Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 59

The first review concludes no evidence for use of acupuncture, the second tentatively concludes there is some evidence of efficacy. I have access to neither full text. What should the wikipedia article state about acupuncture in PFPS? Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I was tidying this edit , but not sure now. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk)

The second review does not appear to be a review of the efficacy of acupuncture, but a review of the quality of the studies in this area, and it seems to conclude they are of poor quality. Hence using it to suggest efficacy would seem to be a mis-use. However, I don't have access to the full text so I can't be completely sure. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:13, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

We need a link to the full study. The conclusion in the abstract of the 2nd study seems to contradict itself - while it does assess quality of studies, it concludes that the ones that are of sufficient quality suggest efficacy of acu, quad strengthening, etc.; but then a few sentences later is casts doubt by saying that generally the studies evaluated had enough qualitative problems that results are called into doubt. So, we need the whole paper to know if that last part referred to some or all of the studies they looked at. Herbxue (talk) 05:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Link. If I can't get to a paper directly through the PubMed entry, I always try Google using the title with quotation marks around it. :-) Sunrise (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Sunrise, guess I should've googled myself :). Yeah, the paper is definitely about the process and the instrument and not a full review of the specific treatments. It shouldn't be used for any medical claims.Herbxue (talk) 18:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

So since I don't think we use the source for any medical claims I assume we are fine with the current content... Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be better to not say "there is no evidence" in WP's voice, because there are primary studies available. I recommend saying the available systematic reviews do not support acupuncture for…" Herbxue (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

One could say their is "insufficient evidence" or "no high quality evidence" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thats reasonable but would only say that if the source says it, avoiding the appearance of original research.Herbxue (talk) 01:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

herbxue, my understanding is that we are not supposed to discuss the sources themselves, but merely reiterate what they state. So phrases like "a systematic review concluded xyz" are inappropriate.Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 02:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Depends on context I suppose - attributing an edit to the source within the text is the safest way to avoid making a mistake or oversimplifying in WP's voice - this particular text might just not be controversial so I may be splitting hairs unnecessarily. Herbxue (talk) 03:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the prior statement you cant say there is "no" evidence, but you can say there is no current "review article" for it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought we are not supposed to discuss the nature of the sources themselves? I feel that sentences such as "there are no current review articles which conclude there is evidence for xyz" are unencyclopedic. Ping WhatamIdoing if they have any insight here. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Surveying the literature and drawing conclusions like about what sources exist would technically be original research. It's also liable to going out of date very quickly, and is probably wrong (because you're probably only looking at English sources.) Furthermore, it appears that there there are "review articles", just none that are unambguously in favor of it.

My suggestions is to spend a lot less time worrying about whether it's proven efficacious and to focus on what it is. You could use these reviews to say that it's "been studied", for example, without trying to claim that it does (or doesn't) work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the one who originally edited the article, and I'm really confused as to why it isn't included that Acupuncture at least has some efficacy. So first, this paper by Jensen et al.reviewed the efficacy of acupuncture as a treatment, and found that it was effective at treating PFPS relative to the control group that received no treatment.

Next, Bizzini et al. conducted a meta-study that reviewed several studies that had evaluated treatments of PFPs, one of which was the study by Jensen et al. While most of the studies that Bizzini et al. reviewed turned out to have design flaws, they found that the Jensen et al study met all of their criteria for proper experimental design except for "randomization described" (see chart on page 9). On Page 14, they describe their review of Jensen et al. saying that

"Although the mechanism by which acupuncture reduces pain is unclear, it is believed to be related to the gate and endorphin theories of pain reduction. Jensen et al assessed the effect of acupuncture in the treatment of PFPS and found significant improvements in pain and function in those patients who received acupuncture. This trial was assigned a score of 83 points (Table 5). The only item in the scale for which this trial did not meet the minimum level of quality was the item related to the description of randomization (Table 2). Based on the results of this study and in light of its quality score, acupuncture appears to be effective in the treatment of PFPS."

So a study (Jensen et al.) concluded that acupuncture can be an effective treatment of PFPS, and a meta-study verified that the first study was conducted properly. I think the confusion may have been because most of the studies reviewed by Bizzini et al. had problems, but Jensen et al. wasn't one of them. --192.104.54.179 (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

192.104.54.179, thanks for following this up. The problem as I see it now is that we shouldn't really use Jensen et al. itself as a source because it is a primary source (WP:MEDRS). Instead we should use a review paper which discusses it. It was argued above by another editor that the review article (Bizzini et al) we have currently which cites Jensen et al. is focussed on the quality of RCTs for PFPS and not the efficacy of interventions. However we do have another review (Crossley et al) which concludes directly, that there is no evidence of efficacy for acupuncture in PFPS. However Crossley was published in 2001 ... older than Bizzini 2003. Not sure if Crossley included the Jensen study, I will have to find the fulltext. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 18:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That argument smells a lot like "anything to get rid of a source whose POV I disagree with". (Also, they're both elderly.) I really don't think we should say there's no evidence (or anything like that) if there is a (any halfway decent) review article that says the opposite.

I still think the best approach here is to name it as a treatment that's sometimes been used or studied, without mentioning efficacy (especially not on the basis of a 13-year-old source). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no disagreement about the pov of the source, just seeking consensus and trying to follow sourcing guidelines. However I feel that not mentioning efficacy will read the same as a statement that "it works". If we have reliable sources which disagree with it's efficacy then i feel that we should make some attempt to reproduce this uncertainty in the article. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

" then i feel that we should make some attempt to reproduce this uncertainty in the articleic "..this is of course what logic dictates should be done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:21, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Something a bit different: medicine meets law-making. This parliamentary Bill is the subject of some controversy in the UK. I recently created an article on it and now there is some edit-warring. More wise eyes would be welcome ... Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

http://blogs.plos.org/plos/2015/01/researchers-changing-way-respond-epidemics-wikipedia-twitt/ mentions Wikipedia's Influenza information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello once more, medical experts. While investigating this draft, I came across INTEGRIS Cancer Institute of Oklahoma, INTEGRIS Southwest Medical Center, INTEGRIS Bass Baptist Health Center, INTEGRIS Baptist Medical Center, and INTEGRIS Health Edmond. All of these seem badly referenced. Is it usual for Wikipedia to have articles about individual hospitals unless there is something particularly notable about them? Or should they be combined into one article about INTEGRIS, assuming some independent and non-directory references can be found? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

there is some very obvious undisclosed paid editing going on here. ugh. Jytdog (talk) 14:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

One thing paid editors share in common with students is both groups LOVE capital letters. We need a discussion regarding how we should handle paid editing when it comes to medical topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I personally think it is useful to have pages of hospitals, even if there is nothing particularly notable. We do the same for schools. Readers do search for these pages, and having a stub may generate more useful content. Mamyles (talk) 20:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I AGREE WITH DOC JAMES THAT SUCH A DISCUSSION WOULD BE USEFUL, though I imagine a lack of notability would just necessitate content deletion in many cases. And sorry, I couldn't resist. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

FYI, an older discussion of these articles at WP:COIN: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_78#Integris_and_the_advertising_agency_Ackerman_McQueen. Deli nk (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is also a related draft article, just started today, at User:Tyrannothesaurus Rex/sandbox. Deli nk (talk) 21:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You could also bring it up at WikiProject Hospitals. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

if it isn't notable for some specific- medical, historical, etc, reason,,then is the purpose of the article to say -were on Wikipedia, just because--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Hospitals are subject to WP:ORG, and, when talking about hospitals in developed countries, it is really rare for anything except the very smallest of hospitals not to pass that low bar. I don't even need to look at the articles to know that all of these should be kept. The fact is that it's basically impossible to build, open, re-name, or close an actual hospital in this country (i.e., the US; Oklahoma is one of those squarish states in the middle) without independent reliable sources taking note of it. Actually, for most hospitals, you can't even re-paint without a newspaper story about it. If you'd like to get some independent sources (which I gather is a problem from these comments), then two of those seem to be among the largest in that state (by number of beds: "Baptist" has 640 and "Southwest" has 406)., according to this government report. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with articles about hospitals in general. I have issues with PR firms writing spammy sounding articles about hospitals on Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Me, too, but WP:Deletion is not cleanup. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:42, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that the information be deleted, but if after removing spam there isn't much left, an individual hospital page could be redirected to the larger organization and listed there, perhaps temporarily, until such time as someone takes on the task of rewriting the article from a neutral point of view.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it's easier for new editors to expand a sub-stub than to expand a redirect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

i am thinking that all the integris articles, including the draft, should be merged together and cleaned up. Jytdog (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I sympathize, and you know I'm a dedicated mergeist. But "Integris" (according to their website) was formed in 1983 and didn't acquire the hospitals until the 1990s. That's just 20 years, and I'm going to bet that there are individual hospitals in that list that are nearly a century old (I haven't looked). It usually works better to have separate articles on individual hospitals, because healthcare mergers are a very recent phenomenon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I think Jytdog idea is worth looking at--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:13, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

There is a new story in CMAJ about WikiProject Medicine. User:Doc James is discussed. Apparently he's the most prolific Wikipedia medical editor--impressive! Everymorning talk 23:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. First I have seen it :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:39, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Hypewatch: Media Overreach on Soda Story" User:Fred Bauder Talk 16:33, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I saw a lot of headlines about this study, (which is here) but they were all about menstruation, not breast cancer. Nevertheless this confirms that the popular press sometimes gets medical stories wrong. Everymorning talk 19:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes confirms why we do not allow it for sourcing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Am trying to get this very complicated "assessment statistics" table to work . C quality articles are not listed.

Even though there are a lot here

They however do not show up here

Full list of articles is here

Wondering if anyone knows how to fix this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, re-running the bot doesn't seem to update the underlying table. You might want to talk to User:Theopolisme about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes might simply need some time. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Working now :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Just came across these and thought they might be of interest to other medical editors. The first study is about Parkinson's disease--not the disease itself, the Wikipedia page about it. The second one is about the readability of 41 Wikipedia articles about epilepsy (and information about epilepsy on other websites as well). I have access to the full text of the second, but not the first. The second is interesting in that it says that Wikipedia articles about epilepsy have a difficult readability level. Everymorning talk 01:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes we are well known to have a high reading level when calculated using specific automated tools. When medical students were asked why they use Wikipedia rather than other sources one of their top reasons was that we are easy to understand. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you perhaps add the pmids? I can't even follow the first link, I should have access to everything on Springer but the link gets me an "error - page does not exist". -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

First is PMID 25596713, second PMID 25601720. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I added these to Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Research publications and made notes of them at Health information on Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

the second article, is very informative--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:00, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Sexophobia. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 15:32, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

We know have ZIM files for just medical articles broken down by language here http://tmp.kiwix.org/medicine/ This is part of an effort looking at sending out medical content on cellphone cards. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Is S. Nassir Ghaemi likely to be notable? He is Professor of Psychiatry and Director of the Mood Disorders Program at Tufts Medical Center in Boston. I have just started a draft at Draft:S. Nassir Ghaemi but if it's going to be mission impossible I'd rather stop and move on to more productive editing. He is mentioned and cited in several articles here on WP and seems to be an authority on bipolar disorder. So should I continue or drop it? Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:48, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, if you look on google news you'll hit enough independent sources to qualify. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:59, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

he seems to have quite a few sources on Google, hes also written a book, however in the process of creating the article those on the talk page will determine (via consensus) how important his contributions are and therefore what the length of the article should be--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:44, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I find that I do my best Wiki-writing when I know absolutely nothing about the subject. Using Google Scholar I found stuff by him, not about him, so of very limited usability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:05, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, Ozzie10aaaa, I prefer to write a draft by myself to the point where I am satisfied that the basic requirements for an article, such as notability, verifiability, neutrality, etc., have been met - only then do I throw it to he lions on mainspace. So my method is a little different to the way you describe. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 14:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

yes, of course--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:47, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The book has also been reviewed in the NY Times, a good sign for notability. Everymorning talk 16:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that a notable book is only supportive, not definitve, for the notability of the author. Thanks everyone, I have sufficient sources to get the draft started. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Google scholar shows there is a lot of interest in his work by other scientists and he is a full professor at Tufts Medical Center. The latter is often cited as evidence of notability, per WP:PROF. EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

ANI - Does Wikipedia offer medical advice now?

EChastain (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I find it strange that such a discussion should even exist when there is a strict no medical advice (period).--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Yup we must not give medical advice. Could result in badness. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Going off that statement I have an general question: legally who would be at fault if a user were to give medical advice a) on an noticeboard, or b) in an article? Is there or should there be some sort of protocol where we contact those directly effected by such events? Peter.C • talk • contribs 00:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

An article as such has not been given to a particular person and is hence to advice as such. This is entirely different to a conversation on a talk page. I presume culpability would lie with the person who gave advice. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:04, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Legally both situations are supposed to be covered by WP's general and specific medical disclaimers. So no-one.Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I suspect that the above comment is why we also disclaim the offering of legal advice on Wikipedia. Wikipedia's disclaimers were solely designed to protect Wikipedia (the site and WMF) from liability. Any legal cover they might provide to nitwits practising medicine (or law)—or otherwise giving advice they damn well shouldn't is purely incidental.

That said, I've always been extraordinarily frustrated by Wikipedia users and editors who believe that protection from legal liability is the sole and overriding concern. One should not give medical advice on Wikipedia because, first and foremost, someone could get hurt. (And in my experience, the editors who are most likely to violate our rule about not giving medical advice tend to be the ones who are least competent to realize when they're doing it particularly badly.) Someone getting hurt can lead to lawsuits, yes—but it also leads to harm to the project's reputation, damage to our ability to fundraise, difficulty recruiting competent medical experts and scientists who won't want to be associated with us, and Jimbo dealing with a PR disaster on the 6 o'clock news. (Who here is 'old' enough to remember the Seigenthaler controversy, out of which we got the BLP policy?) Worst and most essentially, someone getting hurt means that someone got hurt.

That's not a good thing to risk when the reward is someone on the Reference Desk got to enjoy playing doctor. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

He asked the question. Incidentally or not, the disclaimers are important for the potential liability of editors, apart from the questions of knowing who and where an editor is, and (for Americans) whether s/he has enough assets to be worth suing. I'm not sure what you think you are arguing against here. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

came across this info site on NIH ,the brain initiative it also has a couple of informative downloads (left-hand side) i believe it to be a good read. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Dear medical experts: This old AfC draft seems like a notable topic. Is it already covered under some other title? Should it be accepted and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:50, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It is a type of below knee walking boot that we often use instead of casting. Needs some adjustment but it is okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Measles is getting a lot of attention nowadays. The article, and many articles related to measles, especially MMR-related articles, have been getting a lot of edits. Many of these edits are "updates" to recent outbreaks in the Recent outbreak section on the Measles article. This section reads like a newspaper, as does the article Measles outbreaks in the 21st century. Many outbreaks and epidemics are missing, and information for most of the rest is outdated. Additionally, measles is still endemic to many nations, it is difficult to keep up-to-date information on smaller outbreaks, and there are simply too many outbreaks that occur to include them all. All in all, it just looks like a mess. What's the best way to deal with this? ComfyKem (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Create a subpage called Epidemiology of measles and move the in depth discussion there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I second that emotion. Then use a "main" link and the lead of the new fork as the only content in the section left behind. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Is it a good idea, though, to encourage any article to become or remain a rather slipshod blog of measles outbreaks? One that will focus, almost exclusively, on cases in first-world, English-speaking nations, that take place when there isn't a sexier disease (Ebola, anyone?) on the cable news cycle, because those are the easiest sources? (Let's be honest, would there be anywhere near as much coverage of or interest in the recent California outbreak if it didn't happen to have a connection to Disneyland?)

"Move the blog to another article" reduces the noise level at the main article and is, I suppose, a "win" in that sense—but deliberately creating midden heaps for all the scraps we throw out of the good articles isn't appealing. And I admit that WP:NOTNEWS is probably our most-ignored core policy; there's no practical way to get enough editors to hold off on adding each new clipping to our articles as they happen. But we should be asking and looking for editors who are willing to clear out the underbrush, who can go back and summarize coherently after the initial rush, converting the "blogging" based on primary news sources into proper article content based on scholarly secondary sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:02, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I believe creating a subpage is a good idea, As Wikipedia is not a paper source, editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

You could WP:SPLIT it to a List of measles outbreaks. You're right that there is no realistic way to keep the "news flash" information out of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The main reason for a split is that it gets the trivia into a lower-traffic and more controlled space. When the media attention dies down, then it can be re-written into an encyclopedia summary (or deleted). In the meantime, we're protecting the main articles and giving newbies and other enthusiastic people a more helpful (less unhelpful? It kind of depends on the edit) way to contribute. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

We have a new editor here chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency attempting to replace reviews with the popular press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

User attempting to use an older primary source to refute newer secondary sources. Thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, anyone interested in reviewing acne vulgaris for GA? I admit it hasn't been nominated for a terribly long time and this really comes from my lack of patience, but it would be good to get this up to GA as soon as possible, so if anyone here is interested (or knows someone who might be interested), please let me know. Thanks everyone! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 I reviewed this on a few points. Others can comment at Talk:Acne_vulgaris/GA1. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Have proposed this here Template_talk:Cite_cochrane#Merge_to_.22Template:Cite_journal.22 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:13, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Is all, part, or none of this information acceptable to use for the Breastfeeding article as far as sourcing guidelines go? Gandydancer (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

In the society and culture section it would be okay. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It might make more sense to put it in Infant formula.

Breastfeeding needs a thorough overhaul. I've ripped out a handful of primary sources (only a small fraction of what's present, alas), but it also needs someone to remove verbiage of the "According to a 2007 review artile by Prof. I.M. Portant" type and write actual summaries of the contents, rather than descriptions of the sources. From the looks of the history, we've pretty much ignored it and abandoned Gandydancer to maintain quality on her own, and that's put her in a very difficult position, especially for an article that will get more good-faith edits from potentially valuable new editors than usual. If someone could find a really excellent, recent source for the overall issues, that would be really helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Jtydog is good at this sort of thing and he may be willing to help. We are talking about moving the AIDs info since the article is so long. We'll see. Gandydancer (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Selective_serotonin_reuptake_inhibitor contains links in the infobox to which lists all the meds in the class and what they are used for. Plus a discussion of the relative economics

Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts are this: though Consumer Reports is supposedly a non-profit organisation, I've never found their information helpful. (And I do resent being constantly barraged with adverts from them through the mail.) The "Best Buy Drugs" label in the infobox is misleading because the price really depends on where you live and in what country as well as what insurance, if any, you have. The information on treatments for depression is superficial and points towards drugs, not even mentioning other possible non-pharmacological solutions. And all their links advise subscribing to Consumer Reports for complete information. So it's basically an ad, IMO. EChastain (talk) 00:49, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

I think Consumer Reports is fine however they don't seem to indicate alternatives for treatment--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Both these give very US-centric advice, and far from include all SSRI brands. I'll take a look if there is any EU equivalent to balance this with. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The European Medicines Agency has a similar page, but it doesn't allow the same search type. This is an example of a treatments for Major Depressive Disorder -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

The NIH druginfo has a very clear page for Antidepressants, and if you click on the Category button you will find a listing of 86 different medications, not all being SSRI. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

yes the NIH site does offer a better page and info--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I've been here before about the South Beach Diet article, and I'd like to see if someone here is interested in reviewing a fairly narrow suggestion, to replace the introduction's second paragraph (just one sentence) with a slightly longer paragraph. (Worth noting: I am working as a consultant on behalf of the company that publishes the books, so I won't be making any direct changes to the article myself.) I'd previously discussed this with a couple of other editors, however they seem to be busy with other things. With a week gone by, I'd be appreciative if someone else would consider it. Here is a direct link to the proposed change, and previous conversation can be found by scrolling up from there. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:30, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A new editor User:NupurPathak has created a new article Mintop Solution, which appears to be a trade name of Minoxidil. User:DPRoberts534 redirected the new article to Minoxidil, but was reverted by NupurPathak. Apparently the new editor thought that the article was "deleted" because of the image used (so he put back a version with no images). It seems that from MOS:MED the article should be redirected, but I am not too sure of that.--Joshua ^{Say "hi" to me!}_{What I've done?} 08:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Have restored the redirect. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This new article needs attention. In particular, I'm not sure what categories it belongs in and if the sources cited meet WP:MEDRS. Everymorning talk 15:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

four of the sources are more than five years old--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm into my last two weeks at Cancer Research UK, which has been an amazing time. We still have a few shots in the locker, and now we have finally worked out how to get short animations up to Commons (for newer browsers that aren't Internet Explorer, I think). So there's Commons:Category:Animations from Cancer Research UK. I hope there wil be more in future, now we know how to do it.

Pancreatic cancer is now FA, thanks to the contributions of many here. Esophageal cancer has had some sections greatly improved by our 86 etc IP, but others need referencing, checking and updating. There are several recent sources mentioned on the talk-page. Is anyone interested in helping? If so please let me know, or just start. Any help very welcome.

Generally, if people have specific requests relating to cancer that I can help with, now is the time to ask. User:HenryScow will remain able to help, but his time is much more limited than mine, while I am still in place. Thanks again for all the help I've had from the community. I intend to remain active in medical areas, the amount depending on what else I'm up to. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Wiki CRUK John the how cancer gets blood supply , and when cells cause cancer by giving the wrong messages are both very good animations. You indicated if there were any request, I have a question,before dealing with how STATc is regulated I use to deal with mammalian cell (oncological). What is the most recent advance in terms of sickle cell anemia in your opinion (though not a cancer, treatment of sickle cell anemia is similar to therapies used for blood-forming cancers such as leukemias or lymphomas),? thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Not found anything on this so far, I'm afraid. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

electronic medication caps --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

John thanks for your amazing work over the last few months. Is there further interest for a WiR at CRUK? Are you coming to the GLAM conference in Amsterdam? And did you get to studying how people who may have cancer use the Internet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

1) Thanks! 2) The emphasis is on incorporating collaboration with Wikipedia into normal working practices - that flame's been lit in various places, & I hope it will continue to burn. For example the most recently produced diagrams were uploaded as part of normal process, without any involvement by me, which is great. 3) Hope so (it's Den Haag isn't it? Same airport) 4) Yes, that's still happening. Very interesting results, which I will report here later, and we hope to publish eventually. I'll be doing a final newsletter and report, though work on the research in particular will continue after my term officially finishes. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Any thoughts on what to do with Draft:TRIPOD Statement? This concept, or model or whatever it is, seems to have been published in a wide variety of respectable journals, but the Draft as currently presented doesn't provide any references to sources discussing the concept/model... as opposed to publications of the concept/model. Normally when I see a Draft whose sources all share a principal author, my first thought is that notability is unlikely to be proven, but the unusual spread of publications gave me pause for thought. Arthur goes shopping (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

On the down side, they have their own Twitter account -- https://twitter.com/tripodstatement. On the up side, it's commented on here: http://www.ajkd.org/article/S0272-6386(14)01536-4/abstract. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: User talk:Flyer22#Health category. Rathfelder stated, "My understanding was that categorisation was heirarchical. So it makes sense to put articles in more specialised categories. If we fill the top categories with everything that could be included in them they won't help people to find their way around. Am I wrong?"

I stated, "Hello, Rathfelder. Before you made this change to the section on my talk page, I was about to bring up the fact that I reverted you at a number of articles, including the Vaginal flora article (seen here). I fail to see how the Vaginal flora article does not belong in Category:Health unless one makes the argument that it's already covered by being included in Category:Feminine hygiene. As for the other articles, I reverted you at, seen here, here, here, here, here, and here, I mainly reverted you (as indicated) because you were changing the categories with no explanation and marking the edits as WP:Minor. You should ask about these matters at WP:Med."

And the discussion continued from there. I'm asking WP:Med whether they think that Rathfelder's categorization was correct at all of the articles I reverted him at (listed in the second paragraph above). Flyer22 (talk) 11:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that all my categorisation was correct. I'd be grateful for help. I was trying to tidy up the categories at the top of the heirarchy - Health, Healthcare, and Medicine - which because they are so comprehensive collect too many articles. My understanding is that articles should be put into more specific categories where possible.Rathfelder (talk) 11:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

"Think" is the keyword. If you are convinced that all of your categorization of health articles is correct, you should have no problem getting wider input on the matter... I already stated above, "I fail to see how the Vaginal flora article does not belong in Category:Health unless one makes the argument that it's already covered by being included in Category:Feminine hygiene I agree with this statement by Flyer22, it seems that there are pre-existing category placements like "category:health" that should have been used--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

In general he is right and you are wrong. Read and digest WP:OCAT. There might be a case for a new intermediate category for "human microbiology" or something (if nothing exists), allowing Human microbiome to connect to a health tree, which I imagine it should, but very specific articles like Vaginal flora should certainly not be in a top, top level category like "Health". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:59, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I would expect few or no articles in Category:Health because it is such a broad category that almost any concept categorized as health would be better subcategorized within the health category. Flyer22, as you say, "vaginal flora" is a topic best categorized as Category:Feminine hygiene, which should be a subcategory within health. I am not sure what the nature of the disagreement is since both parties seem to want the same thing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

It's clear enough, surely. Everybody wants "Vaginal flora" categorized somewhere in the health tree. Flyer22 and Ozzie10aaaa think putting it and a bunch of similar articles straight into Category:Health is an acceptable way of achieving this. You, me, and Rathfelder don't. WP:OCAT may often be ignored but it is crucial to stop the category system from becoming entirely overgrown. That, in this case, "makes the argument that it's already covered by being included in Category:Feminine hygiene", and should be followed. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think that "putting [...] a bunch of similar articles straight into Category:Health is an acceptable way of [categorizing articles as a health topic]." If I thought that, I would not have stated, "I fail to see how the Vaginal flora article does not belong in Category:Health unless one makes the argument that it's already covered by being included in Category:Feminine hygiene." I judge things like this (meaning categories) on a case-by-case basis. Others have now made the argument I have -- that the Vaginal flora article is categorized as a health topic by being in Category:Feminine hygiene. Remove Category:Health from the article again, and I will not care. I already noted that I reverted Rathfelder at the Vaginal flora article because he removed the category without an explanation when vaginal flora is a health topic, marked the edit as WP:Minor, and was going around changing the categorization of other health topics. I felt that a discussion should be had about all of this. I had not seen Rathfelder editing health articles before, and I felt that WP:Med might have varying opinions on the matter. These articles were categorized in these ways for some time, without anyone, that we know of, thinking that the categorizations were a problem. Sometimes an article is categorized one way, and then someone adds what can be considered a redundant category; happens all the time, and so do arguments over those matters. I generally stay out of article categorization arguments because I generally view them as trivial unless they are of the WP:BLPCAT variety. I did not bring this matter here because I think that "putting [...] a bunch of similar articles straight into Category:Health is an acceptable way of [categorizing articles as a health topic]." Furthermore, I pointed to more than just the Vaginal flora article above. If editors here are fine with all of Rathfelder's other changes noted in the second paragraph above, okay then.

On a side note: I don't need to be pinged to this discussion via WP:Echo. WP:Med is on my WP:Watchlist, and I'll check back in on this discussion without any push to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't put such a narrow article as Vaginal flora in Cat:Health. Only very broad subjects, like Disease and Human nutrition, should be in the top level there.

I also want to add that sometimes people add the broad categories because they don't know which sub-cat the article belongs in. Consequently, it's especially important to assume that someone adding a broad cat is trying to help, to the best of their ability. I really appreciate the work of people who disperse articles from those broad cats. It's an important area of maintenance that is often most efficient for a small number of people to specialize in. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

I second this opinion. I really appreciate the work people do with categories, which is often a thankless but useful task. I agree only broad subjects should be in the top level. If we follow the logic that the majority of articles should be kept within top-level categories, there is barely any need for categories at all. On the other hand I do recognise that some finesse is required working out which subcategory an article should be placed in, as a poor choice can sometimes be quite pejorative. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all for your kind advice. I don't generally work on medical articles. I specialise in British healthcare.

There is a well developed policy on Category tree organization - which I hadn't read before I started doing this, but I'm pleased to say I completely agree with. The other principle I'd like to emphasise is Boldness. The fact that you haven't come across an editor before does not imply that their edits should be reverted. Nor is it necessary to ask permission of a Wikiproject before you trespass on their territory.Rathfelder (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I often do this kind of category diffusion also. It might help if, rather than leaving a blank edit summary or simply the word 'category', you were to use something more explanatory. I typically use something like 'refined category' or 'removed overly broad category; already in appropriate subcategory'. With a gadget like wikEd, you can set saved edit summaries so you needn't type them every time, and can instead bring them up with (usually) a single key press. Maralia (talk) 20:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Personally, I like WP:HotCat for this type of work, but when you're changing a single cat, it doesn't always let you add explanations in the edit summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Rathfelder, I never stated that I reverted you because I have not come across you before. You have repeatedly read too much into what I have stated. I made it clear that suggesting that this matter be taken to WP:Med had nothing to do with you asking permission to be WP:Bold. You act as though matters should not have wider input when disputed and/or that suggesting wider input is some grave offense. It's common practice to have disputed matters get wider input. Taking a disputed matter to a WikiProject is a part of WP:Dispute resolution. My discussion with you about the matter had run its course, for me anyway. And while it is not "necessary to ask permission of a Wikiproject before you trespass on their territory," certain WikiProjects have more experience than you in dealing with topics related to them and often know how best to handle those particular matters. Being WP:Bold does not excuse anyone from having their edits challenged. My interaction with you was not solely about the Vaginal flora article; however, since editors have not specifically weighed in on your other aforementioned changes, I will assume that they are fine with them. I still maintain that you should be clearer in your edit summaries about what you are doing and why; on my talk page, you seemed to be stating that you would be...unless you meant that you would no longer mark the category changes as WP:Minor. But looking at your latest contributions, you are not. Flyer22 (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

in the end Flyer22 it was a very good idea to bring it here as you say certain WikiProjects have more experience...in dealing with topics related to them and often know how best to handle those particular matters its always best, as you did, to have more opinions on any matter (BTW I agreed with you, check above)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

An IP has been adding the following text to Amish anomaly without a citation, even after I have removed it: "In addition to gene pool variations, Amish populations are significantly different to the general population in a very large number of others ways, also completely unrelated to vaccination. An example being more traditional diets, higher in fibre and lower in sugar, which may significantly affect the make up of inherited gut microbiomes. The number of varying factors is far too large to link any supposed variation of incidence, to vaccination." Can anyone find a source that would back this up? Everymorning talk 01:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Ref needed agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Could someone please semi-protect the article. Edit warring by antivaccine IP. Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

We could also just block the IP. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I would like to fix the dead link issue once and for all, at least for medical articles. Basically what I propose is archiving all links using Webcite. The plan would be to have this done by bot. Would people support such a bot arching all links used as references within medical articles? Will need to figure out how much it will cost. Currently Webcite is hosted on Amazon. Not sure if they offer discounted to NGOs and it is unclear just how much space this will take.

I need your help. I'm having some issues with someone working for a company that sells medical devices based on EHF therapy on another language wiki. The company states that EHF is scientifically proven to be effective against a list of varying disorders (eg. diabetes, hypertension, arthritis, just to name some). Let's just say that I'm a bit skeptic about that, even after searching Pubmed, though I have found some citations. I know that the community of Wikipedia is not an "official scientific forum" or whatsoever to decide whether something is accepted or not, yet I'm still interested in your opinion. On the other hand the english version of EHF therapy needs sourcing as well. Regards, --Kohlins (talk) 00:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

i recommended it for speedy deletion. Jytdog (talk) 01:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

There is one review article on the topic. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

in a poor journal... by authors from a company that sells woo... Jytdog (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Atually, I was thinking of this:

• Millimeter waves: acoustic and electromagnetic.

I'm not quite sure, but if I get it right, this millimeter waves thing seems to be the basis of EHF therapy according to the manufacturer. Regards, --Kohlins (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

that's not a terrible source. It would be better if it were independent (it's a review of the author's own research career), but it is not bad. We would need more than this to build an article.Jytdog (talk) 11:28, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I see, and that's why I'm confused a bit. Most of the references in the article are the previous findings of the very same person. As for the clinical efficacy, he's refering to another former review (seen here) but that lists the results of some russian investigations in journals I've never heard of (most of them are russian). Regards, --Kohlins (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Are there any completely independent sources about this subject? If everything's written by the people in that company, then it would not qualify for an article on the English Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO it doesn't qualify for that reason, it looks as if all that is written has a COI--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

fwiw the article has now been deleted. Jytdog (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Some efforts to refute secondary sources with primary ones is occurring here. More eyes appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Wish this was a month ago, I forgot to get my shot and I'm feeling rather crummy. Would have reminded me. I'll keep tabs on it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This should be interesting.

Articles:

• List of people with autism spectrum disorders
• Asperger syndrome
• Vladimir Putin

WP:MEDMOS#Notable cases doesn't seem to contain guidance for this situation.

In addition to the (poor) sources listed at Talk:Asperger syndrome, there are more news sources, including but not limited to:

• CBS news
• CNN
• Moscow Times with a denial.

See also the text inserted at Vladimir Putin. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I suggest, at minimum, this text does not belong at List of people with autism spectrum disorders, as it is speculative and Moscow has denied it. For the same reason, and per MEDMOS on notable cases, it does not belong at the Asperger syndrome article. How to handle the issue, then, at the Putin article needs discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: No, it needs no discussion. It's a medical claim: MEDRS isn't a policy for medical articles; it's a policy for medical statements. The scope of MEDRS includes all WP articles. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 14:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Edit:In other words, you're fully justified in removing that content from all those articles right now if you want to. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 14:31, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree in a case like this. It is well covered by mainstream sources, and we can find a way to address it responsibly. I suggest anything more than one sentence is WP:UNDUE. Claim of asperger, denied by Moscow should do it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

If you say so. It seems absurd to me to assert that "X has 'medical condition Y'" is a nonmedical claim. I care too little to actually argue about this, but think that over for a moment. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 05:21, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The actual claim ought to be "X said that Y has condition Z", at which point it's technically "what some BLP said" rather than "medicine". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I reduced the WP:UNDUE text at Vladimir Putin to one sentence, for discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• A 2008 report about Putin's personality from the Pentagon’s internal think tank, the Office of Net Assessment, authored by Brenda Connors of the U.S. Naval War College, said that Putin had behaviors consistent with Asperger syndrome;^[1][2] the Kremlin denied the report as "rubbish, unworthy of commentary".^[3]

It is a social / cultural claim not a medical one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand "cultural". The report includes observations about deficits in physical movement on one side of the body. (Note that one citation is the full report.) But more importantly, the present single sentence is misleading. The report is not limited to Putin's "personality". It forms a medical hypothesis on the basis of physical observations, and correlates that hypothesis with behavioural characteristics, both known and projected. The present sentence provides no hint of the significance of the hypothesis for Putin's reactions as a leader, his judgement and decision making. In other words, it's unmotivated, excluding the main point made in the report. Layzeeboi (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I also disagree with the assertion that it's a sociocultural issue. "He has this condition" is generally considered highly medical—to the point that school nurses in the US aren't even legally allowed to tell parents, "Little Johnny should go home; he has a fever", but must instead say something like, "Little Johnny should go home; he has a temperature of 39.5 °C" (because "39.5 °C" is "test results", but "fever" is a "diagnosis", so only people holding specified types of licenses can decide whether Little Johnny has a fever).

If this is getting a lot of attention in multiple sources (especially if that attention is sustained over time), then Sandy's formulation of "X said he has it, Y denied it" would work. Otherwise, I would omit it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Layzeeboi, AS can't be diagnosed by video (nor can most other conditions); any more than what we have is UNDUE speculation, no matter the source. We can address the wording if needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:30, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I thought that there was some work on diagnosing children based on video. I don't know that it's been done for adults, but I've read that researchers are using videos, e.g., birthday party videos that were taken the day before the vaccination that allegedly caused the autistic behaviors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

<off topic> If professionals could diagnose based on photos and videos, someone could look into that cold, black, flat-affect look in Putin's eyes in our cover image, and diagnose him a sociopath. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I think your comment above about "diagnosis" is extraneous. Neither my original edit nor my comment above used that word. Above, I used the word "hypothesis". I agree that the word 'diagnosis" should not appear. Also, absent that word, is your word "speculation" based on the assumption that the authors of the report have little or no relevant professional expertise? It appears to me that they have credible expertise in military or diplomatic intelligence, where brain scans are typically not available. Hence I think the word "speculation" is also unwarranted, and that standard medical expertise is not the only relevant qualification for evaluating the relevance and Weight due to the report. Hence, I also think this discussion should be on the talk page of the Putin article, not in a medical talk page. Layzeeboi (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I hardly know where to start with this: the idea that asperger's or most neurological conditions can be diagnosed via a brain scan is wrong to begin with. The Putin AS information was added to or suggested on three different pages, so this central discussion is linked from all of them. Speculation because no one can diagnose AS from a video. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It only really belongs here if someone is asserting in WP's voice that Putin has symptoms consistent with Aspergers. If they report on a notable source that claims it (naming the source of the claim), and that it has also been denied, that does not seem to require MEDRS.Herbxue (talk) 18:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Again the extraneous word "diagnosed" appears in SandyGeorgia's latest comment. This seems to me to be an example of the straw man fallacy. One way to "start with this" would be to carefully read the report. Nowhere does it claim to make a "diagnosis". (There is a more easily searched version here.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Layzeeboi (talk • contribs) 19:34, February 6, 2015

i watched about a minute of the CNN video, to the part where the analysis said something about "supported at the reptilian stage of development" and closed the tab. Rubbish. RUBBISH. Then I watched the rest of it. They actually interview a doctor at the end (see about 2:11) who calls "Bullshit" in very clear terms. This is as ugly and stupid as psychiatric abuse under the Soviet Union. Really unhappy to see this in WP and will go delete this now where ever it appears. Jytdog (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

How is the CNN video relevant? It was not cited. Layzeeboi (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know who you are layzeeboi but we do not deal with health related topics on this kind of utter bullshit level anywhere in WP. Please read both WP:MEDRS and WP:BLP. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog, don't you think "I don't know who you are" violates WP:Civility? Of course, my contribution list tells you all you ever have a right to know about who I am. Have you actually read the original report? Layzeeboi (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The analyst used Laban Movement Analysis which was created by a dance instructor who was influenced by mysticism and who received funding from Joseph Goebbels. TFD (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

by "I don't know who you are" i meant, "I don't know how much you know about how we handle health content nor why you care about this issue". Sorry for being too terse. I have read the original report (although it is a WP:PRIMARY source and is not something we should ever use in WP, per the policies WP:OR and WP:VERIFY and the guidelines, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS.) The original report is definitely not compliant with MEDRS and I have seen no MEDRS-compliant source that discusses it. What MEDRS compliant source are you aware of, for this content? Jytdog (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

In my opinion, your new interpretation "I don't know how much you know about how we handle health content nor why you care about this issue" is also uncivil. How would you like it if I wrote "I don't know how much you know about argumentation theory"? And especially, you have no right to raise questions about my personal interests. Finally, if you read Talk:Vladimir Putin#Asperger, you would know that I contest the relevance of WP:MEDRS in that article. Not every source that employs medical language is subject to WP:MEDRS. Layzeeboi (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The claim that Vladimir Putin has Asperger's Syndrome is funny nonsense. Putin is dominant, confident with a big ego and is socially successful (the vast majority of his country people love him and think that he is a great leader). He is almost the polar opposite of someone with an autism spectrum disorder. The small group of psychiatrists who came up with this diagnosis are connected to or hired by a USA intelligence agency so it is likely in my view that it is one of many psychological techniques of heaping pressure on him and his ilk because of the Ukraine war and other geopolitical goingons. Like trying to agitate his ego by making him look like his inflexible tough guy approach is actually autistic cognitive inflexibility and perhaps for negotiations to soften him up by making him think the world thinks he can't be diplomatic because of 'his autism'. I guess psychological warfare amongst our leaders and Intel agencies is preferable to military warfare. Call me paranoid but this is what I think. If the claim is added to any articles then any good quality sources disputing the funny claim must be added countering it.--WholeNewJourney (talk) 23:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

They are not psychiatrists, they are dancers who combine their knowledge of dance and spiritualism to analyze people. TFD (talk) 02:27, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• Closure proposal IMO it is pretty safe to conclude that after the initial publication many experts agreed that this "diagnose" is a wild guesswork and hence this subject may be closed in the context of this wikiproject. Nevertheless it remains to be decided whether the subject is noteworthy for other reasons. But this continuation belongs to where it belongs: Talk:Vladimir Putin. -M.Altenmann >t 07:17, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  if it is closed here, it is done. this is a health-related matter; there is no other bucket it goes into. it is bullshit WP:RECENTISM WP:TRIVIA that doesn't deserve mention in WP. Jytdog (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

  Nope. There are plenty of buckets to go into: politics, conspiracy theories, defamation, to name a few. Any of them may develop significantly. And please keep in mind that alphabet soup is useless if you don't cite particular arguments from the guidelines you mention. In particular, WP:RECENTISM gives a good advice how to handle such kind of information, not when to delete it. -M.Altenmann >t 07:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I haven't really come across any article before with this amount of issues and being so one-sided concerning a major topic. The lede is especially horrible, mentioning "working mothers" etc. etc., it both fails to be neutral, or even to stick to the facts. The WHO has a controversial position, albeit a very important and influential one. This is reflected across the literature, but not in the article. Everything in the lede is pro breastfeeding, without allowing the reader to weigh anything themselves, and consistently cites "Experts" as some form of authority. As for the rest of the article, it needs major trimming, and could use less images of smiling breastfeeding mothers – not really worthy of an encyclopedic article.

Before I make any major edits I'm pinging some editors I know are knowledgeable about womens health as well as well as some concerned about neutrality in articles/have edited the article previously. Flyer22, Keilana, SandyGeorgia, WhatamIdoing. Thanks, -- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been extremely conservative in cleaning it, but it is such absolute rubbish. Need major help getting this to anything near representable. If there ever was a clear example of WP:Systemic bias this is it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

yeah, I looked at it, and it does seem to have some issues--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What a horrible article. I see that you and WhatamIdoing have cleaned up a lot of it, CFCF, and what is there now is like clay that needs to be significantly re-shaped. I also spotted Doc James at the article. By linking the female editors (including me) that you linked above, I take it that you think female perspectives would be especially beneficial to improving that article? Flyer22 (talk) 20:16, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I know I only linked to female editors there, I'd put that down to knowing few others who have put major effort into articles on women's health. I didn't ping Doc James, because I thought he was bound to notice this anyway. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Also Ottawahitech, Jfdwolff -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Tangentially, Home birth looks like it need some attention too. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 20:23, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

It used to be a ton worse, before I cleaned it up, but I've hit the level of my competance with a medical-related article so any help anyone can give would be most appreciated, --PresN 21:24, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've been swamped, and will remain so for another week or so, but will do what I can when I can. Assuming you want a breastfeeding, homebirth mom to clean up non-MEDRS and other slop :) No promises as to how soon I can get there, but will try! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

I've got a massive anatomy exam this week but may procrastinate by nuking non-MEDRS content. I also have some obstetrics texts that may be useful here so I'll try to have a go at it soonish. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 17:05, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, I am also busy adding and then reverting the endless reverts, and fighting endless nominations for deletions. Just wanted to mention that I see the very [first introduction] of this article in 2002 mentioned collostrum, but the current article does not. Ottawahitech (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

That would be my fault, but only because what was mentioned lacked any reviewed sources. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Meeting resistance when cleaning according to WP:MEDRS

Meeting the first resistance now and content has been restored that seemingly violates WP:MEDRS. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 23:30, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Strike that, I overreacted to a rather civil request to calm down in the my removal of content. Being overwhelmed with work has a tendency to make one rather overzealous. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 00:14, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User:CFCF, unfortunately you have immediately returned to the article and gutted it of even more content, a massive amount. That borders on vandalism/bad faith editing. It's definitely misguided because that's not how we build an encyclopedia. Your massvie deletions slap all the previous editors in the face who have in good faith done all that work.

Try to build and preserve by tweaking, rather than using mass deletion. It is not your job to delete it and recreate the article as you think it should be. You must preserve and work with what is there by tweaking it. Improve what's there. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

IMO there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with User:CFCF edits, its the article that is in great need of adding and subtracting, to therefore shape it into a better article for readers--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Brangifer's edits to the article should be more carefully scrutinized: His insistence for the inclusion of non-MEDRS sources such as newspaper articles and primary studies might have contributed to the article's current state. --A1candidate 14:57, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• User:A1candidate, that was a pretty cheap personal attack which reveals an assumption of bad faith and failure to do your homework. I know you don't like me because I oppose your constant defense of and pushing fringe science and alternative medicine, but at least refrain from nonsensical claims about me that haven't a shred of basis in reality.

You'll find I have only made ONE minor previous edit to that article, and it had nothing to do with content. The latest edits were reversions of improper mass deletions which claimed MEDRS violations, when most of the deleted content was not covered by MEDRS. That content has improperly been deleted again.

Looking at what has been happening, I have lost any confidence in User:CFCF's abilities as an editor in this situation. They show gross disrespect for other editors' efforts. There seems to be little if any attempt to WP:Preserve existing content and sources. We are supposed to "Try to fix problems", not delete lots of existing content. These mass deletions are serious violations of multiple policies.

A1candidate, you seem to think that all sources must be MEDRS compliant, but that's simply BS. You don't understand our sourcing requirements. Only strong biomedical claims are covered by MEDRS. All other content can be sourced to books, articles, newspapers, websites, organizations, advocates and critics, etc., and when they are matters related to controversies and WP:Fringe issues, they can even be sourced to the blogs and websites of subject experts and skeptics per WP:PARITY. Removal of non-MEDRS content makes the article much poorer.

Keep in mind that MEDRS does not apply to whole articles, even those on medicals subjects, but only to biomedical claims in all articles at Wikipedia.

Per MEDRS, we don't usually use primary studies, so, contrary to the false accusation above, I don't "insist on their inclusion". -- Brangifer (talk) 16:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There's a place for nuking and re-building from scratch, just like there's a place for checking whether some claims that are sourced to primary sources could be sourced to secondary ones without changing the content. CFCF has listed some good sources on the talk page. Maybe you two would like to pick one and re-build content from good sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a set of articles categorised as medical research and another set - not overlapping much, as far as I can see - categorised as clinical research. I can't see any obvious difference between the two sets. Am I missing something important? And if I'm not, should the two categories be combined?Rathfelder (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Links please - don't make your readers do the work, or most won't bother! Johnbod (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

We have tow categories: Medical research and Clinical research. Is clinical research different from medical research? and if so, how? I'm a lay person, and I can't see any obvious difference.Rathfelder (talk) 11:38, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

medical research (or pre-clinical/laboratory) is done by PhD (principal investigator), while clinical( is a branch of healthcare science that determines the safety and effectiveness of medications, devices, diagnostic products and treatment regimens)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Do you think this distinction is adhered to in our existing categorisations?Rathfelder (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

probably not, but only a group opinion would satisfy the question in earnest--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)ernest

Both the articles medical research and clinical research do give the distinction. An awful lot of medical research is lab-based, & performed by cell biologists, geneticists, chemists, and a host of other types of scientists, who often never see a patient and are not medically trained. Clinical research I would expect to involve actual patients and be conducted mainly by those with medical training; clinical trials are one key aspect. How closely the contents of these categories reflect this I don't know - there will be lots of articles that overlap both categories. The Clinical research category is rightly a sub-cat of the medical research one, and no doubt some contents should be moved down (or is it up?) the tree from medical to clinical. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

This article is/was severely lacking, and actually featured a before and after image displaying two different people (Note: Naevi locations, not normally altered with surgery). We may have a WP:SPA on our hands. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

What is the issue? Sometimes plastic surgeons do move the naevi. This user has already been banned. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned these are impossibly the same person. The naevi are completely different, not just slightly. Also the editor would be the one responsible for:

• Midriff
• Navel in popular culture
• Alvinolagnia
• Navel fetishism

I don't mind it there, but "it"'s moving to articles that are more medical in nature. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 01:13, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

They were banned for these images and there promotional editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

User in question is --WikiMan88 -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 02:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

A pair of DUCKs? Contribs for WikiMan88 and WikiFan88 in Sep 2011 hit the same articles. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

James, you're right that plastic surgeons do move naevi sometimes, but they're really, really, really unlikely to move birthmarks on the upper arm when they're doing surgery on the abdomen. The marks just above the elbow don't match. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree. They are different people in the before and after. A little dishonest there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This has been tagged as a hoax and someone posted on the talk page that it could use attention from this WIkiProject, so I am bringing it here so that it can receive such attention. It has been argued that while the person existed much of the article, including the image, is a hoax. Everymorning talk 03:54, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

The image is modern and in copyright, & was on Commons on a wholly erroneous permission tag. It is not a hoax - the whole "dissected his own leg" story seems to be a long-established one, possibly a myth but not a hoax. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 09:55, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

What's the deal with disorders not specifically mentioned in ICD-10, ICD-9, OMIM and similar refs, but who are part of generalized groups? For instance, some specific phobias, such as spectrophobia which in ICD-10 falls under F40.2 (specific [isolated] phobias) and in OMIM under 608251 (phobia, specific). Is it possible to put infoboxes with such codes into related articles? I presume the default status is not to have an infobox on them. Brandmeister^talk 19:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You can add those codes. It's not required, so if there happen to be any objections at a given article, then I recommend going along with whatever the other editors want.

I've seen comments on discussion sites in which clinical coders say they use Wikipedia's infoboxes to find appropriate codes, so some of our readers get a lot of value out of those numbers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

those codes are very useful to many readers--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Altmetrics is adding Wikipedia as a way of measuring impact. Difficulty is that it may promote people spamming their own work. We may need to increase our efforts to keep out primary sources / people trying to spam in their own papers. It may also encourage people to engage more with Wikipedia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:33, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

This is a very bad thing for us. We already have lots of problems with scientists pushing their publications into WP based on ego alone; now there will be measurable incentive to do so. James, would it be worthwhile to reach out to Altmetric, and ask them not to do that, due to the very high risk of abuse in the context of WP and our anonymous editing model, and the fact that it happens a lot already even without the metric? (you can point them to the history of the Interleukin 2 article and the contribs of Special:Contributions/Kasmith as an example that was quite naked; another one is Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Erika_Jensen-Jarolim which affected a lot of articles - folks apparently from her lab pushed citations of their work into a bunch of articles, as well as pushing content that antacids/acid reducers cause food allergy into the side effects sections of several articles about drugs. Folks here may have other examples.) If we cannot dissuade Altmetric or folks feel it is not a good idea to try, I think we should pump up warnings not to cite your own work in WP:COI, WP:EXPERT, maybe elsewhere. Just oy. Jytdog (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Altmetrics counting WP citations would also give credence to the arguments made by Limit-theorem about the danger of WP accepting free subscriptions from publishers, which he stated here WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Malapr: "As an academic I find this highly unethical: to cite journals BECAUSE they give you a free account. Sorry, but this is COI. A reference on Wiki is something that leads to citations. Please note that there have been a few scandals of note with academic journals solliciting citations". I don't think his arguments have had validity up to now, but Altmetric's move puts us in the icky position of promoting the journals that we accept free subscriptions from. Jytdog (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am not afraid of the academic community. It is more likely than not that this community means well and will circulate best practices. They have more at stake in establishing good relationships than PR organizations. Some of the other points mentioned are part of a radical, global, life-changing culture change that is far beyond Wikipedia or any other single organization to control. This issue is very complicated and I am not going to further argue it because there is a lot of serious valid opposition to this, but I right now feel that bringing the attention of people in academia to Wikipedia in this context is something that I want to support despite the real drawbacks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• This certainly puts pressure on us to keep patrolling articles for additions of new sources, especially primary ones. That said I don't think it is necessarily bad, at least not per se. It gives credit to the importance of Wikipedia, and may lead new editors to join when they understand Wikipedia matters even in an academic environment. Neither do I think we can solve the problem by adding paragraphs to WP:COI or WP:EXPERT, because as Bluerasberry says the academic community is more or less a benign one (at least when it comes to this type of thing). Rather we need some way to increase the visibility and readability of policies. One possible idea is for summary versions of important policies that could be premiered to new users, while for debating specific changes we can still rely on the full text, in some way like a traditional legal text. The problem is unlikely related to the wording of policy, but rather to how new users do not know of them (and how even among established users there are gray areas). If I had to keep up with all the new policy changes I would never have time to actually write anything on Wikipedia. As for arguments about how journals give access to Wikipedia I can say, without reading Limit-theorem's argument - my only response is that this isn't a case of a conflict of interest, but rather a systemic bias based upon access. It's similar to how we premier English literature although there is no (theoretical) reason why it necessarily needs to be better. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• I agree with CFCFThis certainly puts pressure on us to keep patrolling articles for additions of new sources, especially primary ones. That said I don't think it is necessarily bad, at least not per se. It gives credit to the importance of Wikipedia, whatsmore we should always be on the lookout for this even if it takes time away from the articles we are usually on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• I am a bit troubled by the responses above. COI is a serious issue in WP; stuff like the Wiki-PR scandal really hurts our credibility and COI-driven editors can really screw up the encyclopedia. Just as money is the lifeblood and reason-for-existence of companies (and the purpose of financial-COI-driven WP editing is advertising, to increase sales or increase share price)... highly-cited publications are the lifeblood of academic scientists - "publish or perish" is real; great publications lead to more grant funding and to promotions. That is what academic scientists live on. To the extent that Altmetric allows universities or grant-making agencies to start "counting" citations in WP, that sets up a direct incentive for academic scientists to add citations to their own work in WP - the actual COI is as stark as that of any paid editor. And so different from any other context. I can cite my own work but beyond that, citation is (almost) totally at the whim of the authors of papers. That scientists could come to WP and add citations to their own work, anonymously, and have it count, is a gold rush stampede waiting to happen. It would be like allowing people to add e-commerce links to WP articles about products. Do you all not see that? Or do you think I am missing something? thx Jytdog (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog In my opinion financial COI is more troublesome in the PR industry than in academia, and for that reason, I am less worried here. Some reasons why I am not worried are that people publishing in medical journals have limited appetite for changing Wikipedia, as opposed to the limitless appetite of PR organizations; there have not historically been major scandals associated with COI and academic publishing; in academia people promote their own content and can be reached directly, but in PR there is a layer of paid agents between the person posting on Wikipedia and the person ordering the posting; in academia people generally mean well and in PR people are generally malevolent; in academia there is a chain of complaining back to the university or research institute and in PR there is no way to effectively object.

If you told me that someone PR people were going to count traffic more then I would object, but my expectation is that in this sector there will be a net good to having more people in academic publishing understanding Wikipedia. In the long run Wikipedia is increasingly dependent on good academics having a deep understanding of how Wikipedia works and in my opinion this tool is a reasonable start to doing outreach to this demographic. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Its a good problem to have. Academics are under pressure to measure impact. Medics, certainly in the UK, often refer to Wikipedia as a first line of research. It's not realistic to stop people counting Wikipedia citations. It just means we work hard to maintain standards.Rathfelder (talk) 20:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
• Overall I agree with Jytdog. Anything that encourages CoI edits just increases the burden on Wikipedia's dwindling population of regular contributors to even maintain articles, leaving even less time to actually improve them. What's more, poorly cited or early-career scientists would have the most to gain from Wikipedia links, so this will tend to encourage ref-spam to low-impact primary articles, when for most Wikipedia content, a link to a review article or online textbook would be far better. I'll note one mitigating factor: according to the link Doc James provided, "Any mention in Wikipedia (or even multiple mentions) will add a flat count of 3 to the score (so even if an article is mentioned 3 times across Wikipedia, it will still only add 3 to the score)." So scientists will have no incentive to spam multiple references to a single article. (Though if they've published, say, 35 articles, they'll have incentive to add citations to all 35 of them.) Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• What we want is not for the number of times a ref is in Wikipedia to count but the amount an academic has improved Wikipedia to count. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

i've said my piece and i got a too deep into risk management there. We can just wait and see what happens, and if things start to get ugly (and they might not) we can ask them to stop, with good data in hand. Jytdog (talk) 13:04, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

• I think you overrate Wikipedia. It is easy to do literature search (Pubmed, Scopus, Springer search, Google scholar, etc.) and to see the impact factor of the journal and how many times/where an article have been quoted in another peer reviewed article. I mean for the academic folk it is not really interesting what articles have been referenced in Wikipedia.--77.13.227.110 (talk) 19:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• I note that only references using citation templates are picked up, apparently under the mistaken impression that all WP refs are supposed to use these. Johnbod (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
• I wonder if we could convince them to only "count" citations to secondary sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Have requested this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Admittedly I haven't been around here in a looooong while, but I'm surprised the immediate reaction to this decision was to suspect incoming swarms of spammers. As far as I can tell, despite some limited institutional buy-in, nobody in academia cares about altmetrics. There's certainly a "you get what you measure" issue here, but it seems more likely to benefit Wikipedia by attracting scientists than to benefit scientists by encouraging linkspam. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• fwiw I just went and reverted the addition of a bunch of "academic reference spamming" done by a new user - see Special:Contributions/Ivonor. Every edit is adding a citation with Bersani G as the lead author. Just stuck them in where ever they were vaguely related. Jytdog (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

and here is what is probably another academic group trying to force their work into WP: here. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sure this has been discussed before, but it appears that Wikipedia does not have a disorder(medical) article? Ottawahitech (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

(your redlink has a typo) what would be the "pros" of having one--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we do have that: Disorder (medicine), Medical disorder, and Disorder (medical) are all blue links. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Ottawahitech did you want links or an article about disorders only--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 02:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for responding user:Ozzie10aaaa What I am looking for is an a link to a disorders article here: Category:Pituitary disorders. Ottawahitech (talk) 14:47, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

this might have the info in question--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, you have a link. (It's probably not a very good one, though. The main article ought to be Pituitary disorder or a List of pituitary disorders [which you'd have to create].)

Did you mean that you wanted those two articles to be listed in the category (rather than in the text at the top that says "The main articles for this category are Pituitary and Disorder (medicine)"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Would anyone happen to know if simple line charts as in the case of graphs (B) and (C) in this journal graph link are in the public domain (if cropped), or would I need to redraw them if I wanted to use the information conveyed in these? I know (A) isn't PD for sure since it includes a superimposed autoradiogram, but I don't care about that graph. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 12:25, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

This applies, so I think you need to redraw. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

User:Moonriddengirl is the expert. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The article's page states "Copyright © 2001, The National Academy of Sciences" and "Request permission to reuse". A cropped graph would not be in the public domain, nor would it be covered by "fair use". Axl ¤ [Talk] 14:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

All simple geometric figures are PD. Any published chem structure diagram w/ or w/o labels is PD, and I've uploaded a series of them from a published paper under {{PD-chem}}. The question here is whether graphs of simple mathematical functions (here, a step function and roughly a bell curve) w/ labels would also be PD. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 15:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Seppi333: "All simple geometric figures are PD." My understanding of "simple geometric figure" would be perhaps a hexagon or cube. I agree that such figures are public domain. However this does not seem to relevant to this discussion. If you are using a different definition for "simple geometric figure", please expand.

"Any published chem structure diagram w/ or w/o labels is PD." This is also irrelevant. A graph is not a chem structure diagram.

"The question here is whether graphs of simple mathematical functions (here, a step function and roughly a bell curve) w/ labels would also be PD." This point is also irrelevant and misleading. The graphs provided are not "simple mathematical functions". A graph of y=x² would be a simple mathematical function. The graphs in the article are based on empirical data, not a mathematical function. The fact that two of those lines happen to resemble normal distributions is irrelevant. Axl ¤ [Talk] 15:15, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Axl:...Well that was a very passive aggressive reply. If the "data" wasn't fitted with a continuous function, these graphs would be datapoints, not a line graph. As for the rest, I'm just going to be a smartass graduate math student and say: isolated points are Lebesgue integrable and any dataset mapped to a continuous function is also going to be Lebesgue integrable because it's continuous. And by definition of being Lebesgue integrabile, that means there exists a "simple function" that nearly exactly maps onto any such graph like this to the point that (error→0) you and anyone else couldn't tell the two apart. So these are just graphs of simple functions as far as we're all concerned. Btw, the step function... actually is a simple function. And, what mathematicians define "simple functions" as also happens to be a lot more complicated than any graphed function in pubmed-indexed literature.
In any event, I'm not sure what the point of your reply was other than to incite an inflammatory response; this thread became moot when I manually redrew the figures. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:01, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

"I'm not sure what the point of your reply was other than to incite an inflammatory response." LOL, try reading my response again. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

• Seppi333 My opinion is that the situation is not clear because I know of no precedent either way.

The point to determine is whether this graph incorporates any subjective creativity, or if in contrast it is a routine presentation of data. If it is based on a dataset, and it is comparing two routinely compared items in that dataset, and it is graphing them in the most natural and obvious way that anyone would graph these, then because no creativity went into producing this the graph can be treated like any other set of facts and is not copyrightable. Much of science is asserted to be an objective presentation of data with no creativity, so this is possible.

If the graph becomes complicated enough that someone has made minimally creative decisions to present the data in a way that is unlikely to be replicated exactly, such as by multiple people who might independently graph the same data, then it might be copyrightable.

My first thought is that these graphs seem no more creative than the datasets from which they were derived, and that nothing at all is special about the choice in what is graphed or how the graph is drawn, and that the presentation in graphing would be the same for any computer to graph these things. If that really is so, then they would not be copyrightable.

As a related issue, note also we have affirming statements from the WMF and the US government that we can rip through medical journals for any medical images made and published in the United States and copy those into Commons. See Commons:Commons:Requests for comment/Xrays for this December 2014 development. To say that the graphs are copyrighted is to say that they are made with more creativity than x-rays. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Meh. I'll just redraw them later then I guess... they represent what the default {{Psychostimulant addiction}} caption indicates about accumulation/decay of ΔFosB. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:27, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

• How's that look? Original image: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC58680/figure/F1/
  Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

it looks great --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

There are two SPAs, Suprapubic catheter (talk · contribs) and Tom Catheter (talk · contribs), who share a peculiar obsession with one narrow (no pun intended) aspect of medicine. I reverted their last edits to Catheter (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch, but there are more on

• Suprapubic cystostomy (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch and
• Urinary catheterization (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch.

I didn't look at these in detail, but since most of eir previous edits still stand, I wanted to bring it to your attention. — Sebastian 19:04, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Have watched. Most of there edits have been removed per Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:52, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering if anyone could tell me whether or not the Society of Quality Assurance falls under scope of Wikiproject Medicine? "The Society of Quality Assurance is a 501(c)(6) professional organisation founded in 1984 that works to organise and promote quality assurance in Good Laboratory Practices regulated non-clinical laboratory environments." Zell Faze (talk) 20:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

it might... I noticed a few corporate supporters on site--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Can Jytdog and I get some WP:Med editors' attention at these articles? As to why, see Talk:Intimate partner violence#"Gender symmetry" and Talk:Domestic violence against men/Archive 1#Gender Symmetry. Prefixcaz is repeatedly editing poorly with regard to the "gender symmetry" topic by adding WP:Undue weight, WP:Fringe and/or non-WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. I brought the matter here not too long ago (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 58#Intimate partner violence article -- "Gender symmetry"), but I did not get any help. Flyer22 (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I would also be pleased if we got a bit of help, as it seems domestic violence against men and gender symmetry are apparently not "highly disputed" anywhere else but in the U.S. I have provided studies from e.g. the Most Gender Equal countries in the world (ICE, FIN, SWE, NOR, DEN) and some North American studies (CDC). Simple googling for results from the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and Germany reveal that Gender Symmetry is widely accepted in Europe, Australia and New Zealand. According to the Australians it seems the only ones who are "highly disputing" might have a bias towards the issue. []Prefixcaz (talk) 01:30, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Prefixcaz, do you know what a "primary source" is in medical/scientific terms? (I'm only asking because I don't want to bore you with an unnecessary and long-winded explanation if you do.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thank you WhatamIdoing. Finally we're getting somewhere, although with a bit of an attitude it seems. Would you care to show me 1) what Wikipedia guidelines state about the use of sources when it comes to biomedical issues 2) what is stated generally about the use of sources and 3) how in your opinion I have failed to follow them. This should be interesting. I recommend we use respectful language despite our possible differences in opinions. Prefixcaz (talk) 20:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

one would hope "wiki-civility" is used by all--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Prefixcaz, I don't believe that I said anything about your edits having either complied with or failed to comply with any of the policies or guidelines. I have asked whether you are familiar with a particular concept. Does "Yes" mean that you are familiar with this, or only that you are acknowledging my reply? If you are familiar with this concept, then how would you classify the sources you're using? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, my apologies for a late reply, different time zone here I guess. I don't believe anything was said about whether you have questioned my edits/sources or not. Instead questions about your opinion regarding eventual conflicts with the guidelines in relation to any source I have used were asked, to have a discussion. This because I've been using sources that can be classified differently and they've been used in different contexts. Surely you have noticed that if you have read some of my comments. A discussion gives us all an opportunity to determine if and how the guidelines are understood among the participants of that discussion. That includes you, me and anyone else who participates. I will not lecture you and neither will you lecture me. Let me help you with a bit of deductive thinking: when we discuss, you will learn something about how I understand a certain concept and at the same time I will learn the same about your understanding. So please pick a source I've been using, please give argumentation why that source should or should not be used bearing in mind 1) what types of sources (1-2-3) can be used in biomed-articles according to Wikipedia guidelines, 2) what types of sources can generally be used in Wikipedia and then please comment 3) how in your opinion that specific source is not in line the Wikipedia guidelines.Prefixcaz (talk) 12:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

If you want to know my level of understanding about Wikipedia's take on historiography, then your fastest route to that understanding is to look through the history for the relevant advice pages and see how often my name appears. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Interested in folks thoughts on this: Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Odesk.2C_etc. Maybe it would be worthwhile to post such a listing here, for health-related requests that pop up at sites like that? Jytdog (talk) 14:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes agree it would be a good idea to do this. Other things we could try is requesting that Odesk and Elance take down these types of jobs. I will try to get a hold of people at these organizations. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog that is a very good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Odesk and Elance have merged. Odesk's TOR do not allow activities that infringe upon other websites TOU per 20.1 https://www.odesk.com/info/terms/ Emails sent regarding working together on the issue of undisclosed paid editing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

oh awesome!!! nothing like taking initiative. maybe we can cut 'em off at the pass, as it were. or a bunch of them at least. thank you! Jytdog (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

any or all information that helps identify this type of editing is good--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Elance has gotten back to me and take down the first account in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

that is a very good start and great news--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)