Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 55

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 50←Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56Archive 57→Archive 60

Global health statistics (revisited)

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

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

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

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

National Operation Anti-Vivisection

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

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

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

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

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

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

Already noted above at #WikiProject Medicine in the New York Times, Cirt. Flyer22 (talk) 03:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Sweet! I posted it to a few talk pages that may wish to incorporate this article as a source. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:14, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Five Star Urgent Care

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

Poliovirus and SV40

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

Anatomical terminology

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

Requested Move regarding naming Ebola virus disease article to Ebola

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

MalaCards

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

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

"Sources such as Wikipedia" is misleading, and something discussed over a period of a year is not "sudden". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Pigsonthewing It attracted a small number of responses, in the wrong forum, and it stayed on that proposals page for months until it unexpectedly was incorporated in the Infobox. In that sense, it was "sudden" to me.
Incidentally, the methodology behind the database was published in 2013 (doi:10.1093/database/bat018) which is probably why it doesn't yet have widespread name recognition. JFW | T@lk 20:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
I thought I'd take a look at a mitochondrial disease : MalaCards: Leber Hereditary Optic Neuropathy... is related to leber hereditary optic neuropathy with dystonia... (and unhelpfully, the link provided to the latter is blank). Further down the page, under the heading "Related Diseases" , we seem to be informed that LHON is "related to" a range of conditions based on "text searches within MalaCards or GeneCards/GeneDecks gene sharing" [?]. Hmm...
Per the compilers of this, as yet, young database , "A well-known disadvantage is the extraction of irrelevant data [my emphasis]. One example is the extraction of genes that are annotated to be ‘unaffected’ by a specific disease to be associated with this same disease. Another example is extraction of genes related to ‘non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma’ for ‘Hodgkin’s lymphoma’ because the close lexical resemblance between the names of these diseases." Wouldn't linking to such content from infoboxes be likely to represent a potential source of confusion to the general usership of the encyclopedia? 109.153.156.71 (talk) 23:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
The MalaCards project seems to be of interesting potential, and of course a product of hard work; congratulations to people who work for it. That said, I am not going to comment on the quality of its entries, and neither on its usefulness for the Wikipedia reader. These wouldn't change a simple fact: it was added to the disease infobox without discussion at the proper forum (i.e. here) and without consensus. I oppose adding anything on this or any such important template, below links of universal acceptance and utility like ICD-10, without the above conditions. I propose the immediate removal of the link from the template. NikosGouliaros (talk) 07:01, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
This is not technically "the proper forum" for discussing changes to some other page; WPMED does not actually own Template:Infobox disease. The editor did propose a change to that template in the actual proper forum, which is on the talk page for the template. (However, it proved ineffective, because almost no one watches it.) We tend to discuss things here only because it's more convenient for us, and it increases the likelihood that someone will see it, not because it's "proper". I assume that when you say, "without consensus", you mean something like "without getting written permission in advance", which is not required by policy. Our policy is that the end result matters more than the process used to reach it.
It would be helpful to hear your opinion on whether it would be desirable to have this optional link in that template. Whether you (and other people) think that having this option for editors is a good (or bad) idea for readers is important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarifications, they were helpful for a less experienced editor. I was mistaken to consider this talk-page "the proper forum" - though I believe it is more appropriate than the Molecular Biology Project talk page.
By "without consensus" I was referring to what I believe was not "enough agreement" for the addition in question. Am I misinterpreting the result of the discussion? I believe not, though your more experienced view is welcome.
My opinion is that MalaCards wouldn't be a clearly useful addition to the template. I dislike the fact that part of its content is computer-generated, and one can sometimes see the trivial mixed with the important. Its usefulness and accuracy isn't established enough to stand by ICD-10 or MeSH. NikosGouliaros (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
That's a really valuable and thoughtful explanation, NikosGouliaros.
Do you think that these webpages might be a good ==External link== for some pages (vs an "almost never anywhere" position)? Although there's no set rule, what's often happened in the past with that template is that we move websites in there when it seems like a lot of articles have a link under ==External links== anyway. So far, I only find two links in mainspace, both as <ref>s, which doesn't argue in favor of many editors already finding the links especially useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:54, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
At least as far as maladies in my area (cardiology) are concerned, MalaCards doesn't seem to provide more information than a featured article in Wikipedia is expected to include, aside of genetic facts (list of related genes, their pathways and expression). Such information is already included in the links of Infobox Disease, therefore I don't think an external link to MalaCards would offer much, at least to the articles I usually visit and consider editing. NikosGouliaros (talk) 20:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I am not in favour of adding any further additional sources or identifiers to infoboxes unless they are (a) international standards or (b) exceptional in quality. There is nothing preventing users from conducting searches on google; if this data is to be recorded then Wikidata is the place to do it in my opinion.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Tom that Wikidata may be the appropriate place for this. (As I tried to explain above, infobox links to acknowledged irrelevancies would be a potential source of confusion for our readers.) 109.153.156.71 (talk) 10:46, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
Agree with both. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Source request

Is anyone able to make this available to me?

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

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

i just downloaded it and can email it to you. i just sent you an email so you can reply (I wish the WP email system allowed attachments!) Jytdog (talk) 01:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jytdog, thank you, I got the emails, but couldn't open the link in the second. Would you be able to email me a copy? SlimVirgin (talk) 01:41, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
sure but you need to email me back, so i can attach it in gmail. can't attach things in wikipedia mail... Jytdog (talk) 02:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

It appears everyone copies from Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

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

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

Finding more passages which have been copied and pasted:

We stated "March 12, 2009, an unidentified 45-year-old female scientist from Germany accidentally pricked her finger with a needle used to inject Ebola into lab mice. She was given an experimental vaccine never before used on humans. Since the peak period for an outbreak during the 21-day Ebola incubation period has passed as of April 2, 2009, she has been declared healthy and safe. It remains unclear whether or not she was ever actually infected with the virus"
They stated "in 12 March, 2009, when an unidentified 45-year-old female scientist from Germany accidentally pricked her finger with a needle used to inject Ebola into lab mice. She was given an experimental vaccine never before used on humans. It remains unclear whether or not she was ever infected with the virus or if the experimental vaccine proved beneficial
This text was added by this IP address on Mar 28, 2009 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Doc James asked me to take a look at this. Good work. :/ I have no doubt that what you're seeing here is a backwards copy. And it happens. I've seen backwards copying in extremely reliable (even governmental) sources, although I don't know if I've ever found it in an Oxford UP publication before. It all comes down to the ethics of the individual contributor. I did a few changes to the source text above, as there were some minor variations. The Wikimedia Foundation, as it indicates at WP:C, does not claim copyright over any of this and has no legal standing over the use of Wikipedia text. It simply has permission to use the content. The copyright owners are the contributors who put the content here, who have required the right of attribution and free license of derivatives. Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks talks about this. I will be very happy to hear what Oxford UP says about this, since I can't imagine they're any happier about it than we are. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
What would the WMF legal team have to do with it? So far I don't see 300 words - it ought to count under Fair Use. Professionally I understand of course plagiarism is often a kiss of death, but that's a different matter. Wnt (talk) 03:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
How would it be fair use, without attribution? Also, does English copyright law accept that doctrine? LeadSongDog come howl! 03:41, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see anything in Fair Use (the article) about attribution. If you put a figure from a paper on the overhead projector, do you have to include the citation to make it legal? (I admit, I do believe copyright lawsuits are decided at random, so I won't say that you're safe, but there's no particular reason for that) Wnt (talk) 04:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
For the benefit of other readers: I was unfamiliar with the phrase "backwards copy". After some digging around, I eventually found "Template:Backwardscopy". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Wnt, "fair use" is "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research." The copied text is not being used for any of those. It is being used to expand their ebola coverage to help sell copies of the book. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:15, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
If writing a textbook isn't scholarship, what is? It is true that the commercial purpose weighs against Fair Use, but these snippets of text are quite small. Not everything disreputable is actually illegal, nor should it be. Wnt (talk) 11:14, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Fair dealing applies in the UK. Although there is an allowance for "instruction", it cannot be for commercial use (e.g. text books), also an attribution is required. Little pob (talk) 11:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Wnt, I am not sure which definition of "scholarship" you are using. Here are some. I would consider a postgraduate student writing a PhD thesis to be "scholarship". Even then, there should be attribution to the original author. Otherwise, it appears as an attempt to pass off the work as the scholar's own.
The "Fair use" article also includes the statement "Courts, when deciding fair use cases, in addition to looking at context, amount and value of the use, also look to the standards and practices of the professional communities where the case comes from." The community of book publishers does not permit verbatim copying of text without attribution.
Actually if the book had quoted the text and referenced/attributed it, then there would not have been any problem. The issue with this text is really about plagiarism, not fair use. Axl ¤ [Talk] 11:50, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
We also require what is produced to be under an open license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe that the requirement for a free license only applies to actual derivatives, not to entire works. It's not like plagiarizing a single sentence out of Wikipedia means that your entire book gets "infected" with a free license. Only the (in this case) one paragraph needs to be given an open license. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The whole chapter is somewhat similar it appears. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
It's rather a different problem. Attribution is a necessary part both of avoiding plagiarism and of complying with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Text_of_Creative_Commons_Attribution-ShareAlike_3.0_Unported_License. Without it, a fair use claim cannot be based on commentary or review justifications. Parody justifications fails if the reader cannot identify the object of parody. Certainly OUP won't condone even plagiarism. We should not either. But we do still need to verify which is the original and which the copy. LeadSongDog come howl! 03:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
If one looks back in the history we are clearly the source. Author of Wikipedia has verified that he is not the author of this textbook or give permission.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:07, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Combined Movements

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

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

Neglected tropical disease task force proposed

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

Our presentation of prognosis of ebola in the lead

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

WP:MEDRS issues at opioid dependence article

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

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

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

I agree, that article needs better citations. Unfortunately, the citations in most of our addiction/dependence articles are of similar low quality. I'm actually planning to rework some of these (mostly the drug addiction ones, few behavioral); but, it'll be a month or two before I start and will probably take me a couple months to finish. The only one I've seen that I don't think needs to be reworked at the moment is sexual addiction (mostly because I already worked on that). Caffeine dependence for the most part is alright. Ironically, (substituted) amphetamine addiction is shorter than Amphetamine#Addiction (it also has the common problem of referring to addiction/dependence interchangeably)... so yeah... I need to fix that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
Alcoholism is obviously in decent shape too, though one section needs a minor update ( - scroll to the bottom & look for the red box). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

pmLove needed at Arginine#Potential_medical_uses

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

What exactly does "PM" stand for here? Jinkinson talk to me 19:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I think it's just a typo.
I updated one subsection. Most of it cites primary sources, but in the ones I spot-checked, everything could be substantiated with a recent review. It needs people to update the information, not just blank everything because of imperfect sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
pm=project medicine. was trying to come up with something trademarky like WAID's THETRUTHTM - so pmLOVETM. fail. Jytdog (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
I like that! We do have our own brand of love here. (The trademark symbol is option-2 on a Mac, which is much faster than typing out sup tags.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Another RfC regarding sources

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

WikiProject Medicine in the New York Times

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

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

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

Thanks guys! JFW | T@lk 20:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
Bravo! Smallbones(smalltalk) 23:41, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
So there was a computer in the photo that accompanied the CBC News story about James. But no photo credit, NY Times? Shame. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 14:34, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Preventive healthcare Task Force proposed

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

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


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

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

Fluoride toxicity Merger

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

Vagina anatomy article

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

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

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

Skeletal fluorosis

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

Adding mal card to infobox disease

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

Valerian (herb)

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

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

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

Persistent IP

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

And there's more ... found this CCI investigation, and the latest edit at Causes of autism is cut-and-paste. I haven't checked the rest of IPs edits for cut-and-paste, but they are prolific, and it looks like a CCI is in order.
So, this is probably going on in more than medical articles, pinging Moonriddengirl. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
And it appears that although Wizardman, Dana boomer, Psychonaut and MER-C cleaned hundreds of edits in the last CCI report, there has been no followup, the CCI was closed, and this IP has continued same for another year. Sheesh. You gotta be nuts to work in here ... not a single editor seems to have followed up on this issue or even posted to the IPs talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I blocked the IP while this is sorted. Unfortunately, we don't have the eyes to follow up on every non-indef'd copyright issue (hell we don't even have the eyes to tackle the CCIs we do have). If there's a way we can do a mass-undo of the edits the IP has made that's a good starting point at least... Wizardman 23:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I've reopened Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/67.184.212.160 and cleaned the first section. I would recommend fairly aggressive handling here. User:SandyGeorgia, CCI is not a disciplinary board, so there are quite a few CCI subjects who are not blocked. When I see CCI articles pop up at WP:CP for users who are still active, I occasionally try to spot-check to see if there are ongoing issues, because to me that's grounds for an immediate indef. But CCI is just a cleaning process, distinct from administrative actions against the users listed there. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:35, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Prolotherapy for Osgood-Schlatter disease

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

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

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

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

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

Given that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respectfully submitted,

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

I guessed that this thread is about this stage in the OSd article, where the line "Medical injections to the patellar area such as Hyperosmolar Dextrose injections are effective and safe for treating tendon and cartilage degeneration.[21]" is included and then deleted. I think that this new treatment could be included in the Wiki if it also described certain relevant caveats. For example, the trial was in children, they might have selected those who had earlier treatment failure, omission of the risks of infection, and so on. Snowman (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I think that the spirit of avoiding primary sources is to avoid including information from a primary source that is out on a limb. Snowman (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
What Wikipedia prefers generally, and especially in the area of biomedical information, are secondary sources. I've not seen the term "filtered sources", so will use "secondary sources". The purpose of a secondary source is to survey the primary sources, evaluate them for weight, quality and relevance, and draw a conclusion from them, if possible. For Wikipedia's purposes, individual primary sources are just about useless except in truly exceptional circumstances, and this doesn't appear to be one of them. You really need to find a high-quality, independent secondary source that covers this. I think some of the sources you've identified are moving in the direction of the kind of source Wikipedia looks for, but they're not quite there yet. I think one of the things to keep in mind here is that Wikipedia articles are encyclopedia articles, and are intended to present relatively stable information to the average reader, while the sources you've identified are really of interest to medical practitioners for their daily practice. If prolotherapy really makes good on its promise, in due time there will be more good-quality evidence and secondary sources, and at that point Wikipedia will pick it up. By design, Wikipedia doesn't rush to present the leading edge, but rather picks up the rear after things have settled and there's a consensus in the literature. Zad68 04:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Perfusionist#External_links

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

Looks good. We are not a collection of ELs. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:03, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, it felt right but I got speed wobbles after removing the twentieth link. Basie (talk) 15:40, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

using page hits in wikipedia to track disease transmission

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

Jytdog This was done earlier this year also by a research team which seems unrelated.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:02, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Speech therapy and Voice therapy

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

Diptanshu.D The only criteria for judging a merge is the amount of information from reliable sources which exists on a topic. If enough information exists to differentiate voice therapy from speech-language pathology, then two articles can exist. The problem is almost no information in voice therapy associated with a citation, and yet it all seems like it could have come from a published source. I would advise to clean up voice therapy first, deleting contested content without a citation. Then after checking the amount of content that remains, make the merge proposal. Consider also informing Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies about this, since this is as much of a cultural LGBT issue as it is a health issue. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
At a first glance, I think that speech therapy (or voice therapy) and speech–language pathology should be separate, as the first is "treatment" and the second is "the study of" (the field and the career). I think that speech therapy ought to basically answer this question: "The doctor just sent my child (or my stroke-affected mother) to speech therapy. What are they going to do there?" If we've got that information in the encyclopedia, then I don't know where it is.
I'm not entirely sure how the trans-specific subject differs from Voice training, like a vocal coach for singing, except with a goal of changing the quality of a healthy speaking voice rather than the quality of a healthy singing voice. It doesn't seem comparable to "my four year old is in speech therapy because he isn't using two-word sentences yet". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I have also opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Speech therapy and Voice therapy DiptanshuTalk 16:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
I am in the process of forming a new article for Voice therapy. I have taken portions from Voice therapy (transgender) and it seems to be quite a daunting task to organise this article. Seeking participation. DiptanshuTalk 18:29, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Diptanshu.D If I were to revise the article, I would delete everything except the two sentences which are followed by citations. The many Wikilinks I might put into a navigational box so that they would not be entirely lost from the article. I think it might only be daunting because you are starting with lots of unbacked claims and few citations. I would advise you to drop the project until and unless you identify sources that you like, because there will not be progress except by starting from reliable sources. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: Rightly said. DiptanshuTalk 18:46, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Can you please check why the emedicine link in the infobox is not showing up. DiptanshuTalk 19:47, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Is that the website that someone recently said had been rearranged, so that all of our links broke? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

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

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

I think that User:Nettrom and User:EpochFail may be interested in the second one, since they've been working on automated assessment for us. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up John. I've added it to my list.
Regarding that: A while back I did a search of PubMed and scoured the footnotes of various random articles for journal articles addressing the accuracy of Wikipedia's medical offering. Since then, whenever I happen upon another, I throw it in there. If anyone notices any obvious omissions (the list is here) please feel free to add. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I add things to the "official" Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Research publications - I think they agreed a while back, not sure. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Endocardial Cushion Hypoplasia

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

16 Google results means I don't think this is a notable topic. Perhaps it should become a redirect to hypoplasia. Jinkinson talk to me 00:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
The title of the draft sounds suspiciously like ostium primum atrial septal defect. The content of the draft reads like a journal review paper. Could this be a copyright violation? There might be content in the draft that could be transcribed to "Ostium primum atrial septal defect". Disclaimer: I am not a cardiologist. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
Really it's all about mouse experiments that might shed some light on the human cardiac condition. Developmental biology rather than medicine. Looks like a student paper to me. He carried on editing a while, on irrigation & the environment. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hematospermia

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

That is interesting. It was posted July 2013 by an IP account, so we cannot even contact the Wikipedia account which presented this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
It's a copyvio from here. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Update

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

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

Sequela

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

It seems that according to Merriam Webster, a complication is a disease/condition developed over the course of another disease/condition. By contrast a sequela is just "a negative aftereffect", so you don't already have to have another disease to have a sequela as you do with a condition. Or at least that's the way I understand it. Jinkinson talk to me 19:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, ICD-10 seems to consider sequelae and late-effects as synonyms; as the index entry for late-effect refers users to sequelae. Little pob (talk) 13:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Missed opportunity

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

Can you think of any specific actions that would help? Should Independent clinical trials be for merging (or deleting), because it could be incorporated into Clinical trial. Snowman (talk) 13:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that, but also it would be worth seeing what this group has to offer if their project is still ongoing. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I actually prodded that article, but Wiki CRUK John removed the PROD. I just put a notice on her talk page about original research, maybe that will help. Jinkinson talk to me 16:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
I agree it isn't actually much use where it is, or without references, but what it most certainly is not is OR - essentially the contents could pretty much be sourced to any serious discussion of the issue. So your prod was for a bad reason, and I removed it. Calling anything that's unreferenced "OR" is a bad habit too many patrollers have, and tends to get me going. I can't see the earlier version of the article, shot down in flames at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Independent_clinical_trial a while ago, but the cuurent Clinical trial has a short section on "Conflicts of interest and unfavorable studies" but doesn't afaics actually spell out why COI is the universally recognized problem that it is. It's also a pity that once again we send a group of new professional/academic editors straight off with a bloody nose. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
If I may chip in, I really wish we could at least welcome users who are trying to edit in good faith (ie. say hello) before we go about reprimanding them. Although the stub is small, it is not disagreeable, and it is my personal point of view that a lot of trial-related topics have not received the same attention as clinical medicine. Unreferenced doesn't always mean OR and OR doesn't always mean delete. So I think continued interaction with the user and group may be needed. I've welcomed the user and left a note to this regard on her talk page --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Personal sound amplification products

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

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

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

Water brash/hypersalivation?

Is water brash a common term for hypersalivation? Thoughts?

IP user making many problematic edits to medicine articles

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

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

DorlandsID discontinued

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

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


European Federation of psychiatric trainees

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

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

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

It might be worth reading WP:DONATETEXT. However usually people just rewrite/rephrase. Basie (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
hi ofix, if you read the license, you are free to use the content but "You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.". if you put a note on the talk page or in an edit note briefly describing the changes you made (which could be as simple as "The original work has been modified.") it should be fine. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
Jytdog, Ofix did cite the source, and noted its Creative Commons license on the talk page. Isn't that a good faith effort?
Ofix, when including text taken directly from a Creative Commons licensed source (BY or BY-SA), you should use a citation (as usual) and add the CC-notice template (just updated to support version 4.0]) in the References section. You may also want to add the text release template to the talk page.
All, is there a help article that explains best practices for incorporating text from works released under open source licenses or in the public domain? I looked, but only found it mentioned very briefly in articles about copyright and avoiding plagiarism. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 13:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

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

Thank you for your comments. I put CC license in the references. Is it ok for you now ?--Ofix (talk) 15:38, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
  • @Ofix: Hello, one slight problem: the site referenced is released under CC-BY-SA 4.0 International. At the moment, that license is not a compatible license here. "They" are looking at it, but at the moment 4.0 is not compatible. CrowCaw 22:29, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Electroacupuncture

Requested move

Lancefield serotyping

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

slew of student postings

Thrive+ Hangover Cure

Alzheimer's disease

Functional medicine

Unblockable socking

Flammer syndrome

GA class criteria

Primary sources being added to Resveratrol

HPV vaccine(s)?

Promotional

What to do when the data is all fairly new?

Diseases of the foot needs work

Pancreatic cancer - now at Peer Review

Mustard plaster

Articles named "Human abcxyz"

Mentored editing, likely medicine-focused

FYI...

Spanish fly - Request for MED members to improve article

question about controversies over interpretations of clinical trials

prediction?

Trigeminal neuralgia

Ludwig-McGill HPV Cohort

RN class on communication

Anatomy pages with clinical content

Endometrial cancer for Today's Featured Article

Medical schools and WPMED

Paper from 1966

Eating recovery

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI