Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 21

Hoax or not?

Has anyone ever heard of Meiosis XY Female Syndrome? It's up for AFD. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

This ref [1] page 129 mentions it but appears to say it is lethal. [2] is another one discussing it in mice --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a reference to Swyer syndrome? This review article looks at a bunch of XY female syndromes (and no other searches on a quick review Pubmed using "XY female" came up with much else). Swyer syndrome comes closest to the description with normal genitals, fallopian tubes, uterus, tall stature but they have gonadal dysgenesis and therefore cannot menstruate which does not match that AFD'd article. Yobol (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

We need the comments at the AFD, which is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Medicine. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth (probably not much, which is why I am commenting here and not at AFD), Dr. Quigley is a world-renowned endocrinologist, but a cursory search of her publications comes up short. Has anyone asked Alison (talk · contribs) to drop in at the AFD? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I've left a note for her. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Peer review: Median nerve palsy and cancer

Median nerve palsy has been greatly expanded as part of a class project by User:Jjjballr911 and is now at peer review. --WS (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Cancer has also been requested to be peer-reviewed.--Garrondo (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Image at pregnancy

We are having a debate at [3] over what image is best to illustrate the lead. Comment? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Hospitals

I would like to bring WP:Hospitals in as a daughter project, similar to how WP:Anatomy works. WP:HOS tags will generally replace WPMED tags in hospital articles. There are approximately 3,000 hospital articles on Wikipedia, and over 17,000 hospitals worldwide. Ng.j (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Scope of project

With the creation of WP:Hospitals, we at WPMED need to re-evaluate whether or not to include hospitals in this project's scope. Should we turf all hospital articles to WP:Hospitals (similar to anatomy articles), or still keep them within the scope of WPMED (like articles within our task forces)? --Scott Alter (talk) 04:03, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I say we toss them to the hospital project. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. --WS (talk) 09:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It's been a week, and it looks like there is a clear consensus and no objections. I will assess hospital articles and replace tags as I go. Please leave current WPMED tags on hospital articles. Ng.j (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Universal publication guidelines

Are there a set of universal publication guidelines that journals (such as NEJM, JAMA, JMIR, etc) all follow when publishing papers? For example, is the inclusion of a corresponding author e-mail address with a publication required nowadays? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 16:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

The ICMJE's Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals are followed by most major medical journals. --WS (talk) 20:42, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

We also have related articles: Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals and Vancouver guidelines (and an open merge proposal). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine

The Vet Med project has recently reactivated. Feel free to get involved. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

History of viruses at FAC

GrahamColm (talk · contribs) has put History of viruses up as a FAC. Comments welcome here. -- Colin°^Talk 18:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Models of anatomy

Hi, Are there any experts here on anatomical models? I am beginning to fix various articles in the Computer generated imagery neighborhood. There is a paragraph there about architectural images, and a paragraph or two about "anatomically correct" models would be nice. I can manage the computer simulation parts, but I am not sure how the technology is used in anatomy. Are anatomically correct models actually used for instruction in medical schools etc.? I guess they are, but conformation from someone in the field will be good. Scientific Computing and Imaging Institute includes images of a torso rendered pretty nicely. Is it anatomically correct? I asked because models used in Skeletal animation are not anatomically correct, and it matters not. But the article Virtual patient is waiting in the lounge of the ER room, waiting for medical help, with fellow patients Visible Human Project and Living Human Project. Those are not on my immediate path, but it would be nice if someone would give them a facelift of some type. Eventually a good template for uniting these will be nice. And talking of facelifts, Facial expression and Computer facial animation also need help.

I used to have a copy of Gray's book on anatomy (not that I tread it much) but about 2-3 years ago, as I was cleaning things up I threw it away, because anything I needed was on the web. So the future of anatomy is online. Wikipedia articles should probably catchup to that.

But first things first. Help on a paragraph or two on anatomy in Computer generated imagery will be appreciated. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

We are all waiting for Frank Netter's atlases to enter the public domain. I think we have another 20-30 years to wait if we are lucky. I hear that the recent medical students are using computers simulations rather than human cadavers to study gross anatomy in some places.. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, Netter was a useful name. I did not know about him. Thanks. I will dig up more on that. But while I was waiting in the lounge, I did a few searches and if you look at Computer-generated_imagery#Anatomical_models now, I added a few paragraphs. It seems to me that there are two sperate issues here:

• Generic anatomically correct models. Here is where Netter will win. These can be used in education.
• Patient specific anatomical variations. He can not help there. E.g. the diversity of the shape, diameter and position of the coronary ostia still require patient specific CT scans that no generic model can anticipate.

So it remains to be seen if an open source approach to plugging together anonymized patient specific models will yield results sooner than Ciba will open up. My guess is that when Cibe realizes that their material has no value they will release it, so time will tell. But if you have other keywords that can help in that section, they will be appreciated. Now let me give you an idea: if you MD-guys start an open source anonymized repository of patient specific models, then that will get things rolling. Is there some type of public database for that? Maybe Wikimedia? Who knows? It will cost nothing. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Nearly all students still use Netter's thus the textbook market is good. He was an incredible artist who dedicated his life to this work. He has also done stuff on diseases such as one sees here [4] and [5]. Here are the variations of coronary arteries you requested [6]. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:58, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you refer too by "Patient specific anatomical variations"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

E.g. please see diagram on page 528 and the discussion just before it. Although the topology and connectivity of the ostia may be similar, the metric structure is not. Years ago I had a 3D model of my heart done (I am fine thanks) and I saw it compared with others with far more problems. I would have let them download it to Wikimedia along with others. So I suggest that Wikimedia be used as a repository for many 3D models of anonymous patients who grant rights. I think 80% of patients will not object. That will then be a very useful resource for all students worldwide. And it will cost nothing. Jim Wales will fund it, without knowing, and it will be "real models". And no permission is required, as long as the patients sign something. Any MD can start and it can just grow from there. History2007 (talk) 23:27, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

As long as the images are anonymous patient permission is not required. How would we turn the 2 D into the 3D models you propose?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:31, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if there are no legal barriers, then we just needs to solve the technical issues. I will take a look at what Wikimedia allows, and post a few questions for various people. In general, an interactive 3d system would have been ideal, but will probably not work on Wikimedia as is. However, there are piles of animated 3D images floating around that woul dbe just rotating. Please give me a few days to ask questions, then we will see what the best way may be. But to have a 3D image, the input needs to have had 3D capabilities. I have seen hearts on 3D interactive systems, but the 3D software was specific to the workstation. However, a series of snapshots of the rotations can be captured and turned into an animated image. But again, I need to know what the Wikimedia policies are, and I have not looked into that yet. But I will ask. In the mean time, I touched up Computer-generated_imagery#Anatomical_models with Netter, and if see any errors, please correct them. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes we do have the rotating image of DNA. I am sure many of us could get you CT images with personal data removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that DNA image is a GIF file. That is of course one option, but a discussion has started here, and we should wait for more responses and ideas. I think there is interest on Wikimedia, but discussions should continue for more input. Further suggestions can be obtained, but let us wait a day or two for Wikimedia people. We should see what the long term direction of supported Wikimedia items may be and I do not know that yet. However, as of October 25 2010 suggestions were being sought. I think we should see what the Wikimedia people say, then decide on a strategy. But overall, I have a feeling that if the right format is selected, in the long term these medical images will find their way into Wikimedia, and we should just do it right by conforming to their standards. However, I also think that this application can influence their standards, given that they are still not frozen, and this could be a very useful application. I see some a day when some hospital will donate many images once the project gets going. I will leave people some messages about that too. History2007 (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think our discussion on graphic formats for anatomy was just overcome by events, and also here. So this means that we know where the "medical student of the future" will get info, because as the Google people throw money at these projects, the direction will be set, and it will be a case of follow the tape. I think the best option is to wait 6 months, then revisit the issue. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, does anyone think that google earth has ended the need for other, freely licensed maps? Or are the google anatomy models to be freely licensed? LeadSongDog come howl! 04:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not know what will happen in 6-12 months, but do know that the current period is a time of transition. So my strategy is to wait before I spend effort on this now. Of course, you could proceed in any case. History2007 (talk) 08:45, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Electrotrichogenesis

Could I get some eyes on electrotrichogenesis? My quackery senses are tingling. Mangoe (talk) 15:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Shocking article. I marked it as advert anyway, although not my scene really. History2007 (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Do not see any review articles on the topic. Therefore PRODed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:52, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

HIV/AIDS breakthrough?

Now I don't know if it checks out, and it that's the real deal, as potential cures as always reported from time to time, but this would (apparently) be the first time someone is actually cured from HIV/AIDS

• "BREAKTHROUGH: First HIV-Positive Man Cured". MSNBC. 14 December 2010.
• Kristina Allers, Gero Hütter, Jörg Hofmann, Christoph Loddenkemper, Kathrin Rieger, Eckhard Thiel and Thomas Schneider (8 December 2010). "Evidence for the cure of HIV infection by CCR532/32 stem cell transplantation". Blood. 116 (25). doi:10.1182/blood-2010-09-309591.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

It might check out, it might not check out. This project will know what to do with this information. If anything, particular attention should be paid to stem cells/HIV/AIDS-related articles because of the increase activity this will bring.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 12:32, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

About 1 in 200 people get exposed repeatedly and never acquire the disease ( ie resistant ) [7]. Remember this is only one person who received a bone marrow transplant hardly a safe easy procedure. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:REDFLAG, I would want to defer inclusion of this one-patient report until there is either a very strong secondary source or a larger cohort (ideally both). Most "medical breakthroughs" reported in the news never make it to prime time. Given the success of antiretrovirals and the essentially normal lifespan now enjoyed by people with HIV if diagnosed timely, it is unlikely that this treatment will ever be offered routinely. JFW | T@lk 14:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Moved text on this to a section called research at the end per WP:DUE Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and Hamman-Rich syndrome

I initially thought of the above as being one and the same but after some basic reading I concluded that they were different (one being an acute form, the other a chronic form). However, as I am not a medical expert I thought I would leave this here: [8] for someone to clarify/correct as necessary (and even possibly merge the two together if they are not any different). Kind regards.Calaka (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Hamman-Rich syndrome is an alternative name for acute interstitial pneumonitis. This is a different disease from idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:06, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the article to the more appropriate name "Acute interstitial pneumonitis". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:22, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.Calaka (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Chart workshop

There's been some talk at WP:VPI about making pie charts. At this time, our options have some limitations, but here's a few options that may interest editors here:

Single statistic with a simple bar graph

70 / 100

70% of women with breast cancer have no known risk factors

This is a table that contains two templates, both of which were designed for some other purpose. It would be better with a border around it, but style="border: 1px solid darkgray" isn't working for me today. (It seems to be a choice between floating right or drawing a border.)

17 / 19

17 out of 19 new parents need more sleep.

It's not restricted to percentages—you can set it to any real number X out of real number Y—but it is restricted to a single statistic. Also, the color can be changed to "red", "green", "blue", or any hex value.

150 / 10,000

150 out of 10,000 people have this condition.

As the bar is exactly 100 pixels wide, it's not a good choice for displaying numbers less than 1%.

This template may be useful for articles that you really, really, really want to put an image in, but can't find anything.

Beautiful graph—but only visible offwiki

Today's Schedule

Task	Hours per Day
Work	11
Eat	2
Sleep	7

{{Visualizer}} is a template that uses the Toolserver to produce gorgeous and complex charts. You take your average data table, and add an extra line that says: |+ {{visualizer| <Some title goes here> |chart=pie |link=View graph}} just before your first data/header column.

The main advantage is that you could paste this line into just about any existing data table, and it would work as soon as you save the page. There are a bunch of different options beyond pie charts. Also, the graphs it produces are totally beautiful.

The main disadvantage is that most readers probably won't click the link.

Poor man's chart

{{Brick chart}} is a simple block-oriented chart template. It assumes that everything must add up to 100% in the end, and fills in any missing amounts with "other".

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Causes of death

  Cardiovascular diseases - 29.3 %

  Infectious and parasitic diseases - 23.0 %

  Cancer - 12.5 %

  Respiratory disease - 6.5 %

  Unintentional injuries - 6.2 %

  Digestive diseases - 3.5 %

  Other - 19 %

You can label (and optionally choose colors for) each item, and the labels can be wikilinks to relevant articles.

I'm not certain that it always works correctly: as I type this, it's showing the blue "cancer" item as much smaller than the yellow "respiratory" item, and it should be the other way around.

If anyone is aware of any other options, please add them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Google documents is a great program for doing this. You enter the data into a spread sheet and it has lots of options for chart creation. This for example was created with google docs Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

70 / 100

70% of women with breast cancer have no known risk factors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Causes of death

  Cardiovascular diseases - 29 %

  Infectious and parasitic diseases - 23 %

  Cancer - 13 %

  Respiratory disease - 7 %

  Unintentional injuries - 6 %

  Digestive diseases - 4 %

  Other - 18 %

Nice work WAID, and very informative. The border works for me using style="float:right; border:1px solid darkgray;". The Brick chart wants integers for the |value parameters, so if you round them, it works. --RexxS (talk) 23:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Google also has this thing called fusion tables [9] which I have been playing with to generate maps. Here is one on TB for example. You just fill the data into the spread sheet and hit visualize. It does the rest of the work for you. All you need to do is then hit print screen, copy the image in paint, crop it and upload it. If make the spread sheet open and link it when you upload it mistakes can be easily corrected by others.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

A new template has been created at {{Pie chart}}.

Also, there's general information at WP:Graphs. Perhaps that should be expanded to include some of this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, this brick chart is an ugly eyesore. I am unconvinced that its use improves an article beyond that of a simple table. (A pie chart would be much better.) Can anyone show me an article where a brick chart has improved it? Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:20, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

:-) Yes I would agree a pie chart is a better idea.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer the pie chart to the brick both for cosmetics and for avoiding the forced rounding errors. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Society for the Management of Spasmodic Dysphonia

Is this notable? Or maybe we should give it a chance? Ng.j (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Aside from whether can be shown to be notable organisation - I've hacked out the off-topic duplication of discussing the condition itself - leaves little left. David Ruben ^Talk 12:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Snake toxins

This article contains some rather strange hand drawn diagrams - can someone expert in this area ascertain whether the diagrams are correct/helpful? Probably should be replaced with proper graphics in any case. Exxolon (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there a guideline about hand drawn diagrams? :>) Well, at least they are very clear, and colorful. --- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Exotic? ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing a whiteboard sketch in the middle of an article makes me smile, but doubtless they'll be replaced some day by something that looks "professional". They look like basic physiology diagrams, not really specific to snake toxins. One's a nerve junction and the other two are cell membranes. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Medical garden

Hi. A request was added at the Proposed Merges project page to move "Stereotaxis" to "Remote Magnetic Navigation".

Move Stereotaxis to Remote Magnetic Navigation since that is is the actual topic of the article. (This requires deletion of a redirect at the intended target page). - 87.211.75.45

It comes under WP:Requested moves really, but since it'd already been posted ... I had a look and it was immediately clear what the editor meant. The page contains no company info - sole focus is the product. On closer inspection there seems to be a cluster of articles. There's a walled garden quality about them, and the SPA who created that one made another in the same style.

I'm wondering if they're a) "promotional" b) WP:Notable enough to warrant a standalone article. I'm unfamiliar with the subject matter, so don't feel able to determine if and how they should remain and evaluate them for those concerns. It needs need technically-qualified eyes, I think. Could someone from this WikiProject take a look? Thanks, Whitehorse1 04:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC).

· info: SovereignRule (talk · contribs · logs)

· created: Stereotaxis, moved from Remote magnetic navigation redirect, plus Sensei robotic catheter system

· page seems to suggest they relate to Interventional cardiology and Interventional radiology, and with overlap into

· Robotic surgery, Computer assisted surgery, Remote surgery, Stereotactic surgery, MRI Robot, SSN, LUCAS, Cyberknife

Google body browser

This looks like an interesting project [10]. When the full version is out it may not be a bad idea to link to it in the anatomy infobox.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I just commented on that above, before I saw your post. That is where the "med student of the future" will get info. Given the funding they have, they will set the direction for that, without doubt. Patient specific models will be done later, when they try to manage info for the "physician of the future" on his Android-based physician-phone, but that will come in time, as they try to get another advantage. But the handwriting is on the wall already. It is just a question of waiting for it. History2007 (talk) 21:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it would be useful to include it in infoboxes. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:05, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Featured picture candidate at commons

I have performed a restoration of a high quality image of Santiago Ramón y Cajal and nominated it for FP at commons with the intention of also nominating it later in WP. Comments here would be welcomed.--Garrondo (talk) 12:33, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Right now although nobody has opposed the image it still need 3 more positive votes to be featured... If anybody thinks it is worth it votes would be a great Christmas present.:-) --Garrondo (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

FAC

Would appreciate your input in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis/archive1 - another medical FAC. JFW | T@lk 13:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I would be very grateful if contributors from this WikiProject could offer their opinions on this article. It is not long. JFW | T@lk 17:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Tighter requirements per MEDASSESS

Per WP:MEDASSESS: In general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence, such as case reports, or non-evidence, (e.g., conventional wisdom).

Editors do need to show how the recenty added guidelines are equal to the other sources when there are a lot more higher quality sources presented. According to MEDASSESS, rely upon high-quality evidence, such as systematic reviews, rather than lower-quality evidence.

• Review of guidelines. Chou R, Huffman LH; American Pain Society; American College of Physicians (2007). "Nonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline". Ann Intern Med. 147 (7): 492–504. PMID 17909210.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• The original guidelines. Chou R, Qaseem A, Snow V; et al. (October 2, 2007). "Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain: a joint clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Pain Society". Ann Intern Med. 147 (7): 478–91. PMID 17909209. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

There are two similar references being used in the low back pain section. There is a guideline and the review of the guidelines. A guideline is a lower-quality reference than the review of the guidelines. The low back pain section is too long and I think it can be shortened a bit. For now, I think it would be better to at least remove the recently added guideline reccomendations because it is a weaker source. There is no extra room to use weaker sources when there is a currently two Cochrane reviews and a mix of recent state of the art systematic reviews summarised in low back pain. See Talk:Chiropractic#A guideline is a lower quality source according to MEDASSESS. QuackGuru (talk) 21:31, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

That principle seems pretty well established. The question should be whether or not the edit linked violates the principle. If I read the diff correctly, it is providing a citation of a more recent but less authoritative source. It is intrinsic to the incrementalist nature of science that recent works are built on old foundations. Just because someone published a top-quality work once, doesn't mean newer, lesser-quality sources should be excluded. LeadSongDog come howl! 23:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Guidelines are good sources if they are evidence-based (e.g. most guidelines produced by NICE in the UK follow EBM methodology). They can also reflect a standard of care that would normally be extended, which is a piece of information you often don't find in other sources. JFW | T@lk 01:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Savigny P, Kuntze S, Watson P, Underwood M, Ritchie G , Cotterell M, Hill D, Browne N, Buchanan E, Coffey P, Dixon P, Drummond C, Flanagan M, Greenough,C, Griffiths M, Halliday-Bell J, Hettinga D, Vogel S, Walsh D. (2009). "Low Back Pain: early management of persistent non-specific low back pain" (PDF). National Collaborating Centre for Primary Care and Royal College of General Practitioners. Retrieved 2010-12-22.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

"The case reports confirm previous reports associating upper spinal manipulation with a range of complications. The most serious problems are vertebral artery dissection as a result of overstretching of the artery during rotational manipulation of the neck. Spinal manipulation was associated with risks such as vascular accidents and nonvascular complications in a number of case series. Case-control studies suggested a causal relationship between upper spinal manipulation and the adverse effect."

I found this source from the NICE website. The source is so long it would take hours to read it. And that is exactly what I did. QuackGuru (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to chime in late, but I was only now made aware of this discussion by QG. I am the editor who is disputing QGs proposed removal of the guidelines from the low back pain section at Chiropractic. I hope I am not being too bold in posting a comment in this discussion, as I am relatively new here and trying to learn the 'ropes'.

The two sources to which QG refers are not at all the same. One is a systematic review carried out by the American Pain Society and the American College of Physicians, the second is a set of guidelines developed jointly by the American Pain Society and the American College of Physicians with regard to the "Diagnosis and treatment of low back pain".

As per MEDASSESS:"In general, editors should rely upon high-quality evidence" As per WP:MEDRS: "A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic, to make recommendations or to combine the results of several studies. Examples include the literature reviews and systematic reviews found in medical journals; specialist professional or academic books; and position statements or medical guidelines published by major health organizations."

The 2007 guidelines were jointly published by two highly reputable American medical bodies. Thus, according to MEDRS, both the review and the guidelines are a secondary source and among the highest type of evidence available. Further, As per WP:MEDASSESS: "Look for reviews published in the last five years or so, preferably in the last two or three years.". Thus, these 2007 guidelines also fit this requirement. If the section needs to be made shorter, there are two 2006 reviews, which can be removed as they should be covered by the many more recent reviews in the section.

These guidelines are especially valuable to the section as they put the results of the many reviews into context. Currently the section contains only reviews. The guidelines are the only source putting the results into context for a reader. It would be very unfortunate to lose them until a newer set of guidelines are released by an equally or more reputable medical body.Puhlaa (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by QuackGuru's two sources. One is about LBP and the other about upper cervical manipulation and VAD, two very different and unrelated matters. I'm confused by the sight of an apple and a lettuce leaf. What gives? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

According to this edit summary "Merging the mentions of the 2007 review by the American Pain Society and American College of Physicians and their subsequent recommendations based on that review" they are somehow related. Since you believe they are not related I removed the connection of the two sentences. Now each sentence is indepedent. QuackGuru (talk) 07:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

QG, Brangifer was referring to LBP and VAD, which you cited from the 2009 study. He was not (I believe) commenting on the two 2007 LBP sources. And just in case there's a question about ACP/APS guidelines, here's the details: "The literature search for this guideline included studies from MEDLINE (1966 through November 2006), the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and EMBASE. The literature search included all English-language articles reporting on randomized, controlled trials of nonpregnant adults (age >18 years) with low back pain (alone or with leg pain) of any duration that evaluated a target medication and reported at least 1 of the following outcomes: back-specific function, generic health status, pain, work disability, or patient satisfaction. The American College of Physicians (ACP) and the American Pain Society (APS) convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to develop the key questions and scope used to guide the evidence report, review its results, and formulate recommendations. The background papers by Chou and colleagues (15, 16) provide details about the methods used for the systematic evidence review." In other words, in what way is this not systematic or high-quality per MEDRS? Ocaasi (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Can we terminate this discussion, as it is essentially a spill-over from chiropractic? JFW | T@lk 17:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Genital anatomy, fetal development, agenesis and evolution - getting the big picture

Noticed that looking at eg vagina an uneducated reader would find the relevant articles about fetal development, differentiation and evolutionary aspects only by pure luck. Should there be more categories? Or current categories expanded and crosslinked? Richiez (talk) 12:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The current categorization of the article Vagina seems too broad to me. It would be enough to include it in Category:Female external genital organs. The categorization of medical articles in the field of gynecology and obstetrics would need serious work as categories are too broad and include too many articles. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A few other sections are mentioned here including: development [11] feel free to add them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Lingo

I thought in a recent edit that 'causality' could be changed to 'cause' without losing precision and while dropping a touch of unneeded jargon. (The change was reverted). Thoughts? Ocaasi (talk) 05:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes they are the same in my world anyway. Would us cause it is simpler.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd say the word "cause" is much better. Causality refers more to the strength of a causal relationship than the actual cause. JFW | T@lk 07:01, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, the inappropriate use of a fancy-sounding word has reminded me that someday we're going to have to get Blanchard's transsexualism etiology moved. The editors (apparently all transwomen without no more technical understanding than I have of rugby) don't quite seem to grasp the difference between a "cause" and a "psychological typology that hints at a cause". The article title was chosen despite both published reliable sources and direct, on-wiki efforts by a psychologist at Blanchard's institution saying that it was wrong.

Oh well: That's a battle for another year. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:04, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Spinal stenosis

Could someone who has access to full text of journal sources lend a hand at Spinal stenosis? I initially was only completing missing citation information (the citations are incomplete, do not include PMIDs or journal article titles, see Talk:Spinal stenosis#Non-surgical intervention), but as I worked, I found extensive plagiarism and an extreme overreliance of very dated primary sources. I've removed several instances of plagiarism and am working to convert the citations so they can be checked, but my concern is that if the entire article is plagiarized, my time will be misspent and the article should be blanked as a copyvio. I don't have access to sources, but the ones I removed were direct copies of article abstracts; could someone who has journal access take a look at the citations at the top of the article that I have completed so far, and let me know if they contain plagiarism? If not, I'll continue updating the citations; if so, the article should be blanked as a copyvio. If it's not a copyvio, it nonetheless needs to be updated to include secondary reviews and minimize primary sources, but I can't determine that until I finish converting the citations ... for now, I just need to know if all of the sources, to which I don't have access, are plagiarized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:59, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Ugh, and look at this; over a dozen sources for a simple statement, indicating likely synthesis, and the need for a secondary review source. In order to determine if there are any reviews in that mass of citations, I have to locate every one of them in PubMed; this occurs throughout the article. Does anyone have full text access to a review source that can be used to replace things like this throughout the article, so I don't have to spend days locating and converting these citations, which are mostly primary sources anyway? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:10, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Which review do you want?Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know .. it's such a mess I hardly know where to begin. I just need someone who has journal access to determine how extensive the plagiarism is, but the article has huge and multiple issues. See talk. I'm afraid the article is a waste of time in spite of looking like it was a good article, and I HATE that Wiki has irresponsible medical articles-- I came to this article looking for info, and I initially trusted it-- now I don't. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I did a couple of spot checks of User:A E Francis' work and it seems that it was he who added some (or most) of the plagiarized information ([12] and PMID 17436921, for example, though other edits like the "Failure to relieve symptoms" section of this edit seems to be OK). He added so much to the article (much of that has since been removed, but others haven't) that I don't think it is worth trying to salvage it. NW (Talk) 07:22, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Poor sourcing, synthesis, plagiarism ... if someone can determine that the plagiarism is extensive (beyond what I've already removed), the article should be blanked per copyvio and rewritten to secondary reviews, but without journal access, I hardly know where to start. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:37, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

After finding this, and reviewing AE Francis' talk page, I'm more concerned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:54, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

And than we have this page Failed back syndrome and this one Hemiparesis Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I stubbed Hemiparesis after finding plagiarism/copyvio issues in multiple sections. NW (Talk) 18:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

• I'll do a couple more spot checks with journals that I have access to, but just as an FYI to others: the article is now at Lumbar spinal stenosis. NW (Talk) 18:43, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
  • On second thought, I think I shall hold off. James seems to be doing a fantastic job rewriting the article, and looking at prior versions of the page, I think it is acceptable to do that rather than start from scratch; the plagiarism isn't as extensive as to require that. NW (Talk) 18:46, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Schizophrenia

I have nominated Schizophrenia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Basket of Puppies 23:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Gee, you spent, what, a whole day on FAR's first step?

Let me repeat that for you, just in case you missed that in the directions:

Raise issues at article Talk

• In this step, concerned editors attempt to directly resolve issues with the existing community of article editors, and to informally improve the article. Articles in this step are not listed on this page.

Maybe you should actually try that step for more than two days (over a holiday weekend, no less) before you introduce the hassle and bureaucratic overhead of a listed FAR? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree this seems a little premature. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

This will be going nowhere without the opinion of Casliber (talk · contribs) JFW | T@lk 09:54, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Categorization - help requested

General question:
Is there a guideline with regard to categorization of medical articles? I looked at WP:MEDMOS... and don't feel that really helped me a lot.

Specific situation:
I recently created chorangioma... and then wondered about what would be the best category for it. I think it would fit in a category called placenta, placental pathology, or (dependent on size) health issues in pregnancy. There are a slew of placenta-related articles (placenta previa, placental abruption, placental site trophoblastic tumour, chorioamnionitis)... and I wonder whether a unifying category is in order.

Full disclosure:
I put it into placenta twice and it has been reverted twice.

Specific request:
I'm looking for suggestions for a category for chorangioma... if you think you have the perfect one -- go ahead and add it. Thanks, Nephron  T|C 04:54, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

General answer: There's no general answer. DERM and PHARM have both done good things, if you're interested in finding models.

Specific answer: The problem at the article is that Category:Placenta doesn't exist. You could create the cat if you wanted to populate it and to graft it in the cat tree structure in suitable places. WhatamIdoing (talk) 14:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I started a discussion last year about expanding the categories section of medmos (at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)/Archive6#Categorization guidelines), but it got sidetracked and never concluded. Maybe I should just put it in to medmos and see what happens! In general, I try to categorize disease articles by ICD-10 code, which is by organ system. A category named for a body part/system would only contain articles about anatomical parts of that organ/system, but it may contain a subcategory of disorders effecting that body part/system. According to ICD-10, the articles you mentioned should be in "(O30–O48) Maternal care related to the fetus and amniotic cavity and possible delivery problems", which is within Category:Pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium disorders (which is within Category:Diseases and disorders). This specific subcategory does not yet exist, but it should be created (and possibly less wordy). --Scott Alter (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments WhatamIdoing & Scott. Looks like Health issues in pregnancy is pretty close. Ideal would be if it were expanded to Health issues in pregnancy and childbirth -- it would then mirror the ICD-10. I'll ask Cgingold, the creator the category (Health issues in pregnancy), about this idea. Scott be bold and add the stuff... I think more is better. If it isn't perfect... someone will come along and tweak it. :-) Nephron  T|C 04:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

MEDRS queries

At RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

An expert is needed

This is to note that an {{Expert-subject}} template has been added to the Lung volumes article in the Values section. Certain volume values have come into question as noted on the Lung volumes talk page. Thank you in advance for any help you can give, and I hope you all have the happiest of holidays this season!
 —  Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  07:13, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps something Axl (talk · contribs) may be able to help with? JFW | T@lk 07:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Say what was that? Sure, I'll take a look. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Abortion

Some more eyes may be useful. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll get over there as soon as I can: the blizzard belew shingles off my roof, so I've done bucket brigade all night long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal

There is a merge proposal going on for Prevention of diabetes mellitis type 2. Student7 (talk) 13:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Delusion

An editor has moved Delusion to Delusion (psychiatry), created Delusion (spirituality) (an unreferenced stub), and created a disambiguation page for "delusion" with the edit summary "No primary topic." [13]

The psychiatric usage is clearly primary, but I've only ever made one simple page move and am unsure how to unscramble this. Would someone like to try? Anthony (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done, with some helpful assistance from User:Nakon. NW (Talk) 02:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Cheers both of you. :) Anthony (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi everyone, I would like to invite you here for a discussion on this topic. I argue that the 3,500 year old Sankrit meaning is clearly trumps a materialist meaning which is at most ~500 years old (Francis Bacon) or most likely Freud (~100 years old) I will settle for the disambiguation page, which is most fair to both meanings :) Can we revert the deletion of the disambiguation page please? I promise to expand Delusion (spirituality) over the next few weeks, referenced. Best, -- Bill Huston ^(talk) 03:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I've made a few comments at Bill's talk page. --RexxS (talk) 10:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Bioidentical hormone replacement therapy

An editor whose talk page history indicates frequent problems (he regularly cleans it, so check the history) is now rather upset and ranting against Big Pharma on the article's talk page. Will someone who knows more about this subject take a look? -- Brangifer (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

I have replied on the talk page to this editor.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 09:22, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to those who have done their part. From their track record I doubt that that individual will accept advice, but you've tried. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

He's still at it. The article still needs attention as I suspect there is unsourced OR editorializing. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Administrivia: Tagging the project's shortcuts

If you are involved in one of our many task forces, would you please check the redirects to the task force to make sure they're properly categorized? All shortcuts should be tagged with {{R from shortcut}}.

There was a proposal to have a bot do this back in the spring, but it appears that it didn't get off the ground, so we get to do it by hand. Tim1357 generated a target list in May that might be useful for checking the status of "your" redirects. I've picked up at least most of them for the main project. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism check at Oxazepam

Could someone just check that the apparent vandalism I reverted is going to an accurate version. Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 09:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

It was not a vandalism: oxazepam is a short-acting benzodiazepine and it's more useful for sleep-onset insomnia than for middle-of-the-night insomnia. I undid your edit. --Doc.mari (talk) 11:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, couldn't tell from the diff which one was right, and the newer edit wasn't particularly well formatted so it looked sketchy. Ocaasi (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent) Oxazepam has a slow onset of action, I have reverted and added a reference. It is mostly used as an anxiolytic or sometimes for alcohol or benzo withdrawal in individuals prone to accumulation of long-acting diazepam and chlordiazepoxide. It has never to my knowledge been marketed or licensed as a hypnotic, perhaps because of it's slower onset of action, but I suppose some doctors may choose to use it off-label for insomnia say in the elderly as it is a "milder" and lower potency benzo.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

There seemed to be a lot of research showing that Oxazepam is slow-acting compared to Diazepam but I don't know if that justifies slow in relative or absolute terms. How fast does something have to be for it to qualify as "fast" or "slow"? Also, is it going beyond our scope to describe specific indications like 'use drug x for staying asleep but not falling asleep' or is this ok as long as we're just describing common practice or guidelines? Ocaasi (talk) 08:49, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

It's okay, and even good, to describe typical uses. Statements like "X is used for Y, but not Z" helps the reader place the drug in a proper context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

BMJ Case Reports

Hi, does anyone here have access to BMJ Case Reports? I'm looking for copies of a few listed here for use in the mephedrone article and would be greatful if anyone could email me copies. (I know that these wouldn't normally be good sources, but in this case they are the only ones available at the moment.) Thanks SmartSE (talk) 15:56, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, that use of case reports may be justified for this drug given the drug's short time period on the illicit scene and lack of research and major gaps in information. Hopefully someone will be able to help you track down the sources you are looking for.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Buteyko method of breathing

This article needs attention. Right now there is an ardent advocate of the method who has some concerns and questions:

• Talk:Buteyko method#Introduction to article is still wrong.21

Brangifer (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, the entire "Theory" section appears to be WP:OR; why is it discussing hyperventilation when the purported use is for asthma? And did someone actually write FEV1 and peak flows can't be used to evaluate asthmatics? The lead mentions a cochrane review, but I don't see it as a ref? That page needs lots of work. Yobol (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, and I'm not up to it. We need some pulmonology experts here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Could I get your input on my talk page

See: User_talk:My_Core_Competency_is_Competency#Dermatologic_journals

Should the category read "Dermatologic journals" or "Dermatology journals"? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

HAIR-AN syndrome

• What type of dash should be used when writing the above syndrome name? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
• Same question with Hand-arm vibration syndrome as well. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The second one is easy: an en dash: Hand–arm vibration syndrome as it stands for and. See WP:ENDASH, "1. Disjunction: To stand for and between independent elements"

The first is not so easy because it's an acronym, and I actually wouldn't expect a dash or hyphen from a lexical perspective. However, your second source uses a hyphen, so my suggestion is to do the same – although I suspect a case could be made for applying the rule I quoted above and using an en dash as it could be considered to stand for and. If you wanted an authoritative answer, the expert is Tony1, so you could drop him a line on his talk page.

P.S. Don't forget that article titles containing an en dash should also have a redirect using a hyphen, to assist folks searching for the topic. HTH --RexxS (talk) 00:54, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article keeps getting whitewashed by people who insist on downplaying the fact that it isn't national healthcare, and so on. I wouldn't put it past the private insurance companies and/or their allies in the USGov't to have a vested interest in seeing to it that the PPACA's provisions are made to look as 'populist' as possible. Would those of you in this project please take a look at my recent revisions to the article and let me know how you think I might be able to say much the same things without WP:POV challenges being lobbed at me all the time? The stuff I add is objective truth, not editoralizing as is being accused. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 01:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Please comment at FAC

Thyrotoxic periodic paralysis in a featured article candidate. We've had only a few comments so far, so everyone's views would be appreciated! Comments on the FAC page please! JFW | T@lk 18:07, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations are due to JFW on his piloting of the article through a tough process. I was especially heartened to see so many comments and constructive criticisms from the regulars here, and both the article and Wikipedia have benefited as a result. --RexxS (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks RexxS and thanks to all who have commented. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to edit

See the green strip at the top of Pain.

I've incorporated suggestions from LeadSongDog, Doc James and others; and Brangifer and others have made important changes. I've also modified according to my experience mentoring a bunch of Dublin City University psych nursing students editing psych articles.

Soon might be a good time to trial it on 20 med articles. I would really appreciate your thoughts on this.

1. If you oppose the trial, please bring it up here
2. Please suggest changes to the invitation (the green strip), the mini-tutorial or the trial itself at the project talk page

Anthony (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

List of trial articles

I have proposed a list of articles for the trial at Wikipedia_talk:Invitation_to_edit#New_list_of_trial_articles. Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

They look fine to me: nothing too weird, nothing too big.

Are we set with the plans for statistical analysis? Who's running the numbers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to manually collect the data outlined here (unless there are automated methods I'm not aware of) but will need help with the formal analysis. Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I would love to help with statistical analysis.--Garrondo (talk) 10:26, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Garrondo. Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

MMR vaccine controversy

Please watch Andrew Wakefield, Brian Deer and MMR vaccine controversy, as well as autism. [14] I'm off to bed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:02, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Could some one knowledgeable please make and update to the article? We have consensus to post it on ITN but all we have are an astronomer and an Anthropologist and neither of us are terribly good with medicinal articles. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Which one? Graham Colm (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been so impressed by the intelligent and collegial performance of all editors at these articles over the last 36 hours. Warms my heart. Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In the news

On the mainpage now, and Andrew Wakefield had 15,000 hits on January 6, before it was on the mainpage. Please watch Andrew Wakefield, Brian Deer, Jenny McCarthy, autism and MMR vaccine controversy. [15] [16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Biliary tract cancer

Could I please have those with medical knowledge comment as to whether Biliary tract cancer should be merged into Gallbladder cancer? Please provide comments at Talk:Biliary tract cancer. Thank you, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:20, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

It is redundant with cholangiocarcinoma, which happens to be a featured article! Redirect created. Gallbladder cancer is a different entity and should be preserved. JFW | T@lk 15:28, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Abortion-related RFC

Talk:Crisis pregnancy center#RFC:_Pictures_of_sonograms could use some uninvolved editors. The ostensible question is whether a section specifically discussion anti-abortion groups' use of ultrasounds to influence pregnant women should be permitted to display a sonogram, or whether showing (rather than merely telling) the reader what the groups are doing constitutes an NPOV violation as an "emotional argument". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:35, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Wanted to let the community know...

I moved Health effects of bedbugs to Bedbug infestation as this name is more broad, allowing discussion of the health effects of bedbugs regardless of whether a "bite" has occured or not. Hope that was ok. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we redirect Bedbugs to Bedbug infestation or a disambig page? Than have the page about the creature itself use the technical name fore it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME advises that we use Bedbug as the title in preference to Cimicidae. It seems a little odd to redirect the plural to infestation instead of the singular, but I can see the argument. The articles link to each other fairly prominently, so there is not much danger that our readers might become lost. I have no real opinion on further separating the biology vs. health aspects of the topic. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could continue this discussion on the Talk:Bedbug_infestation#Requested_move page so it all happens at the same place? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 23:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for comment

I have proposed the renaming of a category, and wanted to know if some of you would consider commenting on the proposed renaming over at that link. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Breast cancer awareness

Breast cancer awareness is finally in the mainspace. I plan to suggest it for the main page's WP:Did you know box, and I'd be happy to have people watchlist it (please!), improve it, and help identify "hooks". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Watchlisted. Nice article, WAID. If you're looking for an image DYK, then I'd suggest the 'pink ribbon' is easily recognisable, with perhaps the sentence "The first breast cancer awareness stamp in the U.S., featuring a pink ribbon, was issued 1996" as the hook text. --RexxS (talk) 00:54, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Breast cancer awareness is on the main page now, and will be for the next (almost) six hours. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Italics?

Regarding Frontal linear scleroderma (En coup de sabre, Morphea en coup de sabre), I sometimes see the phrase "En coup de sabre" italicized. Should that be the case when listed within Wikipedia? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 04:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Given that it is a borrowed term from French, I can understand why it might be italicised. WP:ITAL (section "Foreign terms") seems to be covering it. JFW | T@lk 20:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

PPACA language insertion controversy

We're gonna need some input over at Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act concerning this, if the Project wouldn't mind too much. There is apparently no "WikiProject Healthcare", so WP:MED seems the best place to ask. Kikodawgzzz (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Look like american governement policy more than anything. Not internationally applicable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I passed the request along to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Public Policy. It should be squarely within their scope. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

New York Rescue Workers Detoxification Project at GAN

I have found the above article at GAN and added it to the project. Quite controversial since it mixes strong doses of US patriotism, scientology, Tom Cruise, and health issues... Point is that I am not to sure on whether it follows correctly MEDRS for the medical claims... Maybe somebody is brave enough to go for it... --Garrondo (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

On second read they probably are following MEDRS... There is enough critique of the treatment from reliable sources. Still maybe somebody is interested in reviewing it at GAN.--Garrondo (talk) 15:23, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

A few more eyes

This editor User:Harrygouvas edits Wikipedia using primarily papers he himself has written. They are not generally review articles. Help getting some of the papers he has worked on inline with policy would be appreciated. Have provided him some feedback. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Adoptee

Would anyone be willing to adopt User:Quantumash? They've left a request at my talk page, but this isn't my area of expertise.Smallman12q (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Predictive medicine? This is futuristic stuff which will never come to pass as it is a misunderstanding of Chaos theory --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Article request

Would someone be willing to add a stub on short anagen syndrome? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I have made a start. I only found 16 references on Pubmed. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:28, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much! ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 18:56, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Pott's fracture

Working in german medical WIKI on ankle fracture (my edit), patella, osteochondritis etc I started correcting potts Fraktur in german. Looking for better versions I found yours in englisch. I would like to commend on that. nomen49--78.54.118.139 (talk) 07:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Histologic bodies

Would someone be willing to help me ensure that Wikipedia has coverage of all these histologic bodies? Perhaps we can create a new list, or expand an existing one, as well as create either redirects or stubs for them? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 00:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Experts for anthrosophical medicine

Can anyone particularly familar with Anthroposophical_medicine look at the page? it appears to be overly positive but with no balance of criticism. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Stimming

Would someone like to deal with this? Second time. I've read a whole ton of literature on stimming, and haven't come across that. If there's a reliable source that says masturbation is a stim in the autistic or stereotypy sense, it should be found and cited. I don't really want to engage "LustyRoars". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

January collaboration

For everybody who missed it:

--WS (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. For that article, quality rather than quantity of the information is of the essence. JFW | T@lk 20:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the high-level nature of the article, I wonder if we might do well to use a couple of top-quality medical textbooks for most of the basic/background information, rather than journal publications. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Since many sections are completely unreferenced any secondary refs, either in journals or books, would be a huge improvement.--Garrondo (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I've since discovered the list of WP:General references at the end of the page. Perhaps they were the source for those sections without WP:Inline citations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference autofill

Good news! The Reftoolbar tool just got autofilling support for PMID, DOI and ISBN. You can enable it by going to the Gadgets tab in your user preferences and checking the checkbox next to "refTools" under "Editing gadgets". If you then add a citation through the cite button above the edit field, and fill in the pmid or doi, all other details we automatically be filled. Makes referencing a lot easier. --WS (talk) 18:08, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

nice. off to try it....Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

This is actually very nice. Makes adding multiple sources much less tedious. Thanks! Yobol (talk) 22:57, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Advanced topics

I'm looking for a quick estimate of our views.

Are there any subjects that are both (1) appropriate to include in an encyclopedia and (2) so complex that they cannot be explained at a level that an interested layperson could understand (at least most of it)?

For example: Is there any medicine-related article on Wikipedia that you think cannot be written so that I can understand it, or so that a typical university student could understand it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think any medicine-related topic can be written so that a typical university student could understand it. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 02:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

We have pages that are written in too technical a manner but this is something which can be fixed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

There are clearly notable things in biochemistry and pharmacology that would probably be a pain to describe to the typical university student, as the typical university student probably doesn't understand organic chemistry. Can't think of any examples right now, but I imagine that there probably are some. NW (Talk) 03:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I think there are many areas of medical science that are beyond most bright lay readers abilities to grasp without some serious study, and one could argue that they are encyclopaedic. I suspect, however, they are also probably at the limit of most general medical folks abilities too. Fortunately, most aspects of medicine do not require a planet-sized brain to understand. There doesn't appear to be a big audience here for such science-speciality stuff. In contrast, the maths folk write utterly impenetrable articles (you can't even read the lead sentence) but claim they have an audience for their articles and have consensus support for WP including a "graduate-level maths encyclopaedia" within its scope. Colin°^Talk 08:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You're telling me that you can't understand Lefschetz zeta function? Come on, $\zeta _{f}(z)=\exp \left(\sum _{n=1}^{\infty }L(f^{n}){\frac {z^{n}}{n}}\right)$ makes perfect sense. NW (Talk) 22:29, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

(stares blankly at screen) umm...yeah. Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. We have an inherent advantage, in that a large part of clinical medicine consists of explaining complex ideas to laypeople (i.e., patients). So there is actually a large, pre-existing body of effort and work on the question of how to clearly and simply communicate medical information, and we can draw on that for our articles. MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Most of psychiatry and surgery is easy to make accessible.....actually I can't think of a topic that I couldn't translate into "lay English" in general medicine. Maybe there is a challenge to find the trickiest one...? Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:15, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I find myelodysplasia one of the more challenging concepts to translate into lay terms, because it requires some knowledge of normal and abnormal hematopoiesis. And it's not quite a malignancy, but it kind of is, and some forms are treated with chemotherapy just like actual malignancies. And it's extremely heterogeneous. MastCell ^Talk 22:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a challenge then...Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Colin's response leads me to the reason I asked: The folks at WT:MATH have received yet another complaint about their impenetrable articles and have responded to it with their (sadly) characteristic bad grace (not all of them, of course, but enough to set the tone).

One of them has begun a FAQ on why maths articles are so opaque, and in it asserts that their inability to explain things to non-experts "is no different from other specialized fields such as law and medicine."

While it's true that we have (hundreds, if not thousands) of articles that need to have jargon removed/explanations added/clarity improved, and while it is true that some concepts will require a bit of study, I don't think that there is a single subject within our remit that cannot be largely explained to a typical university student, at least for more than half the content.

Accordingly, I will eventually wander back to WT:MATH and object to the inclusion of medicine as an OTHERCRAPEXISTS-type justification for their unwillingness to do the hard work of making at least one sentence in each math-related article accessible to people without graduate degrees in mathematics. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think they have a fundamentally different attitude, as exemplified here ("Wikipedia is used very frequently as a reference by practicing mathematicians. I value that much more than I value the ability of a random 8th grader to read exterior algebra.") They clearly prioritize the creation of a professional reference over that of a general-readership encyclopedia. And they seem to get away with it - I'm fairly certain we'd be tarred and feathered as "SPOV-pushers" or worse (if there is anything worse) if we suggested anything remotely similar for medical articles. I mean, look at the continual outcry over the minimal common-sense sourcing suggestions in WP:MEDRS... MastCell ^Talk 22:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Having a degree in math I must say that math is hard and often not understandable. I am unable to understand my math notes from University. While some of it can be written in lay terminology understandable to all I would agree that probably all of it cannot. Medicine and law however are different and accessible to all ( I have never understood really how an MRI functions but that is physics/math ).Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I see that several users here have commented that some aspects of medical science (including in particular biochemistry and pharmacology) might be difficult to explain to the layman. Consequently I've changed the math FAQ. Users who want to continue this discussion (and the accompanying discussion which User:WhatamIdoing started at WT:LAW) are invited to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics#"Law and medicine". Ozob (talk) 12:37, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Ozob is referring to undoing my bold edit at WikiProject Mathematics/FAQ. Out of curiosity, could someone point out a medical article whose lead can't be written in such a way that the average university student can understand it? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:29, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I would be interested to see this, too. I have always assumed that such articles exist, because (for example) I don't understand articles like the above-linked myelodysplastic syndrome. But I have no proof that the article can't be written in such a way that I would understand it; I am outside of my specialty here and am not really in a position to judge. Ozob (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Have a look at the simple English and German versions of the article, they both do a pretty good job explaining it, our version has quite a lot of room for improvement. Like Doc James said above, MRI physics is probably the only thing I can think of that is next to impossible to explain in lay terminology. --WS (talk) 10:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Even MRI can be reasonably explained. I understood the basics with this document.--Garrondo (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

To me the MRI article seems crystal clear. Surely this is some effect of having a different background: When it talks about the frequency of photons emitted from a spin-aligned proton, I have a pretty good idea of what's going on. Whereas myelosydplastic syndrome is still impenetrable to me; the Simple English version doesn't have nearly as much content, and the German version (as far as I am able to tell) has the same problems as the English one.

For example, the description of the WHO classification gives "Refractory cytopenia with unilineage dysplasia" as a possible type of MDS. The only word that I understand in that phrase is "with". If I scroll back up to the top of the article, I find a definition of dysplasia, but not of any of the other words. I understand cyto- but not cytopenia or refractory cytopenia; I can guess at unilineage, but I don't know what unilineage dysplasia would mean.

What I suppose I'm really asking is: Do you expect someone without medical school, nursing school, biochemistry, or other similar training to be able to read this article? What about someone who didn't have such training, but who was willing to look up the other terms (for instance, I looked up cytopenia and now know what it means)? More generally, what do you think are reasonable prerequisites for your articles? Ozob (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Can the lead of Myelodysplastic syndrome be made understandable by the average university student? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I can do better than university level. Actually, it's not so much opaque as just written in a kind of stilted manner (e.g., the unnecessary passive voice in "Anemia is present"). I'll have a go at it, and then you can tell me what you think. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Ozob, although the name is a technical description, I basically expect the normal people to treat "Refractory cytopenia with unilineage dysplasia" as a proper noun that is as inherently meaningless as if it were called "Foo bar with baz qux" or "Riemannian Penrose inequality" or "Celiac sprue". That table (which doesn't really make me happy anyway, and I'm convinced we could do better) is basically just a phrase book for translating the older set of terms into the newer set of terms. It's probably most useful to patients who are trying to figure out which article on Wikipedia is actually about their own diseases, or why different hematologists use different terms.

BTW, people interested in mathematics should take a look at the amazing new lead for exterior algebra. This is the first time I've ever been excited about a math-related article on Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:14, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

Access to article

Does anybody have access to PMID 18281448?: I would be interested in a copy and my institution does not have access to it. Thanks.--Garrondo (talk) 08:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

If you email me, I'll attach the pdf to my reply. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery

Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery seems like an incredibly-important journal of surgery, and yet there was no article on it. So I created one recently. However, surgery or medicine in general isn't my field, so I don't really know much about this one, or why exactly it is important, beside being the older journal of surgery. I'm dropping this project a note, because you people presumably have more clue than I when it comes to the history of surgery, and medical journals in general.

This article H. G. Beger (2010). "Archiv für Klinische Chirurgie to Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery: 1860–2010". Langenbeck's Archives of Surgery. 395 (suppl. 1): 3. doi:10.1007/s00423-010-0617-2. should have plenty of relevant information. However I cannot currently access it. WP Journal's writing guide has some basic advice for writing journal articles, and Astronomische Nachrichten is probably the best-written journal article on Wikipedia, so would be a very good model to base yourself on. I can help people writing this if need be (copy editing, etc...), although I am thouroughly unable to expand the article more than what you currently see. Any help would be appreciated. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Assuming this could be expanded to something decent, this would make a very nice WP:DYK. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 10:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I think you actually want the entire April 2010 supplement, which seems to be entirely articles about the journal. It doesn't seem to be on my list, though. Some of the abstracts are long and it might be possible to use them for basic facts (e.g., year of founding).

My quick look for WP:Independent sources turned up only "study published in Langenbeck's..." kinds of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Uncategorized categories

I found the following categories in Category:Underpopulated categories, and participants in this WikiProject might be able and willing to populate them.

• Category:Cell communication
• Category:Circulating cells
• Category:Cytochromes
• Category:Electrically active cells
• Category:Electrically signaling cells
• Category:Experimental medical treatments
• Category:French medical phrases
• Category:Health educators
• Category:Health law in the United States
• Category:Latin medical phrases
• Category:Life extension lists
• Category:Lymphology
• Category:Medical libraries
• Category:Medically important anaerobes
• Category:Motile cells
• Category:Nervous tissue cells
• Category:Physiognomy
• Category:Pigment cells
• Category:Pulmonologists
• Category:Self-care
• Category:Surfactant secreting cells

(This talk page is on my watchlist, and I will watch here for a reply or replies.)
—Wavelength (talk) 02:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure why Category:Self-care, which has many sub-cats, is in the list. It seems more like a category requiring diffusion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Elderberry -- medicinal effects

I believe both of these articles need to be checked for MEDRS compliance:

• Sambucus#Medicine
• Sambucus_nigra#Medicinal

Brangifer (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Well... http://www.jimronline.net doesn't exactly inspire confidence. But technically, it's a non-self-published, peer-reviewed journal article reporting a small, but double-blind, placebo-controlled experiment.

I'd focus on de-peacocking as a first step. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Oxysterol: Fact or fear?

There's an article on oxysterol with only one source that claims oxysterol has been discovered to be "the" source of heart disease. I'm skeptical. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to fix it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have any knowledge of the subject, unfortunately. 98.246.191.164 (talk) 09:28, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The text appeared to be a copy vio, and I reverted it to the last version prior to the copy vio. Yobol (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Propose articles on suicide, mental health in Afghanistan

I'm doing a little work on Category:Health in Afghanistan, and would like to propose creating Suicide in Afghanistan and Mental health in Afghanistan. On the first issue, there was a flood of coverage in mid-2010 of female self-immolation, but I'm not seeing much coverage other than that exact topic. Plus it's hard to screen out everything related to suicide bombing/attacks (outside the scope of my intended article). Further, there have been some studies by various governments on Afghan mental health after 30yrs of war, and I think it could be an extremely fertile topic, and arguably something that a few editors could push up to GA status relatively quickly. Thoughts? Links to recommended resources? Copied from my post at WikiProject Afghanistan. MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:10, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. Let me suggest that you start by creating a section called ==Mental health== in Health in Afghanistan. When it gets big enough, you can split it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease at FAC

I have taken PD to FAC after almost a year of improving it.It is a vital article, of top importance for the project, and with a lot of visits (around 300k a mont). I await comments from those of the project here. Thanks in advance to everybody. --Garrondo (talk) 13:11, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Sexually transmitted disease move discussion

Members of this WikiProject may be interested to read and comment at this requested move discussion for Sexually transmitted disease. It is proposed that the page be retitled Sexually transmitted infection. NW (Talk) 16:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist request

Teenage pregnancy needs to be on more watchlists. I just found a nearly two-week old copyright violation here. If you're managing to keep up with your watchlist (I'm headed for watchlist bankruptcy again), please add this highly visible article to your list. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:20, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Already there :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Year 10 English (as used in Australia)

I'm not a doctor, dentist, surgeon or psy-anything. I don't understand jargon, and don't have the time to go back to Uni to get the relevant (6-year++++) doctorates. For example, the article on Melanoma is almost useless to anybody not a med student or qualified doctor: so it has no place in a popular encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

Please can all of the articles in this Project be shadowed by a true encyclopedic treatment aimed at lay people: write them in "Year 10 English", which is considered in Australia to be the minimum acceptable standard of language for High School graduates. This standard ensures that 90+% of Australians will understand 90+% of everything they read or listen to, without recourse to esoteric lexicons.

(School) "Year 10" in Australia equates broadly to 16 or 17 years of age. 122.200.166.53 (talk) 08:06, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

There are over 20.000 medical articles that we know, we are volunteers and actually quite few. We try to make all articles as complete, understandable and factually accurate as we can, but we are outnumbered. You are more than welcome to improve any articles you find hard to understand or make proposals in its talk page. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:57, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

As an alternative in the meantime there is also the simple English version, e.g. simple:melanoma. --WS (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

simple:Simple_English#Simple_English has a vocabulary of about 1000 words. Year 10 English in Australia has a vocabulary of about 10,000 words... 122.200.166.101 (talk) 01:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

We usually aim for the level of a beginning university student rather than year 10.

Can you tell me what you think the worst part about that article is? Is there any part that you think is basically understandable and would make a good model? For example, I thought that the first couple of paragraphs were easily understandable. Do you think so? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In Australia, students would start Uni after graduating Year 12. Of course, this gives them very little chance to acquire tech-jargon.

The "basically understandable" parts of the Melanoma article are the intro and the subsections "In lay terms" and "Natural History" in the section "Cause". The subsection "Genetics" presupposes some technical knowledge appropriate to a first or second year med student, but not really within the reach of a factory hand.

This may give some idea of where I'm coming from:

From The Australian February 27, 2010:

National English curriculum: what all children will learn

Year nine: Students look at the relationship between texts and the influence of cultural
 perspectives; that language can be multi-layered, allowing varying interpretations. They use a
 variety of clause types to improve their writing, and techniques such as parallel structures 
("I came, I saw, I conquered"). Students explore the human condition, respond to the big questions
 of life and consider their presentation in literary texts. They identify and explain the choices
 made by authors to achieve a particular purpose, evaluate texts, and experiment with different
 media to create a short visual text accompanied by sound effects.

Year ten: Students look at the history of the English language and how it has evolved. They learn
 to cite works, recognise nuance and indirect opinions and how language is used to distance or
 involve an audience to create apathy or empathy. Their study of literature looks at cultural bias
 in the way an author presents a character, they learn language devices such as rhetorical
 questions, oxymorons, metonymy and satire, and examine the idea of a literary canon.

122.200.166.101 (talk) 01:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right: Most of Melanoma#Genetics is apparently written for people who already know what it says. There are a couple of sentences that anyone can understand, but the first paragraph in particular is a problem.

Additionally, half the sources used in that section are at least ten years old, and so it may be outdated, too.

I don't know much about melanoma, but what would you think of starting off that section with something like:

In some cases, melanoma runs in families. Several different genes have been identified as increasing the risk of developing melanoma. Some rare genes have a relatively high risk of causing melanoma; some more common genes, such as a gene called MC1R that causes red hair, have a relatively low risk. Genetic testing can be used to determine whether a person has one of the currently known mutations.

(That's more or less a translation of the first few paragraphs into English.) Then we can go into the frame shifting and two-gene models and gene names for the people who are either really interested or experts. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I think I'm in love... I like it. I'll insert that now, with a leetle bit of rearrangement, and at the same time revert a less-than-useful edit to the "In lay terms" subsection. I must reiterate, I have no medical training at all. I do have experience in writing manuals though.

We need to be careful here, as there seem to be sundry "helpful trolls" lurking. 122.200.166.232 (talk) 01:54, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Cause of melanoma

Anybody know offhand whether melanoma is "always" caused by UV radiation, as someone asserts at Talk:Melanoma (even for melanoma that starts in some non-skin tissue)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

There is no question that UV exposure is a major risk factor for melanoma. However, it is incorrect to say that UV radiation is always implicated in melanoma causation (as an aside, any medical assertion featuring the word always should be presumed false). Specifically, in non-white populations there appears to be little or no link between UV exposure and melanoma incidence (PMID 15837865). The question was addressed directly in PMID 8161879 ("How much melanoma is caused by sun exposure?"), which estimated that approximately 65% of melanomas worldwide (in 1993) were sunlight-related (noting that this was probably an underestimate).

It is well-known that melanomas can arise anywhere you find melanocytes, including areas with little or no sun exposure such as the oral cavity, anorectal tract, the female genitourinary system, and the urinary tract (e.g. PMID 2033125, PMID 19071254, summarized in PMID 9781962 and PMID 9869521). Very rarely, tissues such as the penis and small intestine can also host melanomas (PMID 17656225, PMID 19410196). It should be clear from these sites of involvement that not all melanomas are UV-induced, since these areas have little or no UV exposure. Hope that's helpful. MastCell ^Talk 19:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Ummm... The "someone" is probably me. Having said that, I thank both of you for your efforts. Can we move/continue this on the Melanoma Talk page please? I'll outline my evidence chain there. I would be very interested to see anything proposing an alternate cause of melanoma: both inside and outside Wikipedia there is no credible suggestion that anything other than UV(-B) causes it. 122.200.166.100 (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences

The National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences is a proposed new center that would fall under the National Institutes of Health. I was surprised to see that it doesn't have an article yet. The New York Times is running an article on it today[17], and there seems to have been talk about this earlier as well[18][19]. Worth creating an article? NW (Talk) 07:01, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Does it exist yet? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The plan is to vote on the proposal in October, so no. NW (Talk) 07:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL applies, but if the NY Times is writing about it there might be a case for using that as a source and starting an article. JFW | T@lk 09:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be included at the main NIH article, with suitable redirects. If it doesn't exist, there probably isn't more than a stub's worth to say about it at this time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I created a redirect to the NIH article for the time being. Please feel free to adjust the target or delete the redirect as consensus evolves. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 18:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Given the current political climate, obtaining funding for a new Center seems a bit dicey, but I agree we should have an article. We should probably also note that the National Center for Research Resources is going to be axed (or at least demoted from "Center" status at NIH) to make room, since the number of Centers is capped. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Another look

Several months ago, I asked if anyone here could verify that that there was such a thing as short course immune induction therapy. The general conclusion was basically "no one uses this phrase except for one company; this looks like some attempt at spamming".

Now it's back (same creator as the first time), and it seems to have more references. But I'm absolutely not someone who can judge those references. Opinions? DS (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

It's probably okay, but I'd personally be happier if the topic were broadened to encompass all of Acquired immune tolerance (see Immune tolerance#Acquired_tolerance) rather than a subsection of acquired immune tolerance.

Some of the claims need attention. For example, he brands OKT3 as "the most promising therapy" (in its class), which makes me wonder how it compares to OKT4 (also known for inducing T cell immunity). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Admin removing criticism of nutritional supplements guru/company

See this AN thread. Tijfo098 (talk) 08:15, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

What does the admin status of 7 (talk · contribs) have to do with it? JFW | T@lk 20:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Appropriateness of a ref

Do people think this ref is okay [20]? My group has starting doing these thus I will be reading this series. Cannot find it on pubmed however... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:03, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I would say it is a reliable source. They reference everything they say and their website list that they have many accreditations in the footer. They also have an ISSN. Peter.C • talk 02:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see the ISSN listed? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:42, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

At the very bottom of the PDF, in the fine print. "ISSN Print: 1524-1971, ISSN Online: 1559-3908" Peter.C • talk 03:34, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It looks pretty good to me, James. They have an editorial policy which is similar to ours, and a named editorial board. There's more information downloadable from here if you're interested. The ISSN Print: 1524-1971, ISSN Online: 1559-3908 can be found in 1210 Practice Recommendations, for example. I think EB Medicine represents an interesting example of a on-line resource occupying a niche that traditional paper-based media couldn't operate profitably. It does seem to hit the right notes to comply with RS and MEDRS, even if there's a lack of citations to it in PubMed. --RexxS (talk) 03:46, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikidocs

They have pulled ahead of us in some cardiology content. Here is there page on pericardial effusion [21]. Will work on moving stuff here. I still wonder if there is a way we could work together more? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:53, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I took a look and they have a level of detail that seems ideal for a medical textbook. Do you think there will be a point where our medical articles don't serve general readership by being too technical, or do you think that day is--never?Ocaasi (talk) 08:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Are we allowed to "move stuff here"? See Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The "Copying from other Wikimedia Projects" section seems useful (even though that isn't a Wikimedia project, it has a similar licence I think). It is rather complex and I suspect it would be far better to look at what they've done and use it as a suggestion for how we might improve an article. Of course, moving images and other media is likely to be more straightforward as attribution can still be given easily. I must admit, any page I've looked at on their site was no better than a very old Wikipedia page.

They have a different focus (to provide health advice to either doctors or patients). I'd be very upset if this project saw professional readers as the target audience. There is a danger, when enthusiasts are writing any article, to be too detailed and too technical, but I think we all agree here that that is a failing rather than something to aspire to. Colin°^Talk 12:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

90% of there stuff is directly copied from here. They are under the same license as us. It is not the text that I am recommending we get but images / videos. Attribution takes place on commons Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:50, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

That pericardial effusion image is terrible: the point being made is unclear (i.e. location, nature, pathogenesis, physiological impact of effusion), and it's a low-quality chest CT. Nothing there to emulate, IMHO. -- Scray (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the first time that I have looked at WikiDoc. They state "WikiDoc ... is an online community where anyone can contribute to and edit the world's largest free living textbook of medicine." As opposed to Wikipedia, which is a free online (general) encyclopedia. WikiDoc uses "Editors-in-Chief" to monitor articles. Wikipedia does not have a formal monitoring system. WikiDoc is not specifically for healthcare professionals, as far as I can tell. I don't see any advantage of it over Wikipedia's medical content. There are other medical wikis that are specifically for healthcare professionals, and I can see how some readers might prefer to read that over Wikipedia's content. However WikiDoc's role is no different to Wikipedia's role.

The reasons I would rather edit Wikipedia than WikiDoc: Wikipedia's scope is so much greater. The number of contributors and readers is vast. The "impact factor" of Wikipedia's top/high importance articles exceeds that of journal articles and textbooks. And we have a friendly community of like-minded editors. :-) Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:09, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

To answer Ocaasi's question: the ultimate goal for our articles is to make them "Featured articles". Have a look at the list. Browse through a few and decide for yourself whether they are too technical. The editors of the articles know their readership and write accordingly. In addition, there are checks in the GAC and FAC processes.

Wikipedia is not going to be influenced by WikiDoc or other medical wikis. Rather, Wikipedia is the standard by which all other wikis are measured. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikidocs is heavy with cardiologists, but when I last checked their content in other areas was deficient. The article on pericardial effusions has the grand total of 1 reference, so I'd be cautious in relying on it.

The leadership at Wikidocs has never seriously tried to engage with this WikiProject. Their loss, I say. JFW | T@lk 10:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am not referring to the text content just the images.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:44, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Mini-RFD

Should Cancer Family syndrome point to Cancer syndrome rather than HNPCC? What about Hereditary cancer? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:11, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are other conditions (such as Li-Fraumeni syndrome) than can cause different kinds of malignancies in families. Changed the redirect. The hereditary cancer redirect should stay as it is, because IMHO a inherited single organ malignancy barely qualifies as a "syndrome". JFW | T@lk 13:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:DorlandsDict is broken again

It seems that they have reorganized their website again. See example from Gingivostomatitis:

"Gingivostomatitis" at Dorland's Medical Dictionary

It sends you to a 404 Not Found page http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_dorlands_split.jsp?pg=/ppdocs/us/common/dorlands/dorland/four/000044457.htm

It should send you to http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_adam.jspzQzpgzEzzSzppdocszSzuszSzcnszSzcontentzSzadamfullzSzadam_encyzSz1zSz001052zPzhtm

--Enric Naval (talk) 13:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

It almost looks like they deliberately want to hide their content from incoming links. JFW | T@lk 14:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

They are using an encoding scheme to avoid characters in the parameter section of the url: '?' (query) is encoded as 'zQz'; '=' (equals) is 'zEz'; '/' (slash) is 'zSz'; '.' (period) is 'zPz'. In this case it is the encoding for "http://www.mercksource.com/pp/us/cns/cns_hl_adam.jsp?pg=/ppdocs/us/cns/content/adamfull/adam_ency/1/001052.htm". Which also works.

Looks like either JFW is right or they like making work for those brave souls who write our templates. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 01:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Redlink

Anybody know what Oropharyngeal mucosa ought to be pointing at? Surely we have such an article... WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If my memory serves, the mucosa of the pharynx is no different from the rest of the upper aerodigestive tract. Redirected to oral mucosa. I will also direct buccal mucosa there, as they are synonyms. JFW | T@lk 07:01, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Need someone who knows immunology

I've removed the diagram on the right from six articles, as its accuracy has been contested. Help from knowledgeable contributors would be appreciated. Please keep discussion consolidated at Talk:Cytotoxic T cell#Misleading Diagram. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have been resolved. Discussion is at WT:MCB for anyone who's interested. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to edit: Deletion proposed

It has been proposed here that the template Invitation to edit, which is presently being used in a trial on 20 medical articles, be deleted. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

February

It's a new month, so it's time to select the next WP:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month#Nominations_for_the_next_MCOTM. Current nominations include Serotonin, Placebo, and Spinal cord injury. If you would be willing to help improve one of these, please sign your name in support of it. You can also nominate other articles that you think would be appropriate and you're willing to help out with. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Remember that the final debate occurs here. Peter.C • talk 02:36, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Adolescent sexuality in the United States -- POV concerns

Outside editors are needed to help solve the matter of POV concerns that have plagued this article for years. Some see the information at this article as too negative; others feel that the negative information accurately represents most of the research and societal views on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:05, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the JMIR paper

Well done to all of the project members who contributed to the JMIR paper Wikipedia: A Key Tool for Global Public Health Promotion which has been published today.— Rod ^talk 16:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Nice! Although I can't wait until y'all are accused of canvassing and SPOV-pushing for encouraging people with actual medical knowledge to improve our health-related content. :P MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes it was great working with everyone and hope we can do this again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations, all of you. I hope it succeeds. -- Colin°^Talk 20:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Agree, and kudos also for your courage - stepping between WP and the real world can be daunting, but this sort of visibility seems very positive. -- Scray (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting to read... Well done. --Garrondo (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Just saw this on my Twitter feed (promoted by the Pan American Health Organization, no less!) and I had to stop by and congratulate you. Maybe this will get me out of my current funk and back on WP. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:01, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

On a related note, Wikipedia:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia has been imported. I've added it to {{subst:MedWelcome}}, which I encourage you to use whenever you see a new user working on a medicine-related article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have added both articles to: Wikipedia and medicine; a list of articles related to the coverage of medicine on Wikipedia. Maybe somebody could take a look to see if they know any other missing.--Garrondo (talk) 07:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations to all the authors, it is a very impressive piece of work. Perhaps it would be helpful to put on the record the collaborative methods you used in creating it, for the aid of future similar efforts from other disciplines. LeadSongDog come howl! 07:57, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

JMIR invitation to medical community

At Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-01-31/In the news#Briefly (permanent link here), the first item is the following.

• Medical Wikipedians issue "Call to Action" to their peers: In the Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22 members of WikiProject Medicine have published a viewpoint article titled "Wikipedia: A Key Tool for Global Public Health Promotion". After an introduction to Wikipedia's model, a section on its prominence as a source of health information, and a survey of empirical studies on Wikipedia's medical content, the authors issue a "Call to Action", inviting the medical community to join in editing Wikipedia, with the goal of providing people with free access to reliable, understandable, and up-to-date health information.]
  

—Wavelength (talk) 18:48, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Please vote - A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for physics, science, or medical conclusions

A consensus vote as to whether to consider the journal Homeopathy an RS for phsyics, science, or medical conclusions is happening here[22]. PPdd (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Vote here. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Heat intolerance

I'm contemplating an article on Heat intolerance, to coordinate with Cold intolerance. My initial scan of sources has found them unfortunately fragmented. There's heat intolerance from the perspective of multiple sclerosis, and heat intolerance as a sign of thyrotoxicosis, and heat intolerance due to anticholinergics, and heat intolerance due to various skin disorders causing impaired sweating, and heat intolerance apparently with some (unspecified, but serious, perhaps end-stage) cardiac problems—but never just heat intolerance, one big, organized, unified medical sign.

So for those of you who might know something (anything!) about this: MS and thyroid disorders seem to do heat intolerance with a (slightly) raised core body temperature. MS patients make a particular point of the difficulty that a 0.5–1.0 degree difference in body temperature makes to them, and a slightly elevated temperature seems plausible, even inevitable, with an overactive thyroid. Do the other forms of heat intolerance also feature a raised body temperature?

If so, then the distinguishing feature from heat stroke appears to be the chronic nature of heat intolerance, and perhaps the lower ambient temperatures at which it appears. (Some individuals have asserted the appearance of symptoms at lk:WikiProject_Medicine&action=scal room temperature.)

Also, I'd like to get a sentence in about medically necessary air conditioning (something that I heard about, of all places, in some income tax paperwork). My search for sources has been unsuccessful: I can demonstrate that the US offers a tax break for buying an air conditioner if you have duly procured a prescription for air conditioning from a physician to treat a specific medical condition, but no information at all about the circumstances under which a physician would prescribe air conditioning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Moving "x cell carcinoma" to "x-cell carcinoma"

Kwamikagami has been wholesale moving article pages entitled "x cell carcinoma" to "x-cell carcinoma". I have pointed out to him that the medical literature does not support his actions. I am bringing the discussion here to achieve a consensus. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the lit does support this. Punctuation varies widely, with hyphens tending to be dropped the more familiar a term is to the intended audience, but retained the less familiar it may be. We are a basic reference work, not a medical journal, and we cannot assume that our readers will be familiar with the technical jargon in our articles. One of the more common complaints of WP is that our articles are inaccessible, and logical/full hyphenation is a small step in addressing that. For example, a naive reader will read "small cell carcinomas" as being small carcinomas of the cells. (I can hardly help reading it that way myself, even though I know better; I still do a double take when I see it unexpectedly.) For this reason, medical references use hyphenation to a greater degree than journals do, both because exact terminology may be expected (you can always drop the hyphenation if you don't like it, but you may not be comfortable adding it in where missing), and because they're accessed by students who may be new to the material and may be confused by a lack of full, logical punctuation.

For example, Current diagnosis and treatment in neurology (Brust 2006:396) has as a section header nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor–induced myopathy. Without proper hyphenation, that would be nearly impenetrable to the uninitiated; with hyphenation (and an en-dash), the reader at least can begin to parse it.

This isn't really a WP:COMMONNAME issue, since we're not talking about distinct names, but a choice of punctuation, and it is relevant to WP:Make technical articles understandable. In fact, even at COMMONNAME they state,

The ideal title for an article will also satisfy the other criteria outlined above; ambiguous or inaccurate names for the article subject, as determined by reliable sources, are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources.

"Small cell carcinoma" is grammatically inaccurate, since it indicates that small and cell modify carcinoma independently, where in fact small modifies cell rather than carcinoma. In spoken English the difference is conveyed through prosody; in writing, it is conveyed through hyphenation: small-cell carcinoma. — kwami (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

While I disagree strongly with some of Kwami's typographically related page moves, here, I have to agree with his action. It especially matters when people outside a highly specialised area read text that contains these compound units. Such readers are not used to seeing these items every day, and you can't expect them to know first-off exactly which words should be paired in them.

As an aside, I see above "nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor–induced myopathy". Oh puhlease, let's take no notice of the crappy English they let through in some research journals nowadays—even the highly ranked ones: myopathy induced by nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitors, thanks very much. Tony (talk) 15:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

At least we didn't get a nucleoside reverse-transcriptase inhibitor–induced myopathy–related illness. --RexxS (talk) 16:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

First, what really matters is what our sources are doing, not what the typical English grammar teacher might guess is the right answer in a given case. In the case of small cell carcinoma, ICD-0 rejected the hyphen. The MeSH term is "carcinoma, small cell"—no hyphen. More than 80% of books in my search rejected the hyphen. More than half of medical journals reject the hyphen. Consequently, we, too, should reject the hyphen, regardless of what the "right" answer is.

And the opposite is true for non-small-cell carcinoma: There, nearly all of the sources use (two) hyphens. We should follow those sources, too, for that disease.

One thing to keep in mind is that something that looks like it's an adjective is not necessarily an adjective. Many of these names are essentially proper nouns, and so typical conventions for common nouns and adjectives aren't relevant. A Merkel cell, for example, is a specific thing, and is not to be hyphenated when it is used to describe another thing—exactly like you would never hyphenate other two-word proper nouns, e.g., it's a Ford Mustang car, not a Ford-Mustang car.

Finally, massive changes in the face of opposition is inappropriate. Editors should look for consensus at each individual article, rather than imposing their personal preferences (or the preferences of sources in a completely unrelated field, especially when those sources make no claim that the rule is, or even should be, universally applied to technical terms) by moving pages in the face of opposition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Kwami should have tried to get some sort of consensus before starting a personal page move project. JFW | T@lk 20:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I would support moving these pages back. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 21:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree and there is a whole bunch of pages that have been changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

"More than half of medical journals reject the hyphen. Consequently, we, too, should reject the hyphen."

I disagree. With such variation in professional usage, it is clear that the hyphenated forms are not incorrect. They are, however, much easier for the naive reader. The arguments about proper nouns are also off the mark: that's not what we're dealing with here, or medical journals would not hyphenate at all.

We need to consider our readers, not just editors who already know the subject matter. — kwami (talk) 02:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

And from Doc James's objection that 'they don't look good' on my talk page,

"Looking good" is not the point: a huge number of reliable sources use logical hyphenation, and this helps our readers. These terms are difficult to read without hyphenation unless you are already familiar with the subject, and we need to assume that our readers are not familiar with it. Even COMMONNAME states that when several names are in use by RSs, we need to consider clarity and precision, not just percentages.

— kwami (talk) 02:04, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

How about we just do what the clear majority of sources do, determined case by case?

"Logical" hyphenation will not help the average person, who (unlike me) finds nothing "logical" about it at all, and will instead find Wikipedia diverging from the choices made by a majority of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the list of recent moves. Some of these are "logical" variants that I've never seen in print:

07:44, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Basal cell carcinoma to Basal-cell carcinoma over redirect ‎ (it's the cells which are basal) 07:43, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Basaloid squamous cell carcinoma to Basaloid squamous-cell carcinoma ‎ (sp.)

07:43, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Signet-ring cell squamous cell carcinoma to Signet-ring-cell squamous-cell carcinoma ‎ (sp.)

07:43, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Spindle cell squamous cell carcinoma to Spindle-cell squamous-cell carcinoma ‎ (sp.)

07:43, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Clear cell squamous cell carcinoma to Clear-cell squamous-cell carcinoma ‎ (sp.)

07:42, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Adenoid squamous cell carcinoma to Adenoid squamous-cell carcinoma ‎ (sp.)

07:33, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Squamous cell carcinoma to Squamous-cell carcinoma over redirect ‎ (it's the cells which are squamous) 07:33, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Large cell lung carcinoma to Large-cell lung carcinoma ‎ (it's the cells which are large)

07:24, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Non-small cell lung carcinoma to Non-small-cell lung carcinoma ‎ (sp.)

07:24, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Combined small cell lung carcinoma to Combined small-cell lung carcinoma ‎ (sp.)

07:21, 4 February 2011 Kwamikagami (talk | contribs) moved Small cell carcinoma to Small-cell carcinoma ‎ (the cells are small, not the carcinoma)

I think that basically all of these except NSCC need to be reverted. Most are grammatically correct—several wrongly identify the noun, resulting in Ford-Mustang–like improper hyphenations—but they simply aren't used by the sources. "Spindle-cell squamous-cell carcinoma", for example, turns up in less than 2% of medical journal articles on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree that we should revert these. We should be reflective of the scientific literature not trying to do our own thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If I misidentified the noun (no example given), that illustrates that these are not clear as written. Some arguably make little difference, but IMO it is definitely important to hyphenate "small-cell" and "large-cell": it's common that way in the lit, and it is very easy to misparse a small cell carcinoma as being analogous to a small lung tumour. It's only obvious what is meant if you are already familiar with the concept.

If you insist on using ambiguous wording because most journals written for specialists take that route, I think the least we can do is provide both punctuations in the lede: A spindle cell squamous cell carcinoma, or spindle-cell squamous-cell carcinoma, is ... Once the reader has the correct syntax in their head, it won't matter which convention we use for the rest of the article. Is that an acceptable compromise? — kwami (talk) 06:35, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well yes. Please tell me there's not a certain specialist arrogance afoot here, that says "FU" to anyone but the experts. As I've pointed out above, people outside a field (and even those in cognate disciplines) are faced with greater difficult through unfamiliarity in parsing these gobbledygook multiple items. Just because ignorant (more likely "put it in if it's good science, we haven't got time nowadays to make the language professional") journals let through horrors doesn't mean that WP should go against its own style guides, and more to the point, the rulings of so many authorities out there. Our readership is likely to be significantly wider than that for arcane, stuck-up high-impact-factor journals. If you want to go against the style guides here, you'll have to put a more cogent case than that. Tony (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the history of the OED it attempts to reflect real world language usage not impose "proper" English from above. While this does not apply exactly to this situation I think it is still appropriate.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:54, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, and in cases like these they would indicate both. But they're recording usage rather than actually generating it as we are. What I'm talking about is not dictating usage, but following the usage that would be clearest to our readers. — kwami (talk) 08:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and let's remember that WP is not a dictionary. It is read on monitors and by people all over the world, of all varieties of English, and of many second-language backgrounds; it addresses a generalist audience more than medical specialty publications. Tony (talk) 08:42, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Kwami, that's the point. We are not "generating usage". We are supposed to be reflecting the usage of our sources, not making it up ourselves. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not making anything up. These forms are used in the lit, in the case of 'small-cell' by anywhere from a quarter to two thirds, depending on the database. We follow sources, sure, but we follow the sources that are the most accurate and will be clearest to our audience. We don't follow inaccurate or obscure jargon just because it's more common among those comfortable in the jargon. — kwami (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

kwami, selective use of statistics in an argument is poor show. The "two thirds" you mention is the result of getting lucky with your first page of Google results: the numbers drop off if you persist. And we agree that "small-cell" is an anomaly in the stats. For all the other carcinomas, there's effectively no support in the literature for the hyphenated form. Anyway, this disussion is now happening in two places, and arguably the MP:MED style guide is the better place for it... Colin°^Talk 12:38, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This issue is also being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles)#Punctuation. --- Colin°^Talk 09:34, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

For Kwami, who asked for a specific example above: Basal cell is not a cell that happens to be basal; it's a thing in its own right. It should not be hyphenated any more than Merkel cell.

I'm going to revert all of the basal cell moves, as they are both grammatically wrong (due to a perfectly understandable misinterpretation of the name) and not used by ~98% of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I've commented out the ones that I moved back to their grammatically correct, consensus-supported, source-preferred names. Basal-cell carcinoma requires attention from an admin.

Perhaps someone else would like to look up the current usage for the others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, [basal cell] is a unit, not two separate attributives, so grammatically it should be hyphenated. That is not a misreading: it doesn't matter what the relationship is between 'basal' and 'cell', the point is that it's a compound attributive of 'carcinoma'. Without the hyphen, we're saying that it's the carcinoma which is basal, or else that a basal cell carcinoma is a suptype of 'cell carcinoma'. The same with Merkel: it's not a Merkel's [cell carcinoma], but a [Merkel cell] carcinoma. I overlooked that one. — kwami (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I will not speak to what is grammatically correct, but i have rarely, if ever, seen basal or Merkel cell carcinoma hyphenated. I could be wrong. but i would challenge you to find many articles in the JAAD or Archives of Dermatology that use this convention and, even if you can, I strongly doubt they would constitue the majority of cases. I think we should be following the common name principle for article titles in these cases. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

External links

I see that an editor recently added "What's New" to the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine#External_links. "Medicine Guides" is also in the list. I wonder what links actually should be in the list? Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed. Might be better at the pharmaceuticals wiki project. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox color RfC

There's an RfC at Template talk:Taxobox colour#In light of the luminosity increase. Please share your thoughts there. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

METLIN

A part of this article is very closely paraphrased from http://metlin.scripps.edu/. I would like to fix the article (in my opinion this database is notable for Wikipedia), however, my knowledge of medical/chemical terminology is weak and I don't want to make a mess. Thanks for any help. I've notified also WT:Copyright problems. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 20:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Russell Blaylock

Whitewashing going on. Needs to use MEDRS sourcing. He's a dubious fringe physician. Need more eyes on this one. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a couple of editors don't want Blaylock's views (e.g., swine flu vaccine is riskier than swine flu) to be directly identified as minority beliefs. Here's an example.

This is really more of a simple DUE issue than MEDRS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Signpost

Hello,
My name is Thomas888b. I am from The Wikipedia Signpost. I am writing to you to ask whether it would be possible to interview one or two key members of the project to appear in the signpost on march 21st? Could you please reply on my talkpage if interested.
Thanks,
Thomas888b (Say Hi) 18:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration for Febuary

Just a reminder:

Peter.C • talk 01:51, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a reminder: A collaborative project only works if interested people show up and help out. I realize that several people are still busy with last month's article, but we need people at the new article, too.

To help, please look over the article, and either make improvements or leave a note on the article's talk page about what you think should be done. If you have an interest in collaborative editing, if you enjoy Wikipedia because it gives you an incentive to learn something new, or if you have a few minutes for a little minor wikignoming, this is a good opportunity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Selenium yeast

This article was tagged as G11 (spam), but I declined it as it is not sufficiently blatant. I'm not sure about the use of sources though - could someone take a look at it? It seems to me as though a merge to selenium deficiency might be the best solution. Cheers. SmartSE (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Only two of the numerous primary sources cited directly deal with selenium yeast as a dietary substance. Most of the health claims are about selenium rather than the yeast product discussed. It is mostly WP:SYNTH and might well qualify for AFD. The author (Selenocat (talk · contribs)) looks like an SPA. JFW | T@lk 16:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

New article Tessys method

Could someone please add Tessys method to the project? This is a new article I noticed and I'm not sure what's involved in adding it. Thanks, CliffC (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done This is a very easy task. You can see what I did on the article's talk page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

We win

We've won a pile of students! A class at Louisiana State University's Athletic training program are required to write (or, in a few cases, fix up) about three dozen articles. It looks like the focus is on orthopedic medical signs like Murphy's sign. The students are supposed to sandbox their creations, with an in-sandbox review planned for 17 February and a mainspace target of 03 March.

Here's how you can help:

• Please put Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Courses/Spring 2011/Orthopedic Injury Evaluation Techniques II (Ray Castle) on your watchlists.
• Please keep an eye out for the students, and help them gently along whenever you can.
• Consider becoming an official mentor for one or more of the students. Get more information at Wikipedia:Ambassadors, and apply at Wikipedia:Online Ambassadors/Apply.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Training effect

I was wondering if someone with a medical background and a spare minute or two could take a brief look at the introductory sentence to Training effect (and possibly its corresponding reference) and suggest a proper redirect for neurohumoral and functional capacity. Thanks! Location (talk) 17:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Neurohumor and neurohumoral sound like they might outdated terms for Neurotransmitter/Neuromodulation, on a quick browse Neuron#Action_on_other_neurons seems the sort of thing your looking for, but there are many, many neurology articles - Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience would be a good forum to ask in. As for functional capacity - I'm not sure if there is a general functional capacity that would cover all these systems, as each system will have its own definition. One more thing to consider- the talk page has mention of it and I'm have the same gut feeling that, unless more common us of the term can be shown, it should be merged into exercise Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 12:30, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

LASIK

Comments requested at Talk:LASIK#Requested addition. A user blocked for other reasons has emailed me asking for an addition to this article: he has a clear COI, but the requested addition, which says that the former official who oversaw FDA approval has now submitted a petition to withdraw it, seems factual and sourced. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Break apart "Comparison of MD and DO in the United States"?

There has been a "proposed merge" tag on Comparison of MD and DO in the United States for a couple of years now. We should probably resolve it. Personally, I don't see a huge benefit to maintaining a separate page for the two, as the information could be (and really, is) better included primarily at Osteopathic medicine in the United States, Medical school in the United States, and possibly also Medical education in the United States. NW (Talk) 16:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

To give some background, most of the info in the "comparison" article was originally in the articles allopathic medicine and osteopathic medicine in the United States, but the amount of information gathered overburdened both those articles. A third article comparing the two was created as something of a compromise. There is a great deal of published material and commentary on the comparison topic. I agree that the article is not the strongest article on WP, but with some TLC it could be much better. These topics, allopathic v osteopathic, MDs v DOs, etc are so poorly understood, hence their necessity. They also tend to generate instant controversy here on WP, hence the somewhat apologetic tone. Bryan Hopping ^T 08:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Children's feet at AfD

Children's feet is at AfD, apparently as a proposed merge(?). I haven't commented yet, but others might want to. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

MEDRS?

Dispute at Chiropractic: Is this a systematic review: Chiropractic & Osteopathy 2010, 18:3 doi:10.1186/1746-1340-18-3 http://chiromt.com/content/18/1/3

Review Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report

"The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions."

"The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories. The strength/quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs.""[23] Thanks, Ocaasi (talk) 17:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

A better question might be, does this study meet WP:MEDRS? I believe it does, however there is an editor will not allow its inclusion anywhere in the chiropractic article.Puhlaa (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Here's the ref from PubMed:

• Bronfort G, Haas M, et al, "Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report", Chiropr Osteopat. 2010; 18: 3. February 25. doi: 10.1186/1746-1340-18-3. PMC 2841070
  "The conclusions are based on the results of systematic reviews of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence-based clinical guidelines, plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories."

Note the change of journal title: Readers should note that in January 2011 the journal’s name changed to Chiropractic & Manual Therapies from Chiropractic & Osteopathy'.[24]

This is about as solid as it gets. It should be put it in the body and the lead updated. This is the most scientifically legitimate of all chiropractic journals. Their research reports are generally quite trustworthy, with few exceptions, and this isn't one of those exceptions.

COI statement: I'm a chiroskeptic and Physical Therapist, and "I approve this message". I agree that QG is continuing to block progress with his stonewalling, IDHT and ownership. It's so bad a systemic problem that I, an expert on the subject, usually avoid the chiropractic articles because of his noxious influence there. (I thought he was still topic banned by ArbCom, but I guess that must have run out. Maybe it needs to be reinstated under the ArbCom sanctions.)

I suggest that fresh eyes visit this section to see what's going on. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:59, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

And I'd strongly second that suggestion. At present we have editors removing content cited to a two-year old reliable secondary source with an edit summary of removed outdated review, 2010 review covers the effectiveness. We seem to have taken MEDRS to the extreme by discarding anything but the latest review, a slippery slope that fails to acknowledge the possibility of disagreement between reliable secondary sources. Editors should not be using guidelines to contradict policy. --RexxS (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Funny, I thought that MEDRS opposed that behavior. Isn't that what "do not automatically give more weight to the review that happens to have been published most recently, as this is recentism" means to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what it means to me. It obviously means the opposite to others. --RexxS (talk) 12:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The most recent proposal for a site ban (just two months ago) failed. His supporters were: User talk:Ncmvocalist, User talk:Collect, User talk:Skomorokh, User talk:Mathsci, User talk:Jehochman, NW, User talk:Beyond My Ken, User talk:Enric Naval, User talk:Chartinael, jps, User talk:RexxS, and User talk:Shot info.

I have contacted most of them with an invitation to help resolve this dispute (skipping one who earned a long-term block and a couple who are known to be watching this page). We should not have to deal with these problems every few weeks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The solution was initially about adding the UK review, not just taking out Ernst. That may have been a misunderstanding. The counter-problem is almost ironic given how prominently Ernst has figured into the article. But that is fine, so long as other sources with similar standing are incorporated as well. Despite the appearance of conflict, there is actually more productive discussion going on now, since a few other reasonable editors have chimed in. Ocaasi (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

We have at least three great reviews and should balance all of them. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

List of participants

The Signpost is featuring WPMED next month. They typically report basic statistics for WikiProjects, such as the number of participants. If you consider yourself to be a part of WPMED, and you have not yet added your name to the table at WP:WikiProject Medicine/Participants, please do so. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like we haven't done a pass through the list to move inactive participants out of the active list for quite a while. Does anyone have a problem with my updating this with a cut-off of six-months inactivity on WP for "inactive participants" and twelve-months inactivity on WP for "former participants". It doesn't do us any favours to inflate the figures. Colin°^Talk 11:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:50, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree, thanks Colin. Graham Colm (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead, Colin. Axl ¤ [Talk] 10:06, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll work on it this afternoon. I'll set the threshold at 1st September 2010 for Active and 1st March 2010 for Inactive. Colin°^Talk 12:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, please. And bless you for volunteering to take on that dull, time-consuming task. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Abortion again

If any fresh eyes were available, I'd be grateful for a sanity check at Abortion. The short story is that I reverted the addition of a piece of text sourced to a recent primary source, on the grounds that the secondary source already there covered the issue; it was then re-inserted by the OP; and then removed and re-inserted by Doc James. I've tried to raise what I see as a clear violation of MEDRS on the talk page, but to little effect. Any comments one way or the other would be appreciated, because either I or a bunch of others are failing to understand MEDRS. --RexxS (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

In the news

Google News listed CFS as a top story just now. See this on a Lancet study, which (reportedly) proves the conventional wisdom wrong. It's probably worth keeping an eye on some of the Chronic fatigue syndrome articles for a few days. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Why was the conventional wisdom that exercising wouldn't help people with Chronic fatigue have more energy? Wasn't the idea that people can improve their health or vitality through inactivity basically dead decades ago? Ocaasi (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the article, "pacing" (doing less because you don't feel like doing anything) is what the patient organizations have been pushing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I have read for years that exercise improves CFS and rest worsens symptoms. I remember a study that found forced bed rest in health college students resulted in CFS after 2 weeks in a large proportion. And forced exercise in those with CFS resulted in improvement in many. That patient groups where recommending rest I did not know. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:14, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Question about vagotomy

There is a question on the Miscellaneous WP:Reference desk that could probably do with an answer from someone with some understanding of anatomy and surgery! What is the nerve of latarjet and is it preserved in vagotomy?

This could also be a spur to improve our relevant articles, since I see no mention of the nerve(s) of Latarjet anywhere in the encyclopedia. 86.161.110.118 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Relevant material On Latarjet is at http://download.videohelp.com/vitualis/med/stomach.htm (near the bottom) and the answer to the question is at Resection of Terminal Vagal Branches to Parietal Cell Mass in the Treatment of Duodenal Ulcer (NIH.GOV) --Red King (talk) 21:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain

It's late here, and I've got visitors so I won't get to this tonight, but Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain looks, after a brief scan, like OR to me. The author seems to have done some good work elsewhere. I'll try to focus on it tomorrow but another opinion would be appreciated, if anyone has the time. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 12:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note on its talk page and its author's talk page outlining some concerns. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 13:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what to do about this. It is based on the work of one team, most sources are in a foreign language, and on the face of it, it appears not notable enough even for an article. Somatosensory rehabilitation seems to be notable and has one or two textbooks devoted to it; but this concept, somatosensory rehabilitation of pain, appears fringy at best. Wiser/more experienced eyes would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 02:22, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

My eyes may not be any more wise or experienced but it looks to me like something that could be added to the Gate control theory of pain. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 03:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I would oppose mention on Pain, which is an overview of a very large subject. I'll warn the author I intend to nominate it for deletion unless he comes up with some MEDRS-compliant sources. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No response a week after leaving a note on article and author talk pages, so I've emailed the team leader (who appears to be the article author) seeking an authoritative independent review of their work. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Pharma policy

Do we have a guideline or policy regarding how pharma companies/employees should edit entries about specific pharma products? NCurse _work 09:20, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely. Our WP:COI guideline directly addresses this, WP:NPOV of course, and the WP:NOSHARE policy is relevant. Those link to others that are germane as well. -- Scray (talk) 14:38, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

We haven't written anything more specific. There was a conversation about this a while ago. Here's what I remember from it:

Disclosure of COI is not required by any Wikipedia policy.

• Some editors have voluntarily chosen to disclose a conflict of interest by including their employers' names in their account names, e.g., all these folks from GlaxoSmithKline. More self-identify on their user pages.
• Self-identification is a two-edged sword: You get points from most users for being honest, but a few will use it to harrass editors. See, e.g., User:James Cantor, a world-class expert on pedophilia, who has been chastised by a handful of (minority-view-holding) editors for not re-re-re-re-disclosing his "conflict of interest" every single time he edits certain pages.
• Corporate IP addresses are highly traceable. An employee editing from the office should assume that s/he's hung a big sign on the edit saying "I'm part of a pharmaceutical conspiracy".
• Some employers require disclosure, and a few believe it illegal for their employees to edit these pages. (I believe the idea runs like this: We are legally required to say only X about this product; if we change the Wikipedia page, we are legally required to say only X on the Wikipedia page; if the page says anything beyond X, then we're in violation of the law.) So employees and contractors should check with their employers.

Wikipedia does not prohibit people in the pharmaceutical industry from editing articles. WP:PAID failed. However, there are strategies that reduce conflict:

• Vandalism = bad. As far as we're concerned, anyone is welcome to fix it, even people who work for a pharmaceutical company.
• Correct serious errors, but leave the fine points to others.
• Propose sources and improvements on the talk pages.
• Read WP:MEDRS, especially the bits about not paying too much attention to single studies.
• Read WP:MEDMOS, especially the bits about not providing medical advice, instructions to patients, or dosage information.
• Remember that Wikipedia is not a patient guide or drug formulary. Employees might be in a unique position to provide background and historical information, which we very much want. We'd love for every page about a drug to contain some information about its regulatory status around the world, its development, its manufacturing process, and its commercial history (e.g., which companies have worked on it and what its annual sales are).
• Come here or to WT:PHARM to get help.

Hope this helps, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

It certainly does help, WAID. Is there any chance we could give this a more permanent home than the talk page archives? I was thinking of an essay, WP:MEDCOI, that could be worked up into a guideline as part of WP:COI, so that those who need the specific information can find it easily in future. --RexxS (talk) 23:11, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, we could do that. I think it might be good to expand the other usual issues: being a healthcare professional, academic expert, or a patient does not mean that you have a COI (although you might be biased). It might be fun to include some of the pharmanoia material, too. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

We would first need to eliminate the "double edged sword" POV: The example given was first written up on COI/N as "MarionTheLibrarian"[25]. The pattern of self-promotion was the problem, not the login. To avoid a fruitless tangent, I think it would be best to simply remove the bullet point.

We should stress that Wikipedia policies apply equally to all Wikipedia editors. However, having audience-specific guides for what policies new editors should be particularly aware of couldn't hurt.

Getting back onto the topic of placement, is there a location where its target audience (pharma industry editors) would find it easily? (If they needed to search for it, they might find it only after wading through a number of the specific policies. This would reduce the value of the guide.) BitterGrey (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Conflicts of interest (medicine) is a bluelink now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Could I ask others to look this over and join in the discussion there? My relationship with WhatamIdoing hasn't been good since he made a clear accusation of ill will against me[26]. He's just performed a mass revert back to his own version, which doesn't seem very civil. BitterGrey (talk) 00:10, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I glanced at the discussion. I have to agree with WhatamIdoing: substance over procedure. If you have a problem with an external link, start by mentioning what the problem is from a substance perspective - that is, concerns you would raise regardless of who added the link. II | (t - c) 01:40, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

ImperfectlyInformed, the dif about the EL was just to convey WhatamIdoing's documented prejudice here. My main issue is with the tabular form, which implies that there is a caste system within Wikipedia where some policies only apply to lesser editors like you and me: That pharma employees don't really need to cite sources, while patients should busy themselves with vandalism cleanup. My quickly-reverted edit changed this table to three lists, with all Wikipedia policies applying to everyone equally. This is a matter of substance.

Of course, if no other editors get involved, Wikipedia content will be determined by the one who is willing to the be least civil and take the most liberties with Wikipedia policy. BitterGrey (talk) 05:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you have accessed the right forum if you have a problem with WhatamIdoing. This thread is about COI disclosure in medical content, not about individual behaviour. WhatamIdoing is one of our most hardworking editors, so you are very unlikely to be getting a helpful hand. I see no incivility in the diff you mentioned, and the suggestion that WhatamIdoing would have been incivil makes me roll of my chair laughing. JFW | T@lk 07:35, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Could we focus on the content being discussed today? I realize that most here are more familiar with WhatamIdoing than with me, which means my odds of getting neutral input are slim. What I'm doing might seem laughable. I'm not paid by a pharma or medical interest, so those hoping to ignore me while advocating their position and goals have called me an advocate. Per WhatamIdoing's table, a good edit for an advocate will be "Adding sourced information about social movements and effects" (e.g. making edits to the Oprah article) and to avoid "Promoting tiny minority viewpoints." Per WhatamIdoing's table, matters of substance (editing information about a product, the profession, health issues, or treatments) are reserved for those who can profit from it, expert or not, referenced or not.

I'm hoping to preserve the neutrality of Wikipedia, with Wikipedia policies applying to everyone equally. I accept that there is a caste system in practice in Wikipedia, but I do not think it should be reinforced. I can see how this effort might seem laughable. BitterGrey (talk) 15:00, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Bittergrey, the tone of your edits here is off-putting (IMHO) but I think you do have valid concerns. I think it's most appropriate to direct discussion of the COI(med) essay to that talk page, and avoid further discussion of editors themselves. -- Scray (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Scray. I responded to ImperfectlyInformed's comment above in hopes of keeping the discussion that I started there from getting diverted onto some procedural tangent. WhatamIdoing has yet to respond to any of my attempts at discussion on this topic. Perhaps JFW is correct in that everyone supports WhatamIdoing loyally, to the point of dismissing the possibility that he might have been uncivil as laughable ("roll of my chair laughing" to be exact). I then, however valid my concerns about the content might be, would be the butt of that joke. BitterGrey (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

(←) Shall we regard this thread as a pointer to have a discussion on the other page then? I see little point carrying on over here. JFW | T@lk 00:25, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

You are fantastic! Thank you very much for the replies and feedback. We are working on an open-access guide for pharma companies about using social media, and we plan to include a whole section about Wikipedia. This discussion helps a lot. NCurse _work 10:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Glad you find the discussion helpful. Please be careful to differentiate Wikipedia policy, which is a position agreed on by a broad consensus, from essays which might represent the opinions of only one or two editors. BitterGrey (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

560 pages of disease statistics for the US from the CDC 2010

• http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus10.pdf

--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia medical content

It seems to me it is time for a policy governing medical claims in Wikipedia articles. Particularly, I'd like the right to delete any claim about the safety, efficacy or strength of evidence for a health intervention that is not supported by a WP:MEDRS source, with exemption from 3RR sanctions, along the lines of BLP violations. I believe our present stance, allowing dubious claims to stand during drawn-out AfD or talk page discussion, is reckless. If I've missed something, if this is explicitly covered elsewhere, please point me to it. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I completely support this. We should also state clearly when a particular use of a drug is off-label or in the absence of good evidence.

I also think that we need to tighten up on claims of adverse events and side-effects that lack a reliable source. We have a lot of drug articles that are stuffed to the brim with anecdotal reports from unhappy users, often with the flimsiest of sources. I am actually amazed that drug companies have (on the whole) not mobilised people to tidy up articles about their products. They would find themselves supported by policies if they did. JFW | T@lk 07:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "off-label" use I am deleting such notices very often. Exactly because they suggest absence of evidence. A large number of off-label applications are for orphan diseases. If you look around for which conditions there are "FDA-approved" treatments I would not be surprised to find that there is not a single FDA approved treatment for something like 99.9% of all known conditions - and not all of them are rare. Another problem with off-label and FDA-approved tags is that they tend to be very US centered.

As of side effects they are in constant need of cleaning but I would object if they were cleaned up to the level of nothing-saying patient handout leaflets. Richiez (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:BLP is a big policy that took a long time to draft, with input from loads of people. MEDRS and this project is comparatively tiny. BLP is built on top of WP:V, NPOV and NOR as well as US law. If you want a medical policy, it needs to be built on top of existing policies, not on top of a guideline.

As far as the speedy 3RR-exempt removal of material goes, this applies to areas of limited scope and fairly straightforward judgement. It is fairly easy to justify the play-it-safe censorship of contentious remarks about a living person (WP could be sued, people get hurt by the comments).

The scope of this proposal (all medical safety and efficacy claims) is huge. Does this include preventative (eat your greens, avoid a high-fat diet) as well as curative medicine?

The judement calls required are far more complex than simply: is this contentious; is about a living person; is the source reliable. I don't see how such complex judgements could be made excempt from 3RR edit warring.

Colin°^Talk 15:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good idea. We've got people right now who are using this attitude to justify gutting AltMed articles because they have personally judged the sources to be inappropriate. For example, PPdd has recently deleted sourced material solely because the source wasn't in English. (PPdd, do take a minute to read the policy WP:NONENG, okay?)

In most cases, the material is a simple description of what the practitioners believe—the critical distinction between "Herbalists use this for the common cold" and "This is a safe and effective treatment for the common cold." I am not currently seeing signs that all of our editors have the necessary judgment to follow a policy like this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's a distinction between "people use it for this" and "it works." I also agree with AHC that "it works" should always at least have a tag. I don't think that this requires a separate policy, our standard requirement for verifiability handles it just fine, as claims of effectiveness are likely to be challenged. SDY (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Stroke

A strange situation on stroke. Potionism (talk · contribs) is a new user who has come along and added something about 3 patients with a previous stroke improving on etanercept. I challenged this and BRDed the content. An anonymous user from the 128.97 range has started inserting related content with lots of references, all to in vitro work and none compatible with WP:MEDRS. Qwyrxian (talk · contribs) came along on the talkpage to defend the content in question, and has not yet responded to my concerns (but appears to be singing from the same songsheet as me as suggested by his responses on Potionism's talk page). Meanwhile, 128.97 has come along, reinserted the content, and posted a defence on the talkpage without addressing my concerns.

I am pretty certain that this content is currently unsuitable or at least supported by the wrong references, but I am now up against multiple editors and would love some extra eyes. JFW | T@lk 14:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Phantom ICD disorders again

We try to follow this classification, but regarding this edit I am seeking an exception from the rule. There is PMID 7781117 but it does not say literally "fibrosclerosis of breast". No other source in or outside PubMed comes even close to this, at least I could not find it. There is no "fibroslerosis of breast". Instead there is a whole range of findings called sclerosing adenosis etc. Many of those are suspected to be indicative of premalignant changes and as such they are usually differentiated with great care and of course not all of them fit into fibrocystic conditions at all (eg sclerosing adenosis in complex fibroadenoma). Simplifying all those conditions to "fibrosclerosis of breast" and lump it together as a subclass of fibrocystic condition would be a classification disaster in my opinion. Given that nobody except ICD ever used the term "fibrosclerosis of breast" I am against introducing it into life via wikipedia. Richiez (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Might you have meant this edit[27]?BitterGrey (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fibrocystic_breast_changes&curid=8483785&diff=415502865&oldid=415502266 Richiez (talk) 22:31, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Relevant AFD

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MAGIC Foundation. Graham87 15:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewers needed for University project

Hi all, this semester I am repeating an editing project that I first ran in the Fall of 2009 for my Neuroscience course at Boston College. I am hoping to write up a manuscript for a life science education journal about our experience, and I would like to solicit help from some of the knowledgeable WikiProject Medicine editors. We have 21 groups of students (3 students per group, 1 stub per group) improving specific Category:Neuroscience stubs that are in need of expansion, clarification and/or proper referencing. I have an 8 point rubric that you can use to make quantitative judgments about how much improvement to the stub has been made by the students (and any other editors that help out during our course period). If I can get 1 or 2 more editors to volunteer 2-3 hours of time to read the stub page that currently exists as of 3/1/11 and the "final" version at the end of the course (~2nd week of May) and score them using the rubric I would be most appreciative, and of course would acknowledge your efforts in the manuscript. Please feel free to respond back here or on my talk page. I have crossposted this on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Neuroscience page but thought I may be able to find more help from those with even a bit of background or interest in the neuroscience field here. Thanks much,NeuroJoe (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I see from the 2009 topics that the neuroscience topics are mostly basic science (as opposed to clinical). It might therefore be useful to alert WikiProject Neuroscience also.

Could I suggest you place a lot of emphasis on WP:MEDRS. A lot of basic science articles rely heavily on primary sources, which is something we should try to avoid.

I am certainly happy to help out. JFW | T@lk 22:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I have pointed them exactly to that page as part of their instructions, if Andrew Wakefield has been good for anything its been for our in class discussion of primary vs secondary sources for WP. thx, NeuroJoe (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure will take a look. Where is the list of articles people will be working on or have these been decided yet? --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

the topics the students have claimed are here( the ones with the names beside them). for those interested and able to help, in the interest of expediency i will choose 4-5 topics and assign them to each reviewer, unless someone has a strong preference for a particular topic they'd like to review. NeuroJoe (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Neuroscience was the first place he asked, but as fewer editors watch the project I told him to give it a try here...and it seems it worked :-) --Garrondo (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish the "8 point rubric" mentioned compliance with Wikipedia policy and dropped the awful Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines, which despite its grand-sounding name, is the opinion of a few maths and basic science editors and geared towards writing academic articles rather than those for an encyclopaedia. Colin°^Talk 19:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

It does; neutrality, verifiability and compliance with the normal style of WP writing are all part of the rubric. NeuroJoe (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The eight-point rubric looks like the Good article criteria, in which case both students and reviewers might like to know about this explanation of the points. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes the rubric was distilled from the GA criteria, I will pass that that explanation on, thanks.NeuroJoe (talk) 23:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

You might also like to point them at WP:Party and person, if the primary/secondary thing is confusing them. The difference between a 'secondary source' and a 'third-party source' seems to trip up a lot of Wikipedians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

RefToolbar

The RefToolbar 2.0 is now enabled for all users by default! This means easier referencing with automatic filling of the ref's details after entering an ISBN, DOI, or PMID. It can be used by clicking Cite just above the edit field. --WS (talk) 13:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Somatosensory Rehabilitation of Pain

This article could use some expert attention. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

In one sentence

In one sentence can someone summarize our current convention with regard to when the possessive vs nonpossesive forms of eponymous disease names are used for article titles? This is for my own education, and to help guide my editing. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

• There are more important things to worry about. [That's the policy, btw, not me being rude about your question]. Colin°^Talk 20:19, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Yes: "There is a consensus to have no rule about that." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
• Medicine is moving away from "eponymous disease" names and we should too at about the same rate. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Recently discussed on WT:MEDMOS. I think eponyms are here to stay, because the alternatives are often unpronounceable or unrememberable (unless the disease is named after a an unrepentant Nazi). JFW | T@lk 10:39, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
• Our current convention is to follow ICD-10 orthography. Application of the convention is left as an exercise to the reader. --Arcadian (talk) 00:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment of Silent stroke

User 7Mike5000 has asked if this article could be assessed. He's expecting "stub". I don't know how that happens. Can anyone help? (I don't have any online time at the moment.) --Anthonyhcole (talk) 05:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have assigned it "start" class. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Cheers. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Anthony (and anyone else), the directions are at WP:MEDA. Anyone is welcome to have a go at assessing articles for Stub, Start, C-class, or B-class. (GA and FA use an outside process, and we don't do A-class.) Please feel free to look through Category:Unassessed medicine articles and assess whatever you like. You can ping me on my talk page or the usual suspects at WT:MEDA if you are uncertain. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

widespread addition of links to external site

Editor Firassalim (talk · contribs) has been adding variations on a commercial link to a large number of pages that fall within our scope. Should this go straight to AN/I? -- Scray (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

They are inappropriate ELs. User has had this explained to them. Hopefully they will follow this advice. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

If the user doesn't stop, you can get help at WP:ELN, where a couple of the anti-spam folks hang out. You can also follow the directions at WP:BLACKLIST, as an internet chatroom is basically never going to be acceptable as an external link, but blocking the one user is probably the simpler solution. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

This was very educational for me (though the reversions were a bit tedious). I would have assumed that blacklisting would be efficient, but having read the info I came to appreciate how much better it is to educate the editor (basically, an extension of WP:AGF). Thanks! -- Scray (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Choice in medicine

Just finished an excellent book on choosing and have come across this review [28]. Wondering where on Wikipedia should something like this be discussed? It goes against the US paradigm. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Health care proxy certainly needs work, and the current Annals of Internal Medicine article you cite would be a good addition. That said, I don't see much in that article that is (a) surprising or (b) contrary to any "US paradigm". Making end-of-life decisions is stressful. -- Scray (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

End-of-life care is another option. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

HIV-positive people

I believe that image on HIV-positive people (here) need to be changed. The United States should be coloured red, as it once was from the version history, as the US still bands people with HIV from entering under the Visa Waiver Program and from US Visas. See Travel and residence regulations for people with HIV and AIDS - 2008-2009 here. The version history appears to state the ban was lifted in Jan 2010. So perhaps further clarification is needed. Regards, KiloT 22:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

May be ask the person who created it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

My favorite web search engine says that the rules changed in January 2010. See [29][30]. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:18, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Please Review Edits to Diabetes Template Page

I recently tried to add glycated albumin as another blood test for diabetes on Template:Diabetes...My edit was promptly reverted. I'm not sure what the reason was, but I have found several reference laboratories that provide this test for doctors (listed below). I think that it is fully appropriate to add glycated albumin to the list.

http://www.arupconsult.com/Topics/DiabetesMellitus.html?client_ID=LTD#tabs=5
http://www.clevelandcliniclabs.com/reflab/SearchDetails/tabid/4698/Default.aspx?ID=2056
http://www.pacbio.com/biomarker/assay_detail.php?id=112
http://www.questdiagnostics.com/hcp/testmenu/jsp/showTestMenu.jsp?s=G&test_code=96099&fn=5032X.html&labCode=SJC

I'm new to editing wikipedia articles, so I'm not sure if it is appropriate to present this issue here or directly with the user that reverted my edits. I would appreciate it if you could let me know if I should go about this differently. Thanks! Jymorale (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A page on Glycated protein should probably be created where this among others is discussed.[31] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not the best source but this says GP is the same as fructosamine [32] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I have also come across similar descriptions online, and I believe that they are misleading. Fructosamine is a general term used to refer to numerous serum proteins that have undergone glycation (Glycated Serum Proteins or GSP). While glycated albumin (GA) is a major component (80%) of what is referred to as “fructosamine,” GA is only one of the many glycated proteins that are measured in the fructosamine assay. Specific assays for glycated albumin do actually exist: Exocell manufactures an ELISA kit (Glycaben) and the labs listed above offer affinity column chromatography tests (and other formats) for clinical use.

There is a substantial amount of literature that shows that GA is directly involved in the pathogenesis of diabetes complications and that a specific GA assay is clinically beneficial for diabetes monitoring [33], especially in patients with red blood cell abnormalities [34],[35]. Considering all this, I think it would be appropriate to clearly differentiate fructosamine from glycated albumin (I'm working right now on writing an article for Glycated Albumin, which inaccurately redirects to Fructosamine). Jymorale (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

So GA is a type of fructosamine. May be this should be added as a subsection in the fructosamine article than split off into its own article when large enough. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:47, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm...adding GA to the fructosamine article is a great idea, since it is a type of fructosamine (FA). But I think I just realized what's causing the confusion here. The contents in the fructosamine article (except for the 3 lines of intro) are specific to the fructosamine assay, not the fructosamine molecules. Perhaps it would be best if the fructosamine page was renamed to "Fructosamine Assay" or maybe even split it into two articles: "Fructosamine" and "Fructosamine Assay". Adding GA to the page as it is now would probably mislead readers to believe that the GA and FA assays are one and the same. Jymorale (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because it is current written primarily about an assay does not mean that it should not be rewritten to be about the molecule which IMO it should.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that one article is likely to be better. The article could then split the sections into ==Chemistry== and ==Assays== (or something like that). I think the primary advantage of putting it all on one page is that it would be easier for the reader to figure out that the test is not the molecule. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of you. The Fructosamine article should be reorganized so these differences are clear. GA can then be listed as a type of fructosamine, and then link out to the full article when it is available. Thanks for all the feedback! Going back to the original purpose of this post though... Since GA is a stand-alone blood test for diabetes, I think it appropriate to list it on the template:diabetes page. This is a separate issue from the details about the contents of the individual articles. Jymorale (talk) 21:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure once that page exists. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

How would you cite this document?

I want to cite the following document: [36]. Could someone help me generate the citation? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 20:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The answer depends on the citation format used in the article, but try this:

{{citation
| title = The Psoriasis and Psoriatic Arthritis Pocket Guide: Treatment Algorithms and Management Options
| author = Van Voorhees, Abby, Steven R. Feldman, John Y. M. Koo, Mark G. Lebwohl, and Alan Menter
| publisher = [[National Psoriasis Foundation]]
| url = http://www.psoriasis.org/NetCommunity/Document.Doc?id=354
| edition = 3
| year = 2009
| page = 
}}

If you need a different style, then let me know. A "pocket guide" could also be handled like a book, if you wanted. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Image for OCD

Wondering if some more people could comment on this image discussion [37] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Serial killer#African American serial killers

Psychological/medical sources are usually used to identify serial killers, with the occasional exception of law enforcement. Generally, news sources are not the best sources to use for a topic such as this, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#News organizations. Yet, the section in question uses news sources and writers. The first source in the section already inaccurately describes two people as serial killers. The editor who added the section, however, feels that the section should stay because it is "verifiable." The question is...whether or not this editor's sources should be considered good enough simply because they are "verifiable."

Opinions are definitely needed on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 02:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I want to stress that the topic of serial killers is often related to the medical field, as in psychological evaluation and all that, which is why I listed it here. If it somehow falls outside of the scope of this WikiProject, an explanation as to why would be much appreciated. Otherwise, opinions on the matter are still needed...even though the matter of WP:UNDUE is resolved. Flyer22 (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease at FAC: More reviewers needed

Parkinson's disease has been at FAC for a month. While most reviewers have stated their support to the candidacy of this vital article there is at least an editor which believes it is not ready. More reviewers that could give their opinion on whether it is a FA and/or how to improve it would be of great help.--Garrondo (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to me? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, answered at your talk page.--Garrondo (talk) 08:28, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Soon after this post the article was promoted.

Converting Template:Lung size/activity to list?

With increased growth, the Template:Lung size/activity has started to become a burden to the articles it transcludes to rather than a help. I suggest moving the contents to a new article that will be titled, for example, List of terms describing lung activity, that is linked from all those articles in their See also-sections. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

• {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 03:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Pending changes

I know some of you have expressed interest in WP:Pending changes, so I thought I'd mention here that there's a huge RFC at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Request for Comment February 2011 that you might be interested in.

For those who don't know anything about it:

Unlike WP:Semiprotection, which completely prevents IPs and brand-new accounts from editing articles, Pending changes lets a new editor change the article. However, the changes aren't shown to the world (e.g., your favorite web search engine or other readers) unless and until some trusted user has looked at it and determined that it's not vandalism or libel.

Pages needing review can be seen at Special:PendingChanges, and also on your watchlist. You become a "reviewer" by asking for it at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Reviewer. I expect that >90% of the people watching this page would be accepted.

If you have an opinion, please feel free to comment at the RFC. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Update: I've just summarized one of the PC results tables at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Metrics/Anonymous edit quality. If you're curious whether the thing 'works' (however you choose to define that), you might be interested in the summary. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Pudendal plexus and Prostatic venous plexus

Gray’s says that these are separate venous plexuses and that they “communicate” with each other. Clinically Oriented Anatomy by Moore doesn’t mention the pudendal plexus at all but describes the prostatic plexus the way that the pudendal plexus is described in the article. Rather than being bold and simply merging the two and redirecting pudendal plexus to Prostatic plexus, I wanted to see if anybody had any other information. ITasteLikePaint (talk) 04:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

It's also absent in Netter's Atlas of Human Anatomy ITasteLikePaint (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

CCSVI again

We have edit warring over the inclusion of primary research at the article on CCSVI [38] Comments would be appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:54, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Does anyone have an image we can use?

Does anyone have an image of Uncombable hair syndrome we can use on Wikipedia? ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

That actually exists? Would make a great April's fool article some day...--Garrondo (talk) 07:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Heart valve name is wrong

An unregistered user has just posted a comment at the wrong talk page (diff) with the heading I used here. I have removed the comment and am placing it here in the hope that someone will work out which article is being referenced, and what action is required. The comment (lightly formatted) was:

In the discussion of valves at the end of this article, the writer states that the valve in the right atrium is the "tricuspid valve" which is correct.

The author then states that the right ventricle valve is the "aortic valve", this is wrong. He or she then lists the "aortic valve" as being in the left ventricle, which is correct.

The two right heart valves are the tricuspid and the PULMONARY valves.

Thanks. Johnuniq (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The comment above is correct. Which article is the author referring to? Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hah! That's why I've dropped it here for someone with more clue than myself to figure out. Heart valve looks likely, but I didn't take the time to fully confirm. The user's sole edit was to make the comment, but I asked at their talk. Johnuniq (talk) 09:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

The article "Heart valve" looks fine. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Help needed accessing article on medical consumption of human body parts

Does anyone have access to “Human Drugs” in Chinese Medicine and the Confucian View: An Interpretive Study? PPdd (talk) 00:53, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The Barefoot Doctor

Is the article The Barefoot Doctor of any interest to WikiProject Medicine?

-- 189.122.29.43 (talk) 04:46, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

A glimpse into "alternative" anatomy

Our physicians here will appreciate this. Take a look at page 2 of this chart and check out the unique neuroanatomy, especially the neck. You didn't learn all this in med school because it was made up in the 1800s by a man who only had eight years of education, was a grocer and school teacher, and who got his ideas in a spiritualistic seance from a dead doctor.... Also check out why they believe that manipulating a spinal joint segment can treat or cure specific diseases caused by "subluxation effects".

For example, according to the chart, by cracking the neck they claim to be able to treat or cure deafness and blindness. Another example is their belief that by cracking the coccyx they can treat hemorrhoids, anal itching, migraines, infertility, brain pressure and mental symptoms. By cracking T9 they can treat allergies and hives. By popping T4 they can treat gallbladder problems, jaundice and shingles. By cracking T7 they can treat diabetes, ulcers, and blood disorders.

This chart shows why they think this way. Then consider this is the largest producer of their teaching aids. These are the most used charts in the profession, and this is happening now, in 2011.

Have fun and report back with your results. You may feel like you've been down the rabbit hole with Alice after the experience. If you think this isn't relevant here, think again. It will help you to understand the minds of some of our editors and that's valuable when dealing with them and their articles, because they may be editing with this mindset and when they use common anatomical terms, they may mean something different than you or I mean. They have their own special version of anatomy, pathology and treatment. By understanding this, communication can be improved and misunderstandings avoided, thus avoiding editorial conflicts. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Who knew subluxation could cure low IQ? Yobol (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Question on Lipoblastoma Disambig Page

I'm trying to develop some more breadth of experience, so I've been looking around for various ways to contribute and fill some needs here and there. I saw a page suggesting I could help by checking/rating Unassessed Medical Articles (Category:Unassessed medicine articles). In doing so, I saw that Lipoblastoma needed a rating, so I went to check it out.

I discovered that the "article" is currently nothing more than a Disambiguation page with links to (1) Benign lipoblastomatosis, and (2) Myxoid lipoblastoma. This is TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE :-O for the Worlds Greatest Encyclopedia, so I thought I'd just go ahead and create some sort of "real" article on it over the next few days. However, with a Disambig page already there, I don't know how to deal with the potential mess that would be created by my doing so. Suggestions? Drop me a note if you get a sec! Thanks!

With best regards: Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 06:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Arcadian has converted it to a tiny stub; please feel free to expand.

Thank you for helping with the unassessed articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Getting more eyes on an ongoing RfC under this project's scope

Hello there! Replies to an ongoing RfC at Talk:Crisis pregnancy center have been sparser than might be helpful, so since the article is tagged for WP:MED, I thought I should mention it over here. We're trying to decide whether, based on our sources' description of CPCs' religious affiliation, personnel, and behavior (detailed in a paragraph in the article for your easy consumption) it is best to describe them as "Christian," "run by Christians," or "affiliated with a Christian organization." Thanks! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this WikiProject is particularly interested in dealing with this aspect of the topic. If there are good secondary sources to support one description over another, that should be helpful. JFW | T@lk 10:34, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm just notifying all the projects the article's listed under. :) Would you, personally, care to join the discussion? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with JFD not really medical thus removed WP:MED from it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:48, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Initiative from the American Psychological Society (APS)

Hi, folks.
APS is encouraging its members to help improve psychological pages on WP.

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2010/december-10/anyone-can-edit-wikipedia-have-you.html

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2010/september-10/there-is-something-very-important-going-on-here-and-i-want-to-be-a-part-of-it.html

http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/publications/observer/2011/february-11/harnessing-the-power-of-wikipedia-for-scientific-psychology-a-call-to-action.html

At WT:PSY, the following summary was provided by user:Robertekraut, and I thought it would be relevant here as well (especially for the neurosciences).

Starting in February, 2011, the APS website will include a portal describing the initiative and recruiting volunteers. The plan is that APS members and students will volunteer on the portal and fill out a form to identify their areas of interest and expertise. The portal will then try to match volunteers with needed work on psychology articles, using the SuggestBot task recommender. It will suggest assessment tasks to APS members who have PhDs in psychology, using the new article feedback tool that the Wikipedia Foundation has developed for this purpose. The recommender will ask graduate students and others to work on particular psychology articles that are important (i.e., have high numbers of page views) and that the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Psychology has assessed as C grade or below. These are important psychology articles that aren't good enough yet. The initiative will also host a forum or talk page where APS Wikipedia Initiative volunteers can communicate with each other and members of the Wikipedia community. Finally, the initiative will evaluate the value of different techniques to get psychologists involved in Wikipedia, using both surveys of the volunteers and experiments involving different technqiues.

I would be delighted to see more psychologists becoming involved. The sexology pages, where I typically edit, are sorely in need of them...try to help out any new folk you run into! — James Cantor (talk) 01:08, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

This sounds great. Don't forget that when you see an interesting new editor, you can leave {{subst:MedWelcome}} on their talk page. The custom welcome template directs them to MEDRS, MEDMOS, and WP:Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad faith and hypochondria

Does anyone have expertise in the area of bad faith self deception by hypochondriacs? If so, please ad it to the bad faith article. From Post-Modern Reflections on the Ethics of Naming[39], The Ethics of Diagnosis Philosophy and Medicine, 1992, Volume 40, Section V, 275-300, George Khushf. - “... had a pathoanatomical or pathophysiological truth value. Absent a lesion or a physiologi- cal disturbance to account readily for the complaint, the complaint was likely to be regarded as male fide (bad faith). " PPdd (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mefloquine at COIN

Mefloquine is at the conflicts of interest noticeboard with (unsubstantiated?) allegations of a pharmaceutical company promoting the medication. It probably wouldn't hurt to have a few more eyes on the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Human Body nominated for deletion

I have nominated Portal:Human Body for deletion. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human Body. Do not remove the {{mfd}} tag while the discussion is in progress. Thank for your time, regards, JJ98 (Talk) 19:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Orthopedics tests

People here may be interested in this comment on my user talk page about ways to minimize the how-to aspect in describing medical tests. Let's have the discussion there, to keep it all together. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

See also User:Dylanstaley/OrthoTemplate, which is the order we're going to recommend to the students. I'm going to be offwiki for a few hours, but feel free to comment at my user talk page if you have changes or expansions to suggest.

Also, students have started posting (usually in userspace) their articles, and I'd really appreciate it if multiple editors dropped those pages on to their watchlists, just so they're already there when they get WP:MOVEd into the main namespace (possibly during the next week). You can find the list here. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Input needed at Sexual Compulsives Anonymous

There is a discussion between me and user:Scarpy about the lede sentence for describing that organization (as well as Sex Addicts Anonymous). The original lede, which Scarpy supports, is:

Sexual Compulsives Anonymous (SCA) is a twelve-step program for recovery from sexual compulsion.[1]

citing the manual written and published by SCA. I believe that that sentence fails WP:NPOV, because the term "sexual compulsion" is widely debated/contested/challenged among experts, and having the above as a lede sentence makes the page assert that that diagnosis is an accepted one, which it is not. I support this sentence instead:

Sexual Compulsives Anonymous (SCA) is a twelve-step program for people with hypersexuality who identify as sexual compulsives.[1][2]

The term "hypersexuality" is described by multiple sexologists as being 'theory-neutral'; it merely describes the behavior without implying anything about whether the people are compulsive versus addicted versus impulsive, etc. Scarpy prefers that the lede use the term as used by the SCA members. We would appreciate more opinions to help us decide what's best. Cites for the above are on that article's talkpage.
— James Cantor (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

For the record, the statements James made about what I support/prefer here are false, and I'm very disappointed that James opportunistically asserted I have opinions and feelings that I never stated or confirmed. -- Scarpy (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Not really medicine. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:55, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Acute radiation syndrome

Radiation injury got nearly 100,000 page view today.[40] It is in poor shape. Thus I hope more people can come help improve it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be a copyvio problem too. See the article's talk. More hands, please. LeadSongDog come howl! 21:11, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Article regarding Wikipedia's medication coverage

An article has recently been published regarding Wikipedia's coverage of medications Law MR, Mintzes B, Morgan SG (2011). "The sources and popularity of online drug information: an analysis of top search engine results and web page views". Ann Pharmacother. 45 (3): 350–6. doi:10.1345/aph.1P572. PMID 21343404. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

We need to make are pharma coverage more relevant to the general reader. More input would be welcomed here at the drug box template. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Potassium iodide

With all the hysteria about radioactive fallout, it might be good to expand potassium iodide to better cover the effects of taking excessive amounts of it. 65.95.13.139 (talk) 13:25, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Could someone look into the recent edits to melatonin, specifically the creation of a new section on "Protection against nuclear radiation". In fact the whole article could do with a review. Colin°^Talk 10:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Oy. I've tried to tone down the melatonin section a bit, and added a much-needed tag. I will try to return to it, but I'm not sure I'll have the necessary time this weekend. It will take some work, because the section does contain some (mostly primary) sources, but they are carefully selected and arranged to promote melatonin as a radiation cure, rather than to give a balanced and judicious overview of the topic. In my experience, those sorts of problems are among the hardest to fix. I think we can convey the existing (limited, pre-clinical) evidence on melatonin as a potentially radioprotective agent, but the current text reads like a slick infomercial designed to capitalize on recent events in Japan in order to move merchandise. MastCell ^Talk 16:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

New template: {{cite cochrane}}

I made this template yesterday following this discussion. It's mostly based on the {{cite journal}} template, except that it supports |version=, and you can use a |group= to specify which Cochrane group was responsible for the editorial oversight. The DOI and the journal name are automatically included. More details can be found at {{cite journal/doc}}.

For example:

*{{cite cochrane
|author=Jansen AG, Hak E, Veenhoven RH, Damoiseaux RA, Schilder AG, Sanders EA
|group=Acute Respiratory Infections
|date=2009 Apr 15
|title=Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines for preventing otitis media
|issue=2 |review=CD001480 |version=3
|pmid=19370566
}}

yields

• Jansen AG, Hak E, Veenhoven RH, Damoiseaux RA, Schilder AG, Sanders EA (2009 Apr 15). "Pneumococcal conjugate vaccines for preventing otitis media". Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2). CD001480 (3rd rev.). doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001480.pub3. PMID 19370566. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); External link in |coauthors= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

|review= is redundant with |page=, so use whichever you prefer.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Dribrook

This user continues to promote his own work and is not responding to feedback. Some more input would be helpful.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Vasectomy

Anyone got any thoughts on this diff?

It seems badly written and formatted. I am also dubious about some of the information but I thought I would ask where people might know.

Yaris678 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted it, and the previous edit. Sounds like someone is trying to scare folks. Colin°^Talk 22:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Yaris678 (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Safety of abortions and Legality

There is a good deal of discussion here that I have been concerned about. I'm not sure if this is an appropriate case for applying sanctions at this point, but I definitely think a couple of pairs of eyes would be helpful in identifying whether or not there are WP:SYNTH issues. NW (Talk) 05:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Penile agenesis

It's way past my bedtime and my internet connection is barely working, but Will Golden (talk · contribs) seems a bit upset about the history of Penile agenesis (see recent talk page history)... And perhaps a little angry at me ([41]). I'm sure he'd appreciate any help, and a some extra eyes on the article mightn't go astray, either. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about the problems at that under-watched page. I've added it my watchlist and hope others will, too.

Will is a very inexperienced editor (currently just 48 edits) and seems to have refactored his comments to a calmer tone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks WhatamIdoing. I think Will's ok now, though the article remains appropriately tagged with {{Refimprove}} and {{Original research}}. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Free reference accounts for busy content editors

Content-oriented editors may wish to apply for a free "Credo" account. See Wikipedia:Credo accounts for the requirements, which include having more than 3,000 edits in the main namespace and having been an editor for >12 months. Four hundred accounts are on offer, and only about one-third have been requested so far. It's possible that people who don't quite qualify might be able to get any "leftover" accounts.

Credo seems to offer online access to major reference works, such as medical dictionaries. It does not seem to offer access to peer-reviewed journal articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

It's easy to miss the link to the list of reference books available. It may not be as useful as full journal access, but as Polyphemus said, it's better than a poke in the eye with a burnt stick. --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Anybody interested in images?

This webpage has links to many public domain images, organized by disease (mostly skin-related diseases). Some of these are from the CDC and thus we probably have already uploaded, but if you're looking for an image, it might be worth checking out this resource. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some useful ones there... --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Mind maps

Mind map summarizing general concepts about Psoriasis

I am not sure about how best to of if we should add these mind maps to Wikipedia. My concerns include

1. the difficult of verification in that they do not contain references and are I guess at this point WP:OR
2. this type of content is difficult to properly display as at thumb nail size it is barely visible
3. they are difficult to alter and thus improve
4. they contain a reference to the person who created it (we do not do this with images that should not here)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that they aren't useful or really encyclopedic. (They're more textbook-y or study-guide-like.) If I ran across one in an article, I would very likely remove it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

They are greatly adequate for wikiuniversity but highly unencyclopedic. Not adequate for wikipedia in my opinion. Forgot to sign:--Garrondo (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

1. I find them helpful in keeping track of what is in the article. They can be verified using logic if the relations are stated in the article with RS. WikiProject Mathematics uses OR like this. WikiProject Plants just discussed editors drawing pictures for the plant terms articles. Lists and their organizational form are allowed under RS through summing primary sources only. Many encyclopedias have diagrams in them.

2. Double click on them and they are big and useful to help organize the arricle in the mind.

Kai Lai Chung boasted in his first year doctoral student Probability text, that he managed to write it without a single diagram! Its not as easy to read as if it had a simple diagram. Although WP is not a university, many readers benefit by using it like one. PPdd (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Looks too much like something you'd use to help study for a 2nd year med school exam. Not very encyclopedic in my opinion. Yobol (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

They are essentially original research, and should be deleted. JFW | T@lk 22:19, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I dont want to argue so much about the issue, as I am so busy, about editing them, it is possible since the original file can be uploaded, the author name can be removed, and references can be added, at last I propose at least adding them to a specialized section for them at the end of the article what do you think?? MaenK.A._Talk 22:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree with removal of mind maps as WP:OR unless published in a reliable source (with appropriate permissions, citations, etc). -- Scray (talk) 13:08, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The majority of readers will not find a lot of use for a mind map created by someone else. Weren't they more intended as a brainstorming/information retention tool anyway? JFW | T@lk 22:57, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree they might be useful for Wiki Books or Wiki versity. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

The citation of all these mind maps is present, I created them using information from this book, so the info is cited, and I think that limiting their presence to a section for them wont bother uninterested people, and would benefit interested ones MaenK.A._Talk 17:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I too am concerned they are OR. And if they aren't OR then they are probably breaking someone's copyright (i.e., the book contains mind maps or you have copied the organisation of sections/chapters in the book when creating the mind maps). Essentially, they are one person's thought processes on a subject, and as such highly individual. Another issue is that generally it isn't a good idea to include images on WP that can't be read unless clicked though -- this reduces the value of the page (if printed in a book, they are useless) and limits accessibility to people with vision problems. But more importantly, there's nothing medical about mind maps so if WP were to limit or encourage their use, this conversation should be happening in a wider forum. Colin°^Talk 20:28, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

It is the reworking of material by the looks of it. While one can copyright the format one cannot copyright the underlying ideas. I agree though with Colin's others concerns.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:54, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

This matter has been discussed before: here and here. My main concern is the difficulty in editing the image. Colin also makes a good point about OR vs copyright status. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• (1) Is there anyone who could make a mind map generating wiki template, so they could be edited by others?
• (2) They are no more OR or Synth than the creation of a nest structure in the article outline, perhaps they are even logically equivalent, but visually they may be more easy for readers to process sometimes. PPdd (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

A more general discussion regarding mind maps used in nonmedical articles and whether or not they are OR is here[42]. PPdd (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I Wanted to point that there is a mind map showing types of jaundice at the jaundice article, why is it more acceptable than mine?? and by the way, here is a version of a map I created that can be counted like any other graphic used here, take a look commons:file:Rosacea.png, it is png, and it is sourced, what is the difference between it and this commons:file:Nervous system diagram.png?? MaenK.A._Talk 09:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

The nervous system diagram is labelling real things. The mind maps are the product of some individual mind's thought processes. I don't find the jaundice mind map useful either, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep. Colin°^Talk 10:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This map is not a thought process, it is a summery that corresponds to the text. I used a source to create it, so it contain facts not ideas MaenK.A._Talk 11:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No answer on this ?? MaenK.A._Talk 18:55, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please check this map

Rosacea

, and check the description page, it is sourced, and I linked the original file so every1 can edit it :) MaenK.A._Talk 19:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

SVG version

The jaundice example is not a mind map. It's a simple diagram of how to categorize types of jaundice (divide into two groups by cause, then sub-divide those...).

The mind maps just don't seem to be useful to readers. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

How do we decide if they are useful?? MaenK.A._Talk 17:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I Solved the problem of editing the map entirely, the maps can be available in SVG format :), what do you think?? MaenK.A._Talk 23:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

We decide if they are useful through "consensus". That's why James brought up the discussion here. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:11, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

" I Solved the problem of editing the map entirely, the maps can be available in SVG format. "

— Madhero88

It may be obvious to you (Madhero88) how to edit SVG files. However I do not know how to do this; I am sure that many other editors will not know either. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

This applies to all the images here, y is this different?? MaenK.A._Talk 13:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I would consider mindmaps as a representation of text, since they are ostensibly developed from text found in reliable sources. This requires a large amount of decision-making, including reduction of complex relationships to linear associations, dropping less-important associations, etc. I suggest that this decision-making is, more or less, synthesis, because some of those decisions involving mapping concepts in a way that was not suggested in published sources. Normally, when we edit text passages in WP, it is fairly easy for editors to collaboratively work toward a representation of reliable sources, sometimes by working through the text line-by-line, to ensure that we avoid synthesis. In contrast, mindmaps are not amenable to this sort of editing. Most images do not represent, at a granular level, concepts that span an entire article or set of articles, whereas this is what mindmaps tend to do. The huge risk of synthesis inherent in making a mindmap is not balanced by ease of editing or support for embedded citation. -- Scray (talk) 14:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that there's just a lack of utility for the article, given that your average joe has no idea what a mind map is or even why it's there. Given all of the other concerns, it doesn't seem like they're worth the effort, though including them as a link might be meaningful. Seems more like Wikiversity material, and including an external link there might be a better way to address these. If they were honestly useful to readers, I'd be much more willing to bend for them, but they're really a tool for a textbook and don't really fit the objectives of an encyclopedia. SDY (talk) 17:01, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

(←) We have essentially achieved consensus, and I think it is time to move on. JFW | T@lk 19:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Sure thank you all for your time and for this great discussion MaenK.A._Talk 00:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)