Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 95

In amongst some useful information there is a lot of what looks like rubbish being inserted by what appears to be a WP:SPA.

"Arthrometry is considered the most reliable technique of laximetry. The medical devices using arthrometry are called arthrometers and are used to put the Anterior Cruciate Ligament under stress in a controlled manner (this was not always the case as the first arthrometers required the user to use his own strength to run the tests). Over time, tests progressively evolved from static tests (single force applied on the tibia) to dynamic tests which are now considered much more precise (several forces applied on the tibia). The reason to this change is that dynamic tests allows the drawing of the ACL's stiffness curve which is a biomechanical parameter of knee ligaments. It is highly correlated with the clinical symptoms of instability. It is more accurate than laxity which is a numerical value without mechanical significance.^[1]"

Perhaps this is cutting edge but this is not something I have ever heard of. Seeking some advice from other editors. Is this cutting edge or WP:UNDUE to be placed on Anterior cruciate ligament? The pseudoscience gobbledegook and palindromic tautologous structure are what worry me most ("which is a biomechanical parameter of knee ligaments. It is highly correlated with the clinical symptoms of instability") Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:33, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps a more general form of your question is, "Is cutting edge UNDUE?" (assuming that it's actually cutting edge, which is something that someone else will have to comment on). I think that the answer might be that it depends upon context – what else is in the article and where it's placed.

I don't might the effort to explain things in plain English. But overall, I think it needs some copyediting. For example, I'd change the bit about "this was not always the case" to a plain statement of fact about the contrast between different device models over time: "Early arthrometers were mechanical devices operated by a person's own strength; some newer ones are electrical" (or whatever the actual facts boil down to). Is that a helpful approach to the more stylistic part of your question? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

It does sound quite a lot like an advertisement. From my own experience laximetry is not common at all, and the being absolutely accurate (or even reliable ) isn't than important.

Whether a knee is operated on depends on a number of factors, of which the exact degree of laxity seems arbitrary and of minor importance. The degree of symptoms and their severity seem far more relevant, especially considering the newer meta-analyses which show how ACL-reconstruction is no more effective than placebo.

Now this is off the top of my head, and I could have something mixed up, but it seems like a good idea to check who wrote this and look into whether it actually belongs. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:19, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

They are trying to add the same content across 4 articles. Belongs some at ACL injury but not everywhere else.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

• Anterior cruciate ligament#Clinical significance needs editor help(edits),thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Only two more weeks to submit talks for the main event. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

• --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting: Dr Google probably isn’t the worst place to get your health advice - apparently now Google will be employing doctors to provide short glosses for health-related searches. I wonder what kind of impact this will have on people accessing Wikipedia's health information? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually much of their information is pretty horrible, and the composition is very opaque: does not show sources, does not take into account any COI, and often does not give an accurate or full picture. Anyone can partner with doctors, without systematic methodology that does not mean any good will come out of it. The fact that this implies they have been writing medical information without the input of doctors before is rather scary. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks IP. This launched more than a year ago in the USA. Google just linked to health information before. They are now actively creating health information in house. They have some really nice illustrations.

They have corrected their hep C entry since the launch following feedback. (used to say sexually transmitted which it likely isn't)

Google says 5% of all searches are for health information. They are partnered with Mayo on this and do reference them as a source sometimes. Competition in "health information" is increasing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Ignoring the cite error, I can't help but feel that recent good faith edits to this MAP article are confusing, the lead says that MAP is a causal agent in CD. However I read this paper which surmises “The present data do not demonstrate that MAP is the causal agent in CD, however, a certain degree of involvement of this bacterium in the physiopathological steps of the disease is reasonable.” Is there a more recent review article relating to this? CV9933 (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Pretty certain that this question ain't settled yet. Needs also better spelling/grammar. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

More eyes needed, thanks. See Talk:Rheumatoid_arthritis#Additions -- Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

...as soon as it expires, the article will need many references--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Have been cleaning up some of the links to the dailymail. Many of the articles that use the DM as a source are paid for spam or click bait.

Anyway know how to search only articles within a particular Wikiproject for a url? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Think I found it Help:Advanced_search#Parameters Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't that only search categories? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:54, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

It search for "text" within all articles within a category. But the problem is it does not search for "urls". Hum... User:Keilana you managed to do this did you not? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay found the issue. The Wikiproject Medicine categories are on the talk page not the content page. We have GA tags on the article page. So gives you all the GAs were DM is used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

This will search all articles that contain "Infobox medical condition" for a specific url. So part of the way there. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:02, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

very useful--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

ref doesn't work, so just search for hastemplate:Infobox_medical_condition insource: "dailymail.co.uk"

Lots of trimming to be done... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:19, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah great link. Thanks User:CFCF. Done. Likely we will need to do regular checks.

Any idea how to search all articles within WP:MED? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

MastCell has done this before (User:MastCell/Daily_Mail_links). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay hopefully User:MastCell will explain how he did it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This is helpful information for searching for references. JenOttawa (talk) 02:08, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

may be good to add to above article or related article(Gene therapy)....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If anyone has a chance, I would appreciate a second opinion on a recent revision from an IP address on the Retinal detachment page. Thanks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Retinal_detachment&type=revision&diff=770606924&oldid=769023960

JenOttawa (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

• Kirchhof, Bernd (2016-04-01). "Vision or Madness? Primary vitrectomy without gas tamponade". Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology. 254 (4): 689–689. doi:10.1007/s00417-016-3302-5. ISSN 0721-832X. PMID 26916780.

I'll park the ref here in case the edit history gets deleted. That was bad news. QuackGuru (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for the quick revert and for looking into this. JenOttawa (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yup an editorial. We should be using reviews. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

DMOZ was turned off today. The {{dmoz}} template has been redirected to a mirror as a temporary measure. WP:MEDMOS needs to be updated to remove any mention of the site, and it would probably be appropriate to remove links/templates from articles as you run across them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Not so quick. All of DMOZ is mirrored by internet archives. We can just change the template to link to internet archives instead. Maybe someone else will take up the project. It is under a CC BY license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:02, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Discussion is taking place here Template talk:Dmoz

I tried to get DMOZ to join us as a WMF site a few years back. The community was basically non existent back than :-( Likely why they shut it down. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Was the WMF interested in taking them aboard? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

In my experience, the DMOZ pages have not been very good in recent years. I just spot-checked a few: half have seen no updates during the last year. On the one about autism, which was allegedly updated just a few weeks ago, one of the NIH links is broken, the most recent news story is from 2006, one goes to a dead internet forum (most recent post from July 2016), and one of the links is filled with ads for "natural viagra". I don't think that's really helping readers, and I'm pretty sure that we could find a better option.

All of DMOZ is mirrored by several sites (including the one that the template has been redirected to), but I don't think that a link to a copy of a page that was last updated a year or two ago by a DMOZ volunteer is going to continue to have value for readers in the long-run. Websites get re-arranged. Links die. Information goes out of date. And even if you think a DMOZ mirror or an archived copy of DMOZ pages is a good way to ward off spam here, MEDMOS shouldn't say that DMOZ itself exists, because that is false. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

They still do a better job than we typically do. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Am working on a research study. The question is of references that are journal article (ie. use the cite journal template) what portion are "review articles" and what portion are not. We have a parameter "|type=" for cite journal where this data goes. I would like propose adding it by bot to cite journal templates in GAs and FAs. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:52, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Thoughts about this article? Jytdog (talk) 02:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Two thoughts:

1. The ===Inclusion criteria=== section needs to either be moved to the talk page, or re-written to remove the "we" (self-reference) language.
2. That's a rather unusual way to get people to work on a neglected subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:29, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes this stems from a gynormous case that has developed at COIN: Vipul's paid editing enterprise. This person paid a bunch of people to edit WP and they have created many articles, including a bunch under the rubric "Timeline of X", some related to medicine. Looking only at the level of content (not where it came from) these timeline articles are, to me, generally works of WP:OR where editors are building histories here in WP. Issues of WEIGHT are impossible to sort out with this kind of sourcing and approach.... But I posted here to get other folks' thoughts on this one in particular (it is to me an especially clear example of the content issues) and I appreciate you weighing in WAID. Jytdog (talk) 06:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

yes WP:OR is a factor in the article --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

• additionally why does Timeline of global health start in the 1700's in the article(and not before or after?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Has returned thanks to the community tech team :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

48,_XXXX which is #2, needs a lot of work--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that is popular for the same reason that XXX (2002 film) is the all-time most popular film article on Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

OMG!?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:58, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Great, can I also use it again for WikiProject Sanitation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Sanitation/Popular_pages ? EMsmile (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

User:EMsmile looks like it is working for you finally :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

User:Doc James That's great!! Just in time for our edit-a-thon this Sunday & Monday! See here. EMsmile (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey all,

Just a quick heads-up that no one will be able to edit for about 30 minutes on either Wednesday, 19 April and Wednesday, 3 May 2017. The time hasn't been set, but it will probably happen in the European afternoons/American mornings – maybe 14:00 UTC. More information is at m:Tech/Server switch 2017. The official schedule is at wikitech:Switch Datacenter. (That page is also the place to check for any last-minute delays; the most likely sizes of delay are one hour/one day/one week.)

If you know of any workshops/classes/edit-a-thons happening on or after those two dates, then please (a) warn the organizers, and (b) let me know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks for the info WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This edit looks like a sales pitch and clinical trial citation was used... https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stress_incontinence&type=revision&diff=770975489&oldid=765846040

I was going to delete it directly, but if someone in the field knows more about these devices and if they are commonly used clinically, perhaps a different reference can be used and remove the company website links.

Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the company links and the primary reference for now. Not sure if the content should remain, I don't have time tonight to look for review on the article. Any feedback appreciated. Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this. I completely removed the content there. The same editor added similar content in Urinary incontinence where it was removed by another editor. I have opened a discussion with them about COI. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The article should mention the existence of urethral occlusion devices; this isn't the only brand on the market. If you have a look at http://preventdisease.com/diseases/urinary_incontinence.shtml and search down the page for the word "adhesive", you'll see three brands just for the adhesive foam type, plus several non-adhesive devices that I don't think are mentioned in this article yet.

A quick look at the article has led me to discover that we have articles on vaginal cones and vaginal weightlifting. Does anyone know why these are separate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

They could probably be merged. On a semi-related topic, I tried to add some criticism to Gwyneth Paltrow's article about her Goop writings, but I think someone looks after that article a lot and it was removed, even the MEDRS review article. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 02:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

This new medicine-related article could use the review of an experience medical editor. The article appears promotional to me and article's creator has a disclosed conflict of interest, but I'm not really able to evaluate the article's medical claims. A related article, Generation ucan, created by the same editor is at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Generation ucan) as well if anyone wants to contribute to the discussion. Deli nk (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Doc James, for cleaning it up! Deli nk (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@CFCF and WOSlinker: This {{Mesh2}} don't redirect correctly. A message is returned:

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, custserv@nlm.nih.gov and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error.

Jmarchn (talk) 15:55, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Copied here by me. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jmarchn: Having trouble reproducing the problem. Could you please be a bit more specific as to where you saw the problem? Was it for a specific article? On the ca language Wikipedia? Or was it more general? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Ping Jmarchn — Please respond here, I have archived your new thread which had the exact same subject as this one... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@LeadSongDog and CFCF:

I find {{Mesh2}} (from {{Infobox medical condition}}) doesn't link correctly when |MeshName= and |MeshNumber= are set (and, logically, when Mesh value is clicked). For example in appendicitis (|MeshName=Appendicitis and |MeshNumber=C06.405.205.099).

Otherwise, it links correctly when |MeshID= is set. For example in autism (|MeshID=D001321).

In the first case is returned this message:

Internal Server Error

The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable to complete your request.

Please contact the server administrator, custserv@nlm.nih.gov and inform them of the time the error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the error. ...

Jmarchn (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

you seem to hve posted this twice?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

At Talk:Ulcer_(dermatology)#Requested_move_22_March_2017 --Temp87 (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I posted a proposed edit on the Talk:Caffeine page. Opinions appreciated! Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 01:27, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! @Ozzie10aaaa:.JenOttawa (talk) 16:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cough_medicine&type=revision&diff=771611518&oldid=771384512

I noticed this new edit that removes a reference from the first paragraph of Cough Medicine. Given that the RCTs reviewed in the Cochrane systematic review are weak, (quoted from review conclusion) "The results of this review have to be interpreted with caution because the number of studies in each category of cough preparations was small", I agree with this edit and it may not be necessary in the intro paragraph.

Just looking for a second opinion. This review is also used two other times in the article to state the same thing.

Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Have restored the edit in question. Rpark90 (talk) 08:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I've copyedited. In general, "There is no evidence" is jargon that confuses most people. They tend to think that it means "there is evidence against this" rather than "this has not been studied enough". That confusion may have been what prompted the logged-out editor to remove the statement. I think that we should try to avoid that language whenever we can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Basal-cell_carcinoma#Requested_move_23_March_2017 --Temp87 (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

The Visual editor seems to be auto generating refs with numerical handles like <ref name=":0">, causing various problems and conflicts. Is it really true that there is no ref name field to add in the VE? JMWt (talk) 03:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes needs to be fixed. Would be much nicer if they user the first authors last name plus the year of publication. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It is a real problem as we now have many references which need manual attention and which regularly break the templates. JMWt (talk) 08:06, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

It is really true that there is no (longer any) ref name field in the visual editor. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, so there's a recent paper at Cristian Tomasetti, Lu Li, Bert Vogelstein. "Stem cell divisions, somatic mutations, cancer etiology, and cancer prevention" Science 24 Mar 2017: Vol. 355, Issue 6331, pp. 1330-1334 doi:10.1126/science.aaf9011

It has lots of quick-reviews such as New study finds that most cancer mutations are due to random DNA copying 'mistakes' Medicalxpress

It essentially confirms the same authors' earlier work: Cristian Tomasetti, Bert Vogelstein. "Variation in cancer risk among tissues can be explained by the number of stem cell divisions" Science 02 Jan 2015 Vol. 347, Issue 6217, pp. 78-81 doi:10.1126/science.1260825

In essence, it's a detailed analysis to back up and quantify the apparently-obvious (at least to the lay reader) assertion that cell types which are very common and which divide often are more likely to mutate and become cancerous. The articles Carcinogenesis, Causes of cancer, and Cancer seem to overlook this line of thought.

Would someone care to address this? LeadSongDog come howl! 21:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Some editors tried to add some information about this last time, and (grossly oversimplifying), and they (we? I can't actually remember whether I was directly involved) were told that it violated the letter of MEDRS because it was "only" a primary source, and more incidentally, that we should censor this information on the grounds of public health, because people who are smoking/obese/sedentary/eating nothing but beer and pizza won't change their lifestyles if they were told (accurately) that "most" cancer can't be prevented through diet and exercise. I've got more sympathy for the former, although the latter is absolutely true: people, including me, are bad at statistics. On the practical-editing side, I doubt that attitudes among editors have changed, so I saw the paper and decided to not even bother trying to add anything about it myself.

The leading storyline back then among researchers who were trying to believe this paper and that cancer can almost always be prevented ran like this: "Sure, it's a random mutation, but if you don't have the right diet, then you'll get more random mutations". Except, of course, that if the mutation is triggered (e.g., by alcoholic beverages), then it's not "random" in the sense that is used in this paper. Scientists are no less human than the rest of us, and it takes humans a while to drop their cherished old stories and consider a new one on its own merits.

On the subject of the paper itself, I'm glad that this one included breast and prostate cancer, and given the results – and the guilt that most cancer patients feel – I hope that Prostate cancer gets a big "This is not your fault and there was nothing you could do to prevent it, so stop feeling guilty already" slapped into the lead.

Some day. We'll probably have to wait for multiple review articles to be published in top-quality journals first, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

From my understanding a significant portion can prevented and significant portion cannot. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

For me personally, the fun in this research is the variation. 95% of prostate cancer is non-preventable, but 66% of lung cancer is realistically preventable. (You "just" have to ban anything that makes people breathe smoke [including non-tobacco sources of smoke].) These studies have concluded that more than 90% of cancers are due to non-hereditary causes, and that less than half of those non-hereditary cancers are due to any factor within the control of the patient. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Multiple mutations must occur before a cell becomes cancerous. Hence it is possible and perhaps even likely that environmental factors, random mutations, and heredity all contribute to a single malignant transformation. The carcinogenesis article at the moment has far bigger problems. The lead was enormous and far too detailed. I have split out a lot of the material from the lead into sections. The sections also need more work. Finally I have added a short mention of the random mutation hypothesis to the lead. This should also be discussed in more depth in the body of the article. Boghog (talk) 10:19, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Alcohol and cancer#Genetic variation and cancer risk section needs better referencing(almost no sources), as well as, Health effects of tobacco#Cancer (at the end of first paragraph).......(both are part of Causes of cancer)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

To expand a bit on Boghog's comment: Tomasetti's work is being misreported; it's two-thirds of mutations in cancerous cells that are random, not two-thirds of individual people with cancer. The numbers are similar (and multiple sources seem to agree that around 60% of cancer cases are non-preventable), but we should be precise when we're describing this work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey All. Am working to help facilitate discussion and creation of the movement strategy. Here is some background information for the process. As we are one of the most active WikiProjects I believe that we have a lot to potentially contribute to this process. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I looked. my head is a bit spinning from all the HR-speak. unclear if we are meant to do anything now - are we? Jytdog (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think that public suggestions open next week. There will doubtless be banners up everywhere when it's time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

We also get a voice as a community. I guess the question is what do we see as our priorities over the next 15 years? Some I would include would be:

1. Accessibility
   1. Improve offline access such that more of the world can get dependable access to our content (much of the world's population does not have 24/7 access to the Internet even if they can afford it, yet most have cell phones)
   2. Accessible language is also of a great importance. One of the primary reasons medical students say they use WP is because we are easier to understand.
2. Quality content
   1. Put in place further measures to address undisclosed paid promotional editing. This is one of the greater threats to the neutrality of our content and needs to be addressed in order to maintain our independence and keep us free from advertising.
   2. Working on improving ability to handle rich content. This was one of the most requested features in the last reader survey. We did have someone working on maps and graphing tools within the Discovery team unfortunately this was put on hold.
3. Collaborate
   1. Develop and expand upon collaborations with like minded organizations such as the CDC, ILAE, WHO, Cochrane, etc.
   2. Improve relations and expand upon collaboration between the formal organizations within the Wikimedia Movement and the communities. The community tech team has been doing amazing work in this area and should be further resourced. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:02, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

very important points--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Hey All. The data looking at medical editor numbers for 2016 across all languages is in here. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

great info!(interesting numbers)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

So we right now have Phakomatosis. A student group has decided to improve this article, and their draft is at User:MKoehler/sandbox.

There are some obvious problems with sources and lack of inline citations, but I am asking a bigger question here - should the Phakomatosis article basically be a brief overview with wikilinks to the actual diseases, or should it be expanded as the class plans to do, and treated like it, itself, is a disease or condition?

In my view this is bad meta-editing - the Phakomatosis is unlikely to remain in sync with the subarticles, and little in the Phakomatosis article will be about anything.

I guess in my view if the Phakomatosis article were to be expanded, it should be done by a) updating each of the disease articles; b) adding citations to the lead of each disease article, and c) copying those leads to the main article. If there is anything that is specific to the class, that could go in a brief discussion of the class itself. That would be good meta-editing.

Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

As it is a broad group of conditions rather than a single condition better to keep it as it is rather than try to make it out like a single disease.

One could expand the "Examples" section with a paragraph on each condition.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

In general, the same objections can be, and probably have been, made for Skin cancer, Leukemia, Sarcoma, Heart disease, Autoimmune disorder, Liver disease, and the many other class-of-diseases articles that we have. It's still probably a good thing to have such articles. The class might want to consult some of those articles to see if there are any useful ideas about how to structure this one.

(BTW, until this bold edit by User:Sunrise a couple of months ago, WP:Summary style said that the summary in the parent article would often be twice as long as the child article's lead. I don't know if anyone cares any longer, but "just copy the lead" used to be considered lazy and poor writing, in addition to a great way to spread uncited information across the encyclopedia.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You ignored b) above and I won't bother writing more. Jytdog (talk) 00:25, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We should likely make many of the above articles mentioned by WAID more like bronchitis were we have a section for an overview of each condition that then links to that condition.

This needs to be done when each individual condition is very different from the others. Likely we should do it for skin cancer and leukemia as jamming much of this information together is confusion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:34, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

By the way Periodontal pathology was just switched from a disease based layout to a class of disease based layout by User:Matthew Ferguson 57 and IMO a big improvement.

Merely copying some sources into it doesn't make the same paragraph(s) ideal for, or even adequate for, both the lead of one article and a good summary of the subject in another article (and specifically its relationship to the main article).

James, I don't think that I'd convert Leukemia to a long list of individual diseases. The main theme for leukemia in the sources is "there are four main categories" rather than "there are more than a dozen separate versions, depending upon how you count". I suspect that most people on that page are either looking for general information, or for a link out. (Perhaps my expectations are too low, but I consider it an educational triumph if readers leave that article knowing that most leukemia doesn't involve photogenic children. Before the page was semi'd, we used to have problems with people changing the stats to say that 90% of cases are in children, rather than 10%.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

We should probably add to WP:MEDMOS a section dealing with "disease classes". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

If proposing to add a standardized format for "class of disease" type articles, then maybe a surgical sieve style format might be a consideration. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 18:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Agree. And maybe organize them from more common to less common. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We are having a discussion about a glossary that is being placed on a number of articles here. Peoples thought? We are needing guidelines I am thinking on all what pages a template like this can be placed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I commented. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:36, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: What you've stated here is unrelated to the point of that thread. What's being discussed there is whether or not to place the glossary in that article, not the construction of a guideline relevant to that glossary. It would be entirely inappropriate for a discussion on glossary guidelines to take place on an article talk page. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Note: This is no longer an issue since the article now contains the definitions which were listed in the glossary. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Would likely be good to discuss some guidelines around glossaries generally and that should take place here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Or maybe at a village pump. Surely medical articles are not the only ones that contain information that could usefully be presented that way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Why not create a glossary article and a template for linking to it? I've just recently posted glossary of bird terms and created {{birdgloss}} for linking to terms in it in articles. Maybe you could do something similar?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

People don't usually read things that aren't right in front of them. Every click costs you readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I am one person who does not fit that generalization.—Wavelength (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

People following clicks on WP is fairly common. People play games based on clicking.

I like the bird glossary. If glossaries were created we could link to them from the infobox or something. This would separate the dictionary type details from the encyclopedic formated material and hopefully make all happy.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:38, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

There's been some research done on that. If memory serves, the median number of pages visited was around 1.2 per session, which means that the median number of links clicked on was zero. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This source gives 2.81 as the average number of pages This source gives 3.31 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

My field is engineering, and I generally try to avoid editing medical articles, but I noticed another editor removing refs to the Journal of Forensic Sciences and British Journal of Ophthalmology on WP:MEDRS grounds while leaving in refs to Medical Hypotheses and The Huffington Post. I am in over my head when it comes to arguing whether or not to use one peer-reviewed journal instead of another -- I don't know enough to know whether I am wrong! Could I have some assistance please? See:

• Talk:Defecation postures#Delete recently added content on Medical complications associated with defecation
• Talk:Defecation#Recently added content on Medical complications associated with defecation

Ping User:Doc James. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:53, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Guy, do you realize that you used a single-person case study to support a claim that "cardiac arrest...often" happens when people defecate? A source that not only is weak in MEDRS terms, but also one that actually includes the word "unique" to describe the case?

(The popular press source is supporting a claim that "somebody sells a step stool", which does not sound like a biomedical claim to me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a known associated. Looking for sources:

We have this textbook

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Caffeine/Archive 6#Good_Faith_edit_on_caffeine_and_children

Thanks. JenOttawa (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Although usually-reliable editor Sizeofint added the source, the book looks like a discussion of myths by a NY Times reporter rather than a rigorous MEDRS source. Checking the literature, there doesn't appear to be good recent reviews on the relationship of child growth vs. caffeine. --Zefr (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

It was actually already in the article, I just moved it to a different section and tagged it as needing medrs. Sizeofint (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Commented. Interesting discussion on how we covered urban legends. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

is not the type of book consistent w/ Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)#Books..IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I have already replaced it with a better book :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much to all of you. Yes, interesting discussion. I think that it is good for the article to point out this myth. Now I cannot use it with my kids anymore (haha). JenOttawa (talk) 16:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Jen, thanks for the real life application. I edit for my grandchildren so that they will have good, reliable information to take to the pediatrician and wave it in his face. (more ha-ha's)

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the upcoming "420 collaboration", which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017! The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion. WikiProject Medicine participants may be particularly interested in the following categories: Category:Cannabis and health and Category:Medicinal use of cannabis. For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

By WP:OTRS at ticket:2017032110024782 a reader writes in and asks for a censorship option. They specifically wanted it for this image so that they could read Infectious mononucleosis without seeing this mouth.

The usual response is that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED but I thought that I would share this request here because it is a perennial request. If anyone has any comments, then please write here. I am directing the reader here to check responses. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

That is an amazing picture showing the classic presentation of the disease in question. It is already placed slightly lower in the article.

Explanation on how to hide images are here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:27, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

yes it is(BTW Differential diagnosis could use references)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I've come across this before but if a MEDRS citation links to a website advertising a medication is it still considered reliable? I am uncomfortable referencing commercial websites even it is from a reputable, professional pharmacological organization. Thoughts?

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 18:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Theoretically, it's fine; even reputable journals such as the NEJM have paid advertising programs. However, depending upon the details, it can make editors wary of the source. Do you want to share a link? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Depends on the source. But agree with WAID. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah we cite drugs.com all the time for the AHFS refs and those have drug ads on them. I don't like that either but the refs are good. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes AHFS is excellent. There are non ad covered versions however they are not free to see. Drugs.com has bought a license to display this content from the AHFS and than associates it with adds to make money. Not like WebMD which supposedly adjusts its content to appease / encourage advertising with them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

at Talk:Ketorolac#Instructions_for_clinician_monitoring Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:44, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that per this RFC, the shortcuts to WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS have been updated.

• WP:CHEM now refer to WP:CHEMISTRY
• WP:CHEMS now refer to WP:CHEMICALS
• WP:CHM is deprecated

Old discussions have had their shortcuts updated already. If I have made a mistake during an update, feel free to revert. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

thanks for posting--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, for copyright reasons the article Sensory processing disorder needs to be rewritten from scratch. It has been tagged for a month and gets approximately a thousand views daily. It would be great if someone could consider doing that at the subpage specified. Opencooper (talk) 05:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I've commented on the talk page. CV9933 (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

LeadSongDog posted a paper just above that I thought was interesting. I've got a few things on my list in the medical-humanities line, especially this one that ranks specialties and diseases by the amount of prestige that the medical profession accords them (and therefore everything from how well patients with various conditions are treated to how much specialists are paid).

I'm sure that some of you have interesting sources or ideas at the moment, and it's fun to hear about them. So please share: What's on your mind these days? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A ~20% cut would affect a lot of research. If you assume that the average work runs on a five-year grant cycle, it would pretty much mean that no new projects could be started next year. I don't expect it to work out that way, though. Some of the patient lobbies are just too strong for it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The NIH lead the efforts that turned HIV/AIDS from a death sentence to a chronic disease with near normal life expectancy.

It being cut so significantly will definitely put human health at risk when the next big issue arises.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:11, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If the article is correct, they're talking 18% of 0.9%, or just 0.162% of the US federal budget. This smells more like a bargaining chip than a serious policy choice. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Anyone who has had NIH grants in the US, or otherwise worked in concert with the various NIH translational agencies know that the agencies are in trouble, not because of these threatened cuts, but because of poorly executed fiscal planning in the period when the NIH pungent was doubled over a 5 year period. The current situation in the US is that median age of a scientist receiving the R01 is now in the 40s, and (relatedly), in the molecular biosciences, that 3 and 4 serial postdoctoral appointments en route to first academic appointment—or worse, perpetual postdoctoral limbo—are increasingly the norm. Add to this now, that the eventual flattening of the growth rate after the doubling period, and the contraction in real terms that took place when the economy has taken hits—these now impact an artificially enlarged pool of individuals needing funding. So, as critical to the amount expended, is how the system is shaped, to accommodate whatever expenditures are provided. I have some confidence in Collins, in that regard. Otherwise, anyone who has been both in pharma and academia can also tell you that things could be done better, and more cost-effectively, than they are, at universities, where the 20% you speak of is easily wasted each year. [In pharma, investment recovery is the department redistributing, refurbishing, reselling , or donating no longer used equipment that represents significant investment—down to pieces as small as a rotary evaporator (<$5K). Investment recovery in academia is the hallway corridor, the tops of storage cabinets, and ultimately, the dumpster.] Small example, but as a process guy, I can tell you it gets no better—no more efficient or cost-effective—when discovery workflows are designed, i.e., how to get ADME-Tox data on a new small molecule, when no experience or expertise is present, no alliances/partnerships exist, and everyone's ego and funding residual is a stake in the game. Add the propensity for last minute decisions and efforts—who has never been on an academic grant writing team that did not hit send on the very last day—and the matter of cost inefficiencies are all the clearer. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I edited the Wikipedia article on physical therapy. Can someone please review what I did?

Thank you, --Yabeckerman (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

...and citing the DEA goes the wrong way. Start here... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mitragyna_speciosa#DEA_not_a_reliable_scientific_source Kolyvansky (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• conversation apparently moved--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

• no this is the place to discuss K's concerns. K, when you seek other's feedback about the reliability of a source for the content it is used to support, you present the content and source, and ask the question, neutrally. More importantly, your original posting implies that DEA is used to support content about liver toxicity in the article as it stands now. Where exactly is anything from the DEA used to source anything about liver tox? Jytdog (talk) 03:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

...in the lead "Other side effects may include high heart rate and blood pressure, liver toxicity, and trouble sleeping.[9]..." Kolyvansky (talk) 18:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

.....yes per WP:LEAD the lead just summarizes the body. the content in the body about liver tox doesn't rely on the DEA ref. The DEA ref was just supplied there in the lead for people who come to argue. I took time out of my day to line up the refs used in the lead to reflect the way refs are used in the body. CWOT. Jytdog (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

• Further questioning has been raised about the use of DEA as a source for # of deaths. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#DEA_as_a_source_for_deaths Jytdog (talk) 10:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

...The doubt I raise is w.r.t. using the DEA as a source on anything, especially matters of "scientific fact", except for its claims in furtherance of its law enforcement objectives, which claims should be cited merely as that, claims, unless supported by outside, independent, reliable sources. Kolyvansky (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

i'd agree w/ --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

If you read above there, you'll see the DEA has a documented history of twisting the facts to fit their purpose. We'll never know how they conclude anything without documentation, and these claims aren't documented. Kolyvansky (talk) 23:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

So I was just looking at our article on KCNB1, where the Template:infobox gene is deployed. The infobox had a disease associations with obesity, and also said this channel "interacts" with linoleic acid. (I have fixed that so you can't see it now)

I went to Wikidata and saw that the association with obesity was added by ProteinBoxBot here. based on this database. If you look at that database, you will see that this protein was associated with obestity based on PMID 23251661, a primary source (at least it is of a GWAS in humans) and that this gene has also been linked to Congenital diaphragmatic hernia based on a primary source in rats, PMID 15088113.

At our article, I only see the infobox template and cannot see how to suppress these things. For some reason only the obesity thing was showing in Wikidata, but in any case I removed it. Which may well upset some people there.

As for the lineoleic acid thing, that came from a different Wikidata entry altogether, and I removed it from there, as this is just bizarre to have in a WP article. Linoleic acid is a common dietary acid and from where I sit drawing associations between stuff we eat and modulation of ion channels is just not good.

The infobox gene should not have health claims in it if they are coming from Wikidata, I think. Thoughts? Jytdog (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

using that as a source, means wikidata is still "dysfunctional",(am uncertain as to how to help "fix", generally speaking...maybe start here)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

badly written but pretty important topic. has not been well-loved by us. i'll try to get to it in the next week or so. Jytdog (talk) 21:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The journal group PLOS is extending its 'Topic Page' review format that was spearheaded by PLOS Computational Biology to also include PLOS Genetics. In this format, accepted articles are dual-published both in the journal, and as Wikipedia pages (see Wikipedia category).

Suitable topics must either currently lack a Wikipedia page, or have only stub/start class contents. If you you would like to submit such a review article, see these guidelines. If you have any recommendations for topics to be commissioned, feel free to let any of the involved editors know: T Shafee (PLOS Gen), D Mietchen (PLOS Comp Biol).
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Great to hear :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

They can be added to Category:Wikipedia articles published in peer-reviewed literature.—Wavelength (talk) 17:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

that's possible--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Quick note: mw:Parsoid/Language conversion/Preprocessor fixups will require the insertion of some nowiki tags on most wikis/most languages (not including Chinese, if I understand it correctly). I've asked the devs for more information and will report back (I'm hoping for a couple of simple diffs that show exactly what needs to be done). If someone wants to post a link to WT:CHEM and WT:PHARMA so that everyone knows about it, that would be great. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

done(and thanks WAID)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot of recent activity at the sepsis and septic shock pages recently strongly advocating the addition of information about Dr. Marik's recently proposed IV thiamine/Vitamin C therapy for sepsis/septic shock. This is despite the lack of rigorous study and no mention yet (that I'm aware of) in secondary sources that meet WP:MEDRS criteria (not even a recent robust RCT yet). Discussion here . TylerDurden8823 (talk) 12:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not surprised, since it made a big splash in the news recently. The news reports that I saw indicated that a proper study was underway, which means that it was neither complete nor published (although, if the results are actually as good as he's claimed, he needs to be talking to his IRB about ending early on ethical grounds).

Generally, with this sort of thing, it's more effective to mention the claims in a restrained, limited manner, rather than trying to excise them completely. A complete absence makes people think that editors merely haven't heart about it; a limited statement, perhaps along the lines of "In 2017, Edward Example claimed that outcomes could be dramatically improved by giving patients Vitamin C, thiamine, and some unspecified steroids; however, these claims have not been scientifically proven" helps people feel like their area of interest was included (and some of them will learn that "I got my name in the news!" is not the height of scientific evidence).

Bonus points if you can find a way to link to science by press release without anyone yelling at you.  :-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Will look in, thanks for calling it to our attention, @TylerDurden8823:. Last thing needed in this area is misinformation. In the spirit of no-publicity-bad-publicity, perhaps a mention of the story, as a story that has appeared, and the fact that it is not yet established medical science can appear, so people searching can find the WP article, and get some evidence-based information. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

That seems reasonable to me as long as it's truly/properly qualified with the necessary caveats so the public is not misled. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Here's the latest news on citation work: https://blog.wikimedia.org/2017/04/06/initiative-for-open-citations/ WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

great news!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

A new user has posted a comment on the Common cold talk page. Unfortunately I do not have time to review it today. I just wanted to post it here, in case someone has a few minutes to look at the Cochrane Review. Talk:Common_cold Thanks, JenOttawa (talk) 13:04, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

since was withdrawn(same authors for a 2011 article), maybe review--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Good pick up. Have removed some of the concerning content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Please help with either improving or cleaning up at article Capillary, drive-by cite tagging makes it harder to learn while trying to read the page.

Thank you ! 173.225.249.194 (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

actually that's Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy(except for clinical significance--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Not seeing it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:02, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, a new RfC request was posted at Talk:Borderline personality disorder that might interest some of this WikiProject's members.ThatGirlTayler (talk) 01:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Efforts to remove appropriate images from articles about mental illnesses is unfortunate. Expecially when they are as applicable as this one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Crisis in Evidence-Based Medicine—Project Censored (October 4, 2016)—Wavelength (talk) 02:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

That article is a confused piece of garbage, combining pharma-shill gambit bullshit with legitimate reproducibility crisis issues. You can file that in the same drawer as Sheryl Atkinson's crap on autism Jytdog (talk) 02:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

And brought to use by the editor of Lancet, the journal that published Wakefield. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Important imo discussion happening at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates#First_2.5_paragraphs_of_the_lead, related to discussion we recently had at WT:PHARM about leads in Nov 2016, here. Keeping the lead simple/uncluttered is important on several levels. Jytdog (talk) 17:03, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

give opinion(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:00, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jytdog. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:28, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Should Coca-Cola treatment of phytobezoars be merged with phytobezoar? It is one of the therapies for phytobezoar. Am not certain if it merits its own article. Appreciate everyone's review. Thanks -- Samir 02:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

could be merged IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I also think it should be merged to phytobezoar. Some of the stuff in the article would, however, be better off merged with Coca-Cola#Medicinal_application. Everymorning (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Could someone from this project please review the contributions of 182.55.173.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). They are adding references to various medical-related Wikipedia articles, but I don't think it is coincidental that all the cited papers are from the same researchers. It certainly looks like self-promotion, but it would be nice if someone with medical knowledge could at least see if there is any actual value to these references. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The references appear legitimate, but I think the suspicion of WP:COI is valid, and worth looking into. It will be interesting to see if the IP responds to Ozzie's inquiry, but I wouldn't hold my breath. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 18:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

They have not edited with that account since the note was left. Hopefully they will begin using refs not all by a single author. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

This user repeatedly adding low quality source. Further eyes useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

will monitor user--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:52, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

@Doc James: The IP of the editor traces to Dhaka, Bangladesh, the same specific location of the authors of the last paper cited. FYI, cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 07:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. They now appear to have moved to User:James Regun Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Wondering peoples thoughts about including these? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

High quality, I like them, even though they make a few odd choices about what to include in a general "gross anatomy" course. The good thing about including these is that we can just throw them in the addition images section. :) Carl Fredrik ^talk 20:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

the videos would add positively to any/all articles--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:42, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I have had a look but I can't seem to find a Medicine IRC for Wikipedia. If there isn't, shouldn't we set one up? Qaei ☎ 09:02, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

As you've noticed, IRC channels are not always easy to find, so setting one up would be easy, but letting folks know where it is turns into a much more difficult problem. There's little point in an IRC channel if it is not used regularly. --RexxS (talk) 11:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that we have very many IRC-oriented folks in this particular group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

yikes, no thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Was blocked at work last time I checked. Never really used IRC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Why would you want an IRC? • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:54, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a shock guro website you know? Most people search for all these nuisances because of nescience, and such content us very inappropriate for a lot of searchers. It would be nice to the same to insect articles etc. It would be nice if this could become a general wikipedia policy. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.34.142.117 (talk) 07:59, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. It is a policy which is not going to change. If you think that any specific image is unsuitable where it is used, you can explain why on the talk page of the article, and if the proposal gains consensus, the image may be moved, removed or substituted to provide better encyclopaedic coverage. Cheers, • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 08:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

If you do not want to see images instructions are here Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:19, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Eddie Eagle#Undiscussed reverts. An editor is warring to delete three WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, including one empirical study and two survey articles, and their summarization, from article Eddie Eagle, a pediatric gun violence prevention program (22 December 2016, 26 December 2016, 29 December 2016), as well as warring to remove the project template (7 December 2016, 30 December 2016).

1. Kelso, Pamela D.; Miltenberger, Raymond G.; Waters, Marit A.; Egemo-Helm, Kristin; Bagne, Angela G. (2007). "Teaching Skills to Second and Third Grade Children to Prevent Gun Play: A Comparison of Procedures". Education and Treatment of Children. 30 (3). West Virginia University Press: 29–48. doi:10.1353/etc.2007.0016. ISSN 1934-8924. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
2. Glatt, Kathleen (December 2005). "Child-to-Child Unintentional Injury and Death from Firearms in the United States: What can be Done?". Journal of Pediatric Nursing. 20 (6): 448–452. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2005.08.006. ISSN 0882-5963. PMID 16298286.
3. Himle, Michael B.; Miltenberger, Raymond G. (2004). "Preventing unintentional firearm injury in children: The need for behavioral skills training". Education and Treatment of Children. West Virginia University Press: 161–177. ISSN 0748-8491.

Additional editorial attention is needed to approach a neutral summary of available reliable sources. Thank you. 54.71.98.138 (talk) 15:22, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

is a review. Propose on the talk page what text you think should be added supported by it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:17, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

The third source in this list (from an education journal) looks like a narrative review. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

First and foremost, I have a paid COI in regards to MSK (see my userpage). Secondly, please forgive me if this is an inappropriate place to ask, but I'm working on getting the article translated into Spanish, Russian, and Mandarin and was curious if any members of WP:Medicine might be able to help out. Typically I'd ask over at WP:Translation, but as this is the more active project, and I think this still falls within the project's scope, I thought I'd check. Any help would be appreciated!--FacultiesIntact (talk) 03:52, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:07, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Chrishsv1 has posted some concerns about this article at Talk:Visual snow, if anyone knowledgeable wants to offer advice and feedback. I know zilch about medicine-related topics - just a convenience link to draw attention to the post (which was also added to the help desk). GermanJoe (talk) 10:24, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

The article is full of primary sources. It's really a coatrack for an external site maintained by the one of the authors of several of those sources to solicit donations. I've already removed the entire External links section as contrary to WP:ELNO, but it needs more eyes and a thorough pruning to comply with MEDRS. --RexxS (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the SPA restored the external links without giving a reason and ignored the talk page section I'd opened. I assume I'm going to have to stand fast to maintain our stance on external links, but just in case I'm being unreasonable (or "trigger-happy" as I've been called), I'd be grateful for more eyes on the article and its talk page. TIA --RexxS (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Since I have absolutely no skill in identifying socks, I am questioning the edits of User:64.85.216.208. They appear to be more skillful than they ought for an editor of very few edits. Can someone help?

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 12:27, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Different ip 64.85.216.31, same edits

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 13:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It's the same user, of course, from Mountain Grove, MO. But dynamic IPs are not socks; they are just IPs that change each time the user logs on. It's important to realise that some editors simply prefer to edit as IPs and we should respect their choice. Some IP editors may be very experienced, and this one does appear to know what he's talking about, especially on the topic of categories. They claim to have been editing for almost ten years and I can't see any reason not to AGF on that. If it's any help, there is guidance on best practice for categorisation at Wikipedia:Categorization #Categorizing pages: "... each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C." there are exceptions, but they are only in very particular circumstances. In the case of Jerry Gibson, he belongs in Category:Negro league baseball players, but because that is a more specific sub-category of Category:Negro league baseball, he does not belong in that category. Similar considerations apply to several of the other categories the IP removed. Your best bet, if you think that exceptions are appropriate, is to raise the issue on the article talk page, which the IP claims to be monitoring, so you should be able to discuss the issue and, hopefully, reach an agreement that is best for the article. HTH --RexxS (talk) 13:44, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your response, especially when many people are getting ready for the holidays. I think I can understand what you are saying, but a when a different IP is used whenever this one editor reverts allows such a user to revert anything they wish without having to be concerned about the '3-revert-rule'. I sorta think this might not be a 'good faith' activity.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 19:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Sujok Therapy Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Editors with a conflict of interest are required to request edits on talk pages, rather than making them directly. There is an automatically maintained list of such requests at User:AnomieBOT/EDITREQTable, and it's getting too long. A few of the requests are medical related and need attention from people with the appropriate expertise:

• Targeted intra-operative radiotherapy - clinical trial result with promotional implications
• Pterygium (conjunctiva) - surgeon wants to cite his own research

These need more careful attention than the usual handling of COI edit requests, so some help would be appreciated. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 08:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

commented--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes both cases involved a fair bit of self promotion. Have commented aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Have updated Pterygium (conjunctiva), especially the lead to reflect mainstream opinions. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. If you deal with those edit requests, please update the requested-edit template to indicate "done", "not done", or "partially done". That gets it off the to-do list. Technical details: Template:Request edit/Instructions. John Nagle (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that we have an article on this yet, which I suppose is understandable since there is not much research on it yet. But the American Academy of Ophthalmology has spoken out on it, as seen here and here, and I think we should devote at least two sentences to the topic in one of our eye surgery articles. I've looked at the Eye surgery article. I've looked at lens implant, but it redirects to Intraocular lens, which is specifically about implanting a lens in the eye to treat cataracts or myopia. And besides implants, there's also laser surgery to change the iris color; see Stroma Medical.

Which existing Wikipedia article would be the best place to cover this topic? Should we wait for better sources on the matter before reporting on it? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:35, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Eye surgery can have a section and than we can redirect this to that section. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay. What do you think the text should state, and what sources should we use? As far as I know, the sources are primary sources and news sources. And these letters to the editor. Right now, the main eye color surgery company is BrightOcular, and it was popularized by Tameka Cottle (better known as "Tiny," or Tiny Harris). There are some claims that NewColorIris is now BrightOcular, but BrightOcular says they are not this company. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

I just looked on Google Books, and I see some decent sources for reporting on the NewColorIris problems. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

This 2011 review is also about NewColorIris. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Looks like you have found some okay sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

It's already in the article at Eye surgery#Laser eye surgery. How do you feel about moving it to Eye surgery#Other oculoplastic surgery? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I didn't give that article a thorough look and overlooked that addition as a result. But it's focusing on the laser surgery. It doesn't mention the implant aspect. As for where to place it in the article, I don't yet have a preference. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

need opinions of edit, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The text needs to be re-written so that it is not an instruction manual. The reference meets our criteria , but I am sure that better quality references can be found. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I have invited the editor (Aznboy246) to comment here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

On further review, these details about prevention are more properly included in the article "Ebola virus disease". That article already includes this important information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I would like to have your opinion regarding this idea here. --Brainist (talk) 21:27, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

more opinions(gave mine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: Thanks, I hope more people participate! --Brainist (talk) 06:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

currently the above article is up for GA status(from an editor who has several GA's), please chime in and thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Ozzie! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 10:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot of medical content has recently been added to Euphoria. Some of it has been cited to very outdated medical sources (i.e., >10 years old), primary medical sources, and nonmedical websites. I've recently deleted this material, but another editor of that page and I are having a dispute. I'd appreciate it if several unbiased medical editors would monitor that page to ensure that existing medical content (e.g., drug effects and statements about symptoms and/or classification of diseases) and future medical content additions are cited to MEDRS-quality sources. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

will keep eye on--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Any opinions on this image that Yahadzija uploaded? I don't think that the buzzle.com source is a good source to use. Also, I don't like that the chart states "dark brown-black" since black eyes don't actually exist. But I do understand that dark brown eyes can look black. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If you do not trust the source - trust your eyes, and valid hypotheses about the eye color genetics. You can look at the people around. Yahadzija (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yahadzija, that's not the way Wikipedia is supposed to work. I've looked at people around me, though, and no one truly has black eyes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Needs a good referenceDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It is just A hypothesis of six loci determination of the eye colour! Do you have a better one, in connection with colors below?
Yahadzija (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay so no source. So we do not include it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, this seems made up off the top of someone's head. Probably suitable for deletion. Carl Fredrik ^talk 10:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Also exactly the same as the source so nominated for deletion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem of dark brown - black eyes?! Yahadzija (talk) 10:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It's clearly not a reliable source because it's not even internally consistent – compare "EYCL1 is responsible for green/blue eye color while a dominant EYCL2 imparts brown eyes and EYCL3 is responsible for brown/blue eyes" with the reference chart on the same page. http://www.buzzle.com/about.asp says nothing meaningful about the site's accuracy or editorial control.

Doc James I don't think the speedy tag will succeed per . Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess the best we can likely do is keep it from being used. It is not educational content though.

I have removed the image from all Wikipedias Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion here based on it being not accurate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, I well know that eye color is inherited as a polygenic trait. However, at each of loci there is some form of domination/recesiveness or other forms of gene interaction.
Yahadzija (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

There are several different classification systems for eye [iris] colour. This paper presents a system with nine categories. This paper indicates 16 implicated genes.

I agree that buzzle is not a suitable source. Moreover, the information in the chart is misleading. Ideally, the image should be deleted from Wikimedia Commons. However I have no faith that the Commons editors will act sensibly. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, the problem with the last inaccurate image was that it was still in wide use when it was nominated for deletion. After I replaced it with a better image there was no issue getting it deleted (). This time Doc James judiciously removed the inaccurate image from ~20 wikis before nominating it for deletion. This approach is illogical (it would make more sense to have the deletion discussion first, then let a bot take out all the transclusions), but evidently this is what needs to be done to purge bad images from Commons. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:05, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if "this whole thing ought to be text rather than an image" is grounds for deletion at Commons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

" This approach is illogical... but evidently this is what needs to be done to purge bad images from Commons." – Adrian J. Hunter. Indeed! According to the Wikimedia Commons editors, "Image in use" is a valid reason to keep an image, regardless of the number of errors that it contains. James et al. are forced to game the system in order to make progress. Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

"I wonder if "this whole thing ought to be text rather than an image" is grounds for deletion at Commons." – WhatamIdoing. lol, good luck with that! Axl ¤ [Talk] 08:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, original BS is still original, so it does constitute a copyvio.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

We have a page view calculator for projects up and running again :-) Readership in Mar 2017 was about 196 million for EN WP medical pages. Maybe not as high as in 2013 but these new numbers do not include robots so not completely comparable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

useful info!--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

That is indeed interesting information. However I am surprised to see 48, XXXX as the leading article. Are 23,500 people really viewing it every day? Also, I am not convinced that Leonardo da Vinci should be in the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:06, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

According to Talk:Leonardo da Vinci (version of 00:02, 16 April 2017), the article "is of interest to multiple WikiProjects". Expanding the navigation box shows "WikiProject Medicine" in the list.

—Wavelength (talk) 13:19, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Discussed in March at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Archive_95#Popular_page_tool_.28by_month. @Axl: I see 3k/day traffic for that article in 2016, which does seem plausible to me. Check out 2016 traffic for the world's most popular film, consistently for 10+ years, judged by Internet search. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yup pageviews for 48,_XXXX have were about 25k per day. Maybe it was featured in a TV show? Down around 5K per day now. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Leonardo did a lot with respect to anatomy and physiology.Leonardo_da_Vinci#Anatomy_and_physiology They are marked as low importance. I would be fine with seeing them removed aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

There's a query at the Help Desk that someone here might like to respond to. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:50, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that's probably a hopeless article. We have too many entrenched, biased editors involved in the article to make any real progress. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I can remove all the original research with one click. When uninvolved admins decide to move all other editors aside I can make one edit and fix all the text. QuackGuru (talk) 02:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Also a paid editor? So chiropractors are hiring a PR firm to try to adjust WP to their liking? Gah. The research is controversial. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:08, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Quack, I implore you not to edit war in that article, especially since almost no editor in all of Wikipedia agrees with your twisted idea of "original research".

James, it sounds like the PR firm was hired for a chiropractic school in general, and not necessarily for the purpose of improving this article. I can imagine that a chiropractic school might think that a stridently anti-chiropractic Wikipedia article (which it's been at various points) or one that misrepresents current practice (which the recent versions probably do, to some extent) could discourage potential students from wanting to become chiropractors. An admin has blocked the account over "promotion or advertising" (User:Orangemike, were there any edits beyond the single still-visible edit at the Help desk?) and its username, without first offering the standard opportunity to change the username without first being blocked. I doubt that complying with the COI guideline and the Terms of Use by publicly disclosing a COI at the Help desk is what WP:U really means by a "clearly offensive username, disruptive or vandalizing edits, or edits that show a history of problematic bias or conflict of interest". WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Wow, just got banned and never edited an encyclopedia article yet . I'm pretty sure there are no "promotional edits" if an editor has never made an edit in the first place. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 14:28, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Article does have some issues, agree.

They were blocked for "Promotional username" as their username is that of a PR firm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Nonetheless, you all do have a point. I've changed the block to the "softerblock" mode, although the help desk post shows they have serious NPOV problems with the edits they want to make. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike. I appreciate your response.

James, merely having a username that matches your business name isn't actually grounds for blocking (and hasn't been for at least several years), which is why I asked Mike if there were other problems (e.g., deleted edits). I know it's hard to keep up with changes in policies, but usually, when COI editor is trying to learn and follow our rules, then it's safe to try to respond with as much kindness as we can muster – even if we are fairly certain that we are going to disagree with their suggestions. It's not in Wikipedia's best interests to punish people that are voluntarily self-identifying their businesses or properly disclosing COIs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:35, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Glans_penis#Content_based_on_1947_paper. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Replied Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 23 April 2017 (UTC)