannabis strains will force editors to try to demonstrate a variety is noteworthy before spinning it off to a standalone article. My slight preference is for the latter, but it's not strong either way. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:03, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:CULTIVAR doesn't apply here. There is a formal process for naming cultivars. As far as I am aware, no drug strains of cannabis have gone through the cultivar naming process, likely because naming a cultivar involves acknowledging that one possesses (or at least has access to) the plant being named. There are some fiber strains of cannabis (hemp) that have cultivar names (e.g. 'ICAR 42-118') but we don't have any articles on hemp cultivars. Another wrinkle is that there are supposed to be registration authorities that keep track of cultivar names in a given genus; there doesn't seem to be a registration authority for Cannabis. Lack of an authority doesn't prevent cultivars from being named, but it is difficult to research cultivar names and notabilities without an authority (Cannabis is far from the only genus lacking an authority; authorities are much more likely to be established for ornamental plant cultivars than food/fiber/drug cultivars).

Go ahead and merge away. The only WP:CULTIVAR consideration is not presenting strains as formal cultivars (e.g. Cannabis 'Malawi Gold'), which we don't seem to be doing anyway (side note; Malawi gold is probably better understood as a landrace rather than a "cultivar" that hasn't been formally named; strains bred in the US in recent years could be considered unnamed "cultivars"). Having Category:Cannabis strains under Category:Cultivars isn't technically correct, but it's not a nit I really care to pick (there are likely some grapes in the cultivar category tree that aren't formally named as cultivars, and which might be better treated as landraces). Plantdrew (talk) 19:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

A lot of the articles appeared to be little more than advertising attempts IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about notability of a BLP

More views would be welcome at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics)#Asking for some other opinions. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2016 (UTC

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Scrupulosity

See Talk:Scrupulosity, new editor needing guidance. (No, I am not back!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

My first reaction, "Yay, Sandy's back". Awww... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Paracetamol

There has been some literature positing a risk of neurological/psychiatric and respiratory problems in people if their mothers took acetaminophen during pregnancy, which have been hyped in the media some and the alternative media a lot (e.g natural news). The content of our article reflected the most recent reviews. A new primary source published yesterday (here - not even pubmed indexed yet). More eyes would be helpful. Jytdog (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

[15]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

PMID 25851072, PMID 27046315 perhaps? If I read correctly, they seem to agree: there's a small but significant association; there's no evidence of causality (due to experimental design limitations); it's still the best available option for prenatal fever.LeadSongDog come howl! 02:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Clinical Research Advantage, Inc.

Hello again, medical experts. This draft has some references, but I am having difficulty in separating press releases and advertisements from useful information. Is this a notable company? It will be deleted shortly as an abandoned draft unless at least one editor thinks it's important enough to edit it.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The article reads like a promotional narrative and is non-encyclopedic. There are dozens of companies like this, i.e., not notable. --Zefr (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and have deleted the article. NW (Talk) 20:41, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! That's one more off my list...—Anne Delong (talk) 04:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

arthroscope

Arthroscopy

Your article on the history of the arthroscope is missing an important step in the evolution of the arthroscope. Dr. Watnabe's scope was, as mentioned, a simple tube fitted with optics. To illuminate the interior of the knee, allowing the surgeon visibility inside the knee, Dr. Watnabe mounted a small light bulb on the end of his scope. Their was a problem with this arrangement. The light bulb had a tendency of breaking inside the patient's knee. In 1972 I was a patient of Dr. William Torgeson, Chief of Orthopaedic Surgery at the Lahey Clinic in Boston. At the time I was employed at the Fiber Optic division of American Optical Company in Southbridge MA. Dr. Torgeson asked if we could attach a fiber optic light source to the Watnabe scope eliminating the broken light bulb issue. In the process of attaching a light guide to the rigid scope one of our engineers, George Carpenter, asked why we didn't replace the rigid tube with a flexible fiber optic scope similar to units the company fabricated for various industrial applications. Working with Dr. Torgeson we produced the FIRST flexible, articulating arthroscope. This unit was the direct forerunner of the arthroscopes used in today's knee surgeries. The history stated in your article leaps from Dr. Watnabe's rigid scope to today's flexible, articulating arthroscope implying that the bulk of the development work was done out of country. True, by today's standards, the first units were crude. The surgeon was required to pear into an optical end piece and manipulated the tip of the scope by rotating two knobs mounted on the body of the instrument. However, the surgeon was able to view the anterior and interior of the knee with one small incision. The reader should remember this was in the early 1970's. Small video cameras that the scope could be attached only became available some 25 years later. During this interval the flexible arthroscope was successfully used as a diagnostic instrument allowing the surgeon to elect a more conservative treatment course in many patients.

Richard L. Dumaine72.49.221.64 (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources (and MEDRS depending on text added)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

For the orthopedically oriented, an advertising brochure posing as a WP article and another on the way

• Apostherapy
• Draft:Core Concepts (Physiotherapy Group)

-- Jytdog (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

good to see you back!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

New WikiProject Medicine page

It's very nice to look at, but in monobook skin, I can't see the links for talk, history, etc.

When looking at an oldid like https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine&oldid=727985700 the message in the pink box ("This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ...") and the diff navigation can't be seen in any skin that I've tried.

It's not a critical error for me, because I can use keyboard shortcuts to work around it, and most of the features hidden won't be used, but there might be some folks inconvenienced. --RexxS (talk) 13:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, will look into the issues with monobook. As for the oldid links I think we can ignore that since most the page is built around editing the modules — the main page is basically just a transcluded template that shoulnd't be changed.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

If anyone is curious, you can see the other "skin" at this link. (This link won't change your prefs or anything.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Okay, using WhatamIdoing's link I'm not getting these issues at all. Everything looks normal to me, even better than in vector (apart from some issues with the other WikiProject links at the bottom that I will take care of shortly).
RexxS – is this only when you're looking at oldids or do you have some other settings/special javascript that could be interfering with the banner? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't able to reproduce the issue, but I moved the banner down 10px – which should make sure the links are never covered. I've chosen to ignore the oldid issue which noone should be coming across anyway. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:35, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I've just rolled back your last change, Carl so that I can see if it's reproducible. We can always restore the fix (although -48px is needed to completely clear the project/talk/edit/etc. tabs in Monobook) when we're sure we're looking at the same problem. I have an alternate account, Famously Sharp, that has no mods, addons, etc. because I use it for demonstrating when I'm training editors. The page looks fine in Vector skin. When I use WAID's link to view it in monobook, it has exactly the same problems that I describe above on my main account. Do you have any settings/js/etc. that are preventing you from reproducing the issue? Should I post screenshots? --RexxS (talk) 21:23, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Posting screenshots means uploading and dealing with licenses and then (probably) a soon-to-be-useless file hanging around for decades. Unless other people are interested in this, I will point out that both of you have e-mail enabled, and it will be faster and simpler to exchange e-mail addresses and send the screenshots that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Heh. You're assuming that I haven't spent the last 20 years creating websites and running two large webservers (php & asp) with virtually unlimited webspace. I don't need a licence to upload my own stuff onto my own servers and don't care if a screenshot stays there until the heat death of the universe. I could email it, of course ... hmmm ... nah - http://www.metropolis2.co.uk/demo/images/WpMedMonobook.png --RexxS (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata Discussions

Hi all! I would like to post here again an invitation for the participants to also watchlist the talk page of WikiProject Medicine on Wikidata (d:Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Medicine). The community on Wikidata is smaller, so some discussions needing 2nd opinions go stale. You can also request queries for specific lists and datasets on the talk page. --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes I wish that all Wikimedia projects shared their talk-spaces. So that we'd have unified projects and editorships rather than 100+ bubbles. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes universal watchlists :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

You can have that feature now, more or less, with WP:Flow. It's being used on mediawiki.org with pretty good success. Whenever someone starts a new thread on a page that you're watching, or replies to a thread that you posted in, you get a message about it in Echo/Notifications (similar to a Thanks message). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I have tried WP:Flow and really do not like it. I would rather muddle on with the issues we have with the current system then switch to that at this point in time. Hopefully now that flow is not in "active development" the WMF will be willing to develop our current talk page system further. One of the things I dislike most about flow is there is no "history" button. I cannot view all the comments made since I last checked the article in question. Also it appears to rearrange the order of talk page comments which is confusing.

P.S. I also hate the layout and functioning of Facebook. Just because they do something does not mean we should too. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

For those who wish to see this themselves check out [16] You will notice that you cannot compare between two sets of difs.

We need to improve our current talk page systems and we need to allow visual editor on talk pages. We need this rather than a third way of communicating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for Korephilia article

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korephilia. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:10, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Muneeb Faiq

• Muneeb Faiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a report at WP:COIN pointing out that the article has significant problems, including medical claims regarding "brain diabetes theory of glaucoma". Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• tagged the section below...the one you pointed out has Foundation for Alternative and Integrative Medicine alternative medicine?...need more opinions--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I've made some edits and removed some puffery. It's still not much good. --RexxS (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

apparently, back to draft[17]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Flexal virus

I've just created a stub for Flexal virus. It is, however, sourced directly from a paper in Archives of Clinical Microbiology, a relatively recently created open-access journal: is it suitable as a WP:RS for this sort of article? On a wider topic, what would be the best way to check journal reputation for recently-created online journals? -- The Anome (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, that seems like a suitable source in this context. WP:JOURNAL is the relevant project -- you could ask them? Bondegezou (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  See my response there: I would not trust anything published by this sloppily produced journal. --Randykitty (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  There was a recent debate at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 83 #MEDRS blacklist that contains some very useful suggestions on how to check journal reputation for our purposes. It's really worth a read and ought to be summarised in MEDFAQ when we get around to writing it. --RexxS (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

  If it is a recently created journal than no it is likely not suitable IMO. We should be using journals that are at least pubmed indexed and have an impact factor greater than 1. Stuff less than this often has issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Look at a draft?

Hi! Anyone want to check over Draft:Estimation of the anterior chamber of the adult human eye using EZ Ratio? I'm not quite sure if it's ready or not. It reads a lot like a journal article (ie, OR) or a how to guide and I'm not sure of the sourcing either. I figured, however, that it would likely be more fair for someone more familiar with ophthalmology to glance over the article and give advice on how to proceed. My instinct is to decline it. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The article title itself ("Estimation of...") implies an instruction guide. I recommend changing the article title to "EZ ratio", which I think is a notable subject. The second section ("The optical basis of the EZ ratio method") needs to have its content limited. A more encyclopedic tone would be good, although I don't think that the article reads like a medical journal paper. There are also a number of formatting problems. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Needs secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

• That's why I figured it'd be a good idea to ask here, since I didn't know if it'd need to be re-written any or not. I would've likely declined it as a how to guide more than for the sources. Thanks guys! Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

WT:PSYCH#Invitation to Helping Give Psychology Away workgroup

Ongmianli posted this at WT:PSYCH, but there's not much action at that project, so I wanted to point it out here. Is this a normal way to go about organizing a workgroup? —PermStrump(talk) 00:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe that there is a "wrong" way to go about it. So this is "uncommon" for on-wiki groups, but possibly "typical" for off-wiki ones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:05, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

EpiPen pricing controversy

The EpiPen is the treatment for anaphylaxis which can be fatal; kids with allergies carry them around in their backpacks. Mylan, which is the only company who makes it, has raised the price from <$100 to >$600 since 2007 for no reason other than profit. As a result it's hard for the uninsured to afford, putting lives at risk. There's been a burst of media coverage over the last few days, reminiscent of Daraprim and Martin Shkreli. Currently there's nothing about this in the article on Mylan. There is some material at EpiPen but perhaps not enough. I've already found some good sources; see Talk:Mylan#EpiPen_pricing_controversy. Am happy to do more but very busy for now; maybe someone will be interested in the meantime. --Middle 8 (t • c | privacy • COI) 07:39, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

added here [18] EpiPen and to Mylan/talk for references--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Done Jytdog (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid

Cross-posted at WT:PHARM#Featured article nomination for beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid

Would anyone be willing to take on this review?

I'm planning on immediately nominating it for featured article status after it passes GA since I've spent dozens of hours searching for medical reviews and monographs on this compound. I'm fairly certain that every known aspect of its clinical effects and pharmacological properties has been covered in the article, so it should pass the comprehensiveness criterion. Hopefully it won't take a full year of FA nominations like amphetamine did. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:45, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• need reviewers for this article,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:09, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I've decided to skip the GA process altogether since it's taking too long. I'd really appreciate it if others from this project would review this article at FAC: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive1. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Still need 1–2 more reviewers to take on a review of the medical/pharmacological aspects of this compound; doing an image review won't take much time either if anyone here cares to take on a review of that aspect of the WP:FA criteria (there are no fair use images; all the images are either chemical structure drawings in the public domain or CC-BY-# graphs/diagrams from open access pubmed-indexed journal articles with both captions and WP:ALT text – this is easily verifiable). I expect that a few non-medical editors who regularly review FACs will take on a review of the prose and do WP:V checks, so it's not really necessary for anyone here to do a review of that.

If you're interested in doing a review of this article at FAC and are new to FAC reviews, you should read the instructions on the WP:FAC page under listed under the heading "Supporting and opposing" and read User:Nikkimaria/Reviewing featured article candidates for a primer on how to review an article at FAC. It might help to look at how reviews in other FA nominations are structured as well, but that isn't really necessary. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Fun

This is a fun way to explore Wikipedia: http://wikiverse.io WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)