Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 55

Archive 50

←

Archive 53

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

→

Archive 60

Global health statistics (revisited)

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

I believe a reasonable editorial case can be made for considering a publication such as PMID 25320104 as a reliable secondary source (and, potentially an "ideal" MEDRS), in that it systematically collates data made available by a major international body (IARC - [1]/[2]). While I appreciate WAID's cautious response ([3]) and I too fully accept the need for caution when using such registries (as acknowledged by the authors of the paper - sorry, full text is paywalled), I feel the authors' recognition that the information documented in the paper is largely in keeping with other sources provides another argument in favor of its use, per the guiding principles of MEDRS. Imo, this sort of source could help bring together a section which is somewhat typically fragmented.

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

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

Thank you for pointing that out Bluerasberry. Doh, 109.153.156.71 (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

National Operation Anti-Vivisection

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

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

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

People there seem rowdy. I would not want them tagging article talk pages with a project banner, but otherwise, I see nothing wrong with them trying to organize. I would not want to step into their mix until they calmed a bit. I commented earlier and one person said that they wanted distance from WikiProject Medicine. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times: Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information

• Cohen, Noam (October 26, 2014). "Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information". The New York Times. Retrieved October 28, 2014.

Might be a useful source for use in relevant articles. — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Already noted above at #WikiProject Medicine in the New York Times, Cirt. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Sweet! I posted it to a few talk pages that may wish to incorporate this article as a source. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Five Star Urgent Care

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Five Star Urgent Care. — Cirt (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Poliovirus and SV40

Today's google doodle has sparked a bit of interest in these topics. The latter could use a careful going over with MEDRS and MEDDATE in mind. It plays into the whole antivax mythology, so some extra care may be warranted. A Russian-reading editor might be able to use PMID 21384596 to put that into context. Is someone able to tackle this? LeadSongDog come howl! 16:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Anatomical terminology

Medical editors are invited to see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Simplifying anatomical terminology essay (version of 19:46, 28 October 2014).
—Wavelength (talk) 19:55, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move regarding naming Ebola virus disease article to Ebola

There's an active Requested Move discussion regarding renaming the Ebola virus disease article to Ebola, discussion is here, participation welcomed. Zad68 22:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

MalaCards

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

Now it suddenly appears as an identifier in the infobox after Pigsonthewing modified the infobox.[4] I have no very strong views on this, other than that I believe it was discussed in the wrong forum and that MalaCards is not particularly authoritative. Heck, it doesn't even have its own Wikipedia article. Views, anyone? JFW | T@lk 20:37, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"Sources such as Wikipedia" is misleading, and something discussed over a period of a year is not "sudden". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Pigsonthewing It attracted a small number of responses, in the wrong forum, and it stayed on that proposals page for months until it unexpectedly was incorporated in the Infobox. In that sense, it was "sudden" to me.

Incidentally, the methodology behind the database was published in 2013 (doi:10.1093/database/bat018) which is probably why it doesn't yet have widespread name recognition. JFW | T@lk 20:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd take a look at a mitochondrial disease [5]: MalaCards: Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy... is related to leber hereditary optic neuropathy with dystonia... (and unhelpfully, the link provided to the latter is blank). Further down the page, under the heading "Related Diseases" [6], we seem to be informed that LHON is "related to" a range of conditions based on "text searches within MalaCards or GeneCards/GeneDecks gene sharing" [?]. Hmm...

Per the compilers of this, as yet, young database [7], "A well-known disadvantage is the extraction of irrelevant data [my emphasis]. One example is the extraction of genes that are annotated to be ‘unaffected’ by a specific disease to be associated with this same disease. Another example is extraction of genes related to ‘non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma’ for ‘Hodgkin’s lymphoma’ because the close lexical resemblance between the names of these diseases." Wouldn't linking to such content from infoboxes be likely to represent a potential source of confusion to the general usership of the encyclopedia? 109.153.156.71 (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

The MalaCards project seems to be of interesting potential, and of course a product of hard work; congratulations to people who work for it. That said, I am not going to comment on the quality of its entries, and neither on its usefulness for the Wikipedia reader. These wouldn't change a simple fact: it was added to the disease infobox without discussion at the proper forum (i.e. here) and without consensus. I oppose adding anything on this or any such important template, below links of universal acceptance and utility like ICD-10, without the above conditions. I propose the immediate removal of the link from the template. NikosGouliaros (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not technically "the proper forum" for discussing changes to some other page; WPMED does not actually own Template:Infobox disease. The editor did propose a change to that template in the actual proper forum, which is on the talk page for the template. (However, it proved ineffective, because almost no one watches it.) We tend to discuss things here only because it's more convenient for us, and it increases the likelihood that someone will see it, not because it's "proper". I assume that when you say, "without consensus", you mean something like "without getting written permission in advance", which is not required by policy. Our policy is that the end result matters more than the process used to reach it.

It would be helpful to hear your opinion on whether it would be desirable to have this optional link in that template. Whether you (and other people) think that having this option for editors is a good (or bad) idea for readers is important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarifications, they were helpful for a less experienced editor. I was mistaken to consider this talk-page "the proper forum" - though I believe it is more appropriate than the Molecular Biology Project talk page.

By "without consensus" I was referring to what I believe was not "enough agreement" for the addition in question. Am I misinterpreting the result of the discussion? I believe not, though your more experienced view is welcome.

My opinion is that MalaCards wouldn't be a clearly useful addition to the template. I dislike the fact that part of its content is computer-generated, and one can sometimes see the trivial mixed with the important. Its usefulness and accuracy isn't established enough to stand by ICD-10 or MeSH. NikosGouliaros (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a really valuable and thoughtful explanation, NikosGouliaros.

Do you think that these webpages might be a good ==External link== for some pages (vs an "almost never anywhere" position)? Although there's no set rule, what's often happened in the past with that template is that we move websites in there when it seems like a lot of articles have a link under ==External links== anyway. So far, I only find two links in mainspace, both as <ref>s, which doesn't argue in favor of many editors already finding the links especially useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

At least as far as maladies in my area (cardiology) are concerned, MalaCards doesn't seem to provide more information than a featured article in Wikipedia is expected to include, aside of genetic facts (list of related genes, their pathways and expression). Such information is already included in the links of Infobox Disease, therefore I don't think an external link to MalaCards would offer much, at least to the articles I usually visit and consider editing. NikosGouliaros (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not in favour of adding any further additional sources or identifiers to infoboxes unless they are (a) international standards or (b) exceptional in quality. There is nothing preventing users from conducting searches on google; if this data is to be recorded then Wikidata is the place to do it in my opinion.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Tom that Wikidata may be the appropriate place for this. (As I tried to explain above, infobox links to acknowledged irrelevancies would be a potential source of confusion for our readers.) 109.153.156.71 (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with both. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Source request

Is anyone able to make this available to me?

• Yoder, P. S., X. Wang and E. Johansen, "Estimates of Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting in 27 African Countries and Yemen," Studies in Family Planning, 44(2), June 2013. PMID 23720002

Many thanks, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

i just downloaded it and can email it to you. i just sent you an email so you can reply (I wish the WP email system allowed attachments!) Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, thank you, I got the emails, but couldn't open the link in the second. Would you be able to email me a copy? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

sure but you need to email me back, so i can attach it in gmail. can't attach things in wikipedia mail... Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears everyone copies from Wikipedia

Here is a 2011 "Oxford Textbook of Zoonoses: Biology, Clinical Practice, and Public Health Control" by "Oxford University Press" in 2011.[8] Appears to be the first edition. It says:

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

Here is the Wikipedia article in Dec of 2010.[9]. We said

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

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

Some of the content was added to Wikipedia in 2006 in this edit [10]. This was not however the version they copied. Thus it appears they are copying from use. The added edit was supported by the refs in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow, and a major publisher as well. Is this the only section copied? Can we contact the editor who added it to the WP-page, to make sure they aren't author of the encyclopedia? I think those would be necessary steps before moving ahead, because this is potentially much bigger than the previous cases of plagiarism. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And they are the author of the WP passage. I'd think the same author was quite likely. User:Rhys, apparently an Australian virology type, not edited for some years. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The passage that was lifted was written by two Wikipedians, User:ChyranandChloe and User:Rhys. I have emailed User:Rhys and the last name that bounces back from his email is not G. Lloyd. I have verified his name in other words. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Have tracked down his current email and spoken with the Oxford University Press. Will hopefully have things verified in a day or so.

The Wikipedian is not mentioned anywhere in the text. Neither is Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That's pretty blatant plagiarism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is. Am meeting with the legal team at the WMF next week to discuss. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The 2011 edition was not the first! OCLC 37546636 and OCLC 645892527 were dated 1998, way before the WP article. I suspect p.387-389 is where the text in question would be. Graham Lloyd was the author of that chapter. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Finding more passages which have been copied and pasted:

We stated "March 12, 2009, an unidentified 45-year-old female scientist from Germany accidentally pricked her finger with a needle used to inject Ebola into lab mice. She was given an experimental vaccine never before used on humans. Since the peak period for an outbreak during the 21-day Ebola incubation period has passed as of April 2, 2009, she has been declared healthy and safe. It remains unclear whether or not she was ever actually infected with the virus"

They stated "in 12 March, 2009, when an unidentified 45-year-old female scientist from Germany accidentally pricked her finger with a needle used to inject Ebola into lab mice. She was given an experimental vaccine never before used on humans. It remains unclear whether or not she was ever infected with the virus or if the experimental vaccine proved beneficial

This text was added by this IP address on Mar 28, 2009 [11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Doc James asked me to take a look at this. Good work. :/ I have no doubt that what you're seeing here is a backwards copy. And it happens. I've seen backwards copying in extremely reliable (even governmental) sources, although I don't know if I've ever found it in an Oxford UP publication before. It all comes down to the ethics of the individual contributor. I did a few changes to the source text above, as there were some minor variations. The Wikimedia Foundation, as it indicates at WP:C, does not claim copyright over any of this and has no legal standing over the use of Wikipedia text. It simply has permission to use the content. The copyright owners are the contributors who put the content here, who have required the right of attribution and free license of derivatives. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks talks about this. I will be very happy to hear what Oxford UP says about this, since I can't imagine they're any happier about it than we are. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What would the WMF legal team have to do with it? So far I don't see 300 words - it ought to count under Fair Use. Professionally I understand of course plagiarism is often a kiss of death, but that's a different matter. Wnt (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

How would it be fair use, without attribution? Also, does English copyright law accept that doctrine? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Fair Use (the article) about attribution. If you put a figure from a paper on the overhead projector, do you have to include the citation to make it legal? (I admit, I do believe copyright lawsuits are decided at random, so I won't say that you're safe, but there's no particular reason for that) Wnt (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of other readers: I was unfamiliar with the phrase "backwards copy". After some digging around, I eventually found "Template:Backwardscopy". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, "fair use" is "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research." The copied text is not being used for any of those. It is being used to expand their ebola coverage to help sell copies of the book. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

If writing a textbook isn't scholarship, what is? It is true that the commercial purpose weighs against Fair Use, but these snippets of text are quite small. Not everything disreputable is actually illegal, nor should it be. Wnt (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Fair dealing applies in the UK. Although there is an allowance for "instruction", it cannot be for commercial use (e.g. text books), also an attribution is required.[12] Little pob (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Wnt, I am not sure which definition of "scholarship" you are using. Here are some. I would consider a postgraduate student writing a PhD thesis to be "scholarship". Even then, there should be attribution to the original author. Otherwise, it appears as an attempt to pass off the work as the scholar's own.

The "Fair use" article also includes the statement "Courts, when deciding fair use cases, in addition to looking at context, amount and value of the use, also look to the standards and practices of the professional communities where the case comes from." The community of book publishers does not permit verbatim copying of text without attribution.

Actually if the book had quoted the text and referenced/attributed it, then there would not have been any problem. The issue with this text is really about plagiarism, not fair use. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

We also require what is produced to be under an open license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the requirement for a free license only applies to actual derivatives, not to entire works. It's not like plagiarizing a single sentence out of Wikipedia means that your entire book gets "infected" with a free license. Only the (in this case) one paragraph needs to be given an open license. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The whole chapter is somewhat similar it appears. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

It's rather a different problem. Attribution is a necessary part both of avoiding plagiarism and of complying with the https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License. Without it, a fair use claim cannot be based on commentary or review justifications. Parody justifications fails if the reader cannot identify the object of parody. Certainly OUP won't condone even plagiarism. We should not either. But we do still need to verify which is the original and which the copy. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

If one looks back in the history we are clearly the source. Author of Wikipedia has verified that he is not the author of this textbook or give permission.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Combined Movements

Hello medical experts! Here's another old AfC submission. Is this a notable topic, or should it be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Anne Delong. I reviewed the article and sources. It had four citations, two of which were self published sources, and the others were primary research and not usable on Wikipedia. I tagged this for deletion. Bring these kinds of articles here anytime. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Neglected tropical disease task force proposed

Dear Wiki' ites . I invite you all to Join the proposed Task Force on neglected tropical disease More details and Sign up here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Task_forces#Neglected_tropical_disease Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Our presentation of prognosis of ebola in the lead

Wondering if people can comment here [13] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS issues at opioid dependence article

There's some material on withdrawal time in the opioid dependence article that is cited to http://www.opiateaddictionresource.com/addiction/opioid_withdrawal . As far as I can tell, that website does not seem to meet the WP:MEDRS standards. Can someone please take a look at the article and check the times given with a source that meets WP:MEDRS? -- The Anome (talk) 23:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

On further review: the whole article needs more {{citation needed}} poured liberally over it: a lot of it seems to be missing citations. -- The Anome (talk) 23:36, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

The same website was also linked as an external link from the Methadone article. I've removed it. The external links section in that article could do with a review to prune out any other sites without clear provenance. -- The Anome (talk) 23:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree, that article needs better citations. Unfortunately, the citations in most of our addiction/dependence articles are of similar low quality. I'm actually planning to rework some of these (mostly the drug addiction ones, few behavioral); but, it'll be a month or two before I start and will probably take me a couple months to finish. The only one I've seen that I don't think needs to be reworked at the moment is sexual addiction (mostly because I already worked on that). Caffeine dependence for the most part is alright. Ironically, (substituted) amphetamine addiction is shorter than Amphetamine#Addiction (it also has the common problem of referring to addiction/dependence interchangeably)... so yeah... I need to fix that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Alcoholism is obviously in decent shape too, though one section needs a minor update ([14] - scroll to the bottom & look for the red box). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

pmLove needed at Arginine#Potential_medical_uses

buncha hooey. will try to get to it this weekend but maybe someone will beat me to it. Jytdog (talk) 14:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

What exactly does "PM" stand for here? Jinkinson talk to me 19:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think it's just a typo.

I updated one subsection. Most of it cites primary sources, but in the ones I spot-checked, everything could be substantiated with a recent review. It needs people to update the information, not just blank everything because of imperfect sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

pm=project medicine. was trying to come up with something trademarky like WAID's THETRUTH^TM - so pmLOVE^TM. fail. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I like that! We do have our own brand of love here. (The trademark symbol is option-2 on a Mac, which is much faster than typing out sup tags.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Another RfC regarding sources

Talk:Electronic_cigarette#Request_for_comments_2 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine in the New York Times

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

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

• Cohen, Noam (26 October 2014). "Wikipedia Emerges as Trusted Internet Source for Ebola Information - NYTimes.com". The New York Times. New York. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 27 October 2014.

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

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

Bravo! Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

So there was a computer in the photo that accompanied the CBC News story about James. But no photo credit, NY Times? Shame. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 14:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Preventive healthcare Task Force proposed

This is to announce that the Preventive Healthcare Task Force was proposed. Please help discuss and contribute. Thanks. losrivas (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

How to make one article the "main article" for a given category?

I think it is appropriate that the article tongue disease be the main topic of "category:Tongue disorders". Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Place {{Cat main|Tongue disease}} at the top of the category page. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 12:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Fluoride toxicity Merger

Over at WikiProject Chemistry, we've been trying to resolve some of the merge proposals for articles in our scope. One of these is a proposed merger of Fluoride toxicity into Fluoride. There's not a strong consensus either way at the moment, but it seems agreed that Fluoride toxicity is (or was) overly reliant on non-WP:MEDRS compliant sources. As it stands now, I think the main question is whether, once non-WP:MEDRS-sourced statements are removed, there will be enough left over to justify its own article. Would anyone mind taking a moment to go through and assess to what degree it will be possible to clean up the article without gutting it? 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 13:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Vagina anatomy article

I am trying to advance this popular B class anatomy article, which has many problems in my opinion. I would say that the discussion on several topics on Talk:Vagina are not tending to result in a consensus about what to do, so I would appreciate more opinions that would hopefully point editing in the right direction. I would especially welcome editors that have studied the anatomy of the lower female genital tract including the histology; nevertheless, I would also welcome opinions from any open minding editor for opinions on the accessibility of the information presented in the Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 13:48, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

yet another reason to take primary sources with a grain of salt - contamination in next-gen sequencing studies

Fact or Artifact? - article from The Scientist discussing risks of contamination in studies using next-gen sequencing. the "duelling primary sources" here are a first one, that found long stretches of DNA from food in human blood, and the second, showing how easy it is to get contamination in next-gen sequencing experiments and discussing the first study in particular. Jytdog (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Skeletal fluorosis

This needs attention; I recently removed a lot of unsourced stuff from it and added sources, but there's still some questionable information here, esp. the stuff about the "rat experiment" in the "Effects on animals" section, which is unsourced and fails MEDRS anyway. Jinkinson talk to me 16:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Adding mal card to infobox disease

This has been brought up here Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Disease_box_update_bot_-_reiterated. No seeing a discussion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Valerian (herb)

A new editor is active here and there are some question on sourcing; more eyes would help. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 19:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested Move regarding naming Ebola virus disease in the United States article to Ebola virus cases in the United States, another ebola move

There's an active Requested Move discussion regarding renaming the Ebola virus disease in the United States article to Ebola virus cases in the United States, discussion is here, participation welcomed. 2601:D:3080:EA2:ECFA:CF4B:BEB1:170C (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Persistent IP

Problematic edits going back more than a year (what I have detailed on IPs talk is only a partial list of what I found, going back about a year). [15] It does not appear that talk discussion is heeded. Can someone pls follow and give Doc James a hand there? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And there's more ... found this CCI investigation, and the latest edit at Causes of autism is cut-and-paste. I haven't checked the rest of IPs edits for cut-and-paste, but they are prolific, and it looks like a CCI is in order.

• Source: http://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/1003/20141024/autism-linked-to-the-kind-of-air-we-breathe.htm
• Edit: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Causes_of_autism&oldid=631958512#Air_pollution

So, this is probably going on in more than medical articles, pinging Moonriddengirl. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

And it appears that although Wizardman, Dana boomer, Psychonaut and MER-C cleaned hundreds of edits in the last CCI report, there has been no followup, the CCI was closed, and this IP has continued same for another year. Sheesh. You gotta be nuts to work in here ... not a single editor seems to have followed up on this issue or even posted to the IPs talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I blocked the IP while this is sorted. Unfortunately, we don't have the eyes to follow up on every non-indef'd copyright issue (hell we don't even have the eyes to tackle the CCIs we do have). If there's a way we can do a mass-undo of the edits the IP has made that's a good starting point at least... Wizardman 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I've reopened Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160 and cleaned the first section. I would recommend fairly aggressive handling here. User:SandyGeorgia, CCI is not a disciplinary board, so there are quite a few CCI subjects who are not blocked. When I see CCI articles pop up at WP:CP for users who are still active, I occasionally try to spot-check to see if there are ongoing issues, because to me that's grounds for an immediate indef. But CCI is just a cleaning process, distinct from administrative actions against the users listed there. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Moonriddengirl, MER-C and Wizardman for getting on this and doing the bookkeeping. I understand the issues you all raise; the reason I brought this up here is that this user has been reverted and reverted and reverted for over a year, there are a string of messages on his talk, and no one investigated. The message is, folks, CHECK on a user that you have to continually revert and when you find a string of messages on their talk ... this IP created a cleanup mess, and we don't have enough folks doing CCI cleanup. Coulda been detected earlier. The edits from this IP are consistent, and there is a clear profile ... study it so you can recognize future edits from same. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:16, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Prolotherapy for Osgood-Schlatter disease

We have a user who want to use this RCT [16] of 54 people which has received some analysis by others [17] in a couple of places. What are peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

From looking at the pages linked above and without doing my own websearch, to me there appears to be several unanswered questions with regard to dextrose injection therapy in children, and so I think that it would not be reasonable to present it as a well established therapy in a Wiki article. Snowman (talk) 14:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

FROM THE USER's perspective. es.wiki.x.io/wiki/User:K._Dean_Reeves,_M.D.

Kind regards to Doc James for his fine editorial work and I agree completely with not presenting dextrose injection as a well-established therapy in OSD. On 1 November, 2014, I made a simple edit adding Osgood-Schlatter disase to the list of conditions that dextrose injection to stimulate repair (prolotherapy) may POSSIBLY help with. My edit was based not on listing the primary article, but rather was based on filtered (secondary) analysis of that primary article. This is an important policy question for Wikipedia medical reviews in general, since at some stages of research for any particular condition, studies may be difficult to replicate in terms of funds available or other issues. However, a well-designed clinical trial may still receive significant secondary review, either via PubMed or via on-line academic review sources, which indicates that the treatment method merits consideration as a possible treatment for that condition. I ask that that the following be considered carefully as a good illustration of this point.

Wikipedia prefers filtered (secondary) analysis. Secondary analysis consists of three potential sources. One is systematic reviews. Another is critically-appraised topics and another is critically-appraised individual articles. In my view, Wikipedia review criteria should not exclude filtered assessment in the form of critically-appraised individual articles with clear recommendations, particularly from multiple academic sources simultaneously, be they on-line or in print. This is particularly true when the user is not asking for details from the individual article to be listed and the only listing of the treatment is as a possible use.

Given that:

1) Drs Sakr and Mounsey, from the Department of Family Medicine of University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, under the editorial review vof John Hickner, M.D., MSc., Chair of the Department of Family Medicine at Cleveland Clinic, wrote a Priority Update on Research Literature three page article. This article listed its own references and was a hybrid between a critically-appraisal of the Topol et al article and a critical appraised topic on the treatment of recalcitrant OSD. The authors made the clear recommendation to "Consider giving dextrose/lidocaine injections to adolescents with Osgood-Schlatter disease (OSD) that persists despite physical therapy," Sakr M, Mounsey A. Injection may be the best bet for young athletes’ knee pain. Jnl Fam Pract 2012; 61(8):486-488

2) The New England Journal of Medicine Journal Watch chose the Topol et al article for review, and under the pen of the Associate Editor for Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Cornelius W. Van Niel, MD, Clinical Professor in the Department of Pediatrics at the University of Washington School of Medicine, stated clearly that " This study shows a promising option for adolescent athletes with stubborn OSD: either dextrose/lidocaine or lidocaine-only injections can help them play without performance-altering discomfort, and dextrose injections can help them play symptom free". http://www.jwatch.org/pa201111090000002/2011/11/09/dextrose-injections-have-osgood-schlatter

3) Essential Evidence Plus, an evidence-based point-of-care clinical decision review publication that applies specific criteria for validity and relevance to clinical practice decision recommendations, chooses less than 300 articles per year from 100 primary journals to review for a POEM (Patient Oriented Evidence that Matters) review. They selected the Topol et al research study, and, under the pen of Allen F. Shaugnessy, Professor of Family Medicine at Tufts University, made the clear statement that "An injection of a solution of 12.5% dextrose and 1% lidocaine is an effective treatment of Osgood-Schlatter disease (OSD) symptoms in young athletes.(LOE = 1b-) " http://www.essentialevidenceplus.com/product/features_dailyip.cfm "

4) Medscape independently chose the article for a long synopsis, followed by continuing education questions, and concluded, under the pen of Brande Martin, Ph.D. and Désirée Lie, MD, MSEd, Director of Research and Faculty Development, Department of Family Medicine, University of California,Irvine at Orange that - Injections with either lidocaine alone or lidocaine with dextrose are more effective than usual care in improving function and reducing pain in young athletes with OSD engaged in sports. - Injections with dextrose and lidocaine are more effective than injections with lidocaine alone for improving function and reducing symptoms in adolescent athletes with OSD. (http://www.medscape.org/viewarticle/751311)

5) Family Practice recertification testing includes a question on the treatment of Osgood-Schlatter disease that recommends dextrose injection as a treatment.

It is only reasonable to be able to state that dextrose injection is a possible treatment for recalcitrant OSD.

Is Wikipedia asserting that filtered reviews of individual studies are not worthwhile if they are on line from multiple academic sources, and even if every impartial review results in positive recommendations for use of that treatment for a given condition? If so, this elevates the opinion of Wikipedia reviewers over the recommendations of multiple independent reviewers, be that via PubMed or on-line reviews. No one is asking to list the treatment as a must or well established treatment, merely as a possible treatment.

Hopefully it is clear that this is an important policy issue.

Respectfully submitted,

K. Dean Reeves, M.D. Clinical Associate Professor Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation University of Kansas — Preceding unsigned comment added by K. Dean Reeves, M.D. (talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I guessed that this thread is about this stage in the OSd article, where the line "Medical injections to the patellar area such as Hyperosmolar Dextrose injections are effective and safe for treating tendon and cartilage degeneration.[21]" is included and then deleted. I think that this new treatment could be included in the Wiki if it also described certain relevant caveats. For example, the trial was in children, they might have selected those who had earlier treatment failure, omission of the risks of infection, and so on. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that the spirit of avoiding primary sources is to avoid including information from a primary source that is out on a limb. Snowman (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

What Wikipedia prefers generally, and especially in the area of biomedical information, are secondary sources. I've not seen the term "filtered sources", so will use "secondary sources". The purpose of a secondary source is to survey the primary sources, evaluate them for weight, quality and relevance, and draw a conclusion from them, if possible. For Wikipedia's purposes, individual primary sources are just about useless except in truly exceptional circumstances, and this doesn't appear to be one of them. You really need to find a high-quality, independent secondary source that covers this. I think some of the sources you've identified are moving in the direction of the kind of source Wikipedia looks for, but they're not quite there yet. I think one of the things to keep in mind here is that Wikipedia articles are encyclopedia articles, and are intended to present relatively stable information to the average reader, while the sources you've identified are really of interest to medical practitioners for their daily practice. If prolotherapy really makes good on its promise, in due time there will be more good-quality evidence and secondary sources, and at that point Wikipedia will pick it up. By design, Wikipedia doesn't rush to present the leading edge, but rather picks up the rear after things have settled and there's a consensus in the literature. Zad68 04:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Perfusionist#External_links

Would appreciate experienced eyes for a second. Was my edit correct, or too severe? Basie (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Looks good. We are not a collection of ELs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it felt right but I got speed wobbles after removing the twentieth link. Basie (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

using page hits in wikipedia to track disease transmission

hmmm article at MIT Tech Review Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog This was done earlier this year also by a research team which seems unrelated.

• Salathé, Marcel; McIver, David J.; Brownstein, John S. (2014). "Wikipedia Usage Estimates Prevalence of Influenza-Like Illness in the United States in Near Real-Time". PLOS Computational Biology. 10 (4): e1003581. Bibcode:2014PLSCB..10E3581M. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003581. ISSN 1553-7358. PMC 3990502. PMID 24743682.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Speech therapy and Voice therapy

There is a disambiguation page at Voice therapy leading to 1. Voice therapy (transgender) and 2. Speech therapy which in turn redirects to Speech-language pathology. The actual fact is that even for transgenders, the same speech or voice therapy is done by speech-language pathologists. I think these should be merged into Voice therapy. Need inputs. Diptanshu^Talk 13:20, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Diptanshu.D The only criteria for judging a merge is the amount of information from reliable sources which exists on a topic. If enough information exists to differentiate voice therapy from speech-language pathology, then two articles can exist. The problem is almost no information in voice therapy associated with a citation, and yet it all seems like it could have come from a published source. I would advise to clean up voice therapy first, deleting contested content without a citation. Then after checking the amount of content that remains, make the merge proposal. Consider also informing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies about this, since this is as much of a cultural LGBT issue as it is a health issue. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

At a first glance, I think that speech therapy (or voice therapy) and speech–language pathology should be separate, as the first is "treatment" and the second is "the study of" (the field and the career). I think that speech therapy ought to basically answer this question: "The doctor just sent my child (or my stroke-affected mother) to speech therapy. What are they going to do there?" If we've got that information in the encyclopedia, then I don't know where it is.

I'm not entirely sure how the trans-specific subject differs from Voice training, like a vocal coach for singing, except with a goal of changing the quality of a healthy speaking voice rather than the quality of a healthy singing voice. It doesn't seem comparable to "my four year old is in speech therapy because he isn't using two-word sentences yet". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I have also opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Speech therapy and Voice therapy Diptanshu^Talk 16:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I am in the process of forming a new article for Voice therapy. I have taken portions from Voice therapy (transgender) and it seems to be quite a daunting task to organise this article. Seeking participation. Diptanshu^Talk 18:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Diptanshu.D If I were to revise the article, I would delete everything except the two sentences which are followed by citations. The many Wikilinks I might put into a navigational box so that they would not be entirely lost from the article. I think it might only be daunting because you are starting with lots of unbacked claims and few citations. I would advise you to drop the project until and unless you identify sources that you like, because there will not be progress except by starting from reliable sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Rightly said. Diptanshu^Talk 18:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you please check why the emedicine link in the infobox is not showing up. Diptanshu^Talk 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Is that the website that someone recently said had been rearranged, so that all of our links broke? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

2 new papers from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-10-29/Recent research

2 new papers from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-10-29/Recent research - neither free access & neither read. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• "Analysis of the accuracy and readability of herbal supplement information on Wikipedia"Phillips, Jennifer; Connie Lam, Lisa Palmisano (2014-07-01). "Analysis of the accuracy and readability of herbal supplement information on Wikipedia". Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. 54 (4): 406–414. doi:10.1331/JAPhA.2014.13181. ISSN 1544-3191. PMID 25063262.
• "Maturity Assessment of Wikipedia Medical Articles"Conti, Riccardo (2014). "Maturity Assessment of Wikipedia Medical Articles". Proceedings of the 2014 IEEE 27th International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems. CBMS '14. Washington, DC, USA: IEEE Computer Society. pp. 281–286. doi:10.1109/CBMS.2014.69. ISBN 978-1-4799-4435-4. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I think that User:Nettrom and User:EpochFail may be interested in the second one, since they've been working on automated assessment for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up John. I've added it to my list.

Regarding that: A while back I did a search of PubMed and scoured the footnotes of various random articles for journal articles addressing the accuracy of Wikipedia's medical offering. Since then, whenever I happen upon another, I throw it in there. If anyone notices any obvious omissions (the list is here) please feel free to add. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I add things to the "official" Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Research publications - I think they agreed a while back, not sure. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Endocardial Cushion Hypoplasia

Dear medical experts: One more of those old AfC drafts soon to be deleted. Should this one be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

16 Google results means I don't think this is a notable topic. Perhaps it should become a redirect to hypoplasia. Jinkinson talk to me 00:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The title of the draft sounds suspiciously like ostium primum atrial septal defect. The content of the draft reads like a journal review paper. Could this be a copyright violation? There might be content in the draft that could be transcribed to "Ostium primum atrial septal defect". Disclaimer: I am not a cardiologist. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Really it's all about mouse experiments that might shed some light on the human cardiac condition. Developmental biology rather than medicine. Looks like a student paper to me. He carried on editing a while, on irrigation & the environment. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hematospermia

FWIW, hematospermia has an interesting current reference format (permalink), complete with author names and affiliations. The best case scenario might be that three medical professionals are openly identifying themselves as interested in contributing to Wikipedia. The worst case scenario might be that it's a copyvio. Diff of addition from 2013. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

That is interesting. It was posted July 2013 by an IP account, so we cannot even contact the Wikipedia account which presented this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a copyvio from here. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Update

I've turned the article into a sentence, because it had contained zero information since October 31st, when it was marked with a copyvio template. I figure a sentence is better than nothing for readers. Also, the template said the article could have been deleted soon. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:04, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

The article was tagged with Template:Copyviocore, which blanked it. There is a direction at that template to "not use this template directly". I assume that means it is supposed to be an automated process? Anyhow. It would be nice if we could get a bot to alert us on the talk page whenever a WP:MED article has this template on it, in my opinion. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 13:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Sequela

Can someone add explanations to Complication (medicine), Sequela, and Late effect to explain how they compare and contrast? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It seems that according to Merriam Webster, a complication is a disease/condition developed over the course of another disease/condition. [18] By contrast a sequela is just "a negative aftereffect", [19] so you don't already have to have another disease to have a sequela as you do with a condition. Or at least that's the way I understand it. Jinkinson talk to me 19:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, ICD-10 seems to consider sequelae and late-effects as synonyms; as the index entry for late-effect refers users to sequelae. Little pob (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Missed opportunity

People might be interested in these contributions (only 6): https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Special:Contributions/DeboraSerra. Of course they need someone with competent English, but we ought to be more receptive in cases like these. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you think of any specific actions that would help? Should Independent clinical trials be for merging (or deleting), because it could be incorporated into Clinical trial. Snowman (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that, but also it would be worth seeing what this group has to offer if their project is still ongoing. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I actually prodded that article, but Wiki CRUK John removed the PROD. I just put a notice on her talk page about original research, maybe that will help. Jinkinson talk to me 16:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree it isn't actually much use where it is, or without references, but what it most certainly is not is OR - essentially the contents could pretty much be sourced to any serious discussion of the issue. So your prod was for a bad reason, and I removed it. Calling anything that's unreferenced "OR" is a bad habit too many patrollers have, and tends to get me going. I can't see the earlier version of the article, shot down in flames at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_clinical_trial a while ago, but the cuurent Clinical trial has a short section on "Conflicts of interest and unfavorable studies" but doesn't afaics actually spell out why COI is the universally recognized problem that it is. It's also a pity that once again we send a group of new professional/academic editors straight off with a bloody nose. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If I may chip in, I really wish we could at least welcome users who are trying to edit in good faith (ie. say hello) before we go about reprimanding them. Although the stub is small, it is not disagreeable, and it is my personal point of view that a lot of trial-related topics have not received the same attention as clinical medicine. Unreferenced doesn't always mean OR and OR doesn't always mean delete. So I think continued interaction with the user and group may be needed. I've welcomed the user and left a note to this regard on her talk page --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal sound amplification products

This is a class of products entirely defined by the shadow of the FDA definition of 'hearing aid'. I'm thinking of writing the article pretty much from the ground up to make this clear. Are there any similar articles I can use as a template? Stuartyeates (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Photograph of naked, pregnant five-year-old Lina Medina

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Lina Medina#34 Photo of naked pregnant five-year-old Lina Medina again. A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Water brash/hypersalivation?

Is water brash a common term for hypersalivation? Thoughts?

• Talk:Hypersalivation. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 09:55, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

IP user making many problematic edits to medicine articles

This user has been making rapid fire changes to medicine articles the last two days, most of which are inappropriate or don't make sense. These include adding drug coupon availability info, removing the description of loperamide as an opioid "because it is OTC", adding "oral" as route of administration for liraglutide, etc. I have not run these down and corrected them all as I don't want to run afoul of the harrassment rules. Could an admin look into this? Formerly 98 (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there are any such rules that would apply here. I was amused by his 5th edit, [20]. Johnbod (talk) 14:09, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

DorlandsID discontinued

The DorlandsID section of the info-box now redirects to a "MerckEngage® has replaced MerckSource." landing page, rendering any such links useless. _{216.196.204.110 (talk) 17:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)}

Permalink here [21]. Not sure if it affects medical infoboxes, but it does affect {{Infobox anatomy}} and there'll be a template used in citations that's also broken. WhatamIdoing I think this is what you refer to above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

European Federation of psychiatric trainees

Hi all, I just created the page European federation of psychatric trainees. I'm part of the association so I'll be very happy to have any comment if the content is neutral enough.--Ofix (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC) EFPT IT secretary

Welcome Ofix! Many folks work on articles about organizations they're involved with, and I noticed you've already declared conflict of interest on the article's talk page. I replaced two external links in the 'See also' section with wikilinks, but that was the only problem I noticed. I also added the WikiProject Medicine template to the talk page, noting that article is within the scope of our psychiatry task force. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 03:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi ShelleyAdams, thank you for your feedback. An user deleted all the content of the history paragraph because there was copyright issues. With my organisation, we are owner of this text and we put it on a free license in our website. Do you think it's possible to use it? Thank you.--Ofix (talk) 06:23, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

It might be worth reading WP:DONATETEXT. However usually people just rewrite/rephrase. Basie (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

hi ofix, if you read the license, you are free to use the content but "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.". if you put a note on the talk page or in an edit note briefly describing the changes you made (which could be as simple as "The original work has been modified.") it should be fine. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, Ofix did cite the source, and noted its Creative Commons license on the talk page. Isn't that a good faith effort?

Ofix, when including text taken directly from a Creative Commons licensed source (BY or BY-SA), you should use a citation (as usual) and add the CC-notice template (just updated to support version 4.0]) in the References section. You may also want to add the text release template to the talk page.

All, is there a help article that explains best practices for incorporating text from works released under open source licenses or in the public domain? I looked, but only found it mentioned very briefly in articles about copyright and avoiding plagiarism. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 13:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Whoops! Just spotted an i missing from the title. Ofix, your article is now at European federation of psychiatric trainees. Using a laptop with a flaky E, I can mpathize. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 14:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. I put CC license in the references. Is it ok for you now ?--Ofix (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Ofix: Hello, one slight problem: the site referenced is released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 International. At the moment, that license is not a compatible license here. "They" are looking at it, but at the moment 4.0 is not compatible. Crow^Caw 22:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Electroacupuncture

I know the acupuncture articles have had a lot of recent issues with advocacy, so I was wondering what other medical editors thought about adding this review's coverage of electroacupuncture's efficacy in an animal model of ethanol addiction to relevant articles. I would normally pass over something like this because it's research on animals, but this is the only "treatment" that doesn't involve viral vector gene transfer (using the adeno-associated virus and ΔJunD) which has been shown to reduce nucleus accumbens ΔFosB expression. That said, is this content worth adding to either electroacupuncture or alcoholism under a research section? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:46, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

References

@The Anome: Figured I should follow up with you since I've finally gotten around to downloading that review you pointed out. It actually makes stronger statements about ΔFosB in addiction than any previous paper I've read; it's the first review I've seen that calls for using ΔFosB as a therapeutic biomarker of addiction and for using it as a metric for quantifying the addictive potential of drugs. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:45, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

References

per WP:MEDRS we shouldn't add content based on animal studies. The potential importance here is clear, but we have cured rodents of many diseases and found many biomarkers in them too, that never played out. If/when ΔFosB is validated as a biomarker in humans and is medicine, it would make sense to include something on that as a biomarker. (Note that the review does not say it is a biomarker - rather it says "ΔFosB induction is being considered as a biomarker") If/when electroacpuncture is shown via an RCT to be an effective treatment for alcoholism, we should include that. Right now, the potential is just that and we don't do WP:CRYSTALBALL here. That's my view! Jytdog (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was only asking about the electroacupuncture part - not my reply to The Anome - I pinged him because he wanted me to include content from that review in FOSB (past thread link where this review was discussed). You have a point about the crystalball though, so I suppose it's best not to add it.
This review PMID 24459410 covers the current status of evidence for ΔFosB in humans and its consistency with animal models. That said, the confirmation of model consistency in human cocaine addicts was (I assume) the basis for KEGG Pathway – human cocaine addiction and KEGG Pathway – human amphetamine addiction. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

Input requested at Talk:Serotonin N-acetyltransferase. Dekimasuよ! 00:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Lancefield serotyping

Please, can somebody fix the issues tagged in this stub? Bearian (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

sorted by REDIRECT to Lancefield grouping Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Targeted alpha therapy for cancer

Dear medical experts: (sigh) another old AfC submission. Is this a notable topic that should be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

slew of student postings

see:

• Talk:Anorexia_nervosa#Assessment_and_Diagnosis_Sandbox_Edits_for_Anorexia_Nervosa
• Talk:Attention_deficit_hyperactivity_disorder#Assessment_and_Diagnosis_Sandbox_Edits_for_Attention_Deficit_Hyperactivity_Disorder
• Talk:Autism_spectrum#Assessment_and_Diagnosis_Sandbox_Edits_for_Autism_Spectrum_Disorder
• Talk:Conduct_disorder#Assessment_and_Diagnosis_Sandbox_Edits_for_Conduct_Disorder
• Talk:Generalized_anxiety_disorder#Assessment_and_Diagnosis_Sandbox_Edits_for_Generalized_Anxiety_Disorder
• Talk:Oppositional_defiant_disorder#Assessment_and_Diagnosis_Sandbox_Edits_for_Oppositional_Defiant_Disorder
• Talk:Posttraumatic_stress_disorder#Assessment_and_Diagnosis_Sandbox_Edits_for_Posttraumatic_Stress_Disorder
• Talk:Social_anxiety_disorder#Assessment_and_Diagnosis_Sandbox_Edits_for_Social_Phobia
• Talk:Obsessive–compulsive_disorder#Assessment_and_Diagnosis_Sandbox_Edits_for_Obsessive-Compulsive_Disorder
• Talk:Substance_use_disorder#Assessment_and_Diagnosis_Sandbox_Edits_for_Substance_Use_Disorder
• Talk:Depression_(mood)#Assessment_and_Diagnosis_Sandbox_Edits_for_Adolescent_Depression added Nov 4
• Talk:Self-harm#Assessment_and_Diagnosis_Sandbox_Edits_for_Non_Suicidal_Self_Injury added Nov 4

I, Seppi333, Doc James, Yobol, and SandyGeorgia {who seems to be getting inexorably sucked back into WP, despite her efforts to stay out :) } have commented on some, and Sandy reached out to the instructor.Jytdog (talk) 00:24, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of copyright issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Every article on that courselist is on my watchlist. This is why I no longer enjoy Wikipedia. What on earth became of the online educational training tool for students editing medical content that we supposedly developed and that the education program was supposed to promote? I don't have the time to go off and look for it, and every time I even think about catching up on my watchlist, and encounter more bad and unsupervised student editing, I remember why I hate it in here now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, their sourcing in the sandbox topic that I checked did meet the WP:MEDRS standard, so the citations are alright. That said, copyvio is a bigger issue. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

It was done in the sandbox so not too big of an issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian (Wiki Ed), I thought you might want to know about this discussion about Education Program:University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill/PSYC500 - Developmental Psychopathology (Fall 2014), as this is a typical outcome of many classes in the sciences. Frankcjones, I thought you would want to know also, because you are listed as a supporter of this class. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

We should likely delete all these articles as they contain copy and pasting from the DSM. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for tagging me, Bluerasberry. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Aside from the copyvio problems, there seems to be a miscommunication as to what they're supposed to be creating here. These aren't Wikipedia articles in any shape or form...they're outlines. I hope this is a misunderstanding about what sort of feedback the community can or might provide, and not a misunderstanding about what constitutes an article. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Ian (Wiki Ed) the note on every one of those postings says " It would be great if people would look at it and leave comments on my talk page before I post it on the article."Jytdog (talk) 18:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I know. I'm just hoping that meant "before" in a very broad sense of the word. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging this. Jami (Wiki Ed) is traveling right now, but I just talked to her, and she told me we mailed printed copies of the Editing Wikipedia articles on psychology brochure for this class, and the instructor said he distributed them and assigned the students to read them. As you'll note, the handout specifically forbids copying from the DSM, so obviously the students aren't fully following the guidelines. We're reaching out to the instructor to make sure he reiterates how important those guidelines are and asks the students to re-read the handout and adjust their sandbox content accordingly before moving anything to the article namespace. --LiAnna (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:10, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

note - two more of these notices appeared today -- I added them to the list above and responded there. The instructor and the poster, YenLingChen left a note on Doc James page here that they are aware of the concerns that Doc James stated, at least. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Professional and Therapeutic Communications

And now we also have Education Program talk:Brock University/NUSC 1P10 Professional and Therapeutic Communications (Fall 2014) adding off-topic, how-to advice to a Featured Article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Adam (Wiki Ed), I see that you are an online ambassador for this class. Multiple students obviously worked very hard and spent a lot of time on what SandyGeorgia just removed from the featured article Alzheimer's disease. Even with featured articles there is a lot of room for improvement, and I think the class found an omission in this article by emphasizing management of the disease by communication and behavioral interventions. Still, there are problems with what was added. Do you have thoughts on what could be done here? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I'm taking a look at this now. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: I wanted to let you know that I have reached out to the instructor for this course and reminded them that students are not supposed to edit Featured Articles. We make this clear in our training pamphlets Choosing an Article. thank you for bringing this to our attention. Helaine (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: I've left a note for the students here. I'd very much appreciate it if you could take a look and add or correct anything as needed. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

LynnMcCleary, Ian (Wiki Ed), Adam (Wiki Ed), Helaine (Wiki Ed), LiAnna (Wiki Ed), Jami (Wiki Ed): thank you for your prompt attention to these articles and students. That is quite an improvement over performance from the Education Program in years past.

In particular, thank you Adam for the lengthy post here at Km14dv; regular editors rarely have the time required to do that much typing to train up editors who are unlikely to remain as Wikipedians once their course ends; the time investment is not worth the effort for the one or two sentences that result from editors who then never return to help improve Wikipedia with the knowledge we painstakingly share with them.

However, there is quite a problem with the long information provided to the students by Adam, as they surely have gotten from that post the impression that if they do all that Adam outlines, the result is likely to be substantial content that will stand in the article, and that is not the case, even if they correct the extensive HOWTO and off-topic information that must be removed.

Are one of you willing and able to go over and explain to the students how we decide how much weight to give to an individual topic in an article, how that weight is determined, how they should incorporate the one or two sentences that might be useful from the (wrongly suggested) 250 to 400 word summaries recommended by their instructor, and how that information would fit into the WP:MEDMOS structure? The idea that, even if they do all the work you have outlined, that content would stand in the article-- much less in a separate communication section-- is erroneous. Communication issues are already covered in the article, as appropriate to each section, and given the weight they should be given according to broad overviews of the topic. This is a mistake we frequently see in student editing: they want to write a term paper on one aspect of an overview topic, have it take up an entire section, and do that without regard to the information on that topic already in the article, and where that information belongs in the article structure. It is unfortunate that the students might be scurrying around to follow the instructions you've given them, but I don't see that this will result in more than one or two sentences that might stand in the article, and those sentences will have to be added in the right place by experienced editors. There is communication information in Characteristics, Management, and other areas as appropriate for a broad overview: a stand-alone section on Communication will not be helpful, and should not be added to a Featured Article. If the students can add one or two sentences about communication aspects of AZ to the appropriate sections, using high-quality secondary sources, that would be helpful. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Adam (Wiki Ed) has given the students the help they need and offered more advice. It will be up to them to take him up on his offer of additional advice. I hope that they will be able to pull the essentials of their research to add a small contribution about communication. They will be successful in the assignment regardless of whether or not they make a contribution to the article. I appreciate your concern for their workload. LynnMcCleary (talk) 22:41, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thank you for identifying a crucial ommission in my suggestions to the students in this course. I think that examining the state of the current article and identifying where similar claims are made is an important step in the process.

To @Kl13ah123, Ek13ld, Km14dv, and Ak13sn:, much of this is good advice. I think you should closely read the current article and identify where communications research and difficulties are already covered. You should also take a look at the manual of style for medical articles, specifically the writing style section. In it you'll find invaluable help in understanding how to write a first class contribution to an article as important as Alzheimer's disease.

I do feel that our current article could benefit from a nursing perspective. LynnMcCleary is very actively involved and if the students are motivated they can certainly produce a valuable improvement to Wikipedia that students, readers and editors can be proud of. At the Wiki Education Foundation we recommend that instructors avoid Good and Featured articles, precisely to avoid the issues which have been raised above. We suggest students start new articles or improve stub/start class articles. But I think that a committed instructor with dedicated students could improve just this sort of article.

In this specific case, I'm also inclined to beleive that the article would benefit from the nursing perspective--research on the patient response to the disease and nature of care--which result from the same sort of studies and systematic review that we expect in the project's guidance for sourcing. It does need to be integrated well and presented with quality in the appropriate style, but I think we can be more optimistic and open to the possibility of their success. Adam (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the nursing perspective is important, and often overlooked. We get a lot of 'this drug works slightly better than that drug', but very little 'here is the experience of that the person faces'. Our articles about things like stroke shouldn't stop after listing the things the physicians do to resolve the acute medical situation; they should include information about what happens to the whole person, from in-hospital therapy to the likelihood of returning to independent living. When we were running WP:AFT5, one of the most consistent requests from readers was information about prognosis. They aren't very interested in what the ER doc needs to know. They're interested in things like whether Grandma be able to live at home by herself and what options exist for communicating with someone who can't talk because of a stroke (for example). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thrive+ Hangover Cure

Eyes needed on this new article written by the inventor (coi) of this purported hangover cure. Many claims, no medrs. Ochiwar (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Proposed for deletion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

The PROD was promptly removed by the article's creator. Discussion on Talk:Thrive+_Hangover_Cure. More eyes will be helpful. -- Scray (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Made a few edits to help, but I vote for putting the article back up for deletion due to the COI. Carlos Rivas (talk) 10:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Done Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:11, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease

...was identified by SandyGeorgia as needing some work to maintain Featured Status. I have been doing some tidying but find the subject matter fairly heavy-going. Anyone is welcome to double check for latest up to date references and update etc. or tag primary sources etc. I'll try get back to it myself at some point too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

NB: Some notes on the talk page....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:58, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Functional medicine

Some input from the Med project would be useful at the article Functional medicine. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:54, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Unblockable socking

We have a sock that switches accounts every couple of days. I have blocked dozens of their accounts. Does not appear to be any way to stop them. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Sock Not sure if any others have ideas. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The original block was five years ago, which is plenty long enough for WP:Standard offer to apply. The original block was for copyvios. Are you seeing any evidence of copyvios in his current work? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes lots of issues with ongoing copyright issues by the many socks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

the biggest issue with his work (outside of copyvio for synthesis information) is that he picks syntheses apparently at random and adds them to articles, sometimes with sources, but often without. There is no indication of whether the particular synthesis he adds is important in any way (e.g. the one used in production, the first one to make the compound and that maybe overcame some difficult hurdle, etc) - just a random synthesis. And he does this relentlessly, in zillions of articles. I and others tried many times to talk with him to encourage him to use secondary sources and with them, provide some context as to why the synthesis he wanted to add matters, but he just barreled on. And that is exactly what he is still doing. Also creating stub articles on compounds (often following a series, like recently a bunch of dopamine modulators), many of which never became drugs and some of which never entered the clinic, but that are perhaps interesting to medicinal chemists. Very fierce too - swore that he would keep on editing and switching IP addresses and mocking WP and our efforts to work with him. Could have been a really productive contributor but is dramatically ... what is the right word... single-minded and antisocial. Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a situation where an edit filter might work, at least for a substantial fraction of the edits. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a software solution should work here, one just has to decide on a strategy. It would be interesting to know how many picture files get added to pharmacology project articles in a given day. Maybe it could be made a privilege like roll back. Formerly 98 (talk) 17:14, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy also to semiprotect generously if there are any consistent targets. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Flammer syndrome

This new article could use some attention -- it strikes me that the sources might not be sufficiently reliable to justify the way the article is written. The article seems to be based mainly on a new review, http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1878-5085-5-11.pdf, which appeared in a rather obscure source called the EPMA Journal (belonging to the BMC group). Looie496 (talk) 22:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

GA class criteria

Problem

GA-class article review for medical articles is arbitrary and secluded. A number of criteria (comprehensiveness, accuracy, verifiability) are unclear with regards to what is "good" and what is not for medical articles. This makes it harder for reviewers and for nominators.

Background

This has been an issue of some discussion previously. Previous proposals include proposed criteria by Lesion and a proposal for A-class criteria by Casliber. There are, I am sure, many proposals that I haven't mentioned. The general gist of these discussions was:

1. The generic GA criteria are hard to interpret for individual nominators. For example, what constitutes "comprehensiveness" in a medical article? Is there a "bright line" for sources, or just a sort of general feeling for nominators?
2. The lack of guidance leads to a lot of consternation and unproductive discussion
3. There is a lack of medical input into article nominations which may impact their quality and the quality of reviews is variable.
4. Because reviewing is secluded, there is no guarantee that the product will have a "comprehensive" scope that is global in nature.
5. GA articles have a "GA" tag that is displayed to end users, so it's important that these articles receive quality vetting.

Proposal

We (1) agree on some standards for GA criteria in medical articles, (2) transclude active medical GA reviews onto an assessment page so that interested users can watchlist it and comment, with an aim to (3) establish a community of GA reviewers, (4) try and get 2+ reviewers to comment on each article, and (5) delimit which articles are "medical" articles fall in this GA scope -- probably anatomy, physiology, pharmacology and clinical medicine articles.

I commend this for discussion. I am going to ping several users:

• Users with experience as nominees of many articles: Jmh649, Seppi333.
• Jfdwolff, as he is quite a common reviewer
• Wiki CRUK John, as he has not only passed several nominations, but interacts regularly with subject experts who may issue peer reviews.

Apologies to any users not mentioned. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

I agree with the proposal, but I think participation has to be voluntary. In other words, if someone nominates a "medical" article for GA and another editor passes it, we cannot interfere (unless the pass is truly bad, in which case it goes for GAR). The alternative would involve a lot of arguing. JFW | T@lk 08:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• The proposal seems a move in the right direction, though I agree with JFW above. I'm not sure what "he has not only passed several nominations ..." re me above means, as I've certainly never nominated or reviewed a medical GA (have I?). I have a couple of GA credits on my main account, but I have to say I have generally avoided the GA process for years, preferring DYK and FA. The big problem with it is the single reviewer & the variable interpretation of the instructions, as well set out above, meaning you can't be sure of much about a GA article, except that the refs will be well-formatted and reasonably plentiful. Nor am I really sure what the standard is, or rather where the bottom boundary of the standard is, which makes reviewing difficult. CRUK should be able to provide reviews, probably in-house rather than external for GA, of cancer-related topics, and the intention is to continue this after I leave (which is currently set for a month's time) - the email address on the project page is intended to be permanent. It would certainly be good if other collaboration projects could get similar arrangements in place. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I used to review GANs regularly until a couple of years ago when they changed the formatting of the WP:GAN pages.

"1. The generic GA criteria are hard to interpret for individual nominators. For example, what constitutes "comprehensiveness" in a medical article?" I am really not convinced that the GA criteria are hard to interpret. They seem to be fairly straightforward. (I have also reviewed a lot of non-medical articles in the past.) By the way, "comprehensiveness" is explicitly not a requirement for GA. It is required for featured status. (GAs should be "broad in coverage".)

"2. The lack of guidance leads to a lot of consternation and unproductive discussion." Again, I am not convinced that this is true. I have been involved in a few GA reviews where this has occurred, but given the number of GA reviews going on, I would not call this "a lot of consternation and unproductive discussion". Perhaps you could point out GA reviews where this has happened?

"3. There is a lack of medical input into article nominations which may impact their quality and the quality of reviews is variable." While this is true, this is an ongoing issue for every subject area in Wikipedia—not just medical articles or GANs. There aren't enough specialists/experts editing. The way to solve this is by recruiting them, which is difficult to achieve.

"4. Because reviewing is secluded, there is no guarantee that the product will have a "comprehensive" scope that is global in nature." This is not a result of "secluded" review, but rather because a single reviewer who may not have expertise in the subject area is assessing an article that is usually written by one editor who also may not have expertise in the subject area. (As I mentioned above, "comprehensive scope" is not a requirement for GA status.)

"5. GA articles have a "GA" tag that is displayed to end users, so it's important that these articles receive quality vetting." That's the purpose of the GA reviewer. You seem to be implying that deficient articles are being passed because the reviewer lacks expertise in the area. Do you have evidence of this?

"(1) agree on some standards for GA criteria in medical articles." I see no need for a specific subset of guidelines for medical articles. LT910001 has provided no evidence for this requirement.

"(2) transclude active medical GA reviews onto an assessment page so that interested users can watchlist it and comment." Meh, I suppose that some people might find it useful, but I don't really have an opinion on this point.

"(3) establish a community of GA reviewers, (4) try and get 2+ reviewers to comment on each article." If you're struggling to get a GAN reviewed by even one WikiProject Medicine editor, you're not going to get "2+ reviewers" to comment.

TL,DR: LT910001 does not provide any evidence of the existence of these perceived problems. Even if these problems existed, the proposed solution is unworkable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am not enthusiastic about doing this because I am not sure the current ratings system is sustainable. It was oddly designed anyway, with rankings going from stub, start, C, B, GA, to F, with only one WikiProject having another rating for A. This entire system hardly makes sense to Wikipedians and is a complete barrier to any outsider. In health, it can take 30 minutes to make a stub, an hour for a start article, 2 hours for a C article, 5-10 hours for a B article, 100 for a GA, and 120 for an FA. In many cases, hundreds of hours of volunteer time do not put an article past B rating, and I do not think our current rating system appreciates the vast difference between B and the undefined GA standards. I am not sure if it is worth having this discussion in the context of developing the existing system, and I am not sure of the work specifications we have to design a ratings system to meet our community's needs. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:45, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• I think that the general criteria are adequate. Although, I think that the GA process is weak, because it is possible for a nominator to write about a topic that includes complex science that is new to him or her and for the one reviewer to be blind to the problems in the article and both fail to co-opt assistance. I suspect that something else is wrong if nominators and reviews are puzzled about what the GA criteria mean to the article that they are working on. I have heard a few editors say that medical articles are harder to write than hobby articles. Why are medical article more difficult to write? We could talk about how to write a good medical article instead of how to review a medical article. Snowman (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
• My thoughts on the proposal:
  1. It doesn't matter if "we" agree on some standards for GA criteria in medical articles, because "we" don't set the GA criteria. GA has had enough trouble with people making up criteria (like "no dead links"), and an effort to do this by yet another WikiProject will not be favorably received.
  2. You could transclude active medical GA reviews onto an assessment page so that interested users can watchlist it and comment, except that the only thing they would see is that article X was added or removed. The page history on the page they're watching wouldn't show any of the changes to the actual discussion pages.
• Overall, I think that it would be more effective to go back to a previous approach, which is for nominators and/or reviewers to leave a note here when they nominate and/or start reviewing an article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Why is that a previous approach? Surely, nominators and reviewers can currently alert WP Med that an article has been nominated for GA. They can also ask WP Med for assistance with specific medical topics that they may be struggling with. Snowman (talk) 11:03, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a "previous approach" because we seem to have stopped doing it. There was never any decision to start doing it or to stop, but almost no one has posted notices or requests for help for months. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Primary sources being added to Resveratrol

Furthur eyes / comments would be useful.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

HPV vaccine(s)?

Snowmanradio alerted me to the fact that HPV vaccines is at a plural page, having been moved there in March 2014 from the singular. I find this odd as many group nouns are at singular...exoplanet...cancer....mood disorder...etc. Anyway, I will open a discussion over there. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Promotional

There appears to be efforts to make this article more promotional. Americord Registry Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

IPs appear to belong to the company in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:53, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

What to do when the data is all fairly new?

Consider StomaphyX as it was then, and now. Obviously it was all a bit of a promotional mess, and I think I fixed that. However, I don't know if I really did what you all would have in mind with the sources. As a relatively new (and apparently not very successful) therapy, there weren't very many large reviews. I removed claims that were unsourced, premature, or not supported by what evidence I could find. I preferred recent papers as it seemed to be emerging that the success rate over the long term was unremarkable. For example, one study stopped enrolling patients after they failed to hit their efficacy targets in half the non-sham group.

Another learning experience for me. Is the end result acceptable from a MEDRS standpoint, or should even more claims be removed? Cheers, Basie (talk) 02:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Basie I think your edits are a tremendous improvement, thank you! This is a tough one, there's a sizeable gap between the relatively low bar WP sets for notability in general, and therefore you can write an article on it, and what WP:MEDRS is looking for to make assertions of biomedical effects. I think you've done what you could, but I think you should go a bit further and in the cases where there isn't a solid secondary source, attribute in the article text to the source, like "A study of 27 patients found...", to make the quality of the evidence base even more clear. Zad68 03:23, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a great idea, thanks! Basie (talk) 03:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Diseases of the foot needs work

The article Diseases of the foot is loaded with biomedical information and essentially bereft of MEDRS. - - MrBill3 (talk) 03:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer - now at Peer Review

Comments very welcome at Wikipedia:Peer review/Pancreatic cancer/archive1 Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I just finished my review. I'm sure more contributions will improve the result; and the article is this close to featured status. NikosGouliaros (talk) 09:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, and to the others who have reviewed by editing over the last few days, and are still doing so now. I'll wait until this phase seems over before responding in full - some parts of the target are still moving. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Mustard plaster

Besides having some sourcing problems, this seems to be giving a lot of medical advice. Dougweller (talk) 09:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I stubbed it back to one sentence describing it as a folk home remedy. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 02:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

PMID 15616157 has this to say about it:

Transdermal delivery of medications was foreshadowed in earlier eras by the use of certain plasters and ointments. The mustard plaster, applied as a home remedy for severe chest congestion, may be considered an example....Powdered mustard seed (Brassica nigra) was mixed with warm water, and the resulting paste was spread on a strip of flannel, which was applied to the patient’s chest with a cloth binding wrapped around the body to hold the plaster in place. The moisture and body warmth activated an enzyme (myrosin) in the mustard that hydrolyzed a glycoside (sinigrin), causing the release of the pungent active ingredient allyl isothio-cyanate (CH2=CHCH2NCS) (7). This substance possesses the qualifications listed above for transdermal absorption.

It is a low molecular weight liquid (90 Da), lipophilic, and effective at low dosage. The flannel served as an impermeable backing and the mustard paste was the reservoir. Continuous enzymatic action released the active substance over a period of hours, until the plaster was removed. Commercially manufactured mustard plasters were sold at pharmacies.

The history of plasters has been traced back to antiquity. In addition to mustard plasters, several other plasters were recognized in early 20th century editions of the United States Pharmacopeia (USP) and National Formulary (NF).

(Most of the rest of the article is about modern transdermal treatments and is not at all relevant.) I don't have time to add anything today, but perhaps someone else would like to have a go at it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I found another source that discusses it, [22] but since it's just a case report and therefore fails MEDRS I decided not to add it. Jinkinson talk to me 13:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

According to the article Topical irritation agents, "sinapisms" are indicated in case of angina pectoris! William Avery (talk) 13:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles named "Human abcxyz"

These are mostly some well known body parts that children would know. Some of these are part of WP Med and some are not. Snowman (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• Human brain
• Human digestive system
• Human eye
• Human gastrointestinal tract
• Human leg
• Human mandible
• Human vertebral column
• Human back
• Human embryogenesis
• Human liver
• Human lung
• Human musculoskeletal system
• Human nose
• Human skull

Should they all be part of WP Med? Should these be named "Abcxyz (Human)"? Any comments? Snowman (talk) 17:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No none of these should be tagged with WP:MED Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Also all of these should be merged into the respective topic and "name in other animals" should be created if article is too long. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The only one of these I've worked with is human brain, and I would strongly oppose merging it with brain, because the human brain has many special features. A few of the others are also probably justified, such as human skull, human vertebral column, and human nose, because there is plenty to say about each of them that only applies to humans. (Regarding WPMED, I agree that none of these articles should be tagged.) Looie496 (talk) 02:35, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

We have had multiple discussions on this on WikiProject Anatomy I suggest you read those first. As above consensus is not to tag anatomy articles with WPMED. Consensus is to merge but, because a number of the articles are quite large or have parent articles that can't always be done easily. Lastly can I point out we do have an active WikiProject where these things can and have been discussed (WikiProject Anatomy), and a burgeoning WikiProject Animal Anatomy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

All my questions are about WP Med tags, which I might to work on. I am not asking anything about WP Anatomy tags and I do not plan to work on WP Anatomy tags. Snowman (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Well in that case, it's simple. None of these should be tagged under WP:MED, as only disease and diagnostic procedures are tagged under WP:MED, if that isn't clear in the main pages it should be changed. In addition, my view is we should keep Brain and Human Brain separate, owing to the wealth of information available, and the fact that a human brain might not be the first thing you consider. As for other articles, most (but not all) should be merged. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 08:45, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Some of these articles in the list have prominent clinical sections. The "human eye" has a huge clinical section. "WP:MED?" says that anatomy articles with prominent clinical sections are tagged with the WP Med banner. Snowman (talk) 15:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree we need to clarify the consensus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

"WP:MED?" states that anatomy articles with prominent clinical content are part of WP Med. However, the discussion here and above about what anatomy articles should be tagged with WP Med banners appears to be indecisive. I would agree that the consensus needs to be clarified. How is this achieved? Of course, the topic for discussion here is WP Med tags and not WP Anatomy tags. Snowman (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A discussion, followed by a RfC and a week or so for people to weight in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:22, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe that we've ever held an RFC on this subject before, and I oppose adding that level of bureaucracy to the process now. Generally, someone asks a question, reads the answers, and does his best. We have been blessed to have remarkably few disputes on this subject (whether people are adding or removing tags), and I don't expect that to change. If you want to change the text at WP:MED?, then the hard part is getting someone to write down a suggested replacement text. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I am inclined to take heed of User:WhatamIdoing's Wiki intuition not to start a formal vote on WP Med banners. With practical support from erudite editors, I have successfully planned and completed much bigger batches of edits than the few hundred on WP Med banners, but I do not recall such a indecisive discussion as that on WP Med banners on anatomy articles before. I find this particularly odd here, as I would have thought that my proposed task and the issues that I have raised are relatively simple. I looked at "WP:MED?" and I asked for clarification about how much medical content in an anatomy article is needed for the article to be included in WP Med. I have not succeeded in clarifying this point, so I will opt not to work on WP Med banners on anatomy articles as batch-editing task at this juncture. On the other hand, some clarity has settled on the discussion on WP Med banners on named hospitals, and I anticipate that I will do a that batch sometime later this week pending any last-minute show stoppers. Snowman (talk) 16:05, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

We have had a WP:RfC on this matter, and I somewhat disagreed with the close; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 5. Flyer22 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I struck my "16:13, 17 November 2014 (UTC)" post because that is specifically about naming articles. Flyer22 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Mentored editing, likely medicine-focused

Hello, I come to you for guidance on a modest project to encourage faculty and young physicians-in-training to edit WP. I have worked and taught in a medical school for a couple of decades, and witnessed the growing importance of WP as a starting place for learning about medical topics - illustrated nicely by the recent piece in the New York Times on Ebola content (and Doc James). Our faculty and students often read WP without really understanding or contributing (I see those two as linked; I have some WP editing experience).
Audience: I anticipate mostly students - dozens at most - and a few faculty will probably sit in and I hope they'll become contributors as well.
Context: I will launch this during an immunology course for first-year students, though others will probably sit in.
Structure: I intend to conduct some didactic sessions on editing WP, highlighting the 5 pillars, risks (like meatpuppetry in an academic environment) and ways to avoid them, and the importance of sourcing especially MEDRS for medical content.
I will encourage participants to take small steps (cognizant of educational projects that have foundered due to overly-ambitious goals); this will not be for credit so there will be no pressure on the editors, and I will hold frequent "office hours" when I will be available to help mentor.
Appeal: I invite links to useful resources to help an audience get started with the best footing.
First and foremost, I want to encourage our students and faculty to take WP seriously and consider its value. I have asked our library to consider more actively engaging with WP and consider it as a resource under their umbrella, and have received encouragement from academic leaders here (but I do not speak with the school's voice here - I am acting alone). WP is an important resource for medical knowledge; it still has a ways to go before it will be highly accurate, but that is an achievable goal.
With appreciation for your work on WP medical content, and for any guidance you might offer, sincerely,
Stuart Ray, M.D. Soupvector (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• I do know that the Wikipedia:Teahouse is a great resource, and many useful pages are linked there. Also, I would appreciate any particularly-useful welcome templates for medical editors. Soupvector (talk) 15:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
• I also see the cautionary tale above and have seen other educational projects go awry here; this is one reason why I am not putting any pressure on anyone to edit; my hope is that their editing will be driven by altruism and curiosity rather than more selfish motives that lead to disruptive editing. If we just get a few more editors, and improve awareness in a few others, that'll be enough. Soupvector (talk) 15:47, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that the section above was made with a user name that was created today. In order to help editors pitch replies, I think that it would be useful to know a little more about User Soupvector's WP editing experience, and if any other user names are relevant? Snowman (talk) 15:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• That's a fair question. I am an experienced editor who would rather keep his other persona anonymous. I have notified a sysop of my alternative accounts and they approved, providing some guidance to avoid disruptive use. Soupvector (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Is "alternative accounts" intentionally in the pleural? Out of curiosity, what guidance did a sysop give you and what did they approve? Snowman (talk) 16:08, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the plural is intentional as it is in our guidance on this topic - 1 original + 1 new one = 2 alternative accounts. I was told, "As long as they work on completely separate stuff and do not support each other in discussions you should be fine." I intend to use this new account very little - only in this mentoring role. I did this (created a personally-identified account) to make myself accountable and reassure the community that I take responsibility for these users' initial actions. I also needed an account that I could use visibly during demonstrations and training on-campus that would not compromise the anonymity of my other account. Soupvector (talk) 16:16, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:SOCK#LEGIT, which says; "It is recommended that multiple accounts be identified as such on their user pages; templates such as {{User alternative account}} or one of a selection of user boxes may be used for this purpose." Is this relevant to you? Snowman (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That is just a recommendation (not a requirement), I cleared this with a sysop in advance, and linking the accounts would defeat the purpose in this case. Would you object to moving this discussion to my Talk page, since this is really off-topic on WPMED? I would also like to point out that my motivations are quite above-board, I am under the impression that the project could use more editors, and I feel as if I am being harassed unnecessarily. I would appreciate it if you'd give me the benefit of the doubt and focus on project goals. If I disrupt, there are mechanisms to deal with that. Soupvector (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I hope no one minds if I copied this sub-section to my Talk page to continue there if needed. Soupvector (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC) (collapse box was removed by Snowman, so this is unnecessary)

I was trying to help you. End of my discussion. Snowman (talk) 17:19, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I really would welcome responses to my query above. Soupvector (talk) 17:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Dr. Ray, thank you for doing this. Some of the basics about getting started with editing and formatting are available at Help:Getting started. There is also Wikipedia:Plain and simple guide for medical editors, which might be helpful. Best of luck with your project. NW (Talk) 18:46, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for these pointers. soupvector (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I am completely happy with this use of an alternate account. This account is being used to guide new students. Great to have User:Soupvector join us in a more official capacity in addition to the anonymous work he does. By the way happy to share the sets of slides I use to lecture / teach about Wikipedia and they are also under a CC BY SA license. Also happy to touch base further about my experience with the students at UCSF and specific issues these new editors have encountered.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:00, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Much appreciated all around; I will write to you via email for the resources you mentioned. soupvector (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• Soupvector Hello and thanks for posting. The Wikipedia Education Program has models for outreach to schools. I would suggest connecting with that project for oversight and guidance. Ian (Wiki ED) might be able to assist your class online, as this might be relevant to his work. I see you are based in Baltimore. I am in New York. If it seemed useful, I might be able to travel to your group to present a training workshop, as I have done this for medical school classes in the past. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry I deeply appreciate this reply but the user link you provided (Ian) seems to be a redlink - could you check? I do think what I'm planning is a little different and perhaps less risky because I'm promoting WP editing in a school of medicine rather than making classroom assignments or otherwise coercing editors; while the latter term may seem too strong, I think some of the problems we've witnessed may be attributable to educational pressure to edit rather than education regarding the value of the project and cultural valuation of WP as a resource with global benefits. I hope that having a professor endorse WP more publicly will encourage broader/deeper understanding and support. soupvector (talk) 18:52, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for mention of the Education Program, which led me to Wikipedia:Education_program and then the page for educators, which is particularly germane. These are great resources. soupvector (talk) 19:50, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Soupvector His account is Ian (Wiki Ed). Classroom outreach is not the only model, and part of the resources they make available is some group tracking interfaces. In New York some students at Mount Sinai started a Wikipedia club totally outside of their classes, for example, and over the past six months I think they have had 7 meetings for fun. At all meetings people contribute to Wikipedia. They use the software intended for tracking classes, and despite it being designed for compulsory tracking of assignments, in their case it helps them communicate with each other and watch each other's work. For a small group which intends to work together even outside the classroom I think this software has some use. Even if the software is not right for your situation, some of the training materials for classes might be. Whatever you do, if you ever want a voice or video tour of available health resources then contact me and I will show you what has been tried already. Ian might be able to help also, as I said. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Bluerasberry It would be a good idea for me to monitor these new editors and try to nip dysfunction in the bud and generalize lessons learned. I will contact Ian and you for additional ideas/guidance - thank you!! soupvector (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Soupvector - it sounds like an area in which we could help. Thanks for pinging me on this Bluerasberry. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

FYI...

How the Flemish Government is publicizing their new website "with reliable medical information and sources": [23].
109.157.83.50 (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Without providing any guidance as to how to tell the difference. As it happens, articles "with reliable medical information and sources" appear high in Google search results.

A badly missed opportunity, in other words. JFW | T@lk 15:55, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Sent a message. Fixing the internet is easier than convincing people not to use it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Spanish fly - Request for MED members to improve article

• Spanish fly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Spanish fly has been in the news lately due to its purported properties as an aphrodisiac, though it can be quite toxic, dangerous, and potentially fatal.

The article could use improvement with additional WP:MEDRS sources to reflect this so as to helpfully inform our readers.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 01:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Gotta love when entomology and health collide. I can take a look for both entomological and health content closer to the weekend when I get back from a meeting. I see a bit on both ends that could use some work already, so thanks for the heads up. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Better than this... right??

I looked at 'fly and didn't see much active problematic editing. If spammers show up let me know and I'll deal, or use the regular boards. Zad68 03:44, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I had to administer medical leeches once. You wouldn't think it to look at them, but those little suckers are fast! Basie (talk) 09:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zad68:There wasn't problematic editing recently, just I think the article itself needs some quality improvement overall. — Cirt (talk) 12:16, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

question about controversies over interpretations of clinical trials

What do you all think of sections like Ezetimibe#Clinical_trial_controversy and Valsartan#Myocardial_infarction_controversy? These seem somewhat tempest in a teapot in some ways (perhaps written to counter media hype or something) but there also seems to be (or have been) scientific/medical questions that were truly ambiguous and thus debatable. Both of those sections I linked to, have to do with underlying conditions that are complex and hard to manage in any case (esp the valsartan one). Where do sections like this fit per MEDMOS? How should we handle topics like this? thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not topical, but what I find as a major deficit of both sections is a lack of consistent clarity as to what treatment the drug is being compared to. Placebo or SOC? Otherwise seems OK. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:42, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The information in "Ezetimibe" is far too detailed for a general encyclopedia. It needs to be drastically cut down. Even the quantity of text in "Valsartan" is too much. Detailed descriptions of outcomes from individual trials should be avoided. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"what I find as a major deficit of both sections is a lack of consistent clarity as to what treatment the drug is being compared to. Placebo or SOC?" I don't think that Wikipedia should be including that information in its text. Wikipedia should just be summarizing the conclusions of the relevant secondary sources. If a reader wants to check such detailed information, they can go to the source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey Axl. I think that if you are going to say that treatment X increases or decreases an AE, you have to say with respect to what. In the diabetes area, for example, you start getting confusion with statements such as "metformin is the only diabetes treatment shown to reduced CV events". The problem is that it reduced them compared to treatment with sulfonylureas as a comparator, and sulfonylureas increase CV events compared to placebo. So it may well be that metformin has only a neutral effect on CV events compared to non-treatment, or it could even increase them. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that details of trials, and arguments over trial design, don't belong in articles on the conditions, but I don't see that they are unencyclopedic in articles on the drugs (or the trials themselves), where the issues have been widely discussed and are well presented here. Of course this is a tricky area to edit, where subject understanding is key. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"In the diabetes area, for example, you start getting confusion with statements such as "metformin is the only diabetes treatment shown to reduced CV events"." If that is what reliable secondary sources say about metformin, then that is what Wikipedia's article should say. (If some sources say that, while others say that the interpretation is too simplistic, then the evidence needs to be judged on a case-by-case basis.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

That is the problem exactly: Reliable sources state "reduced with respect to sulfonamides" which becomes a Wikipedia statement that CV events are "reduced". I really can't imagine a high quality MEDRS compliant source making a statement that an outcome or AE was reduced or increased without stating the reference treatment regimen. Its like saying "The moon is bigger.", a completely meaningless statement unless a reference object is provided. But it does happen in Wikipedia from time to time due to inexperienced editors. Formerly 98 (talk) 15:25, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

• I am not sure how these should be handled but I have never had fun trying to manage this kind of information. The subject matter is difficult even for experts in the field. Sources are confusing and it is often difficult to find the appropriate ones.

If I were going to commit to improve the Ezetimibe article and I thought the content in that controversy section were good enough, I would fork that section into its own article so that I would not be deleting the content but so that I could prevent the main article from having WP:UNDUE attention on the information which is less important to an overview of the drug. For the Valsartan there is not much information in the controversy section, so it cannot be forked, yet this is not the kind of information which ought to be in a controversy section. I think that I would opt to leave it there and ignore it until the rest of the article were more developed.

I regret that I do not have better ideas for the short term. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

As so often, half the problem is the use of "controversy" itself in the headers - I doubt either of these really deserve it. "Interpretation of clinical trial results" or something would be better. Both sections seem to me (without being at all familiar with this area) not to be obviously undue, but are certainly remarkably badly written, in places terminally unclear. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks everybody for your thoughts... i haven't seen anybody respond to the question of where that content should go in MEDMOS. some kind of subsection under Medical use, or down in society&culture controversies....? or its own funky little section like we have now? Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It should go in the research section, which is close to the bottom. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:02, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I think "research" should be forward-looking, where this is mostly raking over past trials and their interpretation. Where it is a big issue it should be its own section, perhaps after "history". Short bits could go in history in some cases. The initial comment didn't mention that at Ezetimibe trial "controversy" matters are the bulk of the lead also. Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Formerly 98, that's probably the biggest problem. And agree with Johnbod, research is the wrong section. The sections on controversies can go anywhere as a heading on the same level as the ones suggested in Medmos, because a section of that kind does not fit under any of the topics suggested. The all caps used in the names of the clinical trials shouldn't be copied in Wikipedia. ENHANCE, IMPROVE-IT, CHARM - what's to stop the pharmaceutical industry from calling their studies THEBEST or SOEFFECTIVE and get it added in Wikipedia. --^Melody _Lavender 15:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

note, I have worked over both articles. here is the series of edits i made, to bring Ezetimibe into line with MEDMOS and MEDRS. Doc James swung through and did some polishing. as did Formerly. I also cleaned up the Valsartan article in this series of edits. there are new clinical results about Ezetimibe and folks are wanting to drive those into the article... i think we should wait til a secondary source is published. Discussion about that is going on at WT:MEDRS and the article Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 13:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Paid editing

What do people think of this edit [24] by this user User:WikiCorrect-Health Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Terrible. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

This is apparently the company the user works for. It seems like the edit was made in good faith and was somewhat constructive, and my main concern would be that they are using the FDA guidelines in place of more MEDRS compliant sources. Also interesting is the website's claim that they work "with Wikipedia’s top administrators". Who exactly does this mean, I wonder? Everymorning talk to me 01:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

NO. They were warned eight months ago that their user name is in violation of our user name policy. They are violating our Terms of Use (it is very likely run by employees of IMS, editing for pay, on behalf of clients). I do not mind COI editing the presence of editors with a COI when it is done according to they follow our policy and guidelines. This account is not a happy occurrence.. Am debating - ANI and get that account blocked already, or perhaps bring to SPI (to have IP addresses checked). Am very very unhappy about this. Aggressive and incompetent and not talking back on their Talk page is a nasty mix. Jytdog (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC) (edit my comment to clarify Jytdog (talk) 11:09, 14 November 2014 (UTC))

Yes we need greater transparency here. Who exactly is paying them? Who are these "top admins"? Who do they work for? One however of course cannot request any of this information but lots of concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

actually under the Terms of Use, they must disclose their employer, their client, and their affiliation. See the first section in WP:COI which is here to save you scrolling. Jytdog (talk) 11:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm personally of the opinion that the WMF can enforce their TOS if they want - wikipedia policy encourages disclosure of COI but does not require it - the community doesn't need to be involved in what is essentially a legal agreement between a user and the WMF, given that over and over again the EnWikipedia community has explicitly said that we are not interested in mandated COI disclosures. Frankly, this kind of discussion is exactly why disclosure rules are a problem - it's a huge distraction. If the edit is low quality (it seems well-referenced, though I'd need to verify that the references support the conclusions, and it's not overly effusive about the technique), revert it. If only parts of it are inaccurate, manually revert those parts. Honestly, just looking at it, it's not obvious what's wrong with their edits, but apparently they are "terrible"? Is this a fringe view? Did they completely misrepresent the sources? Instead we're all caught up in whether or not they have a COI. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 12:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

What you write 0x0077BE about COI disclosure is dead wrong. There is a legal context here; WMF owns Wikipedia and sets the Terms of Use that you and every editor agree to every time you use Wikipedia. By using Wikipedia all of us agree to abide by WP's Terms, policies, and guidelines, which include the obligation to disclose "paid editing" - a specific kind of COI. It is true that every editor and admin can choose or not to abide by and enforce them, but when they do, they put their editing privileges at risk. With regard to other aspects of the COI guideline (such as not directly editing articles), it is true that they are only guidelines but they have a very strong and broad core of support. In my view, the COI guideline has never been promoted to policy because there are some specific aspects (like whether or not to completely ban paid editing) that are so emotional/divisive that discussions about them implode and go nowhere. But what is actually in the guideline has strong consensus. As to the question about the specific edit, they blew off WP:MEDMOS in structure and content and some of the sourcing was not WP:MEDRS compliant. Jytdog (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community sets its own policies independent of the WMF, and there is no Wikipedia policy that bans paid editing. Our choice of what policies to enforce and how is our own decision, and there has never been a consensus to ban COI or paid editing here. I don't disagree that the WMF can choose how to enforce the TOS, but there's nothing in the TOS that says that we, the community, are under any obligation to do that work for them. Note also that the TOS includes a provision to allow the community to supercede the paid disclosure policy on an individual project. Obviously we have a guideline and not a policy, so as far as I can tell the TOS still require COI disclosure, but again, they certainly don't require us to act to enforce their rules. Disclosure of paid editing may be a legal requirement of using Wikipedia (unless an alternative COI policy is adopted), but banning or otherwise stopping undisclosed COI editing is definitely not required of Wikipedia editors or admins. Either way, the COI is completely beside the point. If it's not MEDRS compliant and they are making low-quality and disruptive edits, it doesn't matter if they are being paid. SPAs in general are a complete nuisance, whether they are doing it for ideological reasons, for fun or for profit. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 14:48, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

neither I nor anyone here is talking banning paid editing, so i don't know what you are talking about. you don't get it. oh well. Jytdog (talk) 14:56, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

(ec) It's a rather subtle sort of 'terrible', to be fair—though arguably, this is the worst kind of problematic editing because it can be harder to pick up. Certain material is re-arranged to change the emphasis and tone of the article, certain negative statements are quietly reduced in prominence or silently deleted.

Paid editing through an intermediary (as we're seeing here) is potentially particularly problematic, because it can allow for 'identity-washing'—a drug or device manufacturer enjoys the benefits of having a Wikipedia article oh-so-slightly slanted in a preferred direction, without the accountability for their own conflict of interest. (This editor is already being coy about the corporate interests who are guiding or encouraging the editing on this article: [25].) There's no disincentive for a company to 'test the boundaries' of Wikipedia's sourcing and NPOV requirements; any reputational damage sticks to IMS Health, rather than the product manufacturer.

This editor's failure to read and follow basic policies – like the ban on 'role' accounts – when they have been repeatedly pointed out is also not a good sign. They insist that their edits have received the approval of their (in-house, not-well-described, anonymous) medical and legal(!) teams [26], but they can't be bothered to understand Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia is a tool for them to distribute their message.

Overall, it's a bad pattern of behavior and attitude that we should be coming down on very hard before it gets established as an accepted norm. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

amen, brother/sister, to your last two paragraphs. Jytdog (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the sentiment, but I just think it applies generally whether the person is being paid or not, which is why I think the discussion of COIs is irrelevant. The fact that they are violating the terms of service is more or less irrelevant to Wikipedia policy or the content they added. The fact that it's low-quality (I agree that it's a subtle kind of terrible, so without looking into it further, I can't say for sure, but there's certainly circumstantial evidence that it's unlikely to be high-quality and in compliance with policies and guidelines) is, however, not irrelevant. If they're consistently flouting the rules, we should bring it to AN/I. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 16:31, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

The edit adds, I assume correctly, numerous FDA rulings allowing use, and adds favourable studies, removing earlier unfavourable ones. I know nothing about the subject & haven't probed in detail but this potentially looks like taking a rather out of date article, and updating for FDA etc - which is fine- plus either giving a full marketing whitewash, or reflecting fairly more recent studies, or something in between. Do other sources trust the more recent favourable paper, or is it one of the many dubious company-sponsored studies that are muttered about? I don't know. There is a case, in the absence of someone able and willing to produce an up to date and balanced article, for leaving all the new edits, but adding back all the negative stuff removed too. Johnbod (talk) 16:51, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

With regard to the specifics of this particular edit.

• Under the lede, the Paid Editing version states that the methodolgy has been approved by the FDA for certain indications. This is not our usual way of expressing efficacy, but it it is properly cited. The prior version (which is the current version post jytdog's reversion) states only that it is an experimental procedure. My conclusion is that while the Paid Editing version was not ideal, it does give our readers more complete information than the version is replaced.
• The next change comes under the section "Treatment"

• The cited source (a 2014 meta analysis) states in a rather technical way that there is Level A evidence that HF-TMS is efficacious for pain and depression; and that there is Level B evidence that LF-TMS is efficacious for depression, and chronic motor stroke; and that HF-TMS is efficacious for negative symptoms of schizophrenia.
• This is accurately reflected in the Paid Edit, but the prior/current version incorrectly characterizes this same source as saying TMS has "generally shown only modest effects with little confirmation of results"

• The next change is also in "Treatment" and deals with psychiatric treatment using TMS

• The old/current version states very narrowly that "However, reviews have stated that rTMS appeared to be effective in the treatment of certain types of major depression under certain specific conditions" It then goes on to unfavorably compare the efficacy of TMS to ECT. While I don't have access to all the cited papers, the abstracts of the 10 or more cited papers are all much more positive than this with the exception of an older review (2008)that states that evidence for efficacy is not complete yet. None of them seem to say anything about "certain types of depression under certain conditions". And the emphasis on the inferiority to ECT seems overdone to me, as ECT is a much more invasive procedure.
• The Paid Editing version adds a citation of a 2010 APA Practice guideline as stating that "for patients whose symptoms have not responded adequately to medication…transcranial magnetic stimulation could also be considered" without mentioning that the summary in that document largely seems to call the evidence for efficacy equivocal (Though in Paid Editor's defense, that analysis is probably based only on the data avaialable 5 years ago). It also quotes the Australian guidelines, stating that this organization has "endorsed" the procedure, without mentioning that the actually wording in the document is even more favorable: "compelling". I did not have access to the other cited refs.

• The next change is under "Risks" and does not change the overall conclusions - that there is a low risk of seizure
• 2 or 3 side effects were deleted by the Paid Editor, but these were speculative and / or discounted in the source document and in my opinion did not really belong in the article anyway. The proof of these fell well below case reports, which we do not accept as medical evidence.
• Under "Depression" the Paid Editor deleted reference to a 2007 FDA Advisory Committee meeting in which the Committee concluded there was not adequate evidence for efficacy. The FDA approved the device 7 years later based on new data, so I'm not really sure what having the 2007 rejection in the article added. I would have taken it out also..
• Under "Commercial Health Insurance" the Paid Editor added a favorable AHRQ review. I don't know how relevant this is to the topic of health insurance coverage. On first glance it looks like they removed some negative info, but it was kept and merged into another pargraph.

Overall, while many are very unhappy with the process by which this edit was made, I think it is more accurate and more complete than the version it replaced. I'm inclined to revert the article back to the Paid Editor version, especially based on what I feel is a degree of mischaracterization of the contents of some of the cited references in the previous version. I think we owe it to our readers to put the accuracy of our health articles ahead of our dissatisfaction with the process by which the edit occurred. Nonetheless, I will await detailed feedback from others about the actual content of the edits. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been traveling and have not had an opportunity to look at the changes in detail. The issue I had with their requested change on the talk page was that it was not very clear what they were requesting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98 your points are well taken (as are those of other editors who have said we should deal with the proposal on its merits, as well as where it came from. i've been meaning to go through their edits in detail and just did so. heck that article has been on my to-do list for a long time. I just worked on the diagnosis and treatment parts. Everything else including the lead needs more attention, and we need to write a mechanism section in plain english. i won't think about the lead til we have re-written it... Jytdog (talk) 07:27, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the emphasis of content and sourcing, but we also remove edits made by users who flout WP policy, and it's been noted above that this role-based account appears to flout relevant policy and community norms. If it's found that this user's editing is in violation of policy, then their edits should be subject to summary removal; we should try to retain aspects that are content improvements as Formerly 98 has helpfully highlighted. -- Scray (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think this is all going in a very useful direction, so a tip of my hat to everyone involved, but I will say that it is not my experience that we remove otherwise constructive edits from non-compliant users. Generally the relevant parties are just given a temporary ban if they refuse to comply with policy, and an indefinite ban if they continue to flout policy. I think the right thing to do here is to do exactly what Formerly 98 and Jytdog are doing, which is going through their edits and seeing what use can be made of them. I also think that it's almost certainly time to bring them to WP:AN/I for violations of the username policy. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 16:43, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I really don't want to put myself in a position where I am perceived as an advocate for this editor. But in all fairness:

• The edits were posted to the Talk page of the article in question a full 2 weeks before they were added to the article. Except for Doc James, who was traveling and unable to answer in depth, no one challenged the edits or even commented on them. https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Transcranial_magnetic_stimulation#Corrections_based_on_FDA_Wikipedia_guidelines
• They have stated that they have requested a name change and so are now actively seeking to be in compliance. Overall, it seems to me that the presence of this editor raises important policy questions, but I'm not seeing the evidence that said Paid Editor is a scofflaw. What I see is a lack of understanding of our rules and culture.

On a separate note, like it or not, people use our articles to make healthcare decisions. I feel very strongly that disciplining rogue editors (if that is the situation we have here) is completely and totally secondary to providing the most accurate information we can provide. JMHO. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Ox0077BE: Last I checked, "summary removal" applied only to formally WP:BANned editors, and even then, if the edits were improvements, then removal is often strongly contested. Product matters more than process, and this editor even appears to have tried to follow one of the recommended processes. It's not the new editor's fault that the talk page messages were nearly ignored for two weeks. (Isn't waiting two weeks, and then proceeding if there are no substantive objections, exactly what some of the COI pages recommend?) IMO, it's readers first, and having wrong information on the page for reasons like "the editor didn't have the correct style of username" is not putting readers first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing and Formerly 98 from my perspective this is getting silly. We always want best process we can reasonably attain, and we want the best content we can reasonably attain. And we deal in specifics. In this specific case, there are high level issues - namely IMS has launched a program to "fix" Wikipedia articles for pay (that is two layers of paid editing) yet has no idea at all about how Wikipedia actually works; the issues there are long term, multiple, and serious -- and there were issues specific to their proposed edits that were problematic, which you can see unfolding on the Talk page of the article. (and no there is nothing in the COI guideline that says a paid editor can go ahead and make edits like this; they can make small noncontroversial factual corrections) And the edit was revertable on the merits. Yes the article was and still is pretty bad. But I am struggling with what i see is abstract, hand-wavy, high-horsing from the two of you. I am getting my hands dirty and engaging with them to see if this nascent program can be redirected into something that can help us and am working to improve the article. Jytdog (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is "high horsing" and my comments were not primarily directed at you so much as emphasizing that we put accuracy first, which I was not sure eveyone agreed with based on some of the comments above. On a minor note, the summary revert did restore some inaccurate information as I in the line by line assessment above, and I disagree with your decision to revert the edit before reading it in enough detail to make a line by line decision on what to keep based on merits. But this is only a minor disagreement among friends, and is not intended to detract from my great respect for your efforts here. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:COI is not the only "page" about conflicts of interest, and I was referring to the simplified essays that are often promoted to conflicted editors. I spent a lot of time at COIN a couple of years ago. While things have probably changed since then (the WMF had not required disclosure under the Terms of Use at that time), it was common to tell conflicted editors to post a note on the talk page, to wait two weeks, and then proceed (optionally notifying COIN in the meantime, depending on the preference of the person giving the advice). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

quick note. I've been emailing with the head of the group at IMS, and he said they are going to take down the "WikiCorrect" program website until they learn how Wikipedia actually works. It seems they want to be good citizens but really had no idea what they were doing. They did, by the way, finally make a request to change their username but it was unfortunately to something as bad. I am trying to educate them (harsh as i may be sometimes). if (and it is a big if) they get on board with WP's mission and come to understand our policies and guidelines, they could be a useful presence. i would suggest not dropping any hammers just yet. Jytdog (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Snowman asked me to comment here because I regularly have to decide whether user names breach our policies before I indefinitely block the account. Basically, user names that are the same as a company or product are not permitted, the one exception being names like "Jane from BP" if she is not actually promoting BP (although this is uncommon). Here, the name represents a product and is indicated as such on the company website. The user account must be blocked, irrespective of the edits made. The only real decision is whether to allow the creation of a new account or have a full block. There seems to be enough of an assumption of good faith to allow a new account.

I've deleted the user page which is a clear breach of our policies in that it's promoting a product. I've also soft-blocked the account since the name is also a clear breach of our username policies. If you think I've got it wrong and it should be a hard block, with no new name permitted, let me know

I can't see how the user name or the content of the user page can possibly be justified under our guideline, but I make no comment on the edits from the account because that seems to be a matter under active discussion above Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:03, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

To User:Jimfbleak. Thank you for advancing the discussion on the general topic of user names, and I also appreciate your clarity of thought here and at User Talk:WikiCorrect-Health. May I say that I think that you have made a good choices in blocking the user account, deleting the user page, and leaving a route for the user to choose a different user name. Nevertheless, in case there is any confusion about what a soft block and a hard block are, could you explain a bit about these options with a reply pitched at new users and non-admins please. Like your comment, my comment is only about user names and not about User WikiCorrect-Health's content-creating edits. Snowman (talk) 11:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, Paid Editor had already applied to change the name of the account, had taken down the webpage describing the service in response to criticism from Wikipedia editors, and had not used the account since complaints were made. Given that they had already applied to change the name of the account, this seems like a negative response to a good faith effort to get into compliance, and its hard for me to understand what it accomplishes. Formerly 98 (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Formerly 98, if the user has already applied to create a new account, that's good. The soft block doesn't affect that. The old user name has to be blocked under our policies. If you think that companies and products should be acceptable as user names, then you will need to get that policy changed. The page I deleted was the user page on Wikipedia, which was clearly promoting the product. What is happening on an external website is nothing to do with my actions, but we don't allow advertising on Wikipedia user pages or elsewhere. If you disagree with that, again you will need to get the policy changed. If you think that the content I deleted from the user page was not promotional, then you can request its restoration. Since the text includes company first person spam like We work with hospitals, universities and healthcare companies to obtain referenceable, non-promotional information to fix health related pages to ensure fair balance is maintained on healthcare related Wikipedia pages. We also educate and consult healthcare companies, government agencies, hospitals and medical schools to frequently monitor the pages of their interest to ensure quality, and fix incorrect information according to FDA guidelines without violating Wikipedia rules and principles, I suspect you will have an uphill struggle. I'm sorry if you see the enforcement of our policies as negative, especially when the user concerned is free to create a new account, but vague accusations of negativity do no persuade me that I have acted incorrectly.

Snowman, good point. A soft block affects only that account name and allows the creation of a new account. A hard block targets the user's computer ISP number, and prevents the creation of a new account from that computer. A hard blocked editor can still edit their own talk page and request an unblock. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: Understood and thank you for the additional info. I don't know all the ins and outs around here yet. My comments have mostly been motivated by a degree of surprise at how strongly the overall reaction to this editor has been. Certainly we need to have rules and enforce them. But I deal every day with SPAs and users who break the rules in a dozen different ways. (Try editing an article on a recreational drug sometime to add WP:MEDRS compliant references on long term adverse effects or to remove claims that cannabis is the cure for every disease known and you'll see what I mean.)

I apologize if my comments were perceived as disrespectful or directed at you in particular. There may be issues here that I am unaware of as well, but all I can really do is express my concerns and perceptions as honestly as I can, and try to be diplomatic. No offense intended. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Formerly 98:None taken, and my apologies to you, my reply was pointier than it needed to be Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Jim, would you mind pointing me to the sentence in WP:Username policy that says the account "must" (your word) be blocked? I find (for example at WP:PRODNAME) that the account "can be" blocked if the account is both (1) an inappropriate name and (2) editing inappropriately, but "can be" is not the same as "must". I also find, at the end of the same paragraph, a clear statement that accounts not meeting both of those criteria "should not be blocked" (emphasis in the original). Although that statement is not unambiguously relevant in the instant case, the policy clearly states that a promotional username alone is not sufficient to require a block. However, you (appear to) say here that the username alone results in a mandatory block. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak:I have lifted the block. The problem with a softblock is that it prevents the editor from participating at WP:CHUS, where they had actually started a change-of-name request three days ago. Yes, a softblock allows an individual to create a new account under a new name, but the new account wouldn't have their old edits associated with it. Their proposed new account name also has issues, but a block seems premature as long as their subsequent edits continue to engage with our processes. (I would rather not make the 'path of least resistance' for this individual to be to create a new account under which they don't disclose their COI. I suspect that the current editing hiatus has taken place because someone young and enthusiastic in their social media group has just had to go to his boss and admit that he's stuck his foot very deeply into something.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:22, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: You are technically right, although it's rare for a spamuser not to be associated with spam edits. In this case, the user page text was obviously promotional, so the criteria were met, but I should have been more precise with the language Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@TenOfAllTrades: Well, I'm not going to wheel on this, and I can see your point. However, surely the old name should be blocked at some stage Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:57, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jimfbleak: My understanding of the technical side of the name change process is that with a properly-performed name change carried out by a 'crat, the account name is literally changed—past, present, and future use included. Page histories reflect the new name, not the old. Log entries (blocks and so forth) appear under the new name, not the old. The old username ceases to exist. Significantly, any blocks on the original account carry over to the new username; they do not 'stick' to the original name.

After a name change, a user may – and is often strongly encouraged to – create redirects from his or her old user and user talk pages to avoid confusing redlinks from old signatures (which will still point to the original username). The user may also re-register his or her old account solely to avoid the account being recreated by another person accidentally (or maliciously) in the future. This account doesn't need to be blocked (though it can be); the user just has to refrain from making edits with it. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Potential threat to the integrity of medical articles

I have discovered what appears to be a credible threat to the integrity of medical articles here on WP. Please see this external website (which IMHO is tripping a whole bunch of alarms) and take the necessary protective action. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:11, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

So it is a bot? Or it alerts the companies who'd then send in IPs? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:22, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Paid_editing above. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just found it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The page is blank to me, and I can't find any cache. Does anyone know where to find a cached version? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Cache from 2013 [27], still blank? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:18, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Also cached from Google: here. The fact that they have taken down the page is pretty solid evidence they're monitoring and reacting to WT:MED. Zad68 15:21, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

It was working 13 hours ago, no problem. Now "An exception occurred while processing this page:java.lang.NullPointerException" The inset video clip is worth seeing, from January (we may have picked it up then. Their guy is a big wiki fan. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

• • Overall this seems like "Paid editing? Get in line..." We've got lots and lots of threats to our content, this is just another one. Zad68 15:23, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Zad68: The discussion above about Paid Editing explains that Jytdog has been in e-mail contact with them, and they've been working with people to try and bring their organization into compliance with Wikipedia policies. Honestly, the whole thing seems to outward appearances to be in good faith, though I'm surprised they didn't try to hire some experienced Wikipedia editors who would know basic things like username policy. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 15:28, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• 0x0077BE yes I'm aware of that, keeping an eye on where it goes. Zad68 15:37, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• im always at Ebola(west Africa), however if I can help , let me know--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

just FYI I spoke with IMS today. As Wiki CRUK John noted, they are big fans of WP. They did a big study last year (you can see some of it here and found that something like 60% of doctors refer to WP and they found that drug/device/diagnostic company clients talk about articles relevant to them in WP. IMS appears to be committed to establishing a WP presence, but realize that they started out on a really bad foot. I gave them a 10,000 overview on our mission and our key content policies/guidelines especially for health content, and our bad history with paid editors. Call me a sucker but my sense is that they want to do it "right" (and I made it clear to them that for many in WP there is no "right" way for them to be here... but that there were ways they could behave that were more likely to be more productive all around) I reckon they will be in touch with Doc James and others about establishing a relationship with Project Medicine. Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I am hesitant about relationships with pharma. The companies themselves are full of many excellent people; however, there goals do not always match our.

What I am okay with them doing is pointing out errors in the format "X may be better than Y" with Z as a high quality source that supports the change. They should stick to editing the talk page. If there suggestions are well formatted and reasonable they will be carried out.

The issue with the previous suggestions is that they were not well formatted (no inline refs were used) and they were too long winded. As all suggestions they are making will be somewhat controversial at least one reference will be needed for each sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I hear you. In my little overview I emphasized our mission, a lot. I also told them that you would be a tough sell. :) Jytdog (talk) 02:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

prediction?

[28] ...interesting read--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The flu prediction, as above at various points. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:10, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Trigeminal neuralgia

An editor appears to be making a number of promotional type edits for gallium maltolate as a treamtent of TN based on a case report and now on an encyclopedia entry. More eyes would be welcome. Yobol (talk) 18:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Would probably also need more eyes on Gallium maltolate as well as neuropathic pain and postherpetic neuralgia and hepatocellular carcinoma where this editor has been adding this material in the past several months. Yobol (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked user for edit warring. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:28, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Ludwig-McGill HPV Cohort

I just discovered the article Ludwig-McGill HPV Cohort, which languished unreferenced for years until I added a source, but more work is needed on this article as almost everything in it is unreferenced. Everymorning talk to me 03:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

RN class on communication

Lead by User:LynnMcCleary. Working on a number of articles including hearing loss and impaired vision aswell as many others. Some could use some guidance / copyediting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yay! We need more of the collaborative, practical, patient-focused nursing perspective on Wikipedia. A meta-analysis on which treatment works best is never going to be a comprehensive description of any medical condition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:52, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, several of us have been commenting back and forth with these students. Their course page: Education Program:Brock University/NUSC 1P10 Professional and Therapeutic Communications (Fall 2014). The articles involved include: Psychological stress, Visual impairment, Patient safety, Elderspeak, SBAR, Nurse-client relationship, Interpersonal communication, Hildegard Peplau, Hearing loss, Crisis, Aging. Cheers, Basie (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Also some really good recent editing [29] on Doctor-patient relationship. Just what the patient and doctor are calling for... 109.157.83.50 (talk) 09:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Anatomy pages with clinical content

The Med project has discussed this before and the consensus opinion was that pages with significant clinical content can be part of the WP Medicine and that they should have a WP Medicine template banner on the talk page. There are over 540 Anatomy pages with a heading in the article relevant to medicine. The section heading is often called Clinical significance, but other are also seen (ie Clinical examination). I am planning to sort through these articles and tag the appropriate ones with the WP Medicine banner, so I would like to be clearer about where to draw the line between articles that have a small clinical section that would not be part of WP Med and those with a significant clinical section that should be part of WP Med. Alternatively, I could tag them all? Any comments? Snowman (talk) 21:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, consensus speaks that we tag none of them, and WP:MEDMOS states all applicable anatomy articles should have a clinical significance section (would be nearly all of them once sufficiently expanded). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 04:29, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I oppose tagging them with WP:MED. They are well served by WP:AN. Of course all medical content regardless of tagging needs to be supported by WP:MEDRS sources.

We should keep this project more clinically oriented. Yes we also include people and hospitals as there is no other project for them. But for anatomy there is a project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:41, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

See WP:MED?, which says; "Hospitals and other medical facilities where healthcare is undertaken: Use {{WikiProject Hospitals}} instead of WPMED.". There are WP projects for biographies and also for buildings. Snowman (talk) 10:21, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

• See WP:MED?: which says "Human anatomy: Tag with {{WikiProject Anatomy}}. Additionally, tag with {{WikiProject Medicine}} only for anatomy articles with prominent clinical content. Other tags may also be appropriate.". As I was saying, there is a consensus to tag anatomy articles with a large section on clinical medicine and the last discussion about this is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_49#Task_forces_and_related_WikiProjects. My question was not to re-establish this principal, but to clarify what is prominent clinical content in Anatomy articles. Snowman (talk) 10:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• As a rule of thumb, I would like to suggest, as least for discussion, that if the clinical section seen in an anatomy article when considered in isolation looks bigger in size to a Stub and would appear to have qualities exceeding a Stub, then it can be included in WP Medicine. Or, in other words, if the clinical content, has the sort of features that can be seen in a minimal Start class article, then it can be included in WP Med. Of course, the clinical section may not stand alone well as a Start article; however, considering Stub and Start class articles in this way may be useful yardsticks. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • This is a good rule of thumb; I would definitely tag all such articles with WPMED. I might tag articles that have a couple of paragraphs. Also, we've tended to tag articles about major anatomy (e.g., body parts and organs that children have heard about) with both. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
• I have found over 100 Anatomy articles that are tagged with WP Med. I assume that these are tagged with the WP Med banner, because each contains a sizable clinical content section consistent with WP:MED?. I might check through these too, but I would also need to be fairly certain about what criteria to apply to asses if clinical content section is suitable for the article to be kept in WP Med or not. Snowman (talk) 11:15, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The assumption (that these all have sizeable clinical sections) is unfortunately not warranted. It's just as likely that the page hasn't been re-evaluated since WP:MED? last changed. You will also find some anatomy articles tagged with WPMED only, because some taggers (from outside these projects) aren't aware that WPANAT exists. I recommend re-evaluating them all from scratch. Speaking as the person who has, over the years, done more WPMED assessment work than anyone else, I am unlikely to object if you remove WPMED tags from articles that are primarily anatomy-focused whenever that seems reasonable to you. I trust your judgment. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I have not been looking for Anatomy articles that are only tagged with WP Med. If well known body parts are in WP Med, then is this documented anywhere? Note that Arm, Finger, Eyelash, Gland, Hamstring, Abdomen, Humerus, Iris (anatomy), Jugular vein, Frontal lobe, Lens (anatomy), Left atrium, Epiglottis, Cerebellum are not part of WP Med. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not documented anywhere. It's been done, and it gets undone periodically, and we don't worry too much about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I propose we remove "Additionally, tag with {{WikiProject Medicine}} only for anatomy articles with prominent clinical content." WPAN is enough. Snowman it would be great if you remove the WPMED tags from the anatomy articles you find with it and make sure WPAN is there. We here should concentrate on disease related articles. The problem we encounter if we tag all anatomy articles is that sex related topics will become our most viewed articles. The media pays attention to this and we already have received some poor press regarding this. It makes recruitment of physicians more difficult. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that I can run through all these pages and do the necessary tagging or un-tagging, but I need a clear criteria to work by. Currently the consensus is looking somewhat unclear, and so I can not do anything. I am not promising anything. I would like to know;

1. Are the current statements at WP:MED? about tagging the rules for me to work by. If so:

1a. What is significant clinical content in an anatomy article? Snowman (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

1b. Is that the clinical content alone looks like better than a Stub workable for a WP Med article? Snowman (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

1c. Are basic anatomy parts that a child would know automatially classified within WP Med?

2. Is there so much disagreement in this discussion that a new consensus is needed? If so;

1a. Any suggestions? Snowman (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

3. WP:MED? stats that hospitals and people are not part of WP Med. Snowman (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

3a. What does people mean - famous doctors, famous people with diseases, authors or what?

3b. Is everyone happy that hospitals are not in WP Med or not? Snowman (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Here are my clear criteria: Do what seems sensible according to your own very good judgment, based on your already good understanding of the situation, and don't worry about it beyond that. If someone really, really needs one of these to be double-tagged, then they'll re-add it. If the response is silence, then assume that you did it correctly.

(Firm answers: 1c, definitely not. It happens, it's not consistent, we don't worry about it. 3a means mostly famous people with diseases. We tolerate articles about healthcare workers, businesses, etc. 3b, definitely happy.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate the confidence that User WhatamIdoing has in me; nevertheless, doing a lot of quick edits tends to attract scrutiny. I think that it is best to have a long run of edits well planned and have a consensus in support. Snowman (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I am happy for hospitals not to be tagged with WPMED now that we have WP:HOSPITAL. Maybe we should develop clear consensus before wide ranging changes are made. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:03, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

• I have found 66 WP Hospital articles that are currently in WP Med. Some of these are general pages; such as clinic, hospital, field hospital, birth centre, burn centre, sanatorium, teaching hospital, and more. Most of the others are about specific hospital buildings. If there is a consensus, I would remove the unwanted WP Med banners. I am not promising anything. I am anticipating a consensus in favour of removing names hospital buildings consistent with "WP:MED?". I would welcome opinions on removing tags from the more general pages. Any comments? Snowman (talk) 20:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

You have my support to remove WPMED from the specific hospitals. I have no strong opinion WRT the terms above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that removing WP Med banners from named hospital buildings does not have any opposition at this juncture. This should not be controversial as this is consistent with "WP:MED?". I plan to wait a few more days to let other people have a chance to have a say, before removing these from WP Med. Snowman (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

• Personally speaking, I think that WP Med should include general hospital pages like; hospital, clinic, burn unit, and so on, so I will not remove the WP Med banners from these unless there is a consensus. "WP:MED?" refers to "Hospitals and other medical facilities where healthcare is undertaken", which could be interpreted as being named buildings and not general pages. Comments awaited. Snowman (talk) 18:05, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree with that. NB the Hospitals project are covered in the current Signpost - see Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2014-11-12/WikiProject_report, if people want to know where they are coming from. Nice things said about Endometrial cancer as a new FA too:"Endometrial cancer (nominated by Keilana) Something of a rarity: a health and medicine FA, (and a fantastic article it is too). The article concerns that cancer which .... [v quick summary] ... The re-write and review process included an expert review from Cancer Research UK." Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:50, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I also agree: we keep Hospital (as does the other project, of course) but not individual hospitals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

• Update: I found and removed just under 40 hospital buildings from WP Med. This includes teaching hospitals. I found over a dozen general pages (such as hospital, clinic, trauma centre, teaching hospital and so on) which retain the WP Med banner. There were three medical schools as well, which I removed. Snowman (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I have returned the WP Med banners to the three medical schools, which are not hospitals. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Endometrial cancer for Today's Featured Article

I've set-up Endometrial cancer as a blurb for the Today's Featured Article requests process.

You can see it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Endometrial cancer.

However, as I myself have nominated a bunch of other articles lately, I won't actually transclude it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests.

If anyone else wishes to do so, they can follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests, and then a discussion will start as to the article's consideration for the Main Page.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that most of the work is too new. I think that it is best to let it settle for a few months. Snowman (talk) 19:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Medical schools and WPMED

Medical schools are not mentioned in "WP:MED?". Are medical school articles part of WP Med or not? Snowman (talk) 11:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Ones on institutions are like the hospitals surely. Ones on what is taught are, I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

• Right now they can be classified into Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Society_and_medicine_task_force. They are part of WP:MED if no one else wants them, but WP:MED does not want them much either. I want people with questions to have a place to ask them but I wish they had someplace to go other than here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • The scope at wp:HOS explicitly descopes from education establishments, directing editors to WPMED. The page at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Directory/Science is rather confusingly self-referential. I'd suggest that lack of progress here has mainly been because of unclear guidance. Instead, we should have words at wp:HOS that explicitly say where teaching hospitals and medical schools belong. There's probably room for guidance somewhere at wp:Business and wp:WikiProject Education too. Category talk:Hospitals is interesting in what it doesn't say. Similarly, Category:Teaching_hospitals is interestingly in Category:Medical education, Category:Hospitals, and Category:Medical research organizations. It seems like the category tree may not precisely align with the projects. I suppose it comes down to this question: Is a teaching hospital a hospital that also teaches or an educational establishment that also provides medical and surgical care? Is one answer always correct, or do they vary in their orientation? LeadSongDog come howl! 17:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
  • We usually keep medical schools (but not the hospitals that they are connected with), on the grounds that training for any healthcare profession is related to medicine. As Doc James says, they should be marked as |society=yes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there is a difference between a teaching hospital and a medical school. Snowman (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Right. Teaching hospitals make for better prime-time TV soap opera ;\) Anyhow, where and what should we tell editors approaching each category of topic? LeadSongDog come howl! 22:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

In the UK many ordinary hospitals formally teach medical students. They used to have (T) or (Teaching) after the name of hospital or the heath authority to indicate this. What about the definitions of institute, clinic, or college?. A Wiki article about a medical school will probably say what teaching hospitals and other hospitals, clinics, and institutes are attached. I would think that WP Med would be interested in medical schools. Logically, WP Med would also be interested in hospitals where medical students are taught, but there would be rather a lot. I looked in dictionaries; "teaching hospital" or "university hospital" tend to be regional hospitals and also provide teaching, but "medical school" was not in two medical dictionaries I looked at. I am not sure if the terminology means different things in different parts of the world or if the medical set-up is different in different part of the world. I think that WP Hospital are interested in hospital administration, so they might know. Snowman (talk) 00:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Paper from 1966

Just on the off chance, does anyone happen to have access to (or, heaven forbid, a physical copy they could take cellphone pics of) this older reference:

References

I'm trying to track down a historical claim. Gluck was probably behind the first NICU, although it really depends how you define NICU. I have a couple of other supporting refs. Yale-New Haven was certainly key to the development of the modern unit, and it's a much-cited paper... but sadly, my university library doesn't have a full-text option. Cheers, Basie (talk) 08:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I looked, but no luck here. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 01:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I can send you a copy in a few days - please send me an email. -- Scray (talk) 02:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Basie: I have the Gluck PDF now; I just need a way to send it to you. BTW, a challenge with attributing "first" NICU will be defining when modern NICUs came into being (i.e. what constitutes a modern NICU). For example, here has a competing claim, and the citation in that article (supporting Stahlman) suffers from the same self-referential COI issues that Gluck's claim has in the current lead paragraph of our NICU article. -- Scray (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You're not kidding! To make matters worse, the latest change to that article was from an IP... when I did a geolocate, it was from Yale-New Haven Hospital! So that editor got warned about COI. The safest thing may be not to make any claims at all, but to acknowledge that Stahlman may have been the first to ventilate a neonate, and Gluck was a pioneer in NICU design. I've emailed you so you can send the PDF, thanks so much for your help! Cheers, Basie (talk) 02:03, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done -- Scray (talk) 13:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Eating recovery

what do we do with it - discuss at talk page. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Rename to management of eating disorders for starters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)