Maybe a reference to Swyer syndrome? This review article looks at a bunch of XY female syndromes (and no other searches on a quick review Pubmed using "XY female" came up with much else). Swyer syndrome comes closest to the description with normal genitals, fallopian tubes, uterus, tall stature but they have gonadal dysgenesis and therefore cannot menstruate which does not match that AFD'd article. Yobol (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
I would like to bring WP:Hospitals in as a daughter project, similar to how WP:Anatomy works. WP:HOS tags will generally replace WPMED tags in hospital articles. There are approximately 3,000 hospital articles on Wikipedia, and over 17,000 hospitals worldwide. Ng.j (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Scope of project
With the creation of WP:Hospitals, we at WPMED need to re-evaluate whether or not to include hospitals in this project's scope. Should we turf all hospital articles to WP:Hospitals (similar to anatomy articles), or still keep them within the scope of WPMED (like articles within our task forces)? --Scott Alter (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
It's been a week, and it looks like there is a clear consensus and no objections. I will assess hospital articles and replace tags as I go. Please leave current WPMED tags on hospital articles. Ng.j (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Universal publication guidelines
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Are there a set of universal publication guidelines that journals (such as NEJM, JAMA, JMIR, etc) all follow when publishing papers? For example, is the inclusion of a corresponding author e-mail address with a publication required nowadays? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
Hi, Are there any experts here on anatomical models? I am beginning to fix various articles in the Computer generated imagery neighborhood. There is a paragraph there about architectural images, and a paragraph or two about "anatomically correct" models would be nice. I can manage the computer simulation parts, but I am not sure how the technology is used in anatomy. Are anatomically correct models actually used for instruction in medical schools etc.? I guess they are, but conformation from someone in the field will be good. Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute includes images of a torso rendered pretty nicely. Is it anatomically correct? I asked because models used in Skeletal animation are not anatomically correct, and it matters not. But the article Virtual patient is waiting in the lounge of the ER room, waiting for medical help, with fellow patients Visible Human Project and Living Human Project. Those are not on my immediate path, but it would be nice if someone would give them a facelift of some type. Eventually a good template for uniting these will be nice. And talking of facelifts, Facial expression and Computer facial animation also need help.
I used to have a copy of Gray's book on anatomy (not that I tread it much) but about 2-3 years ago, as I was cleaning things up I threw it away, because anything I needed was on the web. So the future of anatomy is online. Wikipedia articles should probably catchup to that.
We are all waiting for Frank Netter's atlases to enter the public domain. I think we have another 20-30 years to wait if we are lucky. I hear that the recent medical students are using computers simulations rather than human cadavers to study gross anatomy in some places.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, Netter was a useful name. I did not know about him. Thanks. I will dig up more on that. But while I was waiting in the lounge, I did a few searches and if you look at Computer-generated_imagery#Anatomical_models now, I added a few paragraphs. It seems to me that there are two sperate issues here:
Generic anatomically correct models. Here is where Netter will win. These can be used in education.
Patient specific anatomical variations. He can not help there. E.g. the diversity of the shape, diameter and position of the coronary ostia still require patient specific CT scans that no generic model can anticipate.
So it remains to be seen if an open source approach to plugging together anonymized patient specific models will yield results sooner than Ciba will open up. My guess is that when Cibe realizes that their material has no value they will release it, so time will tell. But if you have other keywords that can help in that section, they will be appreciated. Now let me give you an idea: if you MD-guys start an open source anonymized repository of patient specific models, then that will get things rolling. Is there some type of public database for that? Maybe Wikimedia? Who knows? It will cost nothing. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Nearly all students still use Netter's thus the textbook market is good. He was an incredible artist who dedicated his life to this work. He has also done stuff on diseases such as one sees here [4] and [5]. Here are the variations of coronary arteries you requested [6]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
E.g. please see diagram on page 528 and the discussion just before it. Although the topology and connectivity of the ostia may be similar, the metric structure is not. Years ago I had a 3D model of my heart done (I am fine thanks) and I saw it compared with others with far more problems. I would have let them download it to Wikimedia along with others. So I suggest that Wikimedia be used as a repository for many 3D models of anonymous patients who grant rights. I think 80% of patients will not object. That will then be a very useful resource for all students worldwide. And it will cost nothing. Jim Wales will fund it, without knowing, and it will be "real models". And no permission is required, as long as the patients sign something. Any MD can start and it can just grow from there. History2007 (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Ok, if there are no legal barriers, then we just needs to solve the technical issues. I will take a look at what Wikimedia allows, and post a few questions for various people. In general, an interactive 3d system would have been ideal, but will probably not work on Wikimedia as is. However, there are piles of animated 3D images floating around that woul dbe just rotating. Please give me a few days to ask questions, then we will see what the best way may be. But to have a 3D image, the input needs to have had 3D capabilities. I have seen hearts on 3D interactive systems, but the 3D software was specific to the workstation. However, a series of snapshots of the rotations can be captured and turned into an animated image. But again, I need to know what the Wikimedia policies are, and I have not looked into that yet. But I will ask. In the mean time, I touched up Computer-generated_imagery#Anatomical_models with Netter, and if see any errors, please correct them. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that DNA image is a GIF file. That is of course one option, but a discussion has started here, and we should wait for more responses and ideas. I think there is interest on Wikimedia, but discussions should continue for more input. Further suggestions can be obtained, but let us wait a day or two for Wikimedia people. We should see what the long term direction of supported Wikimedia items may be and I do not know that yet. However, as of October 25 2010 suggestions were being sought. I think we should see what the Wikimedia people say, then decide on a strategy. But overall, I have a feeling that if the right format is selected, in the long term these medical images will find their way into Wikimedia, and we should just do it right by conforming to their standards. However, I also think that this application can influence their standards, given that they are still not frozen, and this could be a very useful application. I see some a day when some hospital will donate many images once the project gets going. I will leave people some messages about that too. History2007 (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
I think our discussion on graphic formats for anatomy was just
overcome by events, and also here. So this means that we know where the "medical student of the future" will get info, because as the Google people throw money at these projects, the direction will be set, and it will be a case of follow the tape. I think the best option is to wait 6 months, then revisit the issue. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not know what will happen in 6-12 months, but do know that the current period is a time of transition. So my strategy is to wait before I spend effort on this now. Of course, you could proceed in any case. History2007 (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Now I don't know if it checks out, and it that's the real deal, as potential cures as always reported from time to time, but this would (apparently) be the first time someone is actually cured from HIV/AIDS
Kristina Allers, Gero Hütter, Jörg Hofmann, Christoph Loddenkemper, Kathrin Rieger, Eckhard Thiel and Thomas Schneider (8 December 2010). "Evidence for the cure of HIV infection by CCR532/32 stem cell transplantation". Blood. 116 (25). doi:10.1182/blood-2010-09-309591.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
It might check out, it might not check out. This project will know what to do with this information. If anything, particular attention should be paid to stem cells/HIV/AIDS-related articles because of the increase activity this will bring.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}12:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:REDFLAG, I would want to defer inclusion of this one-patient report until there is either a very strong secondary source or a larger cohort (ideally both). Most "medical breakthroughs" reported in the news never make it to prime time. Given the success of antiretrovirals and the essentially normal lifespan now enjoyed by people with HIV if diagnosed timely, it is unlikely that this treatment will ever be offered routinely. JFW | T@lk14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I initially thought of the above as being one and the same but after some basic reading I concluded that they were different (one being an acute form, the other a chronic form). However, as I am not a medical expert I thought I would leave this here: [8] for someone to clarify/correct as necessary (and even possibly merge the two together if they are not any different). Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Hamman-Rich syndrome is an alternative name for acute interstitial pneumonitis. This is a different disease from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Axl¤[Talk]12:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion
There's been some talk at WP:VPI about making pie charts. At this time, our options have some limitations, but here's a few options that may interest editors here:
Single statistic with a simple bar graph
70 / 100
70% of women with breast cancer have no known risk factors
This is a table that contains two templates, both of which were designed for some other purpose. It would be better with a border around it, but style="border: 1px solid darkgray" isn't working for me today. (It seems to be a choice between floating right or drawing a border.)
17 / 19
17 out of 19 new parents need more sleep.
It's not restricted to percentages—you can set it to any real number X out of real number Y—but it is restricted to a single statistic. Also, the color can be changed to "red", "green", "blue", or any hex value.
150 / 10,000
150 out of 10,000 people have this condition.
As the bar is exactly 100 pixels wide, it's not a good choice for displaying numbers less than 1%.
This template may be useful for articles that you really, really, really want to put an image in, but can't find anything.
Beautiful graph—but only visible offwiki
Today's Schedule
Task
Hours per Day
Work
11
Eat
2
Sleep
7
{{Visualizer}} is a template that uses the Toolserver to produce gorgeous and complex charts. You take your average data table, and add an extra line that says: |+ {{visualizer| <Some title goes here> |chart=pie |link=View graph}} just before your first data/header column.
The main advantage is that you could paste this line into just about any existing data table, and it would work as soon as you save the page. There are a bunch of different options beyond pie charts. Also, the graphs it produces are totally beautiful.
The main disadvantage is that most readers probably won't click the link.
Poor man's chart
{{Brick chart}} is a simple block-oriented chart template. It assumes that everything must add up to 100% in the end, and fills in any missing amounts with "other".
You can label (and optionally choose colors for) each item, and the labels can be wikilinks to relevant articles.
I'm not certain that it always works correctly: as I type this, it's showing the blue "cancer" item as much smaller than the yellow "respiratory" item, and it should be the other way around.
Google documents is a great program for doing this. You enter the data into a spread sheet and it has lots of options for chart creation. This for example was created with google docs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
70 / 100
70% of women with breast cancer have no known risk factors
Nice work WAID, and very informative. The border works for me using style="float:right; border:1px solid darkgray;". The Brick chart wants integers for the |value parameters, so if you round them, it works. --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Google also has this thing called fusion tables [9] which I have been playing with to generate maps. Here is one on TB for example. You just fill the data into the spread sheet and hit visualize. It does the rest of the work for you. All you need to do is then hit print screen, copy the image in paint, crop it and upload it. If make the spread sheet open and link it when you upload it mistakes can be easily corrected by others.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion, this brick chart is an ugly eyesore. I am unconvinced that its use improves an article beyond that of a simple table. (A pie chart would be much better.) Can anyone show me an article where a brick chart has improved it? Axl¤[Talk]12:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Aside from whether can be shown to be notable organisation - I've hacked out the off-topic duplication of discussing the condition itself - leaves little left. David RubenTalk12:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This article contains some rather strange hand drawn diagrams - can someone expert in this area ascertain whether the diagrams are correct/helpful? Probably should be replaced with proper graphics in any case. Exxolon (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Seeing a whiteboard sketch in the middle of an article makes me smile, but doubtless they'll be replaced some day by something that looks "professional". They look like basic physiology diagrams, not really specific to snake toxins. One's a nerve junction and the other two are cell membranes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Medical garden
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. A request was added at the Proposed Merges project page to move "Stereotaxis" to "Remote Magnetic Navigation".
It comes under WP:Requested moves really, but since it'd already been posted ... I had a look and it was immediately clear what the editor meant. The page contains no company info - sole focus is the product. On closer inspection there seems to be a cluster of articles. There's a walled garden quality about them, and the SPA who created that one made another in the same style.
I'm wondering if they're a) "promotional" b) WP:Notable enough to warrant a standalone article. I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, so don't feel able to determine if and how they should remain and evaluate them for those concerns. It needs need technically-qualified eyes, I think. Could someone from this WikiProject take a look? Thanks, Whitehorse104:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC).
Yes, I just commented on that above, before I saw your post. That is where the "med student of the future" will get info. Given the funding they have, they will set the direction for that, without doubt. Patient specific models will be done later, when they try to manage info for the "physician of the future" on his Android-based physician-phone, but that will come in time, as they try to get another advantage. But the handwriting is on the wall already. It is just a question of waiting for it. History2007 (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
Right now although nobody has opposed the image it still need 3 more positive votes to be featured... If anybody thinks it is worth it votes would be a great Christmas present.:-) --Garrondo (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
FAC
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I would be very grateful if contributors from this WikiProject could offer their opinions on this article. It is not long. JFW | T@lk17:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Tighter requirements per MEDASSESS
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
Per WP:MEDASSESS: In general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, (e.g., conventional wisdom).
Editors do need to show how the recenty added guidelines are equal to the other sources when there are a lot more higher quality sources presented. According to MEDASSESS, rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence.
That principle seems pretty well established. The question should be whether or not the edit linked violates the principle. If I read the diff correctly, it is providing a citation of a more recent but less authoritative source. It is intrinsic to the incrementalist nature of science that recent works are built on old foundations. Just because someone published a top-quality work once, doesn't mean newer, lesser-quality sources should be excluded. LeadSongDogcome howl!23:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Guidelines are good sources if they are evidence-based (e.g. most guidelines produced by NICE in the UK follow EBM methodology). They can also reflect a standard of care that would normally be extended, which is a piece of information you often don't find in other sources. JFW | T@lk01:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Savigny P, Kuntze S, Watson P, Underwood M, Ritchie G , Cotterell M, Hill D, Browne N, Buchanan E, Coffey P, Dixon P, Drummond C, Flanagan M, Greenough,C, Griffiths M, Halliday-Bell J, Hettinga D, Vogel S, Walsh D. (2009). "Low Back Pain: early management of persistent non-specific low back pain"(PDF). National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General Practitioners. Retrieved 2010-12-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
"The case reports confirm previous reports associating upper spinal manipulation with a range of complications. The most serious problems are vertebral artery dissection as a result of overstretching of the artery during rotational manipulation of the neck. Spinal manipulation was associated with risks such as vascular accidents and nonvascular complications in a number of case series. Case-control studies suggested a causal relationship between upper spinal manipulation and the adverse effect."
Sorry to chime in late, but I was only now made aware of this discussion by QG. I am the editor who is disputing QGs proposed removal of the guidelines from the low back pain section at Chiropractic. I hope I am not being too bold in posting a comment in this discussion, as I am relatively new here and trying to learn the 'ropes'.
The two sources to which QG refers are not at all the same. One is a systematic review carried out by the American Pain Society and the American College of Physicians, the second is a set of guidelines developed jointly by the American Pain Society and the American College of Physicians with regard to the "Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain".
As per MEDASSESS:"In general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence" As per WP:MEDRS: "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include the literature reviews and systematic reviews found in medical journals; specialist professional or academic books; and position statements or medical guidelines published by major health organizations."
The 2007 guidelines were jointly published by two highly reputable American medical bodies. Thus, according to MEDRS, both the review and the guidelines are a secondary source and among the highest type of evidence available. Further, As per WP:MEDASSESS: "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years.". Thus, these 2007 guidelines also fit this requirement. If the section needs to be made shorter, there are two 2006 reviews, which can be removed as they should be covered by the many more recent reviews in the section.
These guidelines are especially valuable to the section as they put the results of the many reviews into context. Currently the section contains only reviews. The guidelines are the only source putting the results into context for a reader. It would be very unfortunate to lose them until a newer set of guidelines are released by an equally or more reputable medical body.Puhlaa (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm confused by QuackGuru's two sources. One is about LBP and the other about upper cervical manipulation and VAD, two very different and unrelated matters. I'm confused by the sight of an apple and a lettuce leaf. What gives? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
QG, Brangifer was referring to LBP and VAD, which you cited from the 2009 study. He was not (I believe) commenting on the two 2007 LBP sources. And just in case there's a question about ACP/APS guidelines, here's the details: "The literature search for this guideline included studies from MEDLINE (1966 through November 2006), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. The literature search included all English-language articles reporting on randomized, controlled trials of nonpregnant adults (age >18 years) with low back pain (alone or with leg pain) of any duration that evaluated a target medication and reported at least 1 of the following outcomes: back-specific function, generic health status, pain, work disability, or patient satisfaction. The American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Pain Society (APS) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop the key questions and scope used to guide the evidence report, review its results, and formulate recommendations. The background papers by Chou and colleagues (15, 16) provide details about the methods used for the systematic evidence review." In other words, in what way is this not systematic or high-quality per MEDRS? Ocaasi (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Genital anatomy, fetal development, agenesis and evolution - getting the big picture
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Noticed that looking at eg vagina an uneducated reader would find the relevant articles about fetal development, differentiation and evolutionary aspects only by pure luck. Should there be more categories? Or current categories expanded and crosslinked? Richiez (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
The current categorization of the article Vagina seems too broad to me. It would be enough to include it in Category:Female external genital organs. The categorization of medical articles in the field of gynecology and obstetrics would need serious work as categories are too broad and include too many articles. --Eleassarmy talk16:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I thought in a recent edit that 'causality' could be changed to 'cause' without losing precision and while dropping a touch of unneeded jargon. (The change was reverted). Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
I'd say the word "cause" is much better. Causality refers more to the strength of a causal relationship than the actual cause. JFW | T@lk07:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, the inappropriate use of a fancy-sounding word has reminded me that someday we're going to have to get Blanchard's transsexualism etiology moved. The editors (apparently all transwomen without no more technical understanding than I have of rugby) don't quite seem to grasp the difference between a "cause" and a "psychological typology that hints at a cause". The article title was chosen despite both published reliable sources and direct, on-wiki efforts by a psychologist at Blanchard's institution saying that it was wrong.
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
Could someone who has access to full text of journal sources lend a hand at Spinal stenosis? I initially was only completing missing citation information (the citations are incomplete, do not include PMIDs or journal article titles, see Talk:Spinal stenosis#Non-surgical intervention), but as I worked, I found extensive plagiarism and an extreme overreliance of very dated primary sources. I've removed several instances of plagiarism and am working to convert the citations so they can be checked, but my concern is that if the entire article is plagiarized, my time will be misspent and the article should be blanked as a copyvio. I don't have access to sources, but the ones I removed were direct copies of article abstracts; could someone who has journal access take a look at the citations at the top of the article that I have completed so far, and let me know if they contain plagiarism? If not, I'll continue updating the citations; if so, the article should be blanked as a copyvio. If it's not a copyvio, it nonetheless needs to be updated to include secondary reviews and minimize primary sources, but I can't determine that until I finish converting the citations ... for now, I just need to know if all of the sources, to which I don't have access, are plagiarized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Ugh, and look at this; over a dozen sources for a simple statement, indicating likely synthesis, and the need for a secondary review source. In order to determine if there are any reviews in that mass of citations, I have to locate every one of them in PubMed; this occurs throughout the article. Does anyone have full text access to a review source that can be used to replace things like this throughout the article, so I don't have to spend days locating and converting these citations, which are mostly primary sources anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't know .. it's such a mess I hardly know where to begin. I just need someone who has journal access to determine how extensive the plagiarism is, but the article has huge and multiple issues. See talk. I'm afraid the article is a waste of time in spite of looking like it was a good article, and I HATE that Wiki has irresponsible medical articles-- I came to this article looking for info, and I initially trusted it-- now I don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
I did a couple of spot checks of User:A E Francis' work and it seems that it was he who added some (or most) of the plagiarized information ([12] and PMID17436921, for example, though other edits like the "Failure to relieve symptoms" section of this edit seems to be OK). He added so much to the article (much of that has since been removed, but others haven't) that I don't think it is worth trying to salvage it. NW(Talk)07:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Poor sourcing, synthesis, plagiarism ... if someone can determine that the plagiarism is extensive (beyond what I've already removed), the article should be blanked per copyvio and rewritten to secondary reviews, but without journal access, I hardly know where to start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
On second thought, I think I shall hold off. James seems to be doing a fantastic job rewriting the article, and looking at prior versions of the page, I think it is acceptable to do that rather than start from scratch; the plagiarism isn't as extensive as to require that. NW(Talk)18:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Schizophrenia
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
I have nominated Schizophrenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Basket of Puppies23:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Gee, you spent, what, a whole day on FAR's first step?
Let me repeat that for you, just in case you missed that in the directions:
Raise issues at article Talk
In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.
Maybe you should actually try that step for more than two days (over a holiday weekend, no less) before you introduce the hassle and bureaucratic overhead of a listed FAR? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
General question:
Is there a guideline with regard to categorization of medical articles?
I looked at WP:MEDMOS... and don't feel that really helped me a lot.
Specific situation:
I recently created chorangioma... and then wondered about what would be the best category for it. I think it would fit in a category called placenta, placental pathology, or (dependent on size) health issues in pregnancy. There are a slew of placenta-related articles (placenta previa, placental abruption, placental site trophoblastic tumour, chorioamnionitis)... and I wonder whether a unifying category is in order.
Full disclosure:
I put it into placenta twice and it has been reverted twice.
General answer: There's no general answer. DERM and PHARM have both done good things, if you're interested in finding models.
Specific answer: The problem at the article is that Category:Placenta doesn't exist. You could create the cat if you wanted to populate it and to graft it in the cat tree structure in suitable places. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I started a discussion last year about expanding the categories section of medmos (at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)/Archive6#Categorization guidelines), but it got sidetracked and never concluded. Maybe I should just put it in to medmos and see what happens! In general, I try to categorize disease articles by ICD-10 code, which is by organ system. A category named for a body part/system would only contain articles about anatomical parts of that organ/system, but it may contain a subcategory of disorders effecting that body part/system. According to ICD-10, the articles you mentioned should be in "(O30–O48) Maternal care related to the fetus and amniotic cavity and possible delivery problems", which is within Category:Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium disorders (which is within Category:Diseases and disorders). This specific subcategory does not yet exist, but it should be created (and possibly less wordy). --Scott Alter (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments WhatamIdoing & Scott. Looks like Health issues in pregnancy is pretty close. Ideal would be if it were expanded to Health issues in pregnancy and childbirth -- it would then mirror the ICD-10. I'll ask Cgingold, the creator the category (Health issues in pregnancy), about this idea. Scott be bold and add the stuff... I think more is better. If it isn't perfect... someone will come along and tweak it. :-) Nephron T|C04:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
MEDRS queries
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
This is to note that an {{Expert-subject}} template has been added to the Lung volumes article in the Values section. Certain volume values have come into question as noted on the Lung volumes talk page. Thank you in advance for any help you can give, and I hope you all have the happiest of holidays this season!
— Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 07:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
The psychiatric usage is clearly primary, but I've only ever made one simple page move and am unsure how to unscramble this. Would someone like to try? Anthony (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi everyone, I would like to invite you here for a discussion on this topic. I argue that the 3,500 year old Sankrit meaning is clearly trumps a materialist meaning which is at most ~500 years old (Francis Bacon) or most likely Freud (~100 years old) I will settle for the disambiguation page, which is most fair to both meanings :) Can we revert the deletion of the disambiguation page please? I promise to expand Delusion (spirituality) over the next few weeks, referenced. Best, -- Bill Huston(talk)03:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
An editor whose talk page history indicates frequent problems (he regularly cleans it, so check the history) is now rather upset and ranting against Big Pharma on the article's talk page. Will someone who knows more about this subject take a look? -- Brangifer (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks to those who have done their part. From their track record I doubt that that individual will accept advice, but you've tried. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If you are involved in one of our many task forces, would you please check the redirects to the task force to make sure they're properly categorized? All shortcuts should be tagged with {{R from shortcut}}.
There was a proposal to have a bot do this back in the spring, but it appears that it didn't get off the ground, so we get to do it by hand. Tim1357 generated a target list in May that might be useful for checking the status of "your" redirects. I've picked up at least most of them for the main project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
It was not a vandalism: oxazepam is a short-acting benzodiazepine and it's more useful for sleep-onset insomnia than for middle-of-the-night insomnia. I undid your edit. --Doc.mari (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, couldn't tell from the diff which one was right, and the newer edit wasn't particularly well formatted so it looked sketchy. Ocaasi (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
(outdent) Oxazepam has a slow onset of action, I have reverted and added a reference. It is mostly used as an anxiolytic or sometimes for alcohol or benzo withdrawal in individuals prone to accumulation of long-acting diazepam and chlordiazepoxide. It has never to my knowledge been marketed or licensed as a hypnotic, perhaps because of it's slower onset of action, but I suppose some doctors may choose to use it off-label for insomnia say in the elderly as it is a "milder" and lower potency benzo.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?17:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
There seemed to be a lot of research showing that Oxazepam is slow-acting compared to Diazepam but I don't know if that justifies slow in relative or absolute terms. How fast does something have to be for it to qualify as "fast" or "slow"? Also, is it going beyond our scope to describe specific indications like 'use drug x for staying asleep but not falling asleep' or is this ok as long as we're just describing common practice or guidelines? Ocaasi (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It's okay, and even good, to describe typical uses. Statements like "X is used for Y, but not Z" helps the reader place the drug in a proper context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
BMJ Case Reports
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, does anyone here have access to BMJ Case Reports? I'm looking for copies of a few listed here for use in the mephedrone article and would be greatful if anyone could email me copies. (I know that these wouldn't normally be good sources, but in this case they are the only ones available at the moment.) Thanks SmartSE (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, that use of case reports may be justified for this drug given the drug's short time period on the illicit scene and lack of research and major gaps in information. Hopefully someone will be able to help you track down the sources you are looking for.--Literaturegeek | T@1k?17:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Ugh, the entire "Theory" section appears to be WP:OR; why is it discussing hyperventilation when the purported use is for asthma? And did someone actually write FEV1 and peak flows can't be used to evaluate asthmatics? The lead mentions a cochrane review, but I don't see it as a ref? That page needs lots of work. Yobol (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
The second one is easy: an en dash: Hand–arm vibration syndrome as it stands for and. See WP:ENDASH, "1. Disjunction: To stand for and between independent elements"
The first is not so easy because it's an acronym, and I actually wouldn't expect a dash or hyphen from a lexical perspective. However, your second source uses a hyphen, so my suggestion is to do the same – although I suspect a case could be made for applying the rule I quoted above and using an en dash as it could be considered to stand for and. If you wanted an authoritative answer, the expert is Tony1, so you could drop him a line on his talk page.
P.S. Don't forget that article titles containing an en dash should also have a redirect using a hyphen, to assist folks searching for the topic. HTH --RexxS (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article keeps getting whitewashed by people who insist on downplaying the fact that it isn't national healthcare, and so on. I wouldn't put it past the private insurance companies and/or their allies in the USGov't to have a vested interest in seeing to it that the PPACA's provisions are made to look as 'populist' as possible. Would those of you in this project please take a look at my recent revisions to the article and let me know how you think I might be able to say much the same things without WP:POV challenges being lobbed at me all the time? The stuff I add is objective truth, not editoralizing as is being accused. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Please comment at FAC
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Congratulations are due to JFW on his piloting of the article through a tough process. I was especially heartened to see so many comments and constructive criticisms from the regulars here, and both the article and Wikipedia have benefited as a result. --RexxS (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm happy to manually collect the data outlined here (unless there are automated methods I'm not aware of) but will need help with the formal analysis. Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Could some one knowledgeable please make and update to the article? We have consensus to post it on ITN but all we have are an astronomer and an Anthropologist and neither of us are terribly good with medicinal articles. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been so impressed by the intelligent and collegial performance of all editors at these articles over the last 36 hours. Warms my heart. Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Talk:Crisis pregnancy center#RFC:_Pictures_of_sonograms could use some uninvolved editors. The ostensible question is whether a section specifically discussion anti-abortion groups' use of ultrasounds to influence pregnant women should be permitted to display a sonogram, or whether showing (rather than merely telling) the reader what the groups are doing constitutes an NPOV violation as an "emotional argument". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Wanted to let the community know...
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
WP:COMMONNAME advises that we use Bedbug as the title in preference to Cimicidae. It seems a little odd to redirect the plural to infestation instead of the singular, but I can see the argument. The articles link to each other fairly prominently, so there is not much danger that our readers might become lost. I have no real opinion on further separating the biology vs. health aspects of the topic. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Watchlisted. Nice article, WAID. If you're looking for an image DYK, then I'd suggest the 'pink ribbon' is easily recognisable, with perhaps the sentence "The first breast cancer awareness stamp in the U.S., featuring a pink ribbon, was issued 1996" as the hook text. --RexxS (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Given that it is a borrowed term from French, I can understand why it might be italicised. WP:ITAL (section "Foreign terms") seems to be covering it. JFW | T@lk20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
PPACA language insertion controversy
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project at GAN
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I have found the above article at GAN and added it to the project. Quite controversial since it mixes strong doses of US patriotism, scientology, Tom Cruise, and health issues... Point is that I am not to sure on whether it follows correctly MEDRS for the medical claims... Maybe somebody is brave enough to go for it... --Garrondo (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
On second read they probably are following MEDRS... There is enough critique of the treatment from reliable sources. Still maybe somebody is interested in reviewing it at GAN.--Garrondo (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
A few more eyes
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This editor User:Harrygouvas edits Wikipedia using primarily papers he himself has written. They are not generally review articles. Help getting some of the papers he has worked on inline with policy would be appreciated. Have provided him some feedback. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Adoptee
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Working in german medical WIKI on ankle fracture (my edit), patella, osteochondritis etc I started correcting potts Fraktur in german. Looking for better versions I found yours in englisch. I would like to commend on that. nomen49--78.54.118.139 (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Histologic bodies
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Would someone like to deal with this? Second time. I've read a whole ton of literature on stimming, and haven't come across that. If there's a reliable source that says masturbation is a stim in the autistic or stereotypy sense, it should be found and cited. I don't really want to engage "LustyRoars". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
January collaboration
Latest comment: 13 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Given the high-level nature of the article, I wonder if we might do well to use a couple of top-quality medical textbooks for most of the basic/background information, rather than journal publications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Since many sections are completely unreferenced any secondary refs, either in journals or books, would be a huge improvement.--Garrondo (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Good news! The Reftoolbar tool just got autofilling support for PMID, DOI and ISBN. You can enable it by going to the Gadgets tab in your user preferences and checking the checkbox next to "refTools" under "Editing gadgets". If you then add a citation through the cite button above the edit field, and fill in the pmid or doi, all other details we automatically be filled. Makes referencing a lot easier. --WS (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago24 comments11 people in discussion
I'm looking for a quick estimate of our views.
Are there any subjects that are both (1) appropriate to include in an encyclopedia and (2) so complex that they cannot be explained at a level that an interested layperson could understand (at least most of it)?
For example: Is there any medicine-related article on Wikipedia that you think cannot be written so that I can understand it, or so that a typical university student could understand it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
There are clearly notable things in biochemistry and pharmacology that would probably be a pain to describe to the typical university student, as the typical university student probably doesn't understand organic chemistry. Can't think of any examples right now, but I imagine that there probably are some. NW(Talk)03:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I think there are many areas of medical science that are beyond most bright lay readers abilities to grasp without some serious study, and one could argue that they are encyclopaedic. I suspect, however, they are also probably at the limit of most general medical folks abilities too. Fortunately, most aspects of medicine do not require a planet-sized brain to understand. There doesn't appear to be a big audience here for such science-speciality stuff. In contrast, the maths folk write utterly impenetrable articles (you can't even read the lead sentence) but claim they have an audience for their articles and have consensus support for WP including a "graduate-level maths encyclopaedia" within its scope. Colin°Talk08:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. We have an inherent advantage, in that a large part of clinical medicine consists of explaining complex ideas to laypeople (i.e., patients). So there is actually a large, pre-existing body of effort and work on the question of how to clearly and simply communicate medical information, and we can draw on that for our articles. MastCellTalk19:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Most of psychiatry and surgery is easy to make accessible.....actually I can't think of a topic that I couldn't translate into "lay English" in general medicine. Maybe there is a challenge to find the trickiest one...? Casliber (talk·contribs) 22:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I find myelodysplasia one of the more challenging concepts to translate into lay terms, because it requires some knowledge of normal and abnormal hematopoiesis. And it's not quite a malignancy, but it kind of is, and some forms are treated with chemotherapy just like actual malignancies. And it's extremely heterogeneous. MastCellTalk22:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Colin's response leads me to the reason I asked: The folks at WT:MATH have received yet another complaint about their impenetrable articles and have responded to it with their (sadly) characteristic bad grace (not all of them, of course, but enough to set the tone).
One of them has begun a FAQ on why maths articles are so opaque, and in it asserts that their inability to explain things to non-experts "is no different from other specialized fields such as law and medicine."
While it's true that we have (hundreds, if not thousands) of articles that need to have jargon removed/explanations added/clarity improved, and while it is true that some concepts will require a bit of study, I don't think that there is a single subject within our remit that cannot be largely explained to a typical university student, at least for more than half the content.
Accordingly, I will eventually wander back to WT:MATH and object to the inclusion of medicine as an OTHERCRAPEXISTS-type justification for their unwillingness to do the hard work of making at least one sentence in each math-related article accessible to people without graduate degrees in mathematics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
I think they have a fundamentally different attitude, as exemplified here ("Wikipedia is used very frequently as a reference by practicing mathematicians. I value that much more than I value the ability of a random 8th grader to read exterior algebra.") They clearly prioritize the creation of a professional reference over that of a general-readership encyclopedia. And they seem to get away with it - I'm fairly certain we'd be tarred and feathered as "SPOV-pushers" or worse (if there is anything worse) if we suggested anything remotely similar for medical articles. I mean, look at the continual outcry over the minimal common-sense sourcing suggestions in WP:MEDRS... MastCellTalk22:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Having a degree in math I must say that math is hard and often not understandable. I am unable to understand my math notes from University. While some of it can be written in lay terminology understandable to all I would agree that probably all of it cannot. Medicine and law however are different and accessible to all ( I have never understood really how an MRI functions but that is physics/math ).Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Ozob is referring to undoing my bold edit at WikiProject Mathematics/FAQ. Out of curiosity, could someone point out a medical article whose lead can't be written in such a way that the average university student can understand it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I would be interested to see this, too. I have always assumed that such articles exist, because (for example) I don't understand articles like the above-linked myelodysplastic syndrome. But I have no proof that the article can't be written in such a way that I would understand it; I am outside of my specialty here and am not really in a position to judge. Ozob (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Have a look at the simple English and German versions of the article, they both do a pretty good job explaining it, our version has quite a lot of room for improvement. Like Doc James said above, MRI physics is probably the only thing I can think of that is next to impossible to explain in lay terminology. --WS (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
To me the MRI article seems crystal clear. Surely this is some effect of having a different background: When it talks about the frequency of photons emitted from a spin-aligned proton, I have a pretty good idea of what's going on. Whereas myelosydplastic syndrome is still impenetrable to me; the Simple English version doesn't have nearly as much content, and the German version (as far as I am able to tell) has the same problems as the English one.
For example, the description of the WHO classification gives "Refractory cytopenia with unilineage dysplasia" as a possible type of MDS. The only word that I understand in that phrase is "with". If I scroll back up to the top of the article, I find a definition of dysplasia, but not of any of the other words. I understand cyto- but not cytopenia or refractory cytopenia; I can guess at unilineage, but I don't know what unilineage dysplasia would mean.
What I suppose I'm really asking is: Do you expect someone without medical school, nursing school, biochemistry, or other similar training to be able to read this article? What about someone who didn't have such training, but who was willing to look up the other terms (for instance, I looked up cytopenia and now know what it means)? More generally, what do you think are reasonable prerequisites for your articles? Ozob (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I can do better than university level. Actually, it's not so much opaque as just written in a kind of stilted manner (e.g., the unnecessary passive voice in "Anemia is present"). I'll have a go at it, and then you can tell me what you think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Ozob, although the name is a technical description, I basically expect the normal people to treat "Refractory cytopenia with unilineage dysplasia" as a proper noun that is as inherently meaningless as if it were called "Foo bar with baz qux" or "Riemannian Penrose inequality" or "Celiac sprue". That table (which doesn't really make me happy anyway, and I'm convinced we could do better) is basically just a phrase book for translating the older set of terms into the newer set of terms. It's probably most useful to patients who are trying to figure out which article on Wikipedia is actually about their own diseases, or why different hematologists use different terms.
BTW, people interested in mathematics should take a look at the amazing new lead for exterior algebra. This is the first time I've ever been excited about a math-related article on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Access to article
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery seems like an incredibly-important journal of surgery, and yet there was no article on it. So I created one recently. However, surgery or medicine in general isn't my field, so I don't really know much about this one, or why exactly it is important, beside being the older journal of surgery. I'm dropping this project a note, because you people presumably have more clue than I when it comes to the history of surgery, and medical journals in general.
This article H. G. Beger (2010). "Archiv für Klinische Chirurgie to Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery: 1860–2010". Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery. 395 (suppl. 1): 3. doi:10.1007/s00423-010-0617-2. should have plenty of relevant information. However I cannot currently access it. WP Journal's writing guide has some basic advice for writing journal articles, and Astronomische Nachrichten is probably the best-written journal article on Wikipedia, so would be a very good model to base yourself on. I can help people writing this if need be (copy editing, etc...), although I am thouroughly unable to expand the article more than what you currently see. Any help would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}10:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think you actually want the entire April 2010 supplement, which seems to be entirely articles about the journal. It doesn't seem to be on my list, though. Some of the abstracts are long and it might be possible to use them for basic facts (e.g., year of founding).
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I found the following categories in Category:Underpopulated categories, and participants in this WikiProject might be able and willing to populate them.
Propose articles on suicide, mental health in Afghanistan
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm doing a little work on Category:Health in Afghanistan, and would like to propose creating Suicide in Afghanistan and Mental health in Afghanistan. On the first issue, there was a flood of coverage in mid-2010 of female self-immolation, but I'm not seeing much coverage other than that exact topic. Plus it's hard to screen out everything related to suicide bombing/attacks (outside the scope of my intended article). Further, there have been some studies by various governments on Afghan mental health after 30yrs of war, and I think it could be an extremely fertile topic, and arguably something that a few editors could push up to GA status relatively quickly. Thoughts? Links to recommended resources? Copied from my post at WikiProject Afghanistan. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have taken PD to FAC after almost a year of improving it.It is a vital article, of top importance for the project, and with a lot of visits (around 300k a mont). I await comments from those of the project here. Thanks in advance to everybody. --Garrondo (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Teenage pregnancy needs to be on more watchlists. I just found a nearly two-week old copyright violation here. If you're managing to keep up with your watchlist (I'm headed for watchlist bankruptcy again), please add this highly visible article to your list. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments8 people in discussion
I'm not a doctor, dentist, surgeon or psy-anything. I don't understand jargon, and don't have the time to go back to Uni to get the relevant (6-year++++) doctorates. For example, the article on Melanoma is almost useless to anybody not a med student or qualified doctor: so it has no place in a popular encyclopedia like Wikipedia.
Please can all of the articles in this Project be shadowed by a true encyclopedic treatment aimed at lay people: write them in "Year 10 English", which is considered in Australia to be the minimum acceptable standard of language for High School graduates. This standard ensures that 90+% of Australians will understand 90+% of everything they read or listen to, without recourse to esoteric lexicons.
There are over 20.000 medical articles that we know, we are volunteers and actually quite few. We try to make all articles as complete, understandable and factually accurate as we can, but we are outnumbered. You are more than welcome to improve any articles you find hard to understand or make proposals in its talk page. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
We usually aim for the level of a beginning university student rather than year 10.
Can you tell me what you think the worst part about that article is? Is there any part that you think is basically understandable and would make a good model? For example, I thought that the first couple of paragraphs were easily understandable. Do you think so? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
In Australia, students would start Uni after graduating Year 12. Of course, this gives them very little chance to acquire tech-jargon.
The "basically understandable" parts of the Melanoma article are the intro and the subsections "In lay terms" and "Natural History" in the section "Cause". The subsection "Genetics" presupposes some technical knowledge appropriate to a first or second year med student, but not really within the reach of a factory hand.
National English curriculum: what all children will learn
Year nine: Students look at the relationship between texts and the influence of cultural
perspectives; that language can be multi-layered, allowing varying interpretations. They use a
variety of clause types to improve their writing, and techniques such as parallel structures
("I came, I saw, I conquered"). Students explore the human condition, respond to the big questions
of life and consider their presentation in literary texts. They identify and explain the choices
made by authors to achieve a particular purpose, evaluate texts, and experiment with different
media to create a short visual text accompanied by sound effects.
Year ten: Students look at the history of the English language and how it has evolved. They learn
to cite works, recognise nuance and indirect opinions and how language is used to distance or
involve an audience to create apathy or empathy. Their study of literature looks at cultural bias
in the way an author presents a character, they learn language devices such as rhetorical
questions, oxymorons, metonymy and satire, and examine the idea of a literary canon.
You're right: Most of Melanoma#Genetics is apparently written for people who already know what it says. There are a couple of sentences that anyone can understand, but the first paragraph in particular is a problem.
Additionally, half the sources used in that section are at least ten years old, and so it may be outdated, too.
I don't know much about melanoma, but what would you think of starting off that section with something like:
In some cases, melanoma runs in families. Several different genes have been identified as increasing the risk of developing melanoma. Some rare genes have a relatively high risk of causing melanoma; some more common genes, such as a gene called MC1R that causes red hair, have a relatively low risk. Genetic testing can be used to determine whether a person has one of the currently known mutations.
(That's more or less a translation of the first few paragraphs into English.) Then we can go into the frame shifting and two-gene models and gene names for the people who are either really interested or experts. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I'm in love... I like it. I'll insert that now, with a leetle bit of rearrangement, and at the same time revert a less-than-useful edit to the "In lay terms" subsection. I must reiterate, I have no medical training at all. I do have experience in writing manuals though.
There is no question that UV exposure is a major risk factor for melanoma. However, it is incorrect to say that UV radiation is always implicated in melanoma causation (as an aside, any medical assertion featuring the word always should be presumed false). Specifically, in non-white populations there appears to be little or no link between UV exposure and melanoma incidence (PMID15837865). The question was addressed directly in PMID8161879 ("How much melanoma is caused by sun exposure?"), which estimated that approximately 65% of melanomas worldwide (in 1993) were sunlight-related (noting that this was probably an underestimate).
It is well-known that melanomas can arise anywhere you find melanocytes, including areas with little or no sun exposure such as the oral cavity, anorectal tract, the female genitourinary system, and the urinary tract (e.g. PMID2033125, PMID19071254, summarized in PMID9781962 and PMID9869521). Very rarely, tissues such as the penis and small intestine can also host melanomas (PMID17656225, PMID19410196). It should be clear from these sites of involvement that not all melanomas are UV-induced, since these areas have little or no UV exposure. Hope that's helpful. MastCellTalk19:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Ummm... The "someone" is probably me. Having said that, I thank both of you for your efforts. Can we move/continue this on the Melanoma Talk page please? I'll outline my evidence chain there. I would be very interested to see anything proposing an alternate cause of melanoma: both inside and outside Wikipedia there is no credible suggestion that anything other than UV(-B) causes it. 122.200.166.100 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be included at the main NIH article, with suitable redirects. If it doesn't exist, there probably isn't more than a stub's worth to say about it at this time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Given the current political climate, obtaining funding for a new Center seems a bit dicey, but I agree we should have an article. We should probably also note that the National Center for Research Resources is going to be axed (or at least demoted from "Center" status at NIH) to make room, since the number of Centers is capped. MastCellTalk18:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Another look
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Several months ago, I asked if anyone here could verify that that there was such a thing as short course immune induction therapy. The general conclusion was basically "no one uses this phrase except for one company; this looks like some attempt at spamming".
Now it's back (same creator as the first time), and it seems to have more references. But I'm absolutely not someone who can judge those references. Opinions? DS (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Some of the claims need attention. For example, he brands OKT3 as "the most promising therapy" (in its class), which makes me wonder how it compares to OKT4 (also known for inducing T cell immunity). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Admin removing criticism of nutritional supplements guru/company
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I would say it is a reliable source. They reference everything they say and their website list that they have many accreditations in the footer. They also have an ISSN. Peter.C • talk02:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It looks pretty good to me, James. They have an editorial policy which is similar to ours, and a named editorial board. There's more information downloadable from here if you're interested. The ISSN Print: 1524-1971, ISSN Online: 1559-3908 can be found in 1210 Practice Recommendations, for example. I think EB Medicine represents an interesting example of a on-line resource occupying a niche that traditional paper-based media couldn't operate profitably. It does seem to hit the right notes to comply with RS and MEDRS, even if there's a lack of citations to it in PubMed. --RexxS (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikidocs
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion
I took a look and they have a level of detail that seems ideal for a medical textbook. Do you think there will be a point where our medical articles don't serve general readership by being too technical, or do you think that day is--never?Ocaasi (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Are we allowed to "move stuff here"? See Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The "Copying from other Wikimedia Projects" section seems useful (even though that isn't a Wikimedia project, it has a similar licence I think). It is rather complex and I suspect it would be far better to look at what they've done and use it as a suggestion for how we might improve an article. Of course, moving images and other media is likely to be more straightforward as attribution can still be given easily. I must admit, any page I've looked at on their site was no better than a very old Wikipedia page.
They have a different focus (to provide health advice to either doctors or patients). I'd be very upset if this project saw professional readers as the target audience. There is a danger, when enthusiasts are writing any article, to be too detailed and too technical, but I think we all agree here that that is a failing rather than something to aspire to. Colin°Talk12:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
90% of there stuff is directly copied from here. They are under the same license as us. It is not the text that I am recommending we get but images / videos. Attribution takes place on commons Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
That pericardial effusion image is terrible: the point being made is unclear (i.e. location, nature, pathogenesis, physiological impact of effusion), and it's a low-quality chest CT. Nothing there to emulate, IMHO. -- Scray (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
This is the first time that I have looked at WikiDoc. They state "WikiDoc ... is an online community where anyone can contribute to and edit the world's largest free living textbook of medicine." As opposed to Wikipedia, which is a free online (general) encyclopedia. WikiDoc uses "Editors-in-Chief" to monitor articles. Wikipedia does not have a formal monitoring system. WikiDoc is not specifically for healthcare professionals, as far as I can tell. I don't see any advantage of it over Wikipedia's medical content. There are other medical wikis that are specifically for healthcare professionals, and I can see how some readers might prefer to read that over Wikipedia's content. However WikiDoc's role is no different to Wikipedia's role.
The reasons I would rather edit Wikipedia than WikiDoc: Wikipedia's scope is so much greater. The number of contributors and readers is vast. The "impact factor" of Wikipedia's top/high importance articles exceeds that of journal articles and textbooks. And we have a friendly community of like-minded editors. :-) Axl¤[Talk]10:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
To answer Ocaasi's question: the ultimate goal for our articles is to make them "Featured articles". Have a look at the list. Browse through a few and decide for yourself whether they are too technical. The editors of the articles know their readership and write accordingly. In addition, there are checks in the GAC and FAC processes.
Wikipedia is not going to be influenced by WikiDoc or other medical wikis. Rather, Wikipedia is the standard by which all other wikis are measured. Axl¤[Talk]10:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Wikidocs is heavy with cardiologists, but when I last checked their content in other areas was deficient. The article on pericardial effusions has the grand total of 1 reference, so I'd be cautious in relying on it.
The leadership at Wikidocs has never seriously tried to engage with this WikiProject. Their loss, I say. JFW | T@lk10:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there are other conditions (such as Li-Fraumeni syndrome) than can cause different kinds of malignancies in families. Changed the redirect. The hereditary cancer redirect should stay as it is, because IMHO a inherited single organ malignancy barely qualifies as a "syndrome". JFW | T@lk13:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Looks like either JFW is right or they like making work for those brave souls who write our templates. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Redlink
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
If my memory serves, the mucosa of the pharynx is no different from the rest of the upper aerodigestive tract. Redirected to oral mucosa. I will also direct buccal mucosa there, as they are synonyms. JFW | T@lk07:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Need someone who knows immunology
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Outside editors are needed to help solve the matter of POV concerns that have plagued this article for years. Some see the information at this article as too negative; others feel that the negative information accurately represents most of the research and societal views on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations on the JMIR paper
Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments9 people in discussion
Nice! Although I can't wait until y'all are accused of canvassing and SPOV-pushing for encouraging people with actual medical knowledge to improve our health-related content. :P MastCellTalk18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Agree, and kudos also for your courage - stepping between WP and the real world can be daunting, but this sort of visibility seems very positive. -- Scray (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations to all the authors, it is a very impressive piece of work. Perhaps it would be helpful to put on the record the collaborative methods you used in creating it, for the aid of future similar efforts from other disciplines. LeadSongDogcome howl!07:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
JMIR invitation to medical community
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Medical Wikipedians issue "Call to Action" to their peers: In the Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22 members of WikiProject Medicine have published a viewpoint article titled "Wikipedia: A Key Tool for Global Public Health Promotion". After an introduction to Wikipedia's model, a section on its prominence as a source of health information, and a survey of empirical studies on Wikipedia's medical content, the authors issue a "Call to Action", inviting the medical community to join in editing Wikipedia, with the goal of providing people with free access to reliable, understandable, and up-to-date health information.]
Please vote - A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for physics, science, or medical conclusions
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for phsyics, science, or medical conclusions is happening here[22]. PPdd (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm contemplating an article on Heat intolerance, to coordinate with Cold intolerance. My initial scan of sources has found them unfortunately fragmented. There's heat intolerance from the perspective of multiple sclerosis, and heat intolerance as a sign of thyrotoxicosis, and heat intolerance due to anticholinergics, and heat intolerance due to various skin disorders causing impaired sweating, and heat intolerance apparently with some (unspecified, but serious, perhaps end-stage) cardiac problems—but never just heat intolerance, one big, organized, unified medical sign.
So for those of you who might know something (anything!) about this: MS and thyroid disorders seem to do heat intolerance with a (slightly) raised core body temperature. MS patients make a particular point of the difficulty that a 0.5–1.0 degree difference in body temperature makes to them, and a slightly elevated temperature seems plausible, even inevitable, with an overactive thyroid. Do the other forms of heat intolerance also feature a raised body temperature?
If so, then the distinguishing feature from heat stroke appears to be the chronic nature of heat intolerance, and perhaps the lower ambient temperatures at which it appears. (Some individuals have asserted the appearance of symptoms at lk:WikiProject_Medicine&action=scal room temperature.)
Also, I'd like to get a sentence in about medically necessary air conditioning (something that I heard about, of all places, in some income tax paperwork). My search for sources has been unsuccessful: I can demonstrate that the US offers a tax break for buying an air conditioner if you have duly procured a prescription for air conditioning from a physician to treat a specific medical condition, but no information at all about the circumstances under which a physician would prescribe air conditioning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Moving "x cell carcinoma" to "x-cell carcinoma"
Latest comment: 13 years ago26 comments9 people in discussion
Actually, the lit does support this. Punctuation varies widely, with hyphens tending to be dropped the more familiar a term is to the intended audience, but retained the less familiar it may be. We are a basic reference work, not a medical journal, and we cannot assume that our readers will be familiar with the technical jargon in our articles. One of the more common complaints of WP is that our articles are inaccessible, and logical/full hyphenation is a small step in addressing that. For example, a naive reader will read "small cell carcinomas" as being small carcinomas of the cells. (I can hardly help reading it that way myself, even though I know better; I still do a double take when I see it unexpectedly.) For this reason, medical references use hyphenation to a greater degree than journals do, both because exact terminology may be expected (you can always drop the hyphenation if you don't like it, but you may not be comfortable adding it in where missing), and because they're accessed by students who may be new to the material and may be confused by a lack of full, logical punctuation.
For example, Current diagnosis and treatment in neurology (Brust 2006:396) has as a section header nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor–induced myopathy. Without proper hyphenation, that would be nearly impenetrable to the uninitiated; with hyphenation (and an en-dash), the reader at least can begin to parse it.
This isn't really a WP:COMMONNAME issue, since we're not talking about distinct names, but a choice of punctuation, and it is relevant to WP:Make technical articles understandable. In fact, even at COMMONNAME they state,
The ideal title for an article will also satisfy the other criteria outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.
"Small cell carcinoma" is grammatically inaccurate, since it indicates that small and cell modify carcinoma independently, where in fact small modifies cell rather than carcinoma. In spoken English the difference is conveyed through prosody; in writing, it is conveyed through hyphenation: small-cell carcinoma. — kwami (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
While I disagree strongly with some of Kwami's typographically related page moves, here, I have to agree with his action. It especially matters when people outside a highly specialised area read text that contains these compound units. Such readers are not used to seeing these items every day, and you can't expect them to know first-off exactly which words should be paired in them.
As an aside, I see above "nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor–induced myopathy". Oh puhlease, let's take no notice of the crappy English they let through in some research journals nowadays—even the highly ranked ones: myopathy induced by nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, thanks very much. Tony(talk)15:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
First, what really matters is what our sources are doing, not what the typical English grammar teacher might guess is the right answer in a given case. In the case of small cell carcinoma, ICD-0 rejected the hyphen. The MeSH term is "carcinoma, small cell"—no hyphen. More than 80% of books in my search rejected the hyphen. More than half of medical journals reject the hyphen. Consequently, we, too, should reject the hyphen, regardless of what the "right" answer is.
And the opposite is true for non-small-cell carcinoma: There, nearly all of the sources use (two) hyphens. We should follow those sources, too, for that disease.
One thing to keep in mind is that something that looks like it's an adjective is not necessarily an adjective. Many of these names are essentially proper nouns, and so typical conventions for common nouns and adjectives aren't relevant. A Merkel cell, for example, is a specific thing, and is not to be hyphenated when it is used to describe another thing—exactly like you would never hyphenate other two-word proper nouns, e.g., it's a Ford Mustang car, not a Ford-Mustang car.
Finally, massive changes in the face of opposition is inappropriate. Editors should look for consensus at each individual article, rather than imposing their personal preferences (or the preferences of sources in a completely unrelated field, especially when those sources make no claim that the rule is, or even should be, universally applied to technical terms) by moving pages in the face of opposition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
"More than half of medical journals reject the hyphen. Consequently, we, too, should reject the hyphen."
I disagree. With such variation in professional usage, it is clear that the hyphenated forms are not incorrect. They are, however, much easier for the naive reader. The arguments about proper nouns are also off the mark: that's not what we're dealing with here, or medical journals would not hyphenate at all.
And from Doc James's objection that 'they don't look good' on my talk page,
"Looking good" is not the point: a huge number of reliable sources use logical hyphenation, and this helps our readers. These terms are difficult to read without hyphenation unless you are already familiar with the subject, and we need to assume that our readers are not familiar with it. Even COMMONNAME states that when several names are in use by RSs, we need to consider clarity and precision, not just percentages.
How about we just do what the clear majority of sources do, determined case by case?
"Logical" hyphenation will not help the average person, who (unlike me) finds nothing "logical" about it at all, and will instead find Wikipedia diverging from the choices made by a majority of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's the list of recent moves. Some of these are "logical" variants that I've never seen in print:
07:44, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Basal cell carcinoma to Basal-cell carcinoma over redirect (it's the cells which are basal)
07:43, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Basaloid squamous cell carcinoma to Basaloid squamous-cell carcinoma (sp.)
07:43, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Signet-ring cell squamous cell carcinoma to Signet-ring-cell squamous-cell carcinoma (sp.)
07:43, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Spindle cell squamous cell carcinoma to Spindle-cell squamous-cell carcinoma (sp.)
07:43, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Clear cell squamous cell carcinoma to Clear-cell squamous-cell carcinoma (sp.)
07:42, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Adenoid squamous cell carcinoma to Adenoid squamous-cell carcinoma (sp.)
07:33, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Squamous cell carcinoma to Squamous-cell carcinoma over redirect (it's the cells which are squamous)
07:33, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Large cell lung carcinoma to Large-cell lung carcinoma (it's the cells which are large)
07:24, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Non-small cell lung carcinoma to Non-small-cell lung carcinoma (sp.)
07:24, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Combined small cell lung carcinoma to Combined small-cell lung carcinoma (sp.)
07:21, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Small cell carcinoma to Small-cell carcinoma (the cells are small, not the carcinoma)
I think that basically all of these except NSCC need to be reverted. Most are grammatically correct—several wrongly identify the noun, resulting in Ford-Mustang–like improper hyphenations—but they simply aren't used by the sources. "Spindle-cell squamous-cell carcinoma", for example, turns up in less than 2% of medical journal articles on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
If I misidentified the noun (no example given), that illustrates that these are not clear as written. Some arguably make little difference, but IMO it is definitely important to hyphenate "small-cell" and "large-cell": it's common that way in the lit, and it is very easy to misparse a small cell carcinoma as being analogous to a small lung tumour. It's only obvious what is meant if you are already familiar with the concept.
If you insist on using ambiguous wording because most journals written for specialists take that route, I think the least we can do is provide both punctuations in the lede: A spindle cell squamous cell carcinoma, or spindle-cell squamous-cell carcinoma, is ... Once the reader has the correct syntax in their head, it won't matter which convention we use for the rest of the article. Is that an acceptable compromise? — kwami (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Well yes. Please tell me there's not a certain specialist arrogance afoot here, that says "FU" to anyone but the experts. As I've pointed out above, people outside a field (and even those in cognate disciplines) are faced with greater difficult through unfamiliarity in parsing these gobbledygook multiple items. Just because ignorant (more likely "put it in if it's good science, we haven't got time nowadays to make the language professional") journals let through horrors doesn't mean that WP should go against its own style guides, and more to the point, the rulings of so many authorities out there. Our readership is likely to be significantly wider than that for arcane, stuck-up high-impact-factor journals. If you want to go against the style guides here, you'll have to put a more cogent case than that. Tony(talk)07:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
If you look at the history of the OED it attempts to reflect real world language usage not impose "proper" English from above. While this does not apply exactly to this situation I think it is still appropriate.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, and in cases like these they would indicate both. But they're recording usage rather than actually generating it as we are. What I'm talking about is not dictating usage, but following the usage that would be clearest to our readers. — kwami (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Yes, and let's remember that WP is not a dictionary. It is read on monitors and by people all over the world, of all varieties of English, and of many second-language backgrounds; it addresses a generalist audience more than medical specialty publications. Tony(talk)08:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
We're not making anything up. These forms are used in the lit, in the case of 'small-cell' by anywhere from a quarter to two thirds, depending on the database. We follow sources, sure, but we follow the sources that are the most accurate and will be clearest to our audience. We don't follow inaccurate or obscure jargon just because it's more common among those comfortable in the jargon. — kwami (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
kwami, selective use of statistics in an argument is poor show. The "two thirds" you mention is the result of getting lucky with your first page of Google results: the numbers drop off if you persist. And we agree that "small-cell" is an anomaly in the stats. For all the other carcinomas, there's effectively no support in the literature for the hyphenated form. Anyway, this disussion is now happening in two places, and arguably the MP:MED style guide is the better place for it... Colin°Talk12:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
For Kwami, who asked for a specific example above: Basal cell is not a cell that happens to be basal; it's a thing in its own right. It should not be hyphenated any more than Merkel cell.
I'm going to revert all of the basal cell moves, as they are both grammatically wrong (due to a perfectly understandable misinterpretation of the name) and not used by ~98% of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I've commented out the ones that I moved back to their grammatically correct, consensus-supported, source-preferred names. Basal-cell carcinoma requires attention from an admin.
WhatamIdoing, [basal cell] is a unit, not two separate attributives, so grammatically it should be hyphenated. That is not a misreading: it doesn't matter what the relationship is between 'basal' and 'cell', the point is that it's a compound attributive of 'carcinoma'. Without the hyphen, we're saying that it's the carcinoma which is basal, or else that a basal cell carcinoma is a suptype of 'cell carcinoma'. The same with Merkel: it's not a Merkel's [cell carcinoma], but a [Merkel cell] carcinoma. I overlooked that one. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
I will not speak to what is grammatically correct, but i have rarely, if ever, seen basal or Merkel cell carcinoma hyphenated. I could be wrong. but i would challenge you to find many articles in the JAAD or Archives of Dermatology that use this convention and, even if you can, I strongly doubt they would constitue the majority of cases. I think we should be following the common name principle for article titles in these cases. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
External links
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It looks like a couple of editors don't want Blaylock's views (e.g., swine flu vaccine is riskier than swine flu) to be directly identified as minority beliefs. Here's an example.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
My name is Thomas888b. I am from The Wikipedia Signpost. I am writing to you to ask whether it would be possible to interview one or two key members of the project to appear in the signpost on march 21st? Could you please reply on my talkpage if interested.
Thanks, Thomas888b (Say Hi) 18:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Collaboration for Febuary
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Just a reminder: A collaborative project only works if interested people show up and help out. I realize that several people are still busy with last month's article, but we need people at the new article, too.
To help, please look over the article, and either make improvements or leave a note on the article's talk page about what you think should be done. If you have an interest in collaborative editing, if you enjoy Wikipedia because it gives you an incentive to learn something new, or if you have a few minutes for a little minor wikignoming, this is a good opportunity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This article was tagged as G11 (spam), but I declined it as it is not sufficiently blatant. I'm not sure about the use of sources though - could someone take a look at it? It seems to me as though a merge to selenium deficiency might be the best solution. Cheers. SmartSE (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Only two of the numerous primary sources cited directly deal with selenium yeast as a dietary substance. Most of the health claims are about selenium rather than the yeast product discussed. It is mostly WP:SYNTH and might well qualify for AFD. The author (Selenocat (talk·contribs)) looks like an SPA. JFW | T@lk16:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
We've won a pile of students! A class at Louisiana State University's Athletic training program are required to write (or, in a few cases, fix up) about three dozen articles. It looks like the focus is on orthopedic medical signs like Murphy's sign. The students are supposed to sandbox their creations, with an in-sandbox review planned for 17 February and a mainspace target of 03 March.
Neurohumor and neurohumoral sound like they might outdated terms for Neurotransmitter/Neuromodulation, on a quick browse Neuron#Action_on_other_neurons seems the sort of thing your looking for, but there are many, many neurology articles - Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience would be a good forum to ask in. As for functional capacity - I'm not sure if there is a general functional capacity that would cover all these systems, as each system will have its own definition. One more thing to consider- the talk page has mention of it and I'm have the same gut feeling that, unless more common us of the term can be shown, it should be merged into exerciseLee∴V(talk • contribs)12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Comments requested at Talk:LASIK#Requested addition. A user blocked for other reasons has emailed me asking for an addition to this article: he has a clear COI, but the requested addition, which says that the former official who oversaw FDA approval has now submitted a petition to withdraw it, seems factual and sourced. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
To give some background, most of the info in the "comparison" article was originally in the articles allopathic medicine and osteopathic medicine in the United States, but the amount of information gathered overburdened both those articles. A third article comparing the two was created as something of a compromise. There is a great deal of published material and commentary on the comparison topic. I agree that the article is not the strongest article on WP, but with some TLC it could be much better. These topics, allopathic v osteopathic, MDs v DOs, etc are so poorly understood, hence their necessity. They also tend to generate instant controversy here on WP, hence the somewhat apologetic tone. Bryan HoppingT 08:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Children's feet at AfD
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
ReviewEffectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report
"The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions."
"The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.""[23] Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
A better question might be, does this study meet WP:MEDRS? I believe it does, however there is an editor will not allow its inclusion anywhere in the chiropractic article.Puhlaa (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's the ref from PubMed:
Bronfort G, Haas M, et al, "Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report", Chiropr Osteopat. 2010; 18: 3. February 25. doi: 10.1186/1746-1340-18-3. PMC2841070 "The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories."
Note the change of journal title: Readers should note that in January 2011 the journal’s name changed to Chiropractic & Manual Therapies from Chiropractic & Osteopathy'.[24]
This is about as solid as it gets. It should be put it in the body and the lead updated. This is the most scientifically legitimate of all chiropractic journals. Their research reports are generally quite trustworthy, with few exceptions, and this isn't one of those exceptions.
COI statement: I'm a chiroskeptic and Physical Therapist, and "I approve this message". I agree that QG is continuing to block progress with his stonewalling, IDHT and ownership. It's so bad a systemic problem that I, an expert on the subject, usually avoid the chiropractic articles because of his noxious influence there. (I thought he was still topic banned by ArbCom, but I guess that must have run out. Maybe it needs to be reinstated under the ArbCom sanctions.)
And I'd strongly second that suggestion. At present we have editors removing content cited to a two-year old reliable secondary source with an edit summary of removed outdated review, 2010 review covers the effectiveness. We seem to have taken MEDRS to the extreme by discarding anything but the latest review, a slippery slope that fails to acknowledge the possibility of disagreement between reliable secondary sources. Editors should not be using guidelines to contradict policy. --RexxS (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Funny, I thought that MEDRS opposed that behavior. Isn't that what "do not automatically give more weight to the review that happens to have been published most recently, as this is recentism" means to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I have contacted most of them with an invitation to help resolve this dispute (skipping one who earned a long-term block and a couple who are known to be watching this page). We should not have to deal with these problems every few weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
The solution was initially about adding the UK review, not just taking out Ernst. That may have been a misunderstanding. The counter-problem is almost ironic given how prominently Ernst has figured into the article. But that is fine, so long as other sources with similar standing are incorporated as well. Despite the appearance of conflict, there is actually more productive discussion going on now, since a few other reasonable editors have chimed in. Ocaasi (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion
The Signpost is featuring WPMED next month. They typically report basic statistics for WikiProjects, such as the number of participants. If you consider yourself to be a part of WPMED, and you have not yet added your name to the table at WP:WikiProject Medicine/Participants, please do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
It looks like we haven't done a pass through the list to move inactive participants out of the active list for quite a while. Does anyone have a problem with my updating this with a cut-off of six-months inactivity on WP for "inactive participants" and twelve-months inactivity on WP for "former participants". It doesn't do us any favours to inflate the figures. Colin°Talk11:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
OK. I'll work on it this afternoon. I'll set the threshold at 1st September 2010 for Active and 1st March 2010 for Inactive. Colin°Talk12:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If any fresh eyes were available, I'd be grateful for a sanity check at Abortion. The short story is that I reverted the addition of a piece of text sourced to a recent primary source, on the grounds that the secondary source already there covered the issue; it was then re-inserted by the OP; and then removed and re-inserted by Doc James. I've tried to raise what I see as a clear violation of MEDRS on the talk page, but to little effect. Any comments one way or the other would be appreciated, because either I or a bunch of others are failing to understand MEDRS. --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
In the news
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Why was the conventional wisdom that exercising wouldn't help people with Chronic fatigue have more energy? Wasn't the idea that people can improve their health or vitality through inactivity basically dead decades ago? Ocaasi (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
According to the article, "pacing" (doing less because you don't feel like doing anything) is what the patient organizations have been pushing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
I have read for years that exercise improves CFS and rest worsens symptoms. I remember a study that found forced bed rest in health college students resulted in CFS after 2 weeks in a large proportion. And forced exercise in those with CFS resulted in improvement in many. That patient groups where recommending rest I did not know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Question about vagotomy
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This could also be a spur to improve our relevant articles, since I see no mention of the nerve(s) of Latarjet anywhere in the encyclopedia. 86.161.110.118 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
It's late here, and I've got visitors so I won't get to this tonight, but Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain looks, after a brief scan, like OR to me. The author seems to have done some good work elsewhere. I'll try to focus on it tomorrow but another opinion would be appreciated, if anyone has the time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what to do about this. It is based on the work of one team, most sources are in a foreign language, and on the face of it, it appears not notable enough even for an article. Somatosensory rehabilitation seems to be notable and has one or two textbooks devoted to it; but this concept, somatosensory rehabilitation of pain, appears fringy at best. Wiser/more experienced eyes would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I would oppose mention on Pain, which is an overview of a very large subject. I'll warn the author I intend to nominate it for deletion unless he comes up with some MEDRS-compliant sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
No response a week after leaving a note on article and author talk pages, so I've emailed the team leader (who appears to be the article author) seeking an authoritative independent review of their work. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Pharma policy
Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion
Do we have a guideline or policy regarding how pharma companies/employees should edit entries about specific pharma products? NCursework09:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
We haven't written anything more specific. There was a conversation about this a while ago. Here's what I remember from it:
Disclosure of COI is not required by any Wikipedia policy.
Some editors have voluntarily chosen to disclose a conflict of interest by including their employers' names in their account names, e.g., all these folks from GlaxoSmithKline. More self-identify on their user pages.
Self-identification is a two-edged sword: You get points from most users for being honest, but a few will use it to harrass editors. See, e.g., User:James Cantor, a world-class expert on pedophilia, who has been chastised by a handful of (minority-view-holding) editors for not re-re-re-re-disclosing his "conflict of interest" every single time he edits certain pages.
Corporate IP addresses are highly traceable. An employee editing from the office should assume that s/he's hung a big sign on the edit saying "I'm part of a pharmaceutical conspiracy".
Some employers require disclosure, and a few believe it illegal for their employees to edit these pages. (I believe the idea runs like this: We are legally required to say only X about this product; if we change the Wikipedia page, we are legally required to say only X on the Wikipedia page; if the page says anything beyond X, then we're in violation of the law.) So employees and contractors should check with their employers.
Wikipedia does not prohibit people in the pharmaceutical industry from editing articles. WP:PAID failed. However, there are strategies that reduce conflict:
Vandalism = bad. As far as we're concerned, anyone is welcome to fix it, even people who work for a pharmaceutical company.
Correct serious errors, but leave the fine points to others.
Propose sources and improvements on the talk pages.
Read WP:MEDRS, especially the bits about not paying too much attention to single studies.
Read WP:MEDMOS, especially the bits about not providing medical advice, instructions to patients, or dosage information.
Remember that Wikipedia is not a patient guide or drug formulary. Employees might be in a unique position to provide background and historical information, which we very much want. We'd love for every page about a drug to contain some information about its regulatory status around the world, its development, its manufacturing process, and its commercial history (e.g., which companies have worked on it and what its annual sales are).
It certainly does help, WAID. Is there any chance we could give this a more permanent home than the talk page archives? I was thinking of an essay, WP:MEDCOI, that could be worked up into a guideline as part of WP:COI, so that those who need the specific information can find it easily in future. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Sure, we could do that. I think it might be good to expand the other usual issues: being a healthcare professional, academic expert, or a patient does not mean that you have a COI (although you might be biased). It might be fun to include some of the pharmanoia material, too. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
We would first need to eliminate the "double edged sword" POV: The example given was first written up on COI/N as "MarionTheLibrarian"[25]. The pattern of self-promotion was the problem, not the login. To avoid a fruitless tangent, I think it would be best to simply remove the bullet point.
We should stress that Wikipedia policies apply equally to all Wikipedia editors. However, having audience-specific guides for what policies new editors should be particularly aware of couldn't hurt.
Getting back onto the topic of placement, is there a location where its target audience (pharma industry editors) would find it easily? (If they needed to search for it, they might find it only after wading through a number of the specific policies. This would reduce the value of the guide.) BitterGrey (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
Could I ask others to look this over and join in the discussion there? My relationship with WhatamIdoing hasn't been good since he made a clear accusation of ill will against me[26]. He's just performed a mass revert back to his own version, which doesn't seem very civil. BitterGrey (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I glanced at the discussion. I have to agree with WhatamIdoing: substance over procedure. If you have a problem with an external link, start by mentioning what the problem is from a substance perspective - that is, concerns you would raise regardless of who added the link. II | (t - c) 01:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
ImperfectlyInformed, the dif about the EL was just to convey WhatamIdoing's documented prejudice here. My main issue is with the tabular form, which implies that there is a caste system within Wikipedia where some policies only apply to lesser editors like you and me: That pharma employees don't really need to cite sources, while patients should busy themselves with vandalism cleanup. My quickly-reverted edit changed this table to three lists, with all Wikipedia policies applying to everyone equally. This is a matter of substance.
Of course, if no other editors get involved, Wikipedia content will be determined by the one who is willing to the be least civil and take the most liberties with Wikipedia policy. BitterGrey (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you have accessed the right forum if you have a problem with WhatamIdoing. This thread is about COI disclosure in medical content, not about individual behaviour. WhatamIdoing is one of our most hardworking editors, so you are very unlikely to be getting a helpful hand. I see no incivility in the diff you mentioned, and the suggestion that WhatamIdoing would have been incivil makes me roll of my chair laughing. JFW | T@lk07:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Could we focus on the content being discussed today? I realize that most here are more familiar with WhatamIdoing than with me, which means my odds of getting neutral input are slim. What I'm doing might seem laughable. I'm not paid by a pharma or medical interest, so those hoping to ignore me while advocating their position and goals have called me an advocate. Per WhatamIdoing's table, a good edit for an advocate will be "Adding sourced information about social movements and effects" (e.g. making edits to the Oprah article) and to avoid "Promoting tiny minority viewpoints." Per WhatamIdoing's table, matters of substance (editing information about a product, the profession, health issues, or treatments) are reserved for those who can profit from it, expert or not, referenced or not.
I'm hoping to preserve the neutrality of Wikipedia, with Wikipedia policies applying to everyone equally. I accept that there is a caste system in practice in Wikipedia, but I do not think it should be reinforced. I can see how this effort might seem laughable. BitterGrey (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Bittergrey, the tone of your edits here is off-putting (IMHO) but I think you do have valid concerns. I think it's most appropriate to direct discussion of the COI(med) essay to that talk page, and avoid further discussion of editors themselves. -- Scray (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Scray. I responded to ImperfectlyInformed's comment above in hopes of keeping the discussion that I started there from getting diverted onto some procedural tangent. WhatamIdoing has yet to respond to any of my attempts at discussion on this topic. Perhaps JFW is correct in that everyone supports WhatamIdoing loyally, to the point of dismissing the possibility that he might have been uncivil as laughable ("roll of my chair laughing" to be exact). I then, however valid my concerns about the content might be, would be the butt of that joke. BitterGrey (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
(←)
Shall we regard this thread as a pointer to have a discussion on the other page then? I see little point carrying on over here. JFW | T@lk00:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
You are fantastic! Thank you very much for the replies and feedback. We are working on an open-access guide for pharma companies about using social media, and we plan to include a whole section about Wikipedia. This discussion helps a lot. NCursework10:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Glad you find the discussion helpful. Please be careful to differentiate Wikipedia policy, which is a position agreed on by a broad consensus, from essays which might represent the opinions of only one or two editors. BitterGrey (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
560 pages of disease statistics for the US from the CDC 2010
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
It seems to me it is time for a policy governing medical claims in Wikipedia articles. Particularly, I'd like the right to delete any claim about the safety, efficacy or strength of evidence for a health intervention that is not supported by a WP:MEDRS source, with exemption from 3RR sanctions, along the lines of BLP violations. I believe our present stance, allowing dubious claims to stand during drawn-out AfD or talk page discussion, is reckless. If I've missed something, if this is explicitly covered elsewhere, please point me to it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I completely support this. We should also state clearly when a particular use of a drug is off-label or in the absence of good evidence.
I also think that we need to tighten up on claims of adverse events and side-effects that lack a reliable source. We have a lot of drug articles that are stuffed to the brim with anecdotal reports from unhappy users, often with the flimsiest of sources. I am actually amazed that drug companies have (on the whole) not mobilised people to tidy up articles about their products. They would find themselves supported by policies if they did. JFW | T@lk07:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Regarding "off-label" use I am deleting such notices very often. Exactly because they suggest absence of evidence. A large number of off-label applications are for orphan diseases. If you look around for which conditions there are "FDA-approved" treatments I would not be surprised to find that there is not a single FDA approved treatment for something like 99.9% of all known conditions - and not all of them are rare. Another problem with off-label and FDA-approved tags is that they tend to be very US centered.
As of side effects they are in constant need of cleaning but I would object if they were cleaned up to the level of nothing-saying patient handout leaflets. Richiez (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
WP:BLP is a big policy that took a long time to draft, with input from loads of people. MEDRS and this project is comparatively tiny. BLP is built on top of WP:V, NPOV and NOR as well as US law. If you want a medical policy, it needs to be built on top of existing policies, not on top of a guideline.
As far as the speedy 3RR-exempt removal of material goes, this applies to areas of limited scope and fairly straightforward judgement. It is fairly easy to justify the play-it-safe censorship of contentious remarks about a living person (WP could be sued, people get hurt by the comments).
The scope of this proposal (all medical safety and efficacy claims) is huge. Does this include preventative (eat your greens, avoid a high-fat diet) as well as curative medicine?
The judement calls required are far more complex than simply: is this contentious; is about a living person; is the source reliable. I don't see how such complex judgements could be made excempt from 3RR edit warring.
I don't think this is a good idea. We've got people right now who are using this attitude to justify gutting AltMed articles because they have personally judged the sources to be inappropriate. For example, PPdd has recently deleted sourced material solely because the source wasn't in English. (PPdd, do take a minute to read the policy WP:NONENG, okay?)
In most cases, the material is a simple description of what the practitioners believe—the critical distinction between "Herbalists use this for the common cold" and "This is a safe and effective treatment for the common cold." I am not currently seeing signs that all of our editors have the necessary judgment to follow a policy like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree that there's a distinction between "people use it for this" and "it works." I also agree with AHC that "it works" should always at least have a [citation needed] tag. I don't think that this requires a separate policy, our standard requirement for verifiability handles it just fine, as claims of effectiveness are likely to be challenged. SDY (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Stroke
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A strange situation on stroke. Potionism (talk·contribs) is a new user who has come along and added something about 3 patients with a previous stroke improving on etanercept. I challenged this and BRDed the content. An anonymous user from the 128.97 range has started inserting related content with lots of references, all to in vitro work and none compatible with WP:MEDRS. Qwyrxian (talk·contribs) came along on the talkpage to defend the content in question, and has not yet responded to my concerns (but appears to be singing from the same songsheet as me as suggested by his responses on Potionism's talk page). Meanwhile, 128.97 has come along, reinserted the content, and posted a defence on the talkpage without addressing my concerns.
I am pretty certain that this content is currently unsuitable or at least supported by the wrong references, but I am now up against multiple editors and would love some extra eyes. JFW | T@lk14:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Phantom ICD disorders again
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
We try to follow this classification, but regarding this edit I am seeking an exception from the rule. There is PMID7781117 but it does not say literally "fibrosclerosis of breast". No other source in or outside PubMed comes even close to this, at least I could not find it. There is no "fibroslerosis of breast". Instead there is a whole range of findings called sclerosing adenosis etc. Many of those are suspected to be indicative of premalignant changes and as such they are usually differentiated with great care and of course not all of them fit into fibrocystic conditions at all (eg sclerosing adenosis in complex fibroadenoma). Simplifying all those conditions to "fibrosclerosis of breast" and lump it together as a subclass of fibrocystic condition would be a classification disaster in my opinion. Given that nobody except ICD ever used the term "fibrosclerosis of breast" I am against introducing it into life via wikipedia. Richiez (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments6 people in discussion
Hi all, this semester I am repeating an editing project that I first ran in the Fall of 2009 for my Neuroscience course at Boston College. I am hoping to write up a manuscript for a life science education journal about our experience, and I would like to solicit help from some of the knowledgeable WikiProject Medicine editors. We have 21 groups of students (3 students per group, 1 stub per group) improving specific Category:Neuroscience stubs that are in need of expansion, clarification and/or proper referencing. I have an 8 point rubric that you can use to make quantitative judgments about how much improvement to the stub has been made by the students (and any other editors that help out during our course period). If I can get 1 or 2 more editors to volunteer 2-3 hours of time to read the stub page that currently exists as of 3/1/11 and the "final" version at the end of the course (~2nd week of May) and score them using the rubric I would be most appreciative, and of course would acknowledge your efforts in the manuscript. Please feel free to respond back here or on my talk page. I have crossposted this on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience page but thought I may be able to find more help from those with even a bit of background or interest in the neuroscience field here. Thanks much,NeuroJoe (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
I see from the 2009 topics that the neuroscience topics are mostly basic science (as opposed to clinical). It might therefore be useful to alert WikiProject Neuroscience also.
Could I suggest you place a lot of emphasis on WP:MEDRS. A lot of basic science articles rely heavily on primary sources, which is something we should try to avoid.
I have pointed them exactly to that page as part of their instructions, if Andrew Wakefield has been good for anything its been for our in class discussion of primary vs secondary sources for WP. thx, NeuroJoe (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
the topics the students have claimed are here( the ones with the names beside them). for those interested and able to help, in the interest of expediency i will choose 4-5 topics and assign them to each reviewer, unless someone has a strong preference for a particular topic they'd like to review. NeuroJoe (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Neuroscience was the first place he asked, but as fewer editors watch the project I told him to give it a try here...and it seems it worked :-) --Garrondo (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
I wish the "8 point rubric" mentioned compliance with Wikipedia policy and dropped the awful Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, which despite its grand-sounding name, is the opinion of a few maths and basic science editors and geared towards writing academic articles rather than those for an encyclopaedia. Colin°Talk19:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
You might also like to point them at WP:Party and person, if the primary/secondary thing is confusing them. The difference between a 'secondary source' and a 'third-party source' seems to trip up a lot of Wikipedians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
RefToolbar
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The RefToolbar 2.0 is now enabled for all users by default! This means easier referencing with automatic filling of the ref's details after entering an ISBN, DOI, or PMID. It can be used by clicking Cite just above the edit field. --WS (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion
In one sentence can someone summarize our current convention with regard to when the possessive vs nonpossesive forms of eponymous disease names are used for article titles? This is for my own education, and to help guide my editing. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
There are more important things to worry about. [That's the policy, btw, not me being rude about your question]. Colin°Talk20:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
User 7Mike5000 has asked if this article could be assessed. He's expecting "stub". I don't know how that happens. Can anyone help? (I don't have any online time at the moment.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Anthony (and anyone else), the directions are at WP:MEDA. Anyone is welcome to have a go at assessing articles for Stub, Start, C-class, or B-class. (GA and FA use an outside process, and we don't do A-class.) Please feel free to look through Category:Unassessed medicine articles and assess whatever you like. You can ping me on my talk page or the usual suspects at WT:MEDA if you are uncertain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
widespread addition of links to external site
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
If the user doesn't stop, you can get help at WP:ELN, where a couple of the anti-spam folks hang out. You can also follow the directions at WP:BLACKLIST, as an internet chatroom is basically never going to be acceptable as an external link, but blocking the one user is probably the simpler solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
This was very educational for me (though the reversions were a bit tedious). I would have assumed that blacklisting would be efficient, but having read the info I came to appreciate how much better it is to educate the editor (basically, an extension of WP:AGF). Thanks! -- Scray (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Choice in medicine
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Just finished an excellent book on choosing and have come across this review [28]. Wondering where on Wikipedia should something like this be discussed? It goes against the US paradigm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Health care proxy certainly needs work, and the current Annals of Internal Medicine article you cite would be a good addition. That said, I don't see much in that article that is (a) surprising or (b) contrary to any "US paradigm". Making end-of-life decisions is stressful. -- Scray (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I believe that image on HIV-positive people (here) need to be changed. The United States should be coloured red, as it once was from the version history, as the US still bands people with HIV from entering under the Visa Waiver Program and from US Visas. See Travel and residence regulations for people with HIV and AIDS - 2008-2009here. The version history appears to state the ban was lifted in Jan 2010. So perhaps further clarification is needed. Regards, KiloT22:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion
I recently tried to add glycated albumin as another blood test for diabetes on Template:Diabetes...My edit was promptly reverted. I'm not sure what the reason was, but I have found several reference laboratories that provide this test for doctors (listed below). I think that it is fully appropriate to add glycated albumin to the list.
I'm new to editing wikipedia articles, so I'm not sure if it is appropriate to present this issue here or directly with the user that reverted my edits. I would appreciate it if you could let me know if I should go about this differently. Thanks! Jymorale (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I have also come across similar descriptions online, and I believe that they are misleading. Fructosamine is a general term used to refer to numerous serum proteins that have undergone glycation (Glycated Serum Proteins or GSP). While glycated albumin (GA) is a major component (80%) of what is referred to as “fructosamine,” GA is only one of the many glycated proteins that are measured in the fructosamine assay. Specific assays for glycated albumin do actually exist: Exocell manufactures an ELISA kit (Glycaben) and the labs listed above offer affinity column chromatography tests (and other formats) for clinical use.
There is a substantial amount of literature that shows that GA is directly involved in the pathogenesis of diabetes complications and that a specific GA assay is clinically beneficial for diabetes monitoring [33], especially in patients with red blood cell abnormalities [34],[35]. Considering all this, I think it would be appropriate to clearly differentiate fructosamine from glycated albumin (I'm working right now on writing an article for Glycated Albumin, which inaccurately redirects to Fructosamine). Jymorale (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
So GA is a type of fructosamine. May be this should be added as a subsection in the fructosamine article than split off into its own article when large enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm...adding GA to the fructosamine article is a great idea, since it is a type of fructosamine (FA). But I think I just realized what's causing the confusion here. The contents in the fructosamine article (except for the 3 lines of intro) are specific to the fructosamine assay, not the fructosamine molecules. Perhaps it would be best if the fructosamine page was renamed to "Fructosamine Assay" or maybe even split it into two articles: "Fructosamine" and "Fructosamine Assay". Adding GA to the page as it is now would probably mislead readers to believe that the GA and FA assays are one and the same. Jymorale (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Just because it is current written primarily about an assay does not mean that it should not be rewritten to be about the molecule which IMO it should.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that one article is likely to be better. The article could then split the sections into ==Chemistry== and ==Assays== (or something like that). I think the primary advantage of putting it all on one page is that it would be easier for the reader to figure out that the test is not the molecule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
I agree with both of you. The Fructosamine article should be reorganized so these differences are clear. GA can then be listed as a type of fructosamine, and then link out to the full article when it is available. Thanks for all the feedback! Going back to the original purpose of this post though... Since GA is a stand-alone blood test for diabetes, I think it appropriate to list it on the template:diabetes page. This is a separate issue from the details about the contents of the individual articles. Jymorale (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
The answer depends on the citation format used in the article, but try this:
{{citation
| title = The Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Pocket Guide: Treatment Algorithms and Management Options
| author = Van Voorhees, Abby, Steven R. Feldman, John Y. M. Koo, Mark G. Lebwohl, and Alan Menter
| publisher = [[National Psoriasis Foundation]]
| url = http://www.psoriasis.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=354
| edition = 3
| year = 2009
| page =
}}
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Psychological/medical sources are usually used to identify serial killers, with the occasional exception of law enforcement. Generally, news sources are not the best sources to use for a topic such as this, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations. Yet, the section in question uses news sources and writers. The first source in the section already inaccurately describes two people as serial killers. The editor who added the section, however, feels that the section should stay because it is "verifiable." The question is...whether or not this editor's sources should be considered good enough simply because they are "verifiable."
I want to stress that the topic of serial killers is often related to the medical field, as in psychological evaluation and all that, which is why I listed it here. If it somehow falls outside of the scope of this WikiProject, an explanation as to why would be much appreciated. Otherwise, opinions on the matter are still needed...even though the matter of WP:UNDUE is resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Parkinson's disease at FAC: More reviewers needed
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Parkinson's disease has been at FAC for a month. While most reviewers have stated their support to the candidacy of this vital article there is at least an editor which believes it is not ready. More reviewers that could give their opinion on whether it is a FA and/or how to improve it would be of great help.--Garrondo (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):
{{cite journal
|author=John Smith
|year=2000
|title=How to Put Things into Other Things
|journal=Journal of Foobar
|volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4
|arxiv=0123456789
|asin=0123456789
|bibcode=0123456789
|doi=0123456789
|jfm=0123456789
|jstor=0123456789
|lccn=0123456789
|isbn=0123456789
|issn=0123456789
|mr=0123456789
|oclc=0123456789
|ol=0123456789
|osti=0123456789
|rfc=0123456789
|pmc=0123456789
|pmid=0123456789
|ssrn=0123456789
|zbl=0123456789
|id={{para|id|____}}
}}
Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books}03:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
Pending changes
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Unlike WP:Semiprotection, which completely prevents IPs and brand-new accounts from editing articles, Pending changes lets a new editor change the article. However, the changes aren't shown to the world (e.g., your favorite web search engine or other readers) unless and until some trusted user has looked at it and determined that it's not vandalism or libel.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Gray’s says that these are separate venous plexuses and that they “communicate” with each other. Clinically Oriented Anatomy by Moore doesn’t mention the pudendal plexus at all but describes the prostatic plexus the way that the pudendal plexus is described in the article.
Rather than being bold and simply merging the two and redirecting pudendal plexus to Prostatic plexus, I wanted to see if anybody had any other information. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
An unregistered user has just posted a comment at the wrong talk page (diff) with the heading I used here. I have removed the comment and am placing it here in the hope that someone will work out which article is being referenced, and what action is required. The comment (lightly formatted) was:
In the discussion of valves at the end of this article, the writer states that the valve in the right atrium is the "tricuspid valve" which is correct.
The author then states that the right ventricle valve is the "aortic valve", this is wrong. He or she then lists the "aortic valve" as being in the left ventricle, which is correct.
The two right heart valves are the tricuspid and the PULMONARY valves.
Hah! That's why I've dropped it here for someone with more clue than myself to figure out. Heart valve looks likely, but I didn't take the time to fully confirm. The user's sole edit was to make the comment, but I asked at their talk. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Our physicians here will appreciate this. Take a look at page 2 of this chart and check out the unique neuroanatomy, especially the neck. You didn't learn all this in med school because it was made up in the 1800s by a man who only had eight years of education, was a grocer and school teacher, and who got his ideas in a spiritualistic seance from a dead doctor.... Also check out why they believe that manipulating a spinal joint segment can treat or cure specific diseases caused by "subluxation effects".
For example, according to the chart, by cracking the neck they claim to be able to treat or cure deafness and blindness. Another example is their belief that by cracking the coccyx they can treat hemorrhoids, anal itching, migraines, infertility, brain pressure and mental symptoms. By cracking T9 they can treat allergies and hives. By popping T4 they can treat gallbladder problems, jaundice and shingles. By cracking T7 they can treat diabetes, ulcers, and blood disorders.
This chart shows why they think this way. Then consider this is the largest producer of their teaching aids. These are the most used charts in the profession, and this is happening now, in 2011.
Have fun and report back with your results. You may feel like you've been down the rabbit hole with Alice after the experience. If you think this isn't relevant here, think again. It will help you to understand the minds of some of our editors and that's valuable when dealing with them and their articles, because they may be editing with this mindset and when they use common anatomical terms, they may mean something different than you or I mean. They have their own special version of anatomy, pathology and treatment. By understanding this, communication can be improved and misunderstandings avoided, thus avoiding editorial conflicts. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm trying to develop some more breadth of experience, so I've been looking around for various ways to contribute and fill some needs here and there. I saw a page suggesting I could help by checking/rating Unassessed Medical Articles (Category:Unassessed medicine articles). In doing so, I saw that Lipoblastoma needed a rating, so I went to check it out.
I discovered that the "article" is currently nothing more than a Disambiguation page with links to (1) Benign lipoblastomatosis, and (2) Myxoid lipoblastoma. This is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE :-O for the Worlds Greatest Encyclopedia, so I thought I'd just go ahead and create some sort of "real" article on it over the next few days. However, with a Disambig page already there, I don't know how to deal with the potential mess that would be created by my doing so. Suggestions? Drop me a note if you get a sec! Thanks!
Getting more eyes on an ongoing RfC under this project's scope
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Hello there! Replies to an ongoing RfC at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center have been sparser than might be helpful, so since the article is tagged for WP:MED, I thought I should mention it over here. We're trying to decide whether, based on our sources' description of CPCs' religious affiliation, personnel, and behavior (detailed in a paragraph in the article for your easy consumption) it is best to describe them as "Christian," "run by Christians," or "affiliated with a Christian organization." Thanks! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think this WikiProject is particularly interested in dealing with this aspect of the topic. If there are good secondary sources to support one description over another, that should be helpful. JFW | T@lk10:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
At WT:PSY, the following summary was provided by user:Robertekraut, and I thought it would be relevant here as well (especially for the neurosciences).
Starting in February, 2011, the APS website will include a portal describing the initiative and recruiting volunteers. The plan is that APS members and students will volunteer on the portal and fill out a form to identify their areas of interest and expertise. The portal will then try to match volunteers with needed work on psychology articles, using the SuggestBot task recommender. It will suggest assessment tasks to APS members who have PhDs in psychology, using the new article feedback tool that the Wikipedia Foundation has developed for this purpose. The recommender will ask graduate students and others to work on particular psychology articles that are important (i.e., have high numbers of page views) and that the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology has assessed as C grade or below. These are important psychology articles that aren't good enough yet. The initiative will also host a forum or talk page where APS Wikipedia Initiative volunteers can communicate with each other and members of the Wikipedia community. Finally, the initiative will evaluate the value of different techniques to get psychologists involved in Wikipedia, using both surveys of the volunteers and experiments involving different technqiues.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Does anyone have expertise in the area of bad faith self deception by hypochondriacs? If so, please ad it to the bad faith article. From Post-Modern Reflections on the Ethics of Naming[39], The Ethics of Diagnosis Philosophy and Medicine, 1992, Volume 40, Section V, 275-300, George Khushf. - “... had a pathoanatomical or pathophysiological truth value. Absent a lesion or a physiologi- cal disturbance to account readily for the complaint, the complaint was likely to be regarded as male fide (bad faith). "PPdd (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Mefloquine at COIN
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
People here may be interested in this comment on my user talk page about ways to minimize the how-to aspect in describing medical tests. Let's have the discussion there, to keep it all together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
See also User:Dylanstaley/OrthoTemplate, which is the order we're going to recommend to the students. I'm going to be offwiki for a few hours, but feel free to comment at my user talk page if you have changes or expansions to suggest.
Also, students have started posting (usually in userspace) their articles, and I'd really appreciate it if multiple editors dropped those pages on to their watchlists, just so they're already there when they get WP:MOVEd into the main namespace (possibly during the next week). You can find the list here. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
There is a discussion between me and user:Scarpy about the lede sentence for describing that organization (as well as Sex Addicts Anonymous). The original lede, which Scarpy supports, is:
Sexual Compulsives Anonymous (SCA) is a twelve-step program for recovery from sexual compulsion.[1]
citing the manual written and published by SCA. I believe that that sentence fails WP:NPOV, because the term "sexual compulsion" is widely debated/contested/challenged among experts, and having the above as a lede sentence makes the page assert that that diagnosis is an accepted one, which it is not. I support this sentence instead:
Sexual Compulsives Anonymous (SCA) is a twelve-step program for people with hypersexuality who identify as sexual compulsives.[1][2]
The term "hypersexuality" is described by multiple sexologists as being 'theory-neutral'; it merely describes the behavior without implying anything about whether the people are compulsive versus addicted versus impulsive, etc. Scarpy prefers that the lede use the term as used by the SCA members. We would appreciate more opinions to help us decide what's best. Cites for the above are on that article's talkpage. — James Cantor (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
For the record, the statements James made about what I support/prefer here are false, and I'm very disappointed that James opportunistically asserted I have opinions and feelings that I never stated or confirmed. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
An article has recently been published regarding Wikipedia's coverage of medications Law MR, Mintzes B, Morgan SG (2011). "The sources and popularity of online drug information: an analysis of top search engine results and web page views". Ann Pharmacother. 45 (3): 350–6. doi:10.1345/aph.1P572. PMID21343404. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Could someone look into the recent edits to melatonin, specifically the creation of a new section on "Protection against nuclear radiation". In fact the whole article could do with a review. Colin°Talk10:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Oy. I've tried to tone down the melatonin section a bit, and added a much-needed tag. I will try to return to it, but I'm not sure I'll have the necessary time this weekend. It will take some work, because the section does contain some (mostly primary) sources, but they are carefully selected and arranged to promote melatonin as a radiation cure, rather than to give a balanced and judicious overview of the topic. In my experience, those sorts of problems are among the hardest to fix. I think we can convey the existing (limited, pre-clinical) evidence on melatonin as a potentially radioprotective agent, but the current text reads like a slick infomercial designed to capitalize on recent events in Japan in order to move merchandise. MastCellTalk16:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I made this template yesterday following this discussion. It's mostly based on the {{cite journal}} template, except that it supports |version=, and you can use a |group= to specify which Cochrane group was responsible for the editorial oversight. The DOI and the journal name are automatically included. More details can be found at {{cite journal/doc}}.
For example:
*{{cite cochrane
|author=Jansen AG, Hak E, Veenhoven RH, Damoiseaux RA, Schilder AG, Sanders EA
|group=Acute Respiratory Infections
|date=2009 Apr 15
|title=Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines for preventing otitis media
|issue=2 |review=CD001480 |version=3
|pmid=19370566
}}
yields
Jansen AG, Hak E, Veenhoven RH, Damoiseaux RA, Schilder AG, Sanders EA (2009 Apr 15). "Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines for preventing otitis media". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2). CD001480 (3rd rev.). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001480.pub3. PMID19370566. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
There is a good deal of discussion here that I have been concerned about. I'm not sure if this is an appropriate case for applying sanctions at this point, but I definitely think a couple of pairs of eyes would be helpful in identifying whether or not there are WP:SYNTH issues. NW(Talk)05:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Penile agenesis
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
It's way past my bedtime and my internet connection is barely working, but Will Golden (talk·contribs) seems a bit upset about the history of Penile agenesis (see recent talk page history)... And perhaps a little angry at me ([41]). I'm sure he'd appreciate any help, and a some extra eyes on the article mightn't go astray, either. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for letting us know about the problems at that under-watched page. I've added it my watchlist and hope others will, too.
Will is a very inexperienced editor (currently just 48 edits) and seems to have refactored his comments to a calmer tone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Content-oriented editors may wish to apply for a free "Credo" account. See Wikipedia:Credo accounts for the requirements, which include having more than 3,000 edits in the main namespace and having been an editor for >12 months. Four hundred accounts are on offer, and only about one-third have been requested so far. It's possible that people who don't quite qualify might be able to get any "leftover" accounts.
Credo seems to offer online access to major reference works, such as medical dictionaries. It does not seem to offer access to peer-reviewed journal articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This webpage has links to many public domain images, organized by disease (mostly skin-related diseases). Some of these are from the CDC and thus we probably have already uploaded, but if you're looking for an image, it might be worth checking out this resource. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
I think that they aren't useful or really encyclopedic. (They're more textbook-y or study-guide-like.) If I ran across one in an article, I would very likely remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
They are greatly adequate for wikiuniversity but highly unencyclopedic. Not adequate for wikipedia in my opinion. Forgot to sign:--Garrondo (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
1. I find them helpful in keeping track of what is in the article. They can be verified using logic if the relations are stated in the article with RS. WikiProject Mathematics uses OR like this. WikiProject Plants just discussed editors drawing pictures for the plant terms articles. Lists and their organizational form are allowed under RS through summing primary sources only. Many encyclopedias have diagrams in them.
2. Double click on them and they are big and useful to help organize the arricle in the mind.
Kai Lai Chung boasted in his first year doctoral student Probability text, that he managed to write it without a single diagram! Its not as easy to read as if it had a simple diagram. Although WP is not a university, many readers benefit by using it like one. PPdd (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Looks too much like something you'd use to help study for a 2nd year med school exam. Not very encyclopedic in my opinion. Yobol (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
I dont want to argue so much about the issue, as I am so busy, about editing them, it is possible since the original file can be uploaded, the author name can be removed, and references can be added, at last I propose at least adding them to a specialized section for them at the end of the article what do you think?? MaenK.A.Talk22:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The majority of readers will not find a lot of use for a mind map created by someone else. Weren't they more intended as a brainstorming/information retention tool anyway? JFW | T@lk22:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
The citation of all these mind maps is present, I created them using information from this book, so the info is cited, and I think that limiting their presence to a section for them wont bother uninterested people, and would benefit interested ones MaenK.A.Talk17:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
I too am concerned they are OR. And if they aren't OR then they are probably breaking someone's copyright (i.e., the book contains mind maps or you have copied the organisation of sections/chapters in the book when creating the mind maps). Essentially, they are one person's thought processes on a subject, and as such highly individual. Another issue is that generally it isn't a good idea to include images on WP that can't be read unless clicked though -- this reduces the value of the page (if printed in a book, they are useless) and limits accessibility to people with vision problems. But more importantly, there's nothing medical about mind maps so if WP were to limit or encourage their use, this conversation should be happening in a wider forum. Colin°Talk20:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
It is the reworking of material by the looks of it. While one can copyright the format one cannot copyright the underlying ideas. I agree though with Colin's others concerns.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
This matter has been discussed before: here and here. My main concern is the difficulty in editing the image. Colin also makes a good point about OR vs copyright status. Axl¤[Talk]09:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
(1) Is there anyone who could make a mind map generating wiki template, so they could be edited by others?
(2) They are no more OR or Synth than the creation of a nest structure in the article outline, perhaps they are even logically equivalent, but visually they may be more easy for readers to process sometimes. PPdd (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
A more general discussion regarding mind maps used in nonmedical articles and whether or not they are OR is here[42]. PPdd (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
The nervous system diagram is labelling real things. The mind maps are the product of some individual mind's thought processes. I don't find the jaundice mind map useful either, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. Colin°Talk10:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
This map is not a thought process, it is a summery that corresponds to the text. I used a source to create it, so it contain facts not ideas MaenK.A.Talk11:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
Please check this map Rosacea, and check the description page, it is sourced, and I linked the original file so every1 can edit it :) MaenK.A.Talk19:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
SVG version
The jaundice example is not a mind map. It's a simple diagram of how to categorize types of jaundice (divide into two groups by cause, then sub-divide those...).
I Solved the problem of editing the map entirely, the maps can be available in SVG format :), what do you think?? MaenK.A.Talk23:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
"I Solved the problem of editing the map entirely, the maps can be available in SVG format."
— Madhero88
It may be obvious to you (Madhero88) how to edit SVG files. However I do not know how to do this; I am sure that many other editors will not know either. Axl¤[Talk]09:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I would consider mindmaps as a representation of text, since they are ostensibly developed from text found in reliable sources. This requires a large amount of decision-making, including reduction of complex relationships to linear associations, dropping less-important associations, etc. I suggest that this decision-making is, more or less, synthesis, because some of those decisions involving mapping concepts in a way that was not suggested in published sources. Normally, when we edit text passages in WP, it is fairly easy for editors to collaboratively work toward a representation of reliable sources, sometimes by working through the text line-by-line, to ensure that we avoid synthesis. In contrast, mindmaps are not amenable to this sort of editing. Most images do not represent, at a granular level, concepts that span an entire article or set of articles, whereas this is what mindmaps tend to do. The huge risk of synthesis inherent in making a mindmap is not balanced by ease of editing or support for embedded citation. -- Scray (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm more concerned that there's just a lack of utility for the article, given that your average joe has no idea what a mind map is or even why it's there. Given all of the other concerns, it doesn't seem like they're worth the effort, though including them as a link might be meaningful. Seems more like Wikiversity material, and including an external link there might be a better way to address these. If they were honestly useful to readers, I'd be much more willing to bend for them, but they're really a tool for a textbook and don't really fit the objectives of an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Done, with some helpful assistance from User:Nakon. NW (Talk) 02:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I agree that QG is continuing to block progress with his stonewalling, IDHT and ownership. It's so bad a systemic problem that I, an expert on the subject, usually avoid the chiropractic articles because of his noxious influence there. (I thought he was still topic banned by ArbCom, but I guess that must have run out. Maybe it needs to be reinstated under the ArbCom sanctions.)
