Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 56

Archive 50

←

Archive 54

Archive 55

Archive 56

Archive 57

Archive 58

→

Archive 60

Use of the term "homosexual."

Gay rights advocates have been protesting the use of the term "homosexual" for about 40 years, stating that it is homophobic, reflective of the pathologization and criminalization that LGBT people have faced for decades. It is a term for a type of psychosis. Most LGBT people, as well as scholars in the field of gender and sexuality studies, find the term offensive. The preferred terms are gay, gay/lesbian, LGBT, same-sex, and queer.

Therefore I implore you to cease using the term "homosexual," to avoid causing distress to readers.

Jeffery P. Dennis, Ph.D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.110.100 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 18 November 2014‎

Sorry Jeffery, however Wikipedia policy follows the general norms of what wording third-party reliable sources use, instead of what certain advocates may consider to be a "morally correct" alternative. Wikipedia is not here to right great injustices, and can only follow the language used in mainstream literature. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

This has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. It is possible that linguistically conservative people are highly correlated with morally conservative people, and that they seldom have occasion to refer to such persons except in regard to morals. Appropriation of the word "gay" can also be seen as offensive. See also "Euphemism treadmill".

—Wavelength (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Jeffrey, thanks for your note. Is there a particular page that caught your eye and might benefit from a review? As Belinsqure notes, we follow the sources. Most recent, medicine-oriented English-language sources don't use homosexual as their general term for people with non-straight sexual orientations, so we normally shouldn't be, either.

I don't really understand why this reversion was made, as that seems to be a pretty straightforward effort to match the words chosen by the sources (which, in my quick check, use the word gay about four times for every time they use homosexual). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So the term gay is prefered? The word also means happy. I have no preference really. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

For goodness sake—it lost this meaning about 40 years ago. Just like "suffer" no longer means "allow". The two terms are analogous; we should use the one that causes no offense. I think the use of "homosexual" is a borderline contravention of WP:NPOV. Graham Beards (talk) 22:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I guess I live in a backwater and missed that this term is now an insult. Often I see the term men who have sex with men (MSM) used instead. I am happy to be educated and will use gay or MSM if these are prefered.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:27, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Gay is an identity and orientation. Men who have sex with men is an action. You can "be gay" and never have any sexual activity, and you can "be a man who has sex with men" and not "be gay". You'll see both terms in the formal literature, because "being gay" is a risk factor for some things (e.g., suicide) and "being a man who has sex with men" is a risk factor for other things (e.g., bloodborne pathogens). WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Spot on! Graham Beards (talk) 23:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree, I see nothing objectionable about using the terms suggested above in place of the term homosexual since mainstream literature likely (I'm not 100% sure) acknowledges these as synonyms (e.g., I'm pretty sure I've seen same-sex used many times in mainstream literature). I do think it would be helpful as WAID suggested to mention a few specific pages that are raising concerns for you Dr. Dennis. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

68.115.110.100 clearly has strong feelings on this. His last edit note said; "I changed the extremely offensive and outdated term "homosexual" to the contemporary term "gay." Nearly all gay people are extremely offended by this homophobic term, and scholars in the fields of gender studies agree." I am far from expert in this, but that seems to be an extreme perspective. wikipedia's article on the term doesn't describe it that way. however I did some googling and found this 2014 NY Times article on usage of "homosexual" which reports that the term is souring and becoming associated with social conservatives. but that is a far cry from "Nearly all gay people are extremely offended" by it. 68.115.110.100 should bring a very reliable source for that strong claim, and also for the claim that the term is widely indeed seen as homophobic. Language changes, and activism changes it more. My sense is that 68.115.110.100's perspective is not mainstream on this, and WP is not the place to right great wrongs.... Jytdog (talk) 22:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So, if we are not here to right great wrongs, is it acceptable on WP to use words like "negro", "colored", "yid", "pervert", "moron", "imbecile", and so forth. It is not only gay people who find the word offensive; it's offensive to others because it is a restrictive, outdated pejorative label. To discuss "homosexuality" is probably ok; but to call someone a "homosexual" is like calling a Nigerian a "nigger". Discussions of mainstream usage is a red herring IMHO. Graham Beards (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Not what i said nor even close to what i meant. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

So what did you mean? Other WP articles are not reliable sources and carry no weight in these discussions. All of those pejorative nouns were once in common usage. And there are others such as "mongol", "spastic", "hunchback", "leper", and a lot more that I don't care to list. All of which have no place in our general articles. This is not about our friend's "perspective" - it is about common decency and showing respect for our fellow humans. Graham Beards (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

If those were the common terms today, we would use them because people would know what we are talking about. "Homosexual" and "heterosexual" are, in general, considered neutral terms. If they at some point stop being neutral terms used in mainstream, reliable sources, they'll stop showing up here as well. It's not that hard. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 00:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They have not been used in reliable sources for decades, as WhatamIdoing has alluded to above. See [1]. Graham Beards (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't know how convincing an abstract and title search will be for me, because I distinctly remember an episode of This American Life where a sexuality researcher mentioned that conservative groups do keyword searches on grant proposals and raise hell over ones with certain key phrases relating to homosexuality. Of course, that could be a cause of a shift in terminology, which of course I imagine should be reflected in Wikipedia, but I'd want to compare it to similar statistics in mainstream secondary and tertiary sources which are not under similar pressures (we're looking to emulate tertiary sources anyway, not write articles that sound like scientific articles). 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 01:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Graham Beards thank you for asking. but you appear to be too far up there on your horse to be able to hear much. Jytdog (talk) 00:33, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Comparing the term homosexual to the term nigger is like comparing apples and oranges; these two terms are not on the same offensive level at all. And the terms homosexual and homosexuality are still commonly accepted among mainstream scholars for some sexual orientation aspects. And the terms heterosexual and heterosexuality are hardly considered offensive or non-neutral. Flyer22 (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I heard the claim made in the New York Times article (that political conservatives prefer the term homosexual) at least two presidential elections ago, so it's hardly a new idea.

Homosexual is at the top of the list of offensive terms on GLAAD's media page and their copies of the AP and NYT style guides similarly (but not as absolutely) discourage it. When both the biggest activist groups and multiple major media outlets are saying to avoid the term, then it's not "neutral". The news orgs are weaker about avoiding it in medical-related contexts, but the logged-out editor above appears to be looking at theater and culture subjects, where none of the mainstream, non-political sources seem to use it. (Go ahead: see what your favorite web search engine gives you. Google News gives me zero hits on the quoted phrase "homosexual actor", but 112 on "gay actor".)

Jytdog, you need to read Terminology of homosexuality#Prescribed usage for statements about current social acceptance. What you linked to is a subsection of the history for different terms. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I was assuming we were talking about clinical descriptions here because this is WikiProject Medicine not WP:MOS. In my personal experience, I generally hear "lesbian" and "gay" to describe women and men respectively, with "gay" occasionally referring to women as well. When talking about homosexuality in general (non-gender specific), I almost always hear "homosexual", or, depending on the context, it is referred to as a part of the broader umbrella term LGBT. In my experience, the register where you'd use "straight" is where you'd use "gay" or "lesbian" and the register where you'd use "heterosexual" is the same one where you'd use "homosexual". In those contexts, they seem entirely neutral. Either way, if the argument is that we should get ahead of the sources on this, then it's pretty clear that's not something we should be doing, even if we have some evidence that activists feel that certain words should be proscribed. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 00:48, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

thanks WAID. Those links are helpful and make it clear that the term is offensive, and we should avoid it, yes. Jytdog (talk) 01:08, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell if that's sarcastic. The on-wiki page has 1 citation in the whole thing. GLAAD is an activist organization, not a descriptivist source. I haven't seen any evidence whatsoever that in a medical/clinical context homosexual is considered offensive or disused. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 01:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

nope not sarcastic. Jytdog (talk) 01:44, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sarcastic. GLAAD's got a position that's more extreme than some (notice, though, that it describes homosexual as offensive but not derogatory), but their copy of the AP's and NYT's style manual basically agree.

I also assumed that this was about medicine, but then I looked at the OP's contributions. Perhaps this page was the only place he could find that looked useful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My bad, I was looking at the source code and didn't realize that there were two links, one of which was a mirror of portions of the AP and NYT style guide - I thought that the first link was a style guide provided for the NYT and AP by GLAAD. I think the NYT and AP style guides describe more or less exactly what I was saying, which is that in clinical and similar contexts with a formal register (e.g. wherever you'd use "heterosexual" when referring to straight people), "homosexual" is likely the proper term. Frankly, I don't think offense should come into play at all, we should try to write using the kind of language that would be used in well-written mainstream sources. Regardless of offensiveness, it would seem like a strange tone to use overly clinical descriptions of homosexuality (or heterosexuality) anyway. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 12:11, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The appropriateness of the word homosexual has been discussed various times at WP:LGBT, and I might invite that project to this discussion. In the most recent discussion we had about that there, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 49#Homosexual vs Gay in articles, I stated: "[W]hether or not to use gay or lesbian as opposed to homosexual -- has been discussed a few times at this WikiProject; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 40#LGBT instead of homosexuality, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 46#Guidelines regarding gay/lesbian vs. homosexual and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 47#Replacing "homosexuality" with "LGBT" in article titles. We should go ahead and have a FAQ on it since it keeps coming up at this WikiProject. In that second discussion and third discussion, you can see a general agreement (well, more so in that second discussion) to not use homosexual as a noun, unless somehow necessary because of clarity. Using the word homosexual will be needed in some cases, such as at certain points when speaking of sexual orientation or same-sex sexual activity, as is demonstrated by some aspects of the Homosexuality article. Some LGBT people find the term homosexual offensive because they consider it too clinical and stigmatizing (for the reasons that EvergreenFir noted above); see the Gay article for more detail; other LGBT people don't find the term offensive at all. The term homosexuality (which often, not always, indicates behavior more than sexual orientation, as opposed to the term homosexual) is commonly seen as more acceptable than the term homosexual." Flyer22 (talk) 12:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia was not censored? As a homosexual man myself, I don't find the term "homosexual" as being homophobic nor offensive. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 14:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: I pointed Wesley Mouse to this discussion because of a similar instance. Flyer22 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for awareness of this discussion too, Flyer22, really appreciate it. Wes Mouse | ^T@lk 15:07, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. And like I stated above, some LGBT people are not offended by the term homosexual at all. Flyer22 (talk) 15:10, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wes Mouse, you might be surprised to hear this, given how some people fling NOTCENSORED around, but NOTCENSORED is not actually a license to be pointlessly offensive. It does not authorize reflectoporn in articles about shiny objects, or needless use of potentially offensive (including overly medicalized) language anywhere. "Homosexual theater" is an example of needless use of a term that is verifiably offensive to some people and easily avoided by following the sources (95% of which use gay theater instead). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:22, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Wesley Mouse, see the WP:Offensive material guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 17:40, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Honestly, I don't see how Wes Mouse was incorrectly referring to WP:NOTCENSORED. The relevant text that people seem to constantly miss is: "Discussion of potentially objectionable content should not focus on its offensiveness but on whether it is an appropriate image, text or link." Basically, it doesn't matter if anyone finds the word "homosexual" offensive, that is, at its core, irrelevant. The question is whether or not it's the appropriate term under any given set of circumstances. The top-level discussion here is about removal of homosexual writ large from the encyclopedia. The answer to that request is, "No, we're not going to ban a word." No one here or elsewhere (as far as I have seen) is advocating that homosexual always be used, nor have I even seen any advocacy for preferring "homosexual". The only discussion I'm seeing is whether to prefer to avoid homosexual because it's "offensive", which is precisely the kind of discussion that WP:NOTCENSORED is designed to put a full stop to as not productive. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 20:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

0x0077BE fwiw, here is my take. the original poster is an extremist, but at the end of the day would win most content disputes on the merits (unless he lost on behavioral issues) if people fought him over replacing "homosexual" with something else like "gay". here is why. what GLAAD and our article on homosexuality-related terminology lays out about usage makes it clear that a) there are extremely objectionable terms (you know the slurs), b) there are objectionable terms (like certain ways of using "homosexual"); and c) there is preferred language (which doesn't include "homosexual"). MOS:IDENTITY guides us to follow the preferences of the groups being named as well as the standard VERIFY policy... so it seems pretty clear that we should use "homosexual" with care, if at all, and instead should used preferred language. And I reckon that if any given instance of a naming-term in an article became subject to serious dispute, MOS:IDENTITY would end up being the governing principle. Focusing on "free speech" is kind of... off point; its more about optimal style. That's my take anyway. (and CENSORED is really about hiding things that would be offensive - like an image of Mohammed... or about discussing homosexuality at all. CENSORED is not about word choice) Jytdog (talk) 20:53, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

0x0077BE, if offensiveness didn't matter, the WP:Offensive material guideline wouldn't exist; like that guideline states, "Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." In the case of the term homosexual, there usually is an equally suitable alternative. The term homosexuality is a different matter, however, since that is the term that is most commonly used to refer to same-sex sexual behavior. We have the Homosexuality article, which can refer to a sexual orientation or to sexual behavior; we don't have the Same-sex sexual behavior article; nor should we, per WP:Content fork. Flyer22 (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Let's look at the context here, which matters. Currently, the article on Thornton Wilder says: "Although Wilder never discussed being homosexual publicly or in his writings, his close friend Samuel Steward is considered by some to have been a lover." Wilder's active period was before the modern gay rights movement. To change the wording here to "discussed being gay" would be an anachronism. The word "homosexual" is not offensive in this context. I say this as someone who happens to be gay. Jonathunder (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

seems like there are many instances where people in good faith could have differing perspectives. This is not something Project Medicine is going to resolve or even advance much. I for one am glad to be aware of the issue and will consider it going forward. Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

I pointed Jonathunder to this discussion. Jonathunder has a point about the setting in history mattering. I ask you all to refer to the LGBT discussions I linked to above, if you have not already. WP:LGBT editors addressed "the setting in history" aspect as well; this is because the term homosexual, and similar, did not exist in, for example, the Sappho period. See the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies/Archive 43#Style guideline of gay vs homosexual discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

In that discussion, Rivertorch makes excellent points. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Jytdog: The question is whether it's the appropriate word in a given context, something which really shouldn't be addressed in general, as this thread has been about. The point of WP:NOTCENSORED is precisely that the main consideration is what's best for the content, not what will ruffle the fewest number of feathers. Essentially, the point of WP:NOTCENSORED is that we're in the service of creating a clear and factual encyclopedia, not a minimally offensive one (not a maximally offensive one either, mind you).

You'll note that more or less this entire discussion is preempted by simple stylistic rules about register, and doesn't need to involve polling people to determine who is offended. Take the sentence given by Jonathunder. If I switch it to "Although Wilder never discussed being a faggot publicly or in his writings, his close friend..." - obviously that's got a high likelihood of offense, but even if you don't care if it offends people it's in the wrong register. Making a similar high->low register substitution in the same sentence that doesn't have the offensiveness baggage: "Although Wilder never discussed being homosexual publicly or in his writings, his bro-dog-4-life Samuel Steward..." Now it's not offensive, but again it's rejected for being tonally inappropriate. And it's not always going high-to-low register. Compare, "As a young girl, Madeline preferred blue socks." to "As a young human female, Madeline preferred blue socks." The meaning is the same, but the tone is inappropriately formal and clinical.

Either way, it is entirely inappropriate to be trying to gauge the offensiveness of material when discussing how it is portrayed. Who gets a vote on what's offensive? What percentage of people need to be offended? Does everyone get a vote, or only the "target" population? It all gets bogged down and terrible and can lead to horrible mangling of phrases to be more "neutral" when it was never necessary at all, because these matters are best handled by style questions and by trying to emulate the sources.

@Flyer22: As to whether or not WP:NOTCENSORED applies to words - of course it does - one of the most unquestioningly legitimate points of that policy (and the guideline WP:Offensive materials) is to prevent people from replacing instances of "fuck" with "f***" or some other such bowdlerizations. The fact that WP:Offensive materials exists doesn't mean that it's a legitimate concern in discussions of whether a given word should be used.

As to whether or not context matters, I strongly believe that it does, which is why this whole discussion is problematic, and why it's appropriate to call out WP:NOTCENSORED on it. This discussion has been entirely abstract because there don't seem to be any legitimate medicine-related conflicts on the subject, and the original poster seems to want a blanket ban on the word. I don't think anyone is interested in that (and, in fact, my guess is that on most content disputes we'd probably mostly end up on the same side anyway), so if there are specific disputes they should be on the relevant talk pages. It definitely seems out of scope for this article to be discussing theater articles. Sorry for the wall of text everyone. To make up for it, here's a pleasant and calming bucolic landscape. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 02:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

0x0077BE all i can do is repeat myself. It is a question of word choice, which is a style question. Our Manual of Style addresses this. Please read MOS:IDENTITY. thanks Jytdog (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Which part did you want me to read? Basically nothing in it is related to offensiveness, and the most relevant portion is the first bullet, which is essentially making my argument (that we should follow the sources, not trying to figure out what gay people preferred to be called, basically - I think the stuff about register and tone are in other sections of the MOS). 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 02:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I never stated that WP:NOTCENSORED does not apply to words. I pointed to WP:Offensive material because it should be followed as well; just because it is a guideline instead of a policy does not mean that it is automatically trumped by WP:NOTCENSORED. WP:Offensive material is clear; its "Not censored" does not give special favor to offensive content section states: "A cornerstone of Wikipedia policy is that the project is not censored. Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers. However, this does not mean that Wikipedia should include material simply because it is offensive, nor does it mean that offensive content is exempted from regular inclusion guidelines. Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available." Exactly. Yes, we should indeed go with the "equally suitable alternative" when it exists (and by "exists," I am, of course, including the aspect of whether or not use of the alternative is just as good in the circumstance at the time). Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

0x0077BE, I'm willing to go further than Flyer in this instance: when talking about a theater genre that is associated with a particular sexual minority, the exact word used to identify that minority group is not actually the "content". NOTCENSORED is meant to protect content—think "ideas" or "information"—rather than specific word choices. If someone is unhappy because the English Wikipedia contains sentences and paragraphs that talk about this type of theater, then NOTCENSORED says they're out of luck: the content stays. However, if they are unhappy because the English Wikipedia uses needlessly offensive words when writing about this content, then NOTCENSORED says nothing against re-writing that content in an inoffensive manner. NOTCENSORED does not demand that we use the words homosexual theater (or Gypsies or any number of other offensive non-profanities). It only protects the content, i.e., the information rather than the particular expressions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I got my goggle-eyes for today with the suggestion above that “homosexual” has now become offensive for the purpose of describing a person with a same-sex sexual orientation, but that “queer” has unaccountably now become more acceptable instead. I can well imagine what would happen if we were to make that policy on WP, and go through all the medical articles and make this change.

Did it not occur to anybody in this conversation between gullibles, to simply GO to the current medical literature on Pubmed, type in “homosexual,” and see what appears in the last few months of 2014? I did that. Just in the abstracts, in the first two and a half pages, I quickly found “homosexual” used as a term to describe patients (that is, to describe people for purposes of the publication description, not just behavior) in J Sex Marital Ther. [2] Psychol Med. [3], J. Int. AIDS Soc. [4], Am. J. Men’s Health [5], Sex Health [6], Glob Health Action [7], Dev Psychobiol [8], PLoS One [9], Am. J Case Rep. [10], and Fam. Pract. [11]. At that point, having found this use of the word “homosexual” to refer to persons of same-sex orientation in 10 different international medical journals on MEDLINE in just the first 47 references (out of 26,000), and not having gone past Sept. 2014, I quit. Hypothesis is rejected. The published peer-reviewed medical literature, upon which WP and MEDMOS/MEDRS is based, uses the word as part of the text of the article, as a descriptor of persons, to reference their sexual orientation. If there is some community which frowns upon this usage, they have yet to make it clear to the international medical science community, which continues to employ it in this fashion, as well as others.

Now, of course, “homosexual” is used as an adjective as well as a noun, and the term “men who have sex with men” (MSM) occurs also, but it refers to a quite different thing, inasmuch as early HIV/AIDS researchers found it necessary to ask about practices, not sexual orientation (on close questioning, a large number of self-identified heterosexual men are MSM nevertheless). But this distinction will continue, and one term will be used by those interested in behavior and epidemiology, and the other for people interested in sexual orientation (where, of course, there are many terms, and many types). SBHarris 03:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Sbharris, in my " 12:55, 19 November 2014 (UTC)" post above, I stated, "Comparing the term homosexual to the term nigger is like comparing apples and oranges; these two terms are not on the same offensive level at all. And the terms homosexual and homosexuality are still commonly accepted among mainstream scholars for some sexual orientation aspects. And the terms heterosexual and heterosexuality are hardly considered offensive or non-neutral." So the "international medical science community" aspect that you mention is something I was already aware of. The point is that the term homosexual is considered offensive to many in the gay community/also known as the LGBT community, so it is completely reasonable for us to go with the less-offensive terms gay, lesbian, same-sex, or some other equally suitable alternative, when we can validly do so. Above, I also supported the fact that homosexual should sometimes be used. Also, as noted above, the IP started this thread because of use of the term homosexual at a non-medical article. Flyer22 (talk) 04:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

And Flyer22, I repeat, you’re preaching to the wrong crowd. If you think that “person of homosexual orientation” is okay, but ‘homosexual person” is offensive, you'll have to convince the editors of 50 medical journals of this. I listed 10 just above. So write them. Until that time, however, on Wikipedia, in medical articles, we will use the style and terminology of the current medical literature, because we’re an encyclopedia, not a trendsetter.

Now, it’s possible you may succeed, as things nearly as silly have happened. The people who deprecated “colored people” as a term over “people of color” actually won, I think. On the other hand, the people who thought that “Jewish person” might possibly be more politically correct than simply “Jew” (an idea very similar) did not win. It all depends on whether or not some group being described just can’t take the political correctness game any more, and has finally had enough.

Finally, if somebody came here complaining about “homosexual” used in a non-medical article, they are preaching to the wrong group, too. Personally, I suggest you take it to Jimbo Wales’ TALK page, as he’s in charge of that kind of stuff. (Don’t believe this? You should have seen what he did to the people with pedophile userboxes a few years ago, even though there were no formal rules. Jesus didn’t get the temple any cleaner). So maybe you can get Him to enlist in your cause. ;’p) SBHarris 04:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not preaching. I have argued for both sides, and the gray area in between, on this matter...as shown above. You are confusing me with some editor heavily advocating for forgoing use of the term homosexual. But what wrong crowd is that anyway? Medical editors? I am a part of WP:Med, as many at this WikiProject know, and so are most of the editors above, who have stated that it is best not to use the term homosexual when a different word will suffice. It's also well known that I do not tolerate WP:Activism editing, as recently as this discussion at the WP:MEDMOS talk page. My intolerance for WP:Activism editing is also currently noted at the top of my user talk page, where it points to the WP:Neutral policy and what that policy actually means. The above is not about WP:Activism editing, however. Not generally anyway. It's about following the WP:Offensive material guideline and not thinking that WP:Not censored rules everything when it comes to offensiveness. And use of "person of homosexual orientation"? LOL, no. And going to Jimbo Wales's talk page? That's also a no. I stay away from all that drama; I have enough drama to deal with on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 06:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Which word to use is a style choice where context is always relevant. The best place to continue this is the article's talk page. This isn't a medical issue. Jonathunder (talk) 23:02, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Which one? The OP made changes to multiple articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:57, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Gluten sensitivity and peripheral neuropathy

Someone has just added gluten sensitivity to the list of inflammatory diseases that can cause peripheral neuropathy, citing a Lancet Neurology Personal View. I can't access Lancet Neurology. Do we cite "personal views"? I see there are two responses in the same journal 3 months later, which is concerning. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Are there other sources that support the same claim? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes (I think). [12] Everymorning talk to me 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I went to bed after noticing that. This sounds familiar. I'll look for other sources. "Personal Views" sounds dodgy to me, so if I can't find something solid for this claim I'll remove it, regardless of whether any of us has read the article. There seems to be support for peripheral neuropathy in coeliac disease - not sure about in the umbrella class, gluten sensitivity. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC) + 23:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this gluten/coeliac/neuropathy hypothesis is being pushed by one small group centred around one main proponent. So I'm removing that addition and nominating Gluten-sensitive idiopathic neuropathies for deletion. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not qualified to really comment about this issue, but while that standalone article probably isn't the way to go, the hypothesis might deserves mention somewhere (making it clear it hasn't been well accepted by the scientific community). Besides the articles written by the apparent main proponent, there is also PMID 21056914, PMID 17175889 and PMID 16227563 (among others). NW (Talk) 00:41, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Yes. I'm conflating gluten intolerance/"peripheral neuropathy" (for which there is virtually no support) with gluten intolerance/"neuropathy" (for which there is some support). Sorry. I'll withdraw the AFD if it's not too late. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 01:25, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

M2-PK Test

Hi, I'm a new editor that works in the field. I've noticed this page, I've never heard of this test and hardly any recent references. It is also mentioned in the screening section of Colorectal Cancer. I doubt this is in use/approved. BenBon7 (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

There are several reviews that discuss this test. It seems relatively new and there is currently insufficient data (1) but it certainly deserves an article imo and seems to be in use in some (other) parts of the world. (2), (3) Ochiwar (talk) 19:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

WebCite

This website is run by Gunther Eysenbach. He edits Wikipedia as User:Eysen. Software is open source. It could be a solution for dead links within our articles. He would love to hand the site over to the WMF. Currently he pays for it himself and it runs in the Amazon cloud.

Discussion took place here previously [13] with concerns that the WMF would not be interested in hosting such a site due to copyright concerns. I have emailed legal to ask for clarification. Maybe User:Sj could comment.

User:Hydroxonium was involved but is now inactive. User:ThaddeusB discussed working on this but not sure where they are at with it. Not sure how much space it would take to archive links in medical articles. Peoples thoughts? Something we should pursue? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The Russian Wikipedia has a WebCite Archiver bot, which automatically archives {{Cite web}} instances via WebCite. I'd like to see a similar automated tool active here. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Likewise; however, if we do this large scale we will need to see about covering some of the costs of archiving as Amazon charges per Gb. Maybe it could run on labs? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

The bot development issues are pretty much independent from the site hosting issues. I've previously advocated WMF pitching in on WebCite hosting (or its funding), but most of it isn't really central to the WMF mission. There are other archivers that do it better in many ways. I'd still like to see WMF help with funding the archiving of articles as they are referenced by WP, but a good archiver won't be anyghing like that restrictive. WebCitation has been archiving all content from member journals, much as the big commercial journal publishers do for their own products. What is really needed is an indirection layer between "what article am I citing" and "where is that article archived". This is just a small subset of the whole problem we have of needing better bibliographic tools. Statement S is supported by a citation C to page P of reference R, which is an edition E of work W in language L, indexed on I and archived at A. We have partial solutions to each part of the puzzle, but we lump far too much into articlespace and templatespace. We really need to get some professional-grade tools that can handle these thing, while tolerating and fixing the minor errors that always creep in. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I've been inactive for a while, but am just now getting back into Wikipedia. Hopefully I can get the original WebCiteBot back up and running soon. --ThaddeusB (talk) 21:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks User:ThaddeusB if you let me know how many Gbs it would take to archive all of WPMEDs external links I will than discuss funding with Gunther. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Poi (food)#Special dietary and medical uses

Could someone take a look at this? I was tempted to just delete the section as not complying with WP:MEDRS, but it may be there are legitimate grounds for including at least some of the content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump thank you for bringing this to attention. The paragraph on poi and colorectal cancer is written in a balanced way, but this doesn't exempt it from deletion: it is based on one primary source from an in vitro study. Cancer prevention is a serious issue that is of interest to a huge proportion of the general readers; no mention of it, even a balanced one, is warrantied unless there is serious evidence to back it. The paragraph must be deleted.

The same goes for its use in celiac disease: the very article that is cited to support the claim mentions that "there are no reported formal studies in the literature". This phrase must be deleted too.

And the same goes for its use as a milk substitute in babies, as it is based on 50-year-old scientific papers.

I have no comment to make on its dietary value.

But I must admit the thing looks tasty. --NikosGouliaros (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)\

Doc James pulled the cancer claims, and I've cleaned up the rest a bit, but what was left didn't worry me much.

Taro (poi is basically gruel made from taro) is gluten-free, so like all gluten-free foods, you could eat it if you have celiac disease. The same could be said of carrots, beans, potatoes and thousands of other foods: no gluten = safe for celiac. This is not an extraordinary medical claim. The claim that it could substitute for wheat is actually a culinary claim, not a medical one: either you can make (for example) pancakes with it, or you can't, and there's nothing medical about that.

The claim that it has been fed to babies is pretty much WP:BLUE territory: Taro was a staple food. Pretty much every staple food in the history of the world has been used as a "milk substitute" or baby food for babies. Maternal mortality means that breastmilk isn't always an option, and given a choice between "baby starves to death" and "baby gets fed the gruel that we're eating", people pick gruel (almost) every time. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Harvard Doc To Wikipedia: You’re Not Playing Fair On Alternative Trauma Therapy

Just to prepare everyone, this article might bring some engagement in the following articles:

• Energy medicine
• Energy Psychology
• Emotional Freedom Techniques

-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Already brought up here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#More_of_the_same. Page protected which is bringing protests. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Correlations

This corelation was added [14] based on this review [15]. Decent impact factor [16]. Just have not seen it reported elsewear. Peoples thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Always the tease, Doc! This is about, according to the original edit, "correlation between lack of water assumption and fatal coronary artery disease", 2002 research, which doesn't seem to have had much specific impact on health advice, although everybody does now drink more water. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:06, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense and gobblydygook, James! The study concludes that CVD was reduced by drinking more water and increased by other beverages such as soda, tea, and alcoholic beverages. It was performed among 7th Day Adventists, members of a faith that discourages consumption of soda, tea, and alcohol as well as meat consumption and other healthy dietary practices. Increased consumption of water / decreased consumption of other beverages is likely a surrogate marker for a 7th Day Adventist's overall compliance with the healthy diet encouraged by the faith, and it is the reduced animal fat consumption that leads to the reduced CHD.

Tea and coffee have not been shown to adversely affect CVD/mortality in many other studies, so any effect of drinking more of these on CVD would have to arise because it is consumed instead of pure water, and the water content of these two beverages is somehow processed and used differently. Perhaps a memory effect similar to that which forms the basis of homeopathy?

I ran across a situation like this a few weeks ago and simply deleted the statement based on the absence of any reference to the proposed behavior modfication in statements and recommendations of major medical groups. The argument was that if the utility of the proposed behavior was medical consensus, it would be in these statements and guidelines. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - removed Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:36, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Similar info was added to these cancer related articles here and here. The last one may be plausible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, on a quick survey, neither water nor fluid are mentioned for colorectal cancer prevention by NCI, NHS, WebMD, CRUK. For bladder ACS & Mayo cautiously mention fluid, and there's also this. I'm asking for specialized advice, & more recent papers, but for now will remove #1 & leave #2. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:42, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

So, I'm pointed to CRUK risk factors page, which actually has more on increased risk from tap water (bec of chlorine, maybe) and its ref here. "Conclusion: Although this meta-analysis suggested that greater consumption of fluid may have a protective effect on bladder cancer in Asian people, there was no convincing evidence on this association because of the limitations of the individual trials." Will adjust the article. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Management of cancer

New editor insisting on adding Burzynski Antineoplaston_therapy to Management of cancer (see Burzynski Clinic). The American Cancer Society says that there is no convincing evidence showing that antineoplastons actually work. Eyes would be useful. Ochiwar (talk) 16:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - yanked it out again. He's been putting a great slab above "surgery" at "types of treatment"! These are his only edits. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Cold abscess

User:Crypticface has recently created the page Cold abscess, which is almost entirely unsourced. Eyes would be appreciated over there. Everymorning talk to me 13:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Taged for speedy delition A10, cold abscess is a common name for Tuberculous cervical lymphadenitis which exists already. The same editor has also created Collar stud abscess today, another synonym, no sources. Ochiwar (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

PROD removed because cold abscesses occur in TB, fungal infection, and even staph infections when the host has a condition like Job syndrome. I've improved the article a bit, still needs work but it has potential (as the discussion here highlights). -- Scray (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok. The reference for others causes appart from those by TB is from 1966? Ochiwar (talk) 14:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC) And what do we do with Collar stud abscess? Ochiwar (talk) 14:43, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

I noted in that 1966 ref that I was looking for a more recent one - already replaced with a recent NEJM review. -- Scray (talk) 14:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wonderful, now we have something to built upon. Collar stub abscess might be a candidate for deletion on grounds it is completely uncited? -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:12, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Breast milk has some major issues

The above article has a large number of issues on the sections on benefits and health effects. Very many poor sources and quite a few lobby-group sources, apart from being of generally poor quality (was previously B-class, I've bumped it down). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Quite a lot of content that should be deleted or moved to Breastfeeding. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:18, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Academia?

Please see here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Academia. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS assistance please

Can someone assist with MEDRS compliance? It's the article Cucurbita, section Cucurbita#Medicinal_uses. In this talk page thread, there is this discussion: Talk:Cucurbita#Pre-FAC_comments, see the part that starts "medical uses of the plant...". Thank you. HalfGig talk 02:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• SandyGeorgia (talk · contribs), thank you for the prompt review. That was very kind of you. HalfGig talk 02:24, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome, and good luck at FAC! However, I was/am in quite a hurry when I looked, so I do hope others will also peek in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Network medicine

This article was recently created by a new (and so far single purpose) editor and is too technical for me to understand if it is a valid and previously unwritten article or if it is synthesis or original research, or whatever. I tagged it for technical jargon, but thought I would bring it up here, too. Couple someone check it out? Thank you!! EBY (talk) 15:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said at the talk page, I've tagged this article for speedy deletion for being promotional ({{Db-g11}}). This is an article about a neologism, but it does not follow WP:NEO, it cites primary sources, etc. to push the concept, and then it names people and companies one might connect with. It would need to be fundamentally rewritten, if it is notable. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 21:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I see the speedy delete tag has been removed. The topic is notable [17] and it seems the (new) contributor, Puccio.b, may have an expert interest in the subject. 109.157.83.50 (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Puccio.b has been the only editor I've seen on the topic. I appreciate the eyes on the article. Thanks. EBY (talk) 03:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Translation Project needs helping hands!

We're in dire need of helping hands for the translation project. We're in the process of migrating our tracking from Wikipedia to google-docs – some pretty time-consuming manual work. If anyone could lend a helping hand with it we'd be so grateful!

What needs to be done is the links need to be copied to:

• New tracking file

from

• Old short article tracking page
• Old full article tracking page

-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:35, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

CFCF What is happening here? First you say that you are migrating from Wikipedia to Google, then you say that links need to be copied from Google to Wikipedia. Can you explain again more directly? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:39, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Had mixed up the to/from tags. :) Thanks for pointing that out! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

We nearly have it all done. Just a small amount of tweaking still needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Cardiometabolic Risk again

Hello, medical experts. I brought this page here a few months ago, and Snowmanradio and Johnbod both commented that it had useful content that could be either merged into Metabolic syndrome or made into an article about "Global variation in metabolic syndrome rates". It's up for deletion again. I'd take care of it if I could, but my medical knowledge is limited to proper application of Band-aids. (I have also memorized the phone number for 911). —Anne Delong (talk) 14:09, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Really, this badly needs a rename to "Metabolic syndrome rates around the world" (medspeak: "Global distribution of metabolic syndrome") & then is ready to go live imo. Shall I do that? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:54, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I went ahead and took care of it for you. The article is now located at Metabolic syndrome rates around the world --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:25, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, ThaddeusB. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:30, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hypersexuality article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Hypersexuality#Article purpose and focus. A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Examination of the lymphatic system

Do we have an article on this? I found this article Lymphatic system nursing assessment and am wondering what to do with it. My thoughts are either: (1) merge to an article about examination (if it exists), (2) pare down content and rename to 'Lymph node exam' or something like that, or (3) merge content and show as a small subsection in Lymphatic system. Thoughts/ideas? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What a strange article. It looks like it may have started life as a school project, but weirdly has been perpetuated. It's an instruction manual from start to finish, and frankly I'd be in favour of deleting it all together. I've spent a lot of time in the nursing cats lately and I can't think of anywhere else this could be absorbed into. Basie (talk) 08:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

...but in answer to your question, probably (3). Cheers, Basie (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Instruction manuals can be WP:Transwikied to WikiBooks or maybe Wikiversity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Now you're talking. Basie (talk) 08:29, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Khan academy

Great news from the copyright front. The Khan academy has agree to release 5 videos under an open license as a pilot project. They have about 900 medical related videos. If people can propose ones they feel are most beneficial to us would appreciate it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

They tend to run in long series. For example "Urinary system introduction" is 8 videos of 4-18 mins duration each (avge say 8), plus a quiz. Most are not sensible to split, I suspect. I'm not entirely seeing what extra benefit [ps: ok, WP Zero access], in terms of [articular WP articles rather than the general good etc, a fully open license brings us, over an external link box to their site (as already widely used and described above). The main medical & health menu is here, & this & lower level menu pages have a nice clear design. If we ?uploaded them we would need to reproduce these or something like them I think, or they are likely to get lost in the chaos that is Commons. But by all means let's find a x5 series or something & see how it works. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 12:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes zero is one big reason. Another is that some would be good for mechanism sections without having to link out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

But isn't Project Zero free for text only, as an excellent talk by User:Jfdwolff last night reminded me? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This is only correct for 5 of the partnerships, all others offer that version and full mobile Wikipedia "Note on version: Partners are either giving free access to m.wikipedia.org (mobile version), zero.wikipedia.org (mobile text-only version), or both. In the future, most partnerships will be offering both."]. Congratulations on making this happen, I'm very glad to see this. Mrjohncummings (talk) 12:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Tolerogenic therapy

The page tolerogenic therapy was recently created by a relatively new editor; it needs a lot of TLC as it is almost totally unsourced. Everymorning talk to me 22:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Tagged and edited a bit. Seems a worthwhile article topic, entirely too dependent on primary sources currently. -- Scray (talk) 13:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Vertebral artery dissection

... may need watching due to Phillip Hughes death. Ariconte (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia article pubmed indexed

The dengue article is pubmed indexed here [18] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Tudor Morley Griffith

Dear medical experts: Here's an old draft with a medical connection. Anything here that should be kept and improved? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:33, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

After an encouraging note from Wiki CRUK John, I have given it a severe trimming and accepted it. However, because I am not knowledgeable about the subject area, I may have introduced inaccuracies. Can someone please look it over? Also, it really should have some more citations, but I don't know where to look for these in this specialized area. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Benzalkonium chloride

Would appreciate more eyes on this with recent changes such as this one [19]. The article is not technically listed as part of Wikiproject Medicine, but this does have sections discussing the health effects of this chemical found in the common house product Lysol and such claims seem like they should be held to the standards of WP:MEDRS. I'm somewhat concerned about the reinsertion of numerous primary studies (animal and in vitro) some of which date back to the 1980s and 1990s. Thoughts? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

As a quick follow up, case studies are now being added back in as well here [20]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

And reinsertion of epidemiology studies and other primary studies under heading of "controversial health concerns" with the justification per edit summary that these are large studies [21]. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:56, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Link to discussion on BZK talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Benzalkonium_chloride#Request_consensus_on_removal_of_information_relating_to_adverse_health_claims_of_BZK. WitheredLimb (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Standard operating procedure for responding to requested edits by COI groups

In response to the FDA's issuance of the draft guidance "Internet/Social Media Platforms:Correcting Independent Third-Party Misinformation About Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices", we've recently had a couple of requests for changes to articles by manufacturers and other COI organizations. I suspect that these will only increase over time, and would like to suggest that we should establish a standard operating procedure to deal with them.

We ask these editors not to directly edit articles, but instead to post a comment to the Talk page. In practice,

1. One COI entity (IMS) followed this procedure, and the request was not acted on for two weeks. The request was only responded to after they then made the edit themselves. In directly editing the article, the entity created quite a furor here.
2. A second COI entity requested that the article be modified to include 2 additional FDA approved uses of the drug. Though this addition would have been brief, accurate and provided our readers with more information, the entity instead received a response from one of our editors informing them that the absence of this information from the article did not render it inaccurate, and that we therefore have no obligation to add these two sentences to the article. Note added later: I should note that this response was not a direct refusal to add the suggested indications, but that it gave the initial impression that the request had been dealt with already, at least to someone who scans material as quickly (and sometimes carelessly) as I do.

From my point of view, it seems that if these COI entities show respect for our rules and preferences by limiting their activity to Talk pages, we should recognize that by a) responding to their requests in a timely manner, and b) being open to making small additions that actually will improve the article even if the article is not, strictly speaking, inaccurate in its current form. Two notable aspects of the FDA guidance are that manufacturers and their agents can only suggest changes that are "accurate" (as defined by the FDA's POV), and if they point out information as being inaccurate, they must point out all inaccurate information in the article, irrespective of whether the inaccuracy is favorable or unfavorable to the product. Rather than seeing these requests entirely as a nuisance, I think they could be viewed as an additional screening tool for identifying material in our articles that deserves a closer look by non-COI editors.

Is there some mechanism by which we can create a page where such organizations can list requested changes all in once place, and whereby we can let those medical editors who have an interest respond to them? (We know, for example, that IMS has a social media person who plans to make such requests on a regular basis going forward, and it seems likely there will be others). And while I hesitate to use the word "policy", do we have some common thoughts on a group as to how such requests should be handled? I think in general it might be a good idea for us to respond to such requests with a single voice, but am not sure. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I am supportive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Specifically I would suggest setting up a page for such requests to be made in a centralized fashion, and also creating a list of interested editors who would take primary responsibility for making sure the requests are responded to. BTW, happy T-day to those who celebrate it. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure. By the way can you provide links to the two events you mention above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Here and Here

Also here -- Scray (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This could also be done with {{request edit}}, which is analogous to the {{editrequest}} used on protected pages, but without the enforced restriction on who can fulfill the request. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:22, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The one concern I have is commercial interests redirecting the core communities efforts from topics that are potentially of much greater importance to ones where they have a financial conflict of interest such as we see at A2 milk with User:BlackCab. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point. I guess my thought on that would be that if this became burdensome, we could 1) prioritize requests for which sources clearly showed our information was inaccurate (which I would see as a Wikipedia priority to fix anyway), 2) second priority being simple, short additions that are trivial to make, and 3) Very low priority to anything requiring significant effort that does not represent a correction of clearly incorrect info. We aren't obligated to do anything, but I do think these requests could be used for our own purposes, and it would be nice to respond to simple requests when we can.

I'm much more torn on the issue of whether we should make any effort to speak with one voice. I'm not sure if this fits the guiding principles of Wikipedia, but am also uncomfortable with the idea of regular editors not showing a common face to COI entities. I do think it would be good to try to figure out a process to respond in a timely way, whether or not the answer is "no". Your thoughts?

Yes agree we want to avoid COI asking people until the get the answer they want. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help out with this if people don't see me as too close to industry. No offense either way. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:43, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

In the FDA draft, "Example 11" seems intended as the pertinent one for WP.

Example 11: A firm finds a webpage about its product that was written by an independent third party on an Internet-based, interactive, collaboratively edited encyclopedia. The firm may choose to contact the author of the webpage and provide corrective information to the author.

It would probably be helpful to have the recommended action there be one that works in the WP context. "Contact the author" clearly is not useful advice here. Indeed, it might be worth our crafting suggested wording for the FDA to adopt in the next draft. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

(As the responding editor referenced obliquely in point #2 above) I suggest that content suggestions belong the Talk page for the relevant article. It would be great to have them appear more centrally as well (perhaps by transclusion or other wiki-magic) to attract as many "eyes" as possible. I do wish that I'd been pinged, and welcome any feedback if I acted improperly. I did make the suggested changes but wanted to make it clear that our "Medical uses" section in a global encyclopedia may not include all indications approved by all regulatory bodies, and may include uses supported by MEDRS even if not approved by EMA, FDA, etc. -- Scray (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

@Scray: I sincerely apologize for the failure to give you a ping on this, and for any suggestion that you acted improperly. No such implication was intended. What drew my intention was the general issue that it initially appeared to me that the situation had been partially but not definitely addressed, and it then occurred to me that we should have a process so that situations like the IMS one (no response for 2 weeks) did not recur. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I do support the need for a standard approach. -- Scray (talk) 20:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There was a response here occurring 9 hours after they made their initial 3 pages of suggestions. The proposal was poorly formatted with no inline citations provided and no openness about who exactly was funding them. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Suggest we deprecate Toxnet as reference source

I propose we consider if Toxnet fails to qualify as a reliable source. The back story on my concern can be seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:MDMA#Lack_of_appropriate_reference_for_MDA_as_.22direct_neurotoxin.22 Essentially, a cursory inspection of an article showed that they refer to a non-peer-reviewed source as peer reviewed. In addition, they appear to disown accuracy of their own contents:

From the FAQ ( http://toxnet.nlm.nih.gov/newtoxnet/faq.html ):

"Can an error in a citation be corrected?

Corrections can be made if the error is in a PubMed citation found TOXLINE or DART because these databases are produced by NLM. Visit Reporting an Error in PubMed for more information.

If the error is in other parts of TOXLINE, DART or the other TOXNET databases corrections cannot be made because NLM does not produce these databases."

I therefore suggest we consider if Toxnet should be deprecated as a reliable source. 173.228.54.200 (talk) 06:04, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

That is a very useful source that we use a lot. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you really want to deprecate a source because they can't correct errors in someone else's databases of bibliographic citations? That's like saying that we should get rid of the Canadian government because Canada can't fix California's problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not my reasoning for why it is not a reliable citation. And I want to be clear that it is a helpful resource for uncovering references and facts. However, I don't think it qualifies as a reliable reference itself. My reasoning is two-fold.

First, the quoted FAQ is evidence that they themselves do not consider themselves a reliable source. The presence of the FAQ indicates that lack of reliability has been an ongoing issue for them. Thus, I suggest that the error in the citation we used on wikipedia was not isolated. To recap, the error that brought current use of Toxnet to my attention was that an anonymous page on a government website was classified as a peer reviewed citation and that website did not support the fact being referenced on wikipedia. Toxnet, it seems, is useful for research but is not a reliable source to be cited. It fails "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." For those who disagree, I'd be curious to hear how Toxnet has a "reliable publication process".

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the use of Toxnet as a reference obscures the actual source of information and decreases usability for the reader. As I see it being used, Toxnet is an anonymous compilation of primary sources and by citing Toxnet we are disguising the fact that single primary sources are being used. For example, in the MDMA page, the half-life of (R)-MDMA is current being given as "5.8 ± 2.2 hours" and the reference given is If you actually look at this reference and search for 5.8, you wade through a large amount of low relevance unstructured abstracts or quotes, and finally find this text:
"... /The/ half-life of (R)-3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (5.8 +/- 2.2 hr) was significantly longer than that of the S-enantiomer (3.6 +/- 0.9 hr). ... [Kicman AT et al; Clinical Chemistry 45 (7): 1058-69 (1999)] **PEER REVIEWED** PubMed Abstract "
If you click on the outgoing PubMed Abstract link, you surprisingly do not find the Kicman abstract or paper. Instead you find this 1999 Fallon paper abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10388483?dopt=Abstract So ultimately what appears to be a 2014/2008 secondary source is a mis-attributed and obscured sentence fragment from 1999 early primary literature. There are little or no hallmarks of secondary literature in this Toxnet website. Instead, the cited half-life is out of date and misleading: Since this Fallon paper (using a 40 mg drug dose in 8 male volunteers) was published, dozens of papers have been published with a broader range of doses, genders, and ethnicities. And the peer reviewed literature has established that pharmacokinetics are dose-dependent and half-lives are longer, around 9 hours, at the more typical higher doses of 100-120 mg. So this isn't even a good primary citation to use, let alone a reliable secondary source.

Toxnet does not iteself appear to be a reliable source. We should cite the actual publications, not some weird error-riddled government search engine. 173.228.54.200 (talk) 18:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

First, the quoted FAQ says that they're tired of getting requests for them to fix someone else's databases. It says nothing at all about their belief in the reliability of the information that they actually control. "Yup, other databases have errors in them, and nope, we can't correct other people's databases" is not an admission that anything is wrong with their own work.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, the use of Toxnet as a reference complies with WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT, which prohibits citing Toxnet's sources when what the editor actually read was Toxnet, instead of the sources that Toxnet's authors were reading. WhatamIdoing (talk) 10:41, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT isn't relevant to my suggestion. WP:Reliable is the issue that needs addressing. My suggestion is that it be used as a search engine to find reliable sources and then those sources read and cited. I agree that if someone doesn't read the sources for Toxnet's quotes they shouldn't cite those sources. It would not be difficult going forward to deprecate the practice of citing Toxnet and instead begin citing peer-reviewed or reliable secondary sources, including those found using Toxnet but then read by the editor.

The main issue is that no one has shown that Toxnet has a reliable publication procsss, as required by WP. I think the two examples I give call this into question. In both cases, Toxnet miscites literature in important ways. It is error-ridden and has no reliable publication process. Therefore, it shouldn't be referenced, although it certainly can be used (analogously to pubmed) to identify relevant literature. I repeat my question: in what ways is Toxnet "published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both" 173.228.54.200 (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

hypetrophy article incorrect.

I was wanting to better understand the differences between hypertrophy and hyperplasia, upon linking to the hypertropy article: (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrophy)

I saw that the causative agent was listed as jimilococcus fetilis...this was a new genus to me but upon further inquiry I have been unable to ascertain the roots, pathologically or etymologically, of this exact species, and must therefore conclude that the NIH linked photo was improperl labeled.

Also, the ICD-9 code 624.3 codes for LABIAL hypertrophy...not cardiohypertrophy. The link follows:

http://www.cms.gov/medicare-coverage-database/staticpages/icd-9-code-lookup.aspx?KeyWord=624.3&bc=AAAAAAAAAAAEAA%3d%3d&#

A look in to previous editors reveals that one previous editor had been banned briefly for placing distateful bits of literature in various articles.

Just letting people know so it can get fixed.

Thanks, Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.146.247 (talk) 17:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Reed. The truth is that this page is really embryonic and a bit... how to say... shaky. It would be really nice to have more good Med editors to develop relevant content like this :) 31.49.13.194 (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

For the record, vandalism was here. 31.49.13.194 (talk) 08:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

MSF

Last night Stevie Benton told me about an upcoming meeting with staff from Médecins Sans Frontières. He asked me whether there was anything we (as a WikiProject) could ask them, e.g. data. Any ideas? Will feed back to him directly. JFW | T@lk 21:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes. We want to know if Wikipedia's medical content is of importance in the developing world. I will email Stevie a longer email. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Highly pertinent question. While I know MSF collects data, in this case to go beyond anecdotal "data" (in the sense of impressions, etc) would presumably require conducting appropriate surveys, etc. Maybe MSF could be interested in doing that themselves, I don't know. Alternatively, some individual MSF volunteers may have useful university contacts, and maybe Wikimedians (eg Stevie?) might be able to liaise to facilitate research. 31.49.13.194 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

List of vaccine ingredients

I noticed List of vaccine ingredients, which I'm concerned could exist simply because people want to scare others away from taking vaccines, in a way similar to how the dihydrogen monoxide prank works. It largely lists chemical compounds. Is this type of list encyclopedic? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:42, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Biosthmors It looks dreary. I would imagine that it's based entirely on primary sources and could do with a trip to AFD. JFW | T@lk 21:41, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

MalaCards www.malacards.org

I'm Marilyn Safran, head of GeneCards suite development at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. GeneCards and the Gene Wiki project have had cross links for some time now. I posted a previous version of the following proposal over a year ago on a different forum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology/Proposals where a discussion ensued together with a recommendation to move the discussion to this forum in order to achieve consensus: I'd like to introduce this forum to our MalaCards database of human diseases (see www.malacards.org) and publications Rappaport et al: MalaCards: an integrated compendium for diseases and their annotation, Database 2013; http://database.oxfordjournals.org/content/2013/bat018.full?%250Aijkey=MEtqc5V6fAKchaq&keytype=ref. and Rappaport et al: MalaCards: A Comprehensive Automatically-Mined Database of Human Diseases. Curr Protoc Bioinformatics. 2014 Sep 8;47:1.24.1-1.24.19. doi: 10.1002/0471250953.bi0124s47 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25199789 MalaCards now comprises >19K entries consolidated from 65 sources, leveraging GeneCards and GeneDecks annotations, and including links to Wikipedia. The resource has gotten positive feedback, we continue to develop and improve it, and has motivated our PI Doron Lancet to organize and chair a special session on Human Disease Bioinformatics at ISMB 2013 in Berlin in July. He also presented an invited keynote address at ECCB 2014 in Strasbourg in Sept 2014. Further, over the last year, we have received and responded to requests for data dumps from international academic and medical researchers. We feel that just as Gene Wiki has symbiotic cross-links to/from GeneCards, it would be beneficial to the community to have the right-hand-sidebar of relevant Wikipedia pages (e.g. Huntingtons_disease) link to the corresponding MalaCard (e.g.at http://malacards.org/card/huntingtons_disease Your comments on how to achieve consensus on including links to MalaCards in the disease infobox would be very much appreciated. Marilyn Safran (talk) 15:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, very oriented towards genetics. Is this generated by a computer algorithm? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• This has previously been discussed elsehwere:

• in WikiProject Medicine's forum
• Template_talk:Infobox_disease#MalaCards
• Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology/Proposals#MalaCards_-_www.malacards.org
• On Wikidata it is d:Property:P1583, discussed as d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/27#P1583

Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! So that's a no then. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wiki CRUK John I am not sure. This person has been asking for engagement for about two years. They do have valuable content which Wikipedia could share. Some things that are less certain include the limits of their data's quality, the stability of their database, and the reputation of their data processing. There are options for going forward with a partnership but it is not straightforward and there would need to be conversation. At this point it is not even easy to understand who uses this data or how it is used. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata seems the appropriate place, at least for now. The last discussion was against including it in the infobox, & I'm not sure what else we can really do here. Sometimes it's best all round just to say no at the start. Johnbod (talk) 00:03, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Correcting the link: d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/27#P1583. And restating my opinion: The infobox should contain small bits of useful generalized information and not links to external resources. And identifiers for people (for example VIAF) go into a template at the bottom of the page. And that is where the ICD (and other) identifiers should go. --Tobias1984 (talk) 08:40, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Tobias1984 That is a good idea that I have not heard before and I think it should be applied in most or all cases. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

What is this "useful generalized information"? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry and Doc James: I hope that didn't sound like a marketing slogan. But to elaborate: In my opinion the current infobox is the outcome of the Curse of knowledge. People with a lot of expert-knowledge and good intentions have made many infoboxes, and especially disease-infobox, into a very complex summary of information and links to even more in-depth information. This is somewhat of an educational Matthew effect (Coined to my knowledge by math scholar Jörn Loviscach), where somebody that already knows a lot about a topic will learn more, while a person that knows little, will either be overwhelmed by reading, or gives up on reading. A really uncontroversial page to demonstrate this is Myocardial infarction. Why don't we have a row in the infobox called "common symptoms" with the value "chest pain". Then we put a little annotation-link next to the value which could have the tooltip "Other symptoms might occur" and the link leads you to the section in the article where the symptoms are discussed in depth. In my opinion that would be the famous quantum-leap in medical knowledge dissemination. But instead we are confusing many people with a list of identifiers that are meaningless by definition (they are just strings). And these identifiers link to pages which are indigestible to most people that don’t have an university degree in natural science. And yes there are more controversial diseases (don't use an infobox or the row in that case) and yes there are diseases where generalization is difficult (just use a link to the section in that case: symptoms = its complicated*). But if we really ask our self, what is the most benefit to the most readers, then this is the only conclusions one can reach. --Tobias1984 (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

We already have the "table of contents" that lists signs and symptoms at the top such that people can click on it and be lead to that section. Lupus has at least 11 core symptoms. Summaries of diseases do not fit well in infoboxes IMO.

The infobox disease is better than the infobox chemistry such as seen at Lead because our is shorter. Thus I agree we should not add more complicated stuff to it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think Tobias's concern about a possible Matthew effect from our current infoboxes is a point that requires a separate response given that a situation where the knowledge-rich get richer while the knowledge-poor feel poorer would be entirely contrary to Wikipedia's core mission to provide reliable knowledge freely to everyone.
  Afaik, our broad communication strategy is based on using plain language, per MEDMOS, especially in the lead and at least in summary opening sentences of those parts of articles that are likely to attract lay readers (including sections such as "Signs and symptoms", "Treatment", etc). Imo, helping implement this is a particularly worthwhile task. Like James, I think, I feel this approach is greatly preferable to attempting to provide suitable summary information in infoboxes, which imo would be an initiative fraught from the start with serious theoretical and practical issues that would create a major drain on our already limited human resources and throw up a whole load of new problems. On the other hand, I'd certainly support moving codes/links like MeSH/ICD out of the infoboxes to somewhere less prominent if consensus could be reached to do this. While these links may be handy for people with a professional or study interest in the topic, they are unlikely to be of much benefit to our much broader general readership. What we really do need, given the academic character of most MEDRS, is (imo) prominent links to suitable lay-reader friendly sources. For example, patient.co.uk was briefly discussed here... 31.49.13.194 (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

It's taken months and months, but we can finally add medical specialties to infoboxes. If you want to help out, just add |field=Oncology (or whatever) to as many disease articles as would benefit from it. (Please omit it on articles where many different specialties have significant claims, or if the answer, as for the Common cold, is not very relevant.) We can see how this simple change goes before trying to add anything more complicated, like lists of treatments. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:57, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Similar objections to linking ICD/MeSH codes in the infobox (rather than somewhere less prominent on the page, or even not at all) have been discussed before, as has the feasibility/practicality of reporting summary clinical/epidemiological information in the infobox (sorry I can't find the thread, though I suspect Colin or WAID, for example, may remember). Anyhow, the tenor of such discussions here clearly illustrate imo how hard it would be to reach anything like consensus here for the inclusion of a database like MalaCards in disease infoboxes. 31.49.13.194 (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

CC BY SA NC

IMO opinion it is unfortunate that we do not allow this license for images and videos. WHO releases some content under this license as does the Khan academy. Ideally it would be nice to get them to change their license however per the license we could use NC and it is just our local consensus which is against it. Do others support pushing for allowing some local uploading and use of CC BY SA NC images / videos?

We already allow logos, screenshots of video games, and movie posters that are fully copyrighted images. Am looking for an exception for medical images but just for NC. Spoke with the WMF and they are okay with this. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:09, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

For videos, take a look at how the Khan Academy art history ones are done at the bottom of William Holman Hunt - there are hundreds of these boxes on WP. Of course the image is not Khan. It is essentially an external link in a box. No special consensus was asked for to do that, afaik. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Would love to see it accessible by Wikipedia Zero. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess the argument to be made is that if we allow them, then they'd have to be explicitly removed from any commercial products with Wikipedia. The argument for why they are disallowed from the commons is in this cartoon. The fair use stuff is fine for commercial use because fair use is essentially a limited public domain, so as long as we're within the fair use guidelines there's no license incompatibility with the material, whereas adding -NC into the mix could cause problems with derivative works. That said, I don't do any work with the preparation of these derivative works - it would probably be good to get feedback from those people on how difficult it would make their lives. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 15:10, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: will, I'm sure, have some useful insights, but it seems to me the key would be that re-users must be able to automagically identify and strip out the -NC material. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

That cartoon is wrong. Wikipedia is itself is a non-commercial product, and therefore NC-licensed files can legally be used here. We don't choose to use NC-licensed files (because we want to make it easy for commercial users to use our work without having to look at the licenses for each image individually, and because we have ideological issues around whether anything that is restricted is really, truly "free"), but that's our freely-made choice. The person who chooses a non-commercial license is not forbidding Wikipedia from using it; we are forbidding us from using it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand where you got all that. The cartoon doesn't say they can't be used on Wikipedia (though they can't under current policy), it says they can't be used in inexpensive books and DVDs published by Wikipedia, which is true, since those are commercial ventures. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 00:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

The WP:1.0 team is the only group I know of that's actually "Wikipedia" publishing things, and I'm sure that they would be surprised to hear that their efforts to make CDs and DVDs of articles, which primarily get sent to schools and places with limited internet access, constituted a "commercial venture", or that their volunteer work here was "primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or monetary compensation", to quote the relevant line from the CC-NC license. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

• One opportunity for reform is asking organizations like Khan Academy and World Health Organization to explain why they made the strange decision to use non-free licenses when they profess to be sharing free content. I think they could be convinced to change. I suspect that these organizations are not self-conscious about what use non-free licenses while mistakenly they advertise that their content is free and that it can be used in the ways that they forbid with their licensing. I was thinking about this when Khan had their Wikipedia video outreach program, Wikipedia:GLAM/smarthistory.

With Khan in particular, I looked some years ago to see if they explained why they used non-free licenses when they market themselves as an organization which promotes free content. I think they got so big that no one ever questioned them, and that whatever they did it was without anyone talking to them. It would be interesting to get any explanation out of them, if they would share one. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:08, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been working on convincing WHO to go CC BY SA for many years (at least 4) with no success.

I have been working on Khan for about a year with no success.

Convincing a big organization to change is VERY hard.

We simply need to make it easy for re-users to identify NC content and strip it out. Else we are denying our readers access to this content and shooting ourselves in the foot. And agree with WAID it is us who is disallowing NC content not them. We can change our mind. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Doc James WhatamIdoing Stripping NC content may or may not be feasible, but I think in the case of Khan Academy videos it almost never would be possible.

No one has ever even asked Khan Academy why they use a license which is contrary to everything they profess to be. I think they would be caught off guard if for the first time in their existence someone came to them with serious criticism instead of praising them. A letter from the Wikipedia community could have weight. I expect that they would take offense just from being asked, and I doubt they could have anything reasonable to say if they were politely asked why they use non-free licenses.

I drafted an outline for doing this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sharing, where I propose that the Wikipedia community make media requests with an open letter system that is discoverable and timestamped. MuckRock does this to the US Federal Government, and has deeply upset the process for requesting public records just by removing the request process from being a polite private process between two individuals to being something which creates a permanent public record.

Neither Khan Academy nor the WHO has made a correct or reasonable decision. They persist mostly because they are not publicly accountable for the harm they are causing. We have a legitimate grievance and they owe it to us as stakeholders to explain themselves.

I have never considered that Wikipedia should change its mission to forbid commercial use because commercial use right now is inseparable from education and so far as I know, there is no way to support NC content without forbidding its use in most educational outreach and placing an extreme burden on teachers to understand extremely complicated copyright usage issues.

sample letter

Hello Khan Academy, We are writing to ask if you can please direct us to any explanation of why Khan Academy publishes using non-free Creative Commons licenses. We looked for an explanation and have been unable to find one, and some of us have been wondering why Khan Academy advertises free educational content when the content seems to not be free for most use in education. We are hoping to start a conversation with you about this. We are contributors to Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. Both Wikipedia and Khan Academy are educational resources. You might be aware that Wikipedia is the most consulted source of information on just about every topic, and likely very popular with the people who use Khan Academy resources. We in the Wikipedia community recognize the high quality of Khan Academy educational tools, and have often wished that we could distribute your high quality but relatively less popular content through our extremely popular but relatively lower quality communication channels. We are unable to share any Khan Academy content in Wikipedia because Khan Academy only publishes using non-free licenses, whereas Wikipedia can only accept free content with free licenses. I am writing to ask for you to direct me to any explanation of Khan Academy's choice of licensing, so that we can reflect upon how experts in Khan Academy and years of Wikipedia discussions have seen the same problem and come to radically different and opposing solutions. It would be our wish that we could find ground for collaboration but to do that we would like to better understand your point of view. Some of the things that we would like to do with your content but cannot include the following: Putting it in traditional commercial textbooks Distributing it through traditional commercial teaching packages including DVDs and jumpdrives Pre-loading it on commercially distributed hardware, including laptops and cell phones Presenting it in for-profit schools Sharing it in for-profit conferences Note that none of these uses is very profitable and they would be even less profitable if all of these distribution systems were advertised as being pay options for content which is free anyway. Still, commercial distribution is normal in education. We look forward to talking with you. If you like we can talk privately for now, but eventually we need to report what you say to the broader Wikipedia and Internet activist community. Thanks for your attention. Love, ????

Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:54, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

I have been trying to convince them to consider it for a year. I have gone to a couple of meetings and send dozens of emails. WHO and Khan simply do not see Wikipedia as important. And if we do not want to use their content (they see this is our problem) not their problem as they allow us to use some of their content already. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• Very supportive of allowing NC content. There is such a wealth of NC content out there we could use. As far as the cartoon/comments above I personally feel they fall far from the mark. If I could choose to do so myself I would disallow anything I write from appearing through Google or Ask.com without linking here. The question is whether it is feasible to pursue allowing these images? It would be an immense resource for us, but if there is strong opposition it might only be a time-sink. I could probably list 100 different sites which have content we could use, and have been in touch with several academics that would feel much more comfortable allowing use of their content under a NC license. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
• Unless there is a fair use justification, then I am sure that NC is not allowed on en Wiki. I would think that it will be hard to justify fair use of copyrighted science images, because there is no reason why a skilled illustrator or photographer could make another one. NC is not allowed on Commons. It is one of the basic principals of the Wiki that all the images can be copied, modified and distributed without restriction as long the license follows the copies. Snowman (talk) 23:06, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes that is the current situation. The question is should this position be changed. We are here to "image a word in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge". Our current position inhibits trying to achieve thus. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I recall that Jimbo has considered this issue. Donations to the Wiki have always been with the understanding that all the material will be free to use, copy, and distribute under a suitable CC license (or fair use when relevant) including for commercial reasons. As far as I am aware, it is too complex to use a copyright license that is not consistent with the terms of the funding of the Wiki. Hence, I would say that for all practical purposes and for the foreseeable future, NC licenses will not be used on the Wiki (unless justified with a fair use explanation). Snowman (talk) 17:37, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

If Snowman is correct, and I think he is, I'm puzzled why Doc can say "Spoke with the WMF and they are okay with this". I'm sure somebody said that, but I wonder if they reflected the actual WMF position? Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I spoke with Lila Tretikov at the WMF. I will contact Jimmy Wales to get his position as well and will touch base with some of the boards of directors. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:49, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, and Geoff the lawyer maybe. Fair use is fair use in all contexts, but NC obviously depends completely on context, and it would certainly change the basic "copyability" claim of WP if commercial re-uses could not take some elements. Wikipedia:Reusing Wikipedia content would have to be rewritten to be a much more complex document. Don't know if it is a WMF decision or one for the community, but I would think this needs wider exposure, & will encounter opposition. There is also the copyability of stuff to other language WP with their own rules to consider. Do you know if any of them take this position already? Wiki CRUK John / Johnbod (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if any other languages allow NC. Many/most do not follow our licensing requirements now so really it will change little. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:47, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Good news

Some good news on the copyright front. Gates has moved to a CC BY SA license [22] requirement for what they fund. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Yay! Really. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:46, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Gates funds Khan Academy. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:55, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Yup sent those emails off yesterday. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

NonFreeWiki

meta:NonFreeWiki is a project proposal, made first and with most organization by Green Giant, to have a Commons with non-free content. The basic problem is that some Wikimedia projects, notably English Wikipedia, allow local hosting of non-free content. If multiple Wikimedia projects allow, for example, movie posters, then each of those projects needs to upload the same file locally instead of in one reusable place centrally.

I agree with Green Giant that this is a major problem which must be addressed eventually. In my view, the reason why this has been delayed is because there is no project other than English Wikipedia which allows non-free content and has any voice, love, or respect in the international Wikimedia community. If it happened that multiple popular Wikimedia projects needed file management of non-free content then I expect that would force the issue of how to manage it, and so far as I know, Green Giant's proposal is the only one which has been viewed as pleasant for the community. The alternative is to have continually increasing confusion from crowdsourcing file review in multiple languages, which everyone agrees would be a waste of labor. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

If there was support for CC BY SA NC or CC BY SA ND than I would support the need for a Commons with non-free content. I really simply do not care about company logos, screen shots of video games and move posters. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that Commons for non-free content is going to happen, but the non-free image files could be better categorized on the en Wiki. Snowman (talk) 10:54, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes likely not. Wikipedia is extensively used in partly commercial products and having NC content would make that more difficult. It is unfortunate that we could not figure out some way to continue to make mirroring Wikipedia for semi commercial purposes easy while still allowing all CC media files. Text must always stay CC BY SA of course. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is a lot simpler to have all CC and free. I am happy with that and I would not like to see it changed. If fair-use images are downloaded with Wiki pages, then fair use still applies, but other use of fair-use images may not be allowed. Snowman (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Snowmanradio There is already an unofficial Commons for non-free content, it just is not recognized as a unified sub-project. When you say "I would not like to see it changed", then you are perpetuating the use of non-CC content in Wikimedia servers on Wikimedia projects. People have spent years developing this sector of content internationally in Wikimedia projects, so the opposition to your stated desire is only becoming more entrenched with more stakeholders over time. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Empathizing–systemizing theory

E-S Theory has long been a source of original research, primary sources, and promotion of Simon Baron-Cohen theories (the bio was cleaned up last year, but some persists at E-S theory).

New account, adding similar content to both ES theory and Causes of autism.

I am off for the day, out of time, and have not even gotten through my watchlist, much less my talk page.

Could someone with journal access please have a look at this content? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Metabolically healthy obesity

I am working on a page for metabolically healthy obesity in my userspace; the page can be found here. I wanted to post here to get some feedback on it and possibly get some of you to improve it directly. Everymorning talk to me 01:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Everymorning At first look it seems like a great start to an article and that you have been thoughtful in trying to find WP:MEDRS sources. I did not check all of the sources, but the ones I did check seemed relevant and appropriate. Your article is 1400 characters right now. If it gets to 1500 characters before going live then it can be submitted to Wikipedia:Did you know and get more attention for being on the front page.

Thanks for collecting all of the information on this topic. I had never heard of this condition and was surprised to see so many papers published that have used this term. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• A *proposed* phenotype rather than a generally accepted one? PMID 23928851 looks like a reasonably balanced review of the concept (though I don't have access to the full text). 31.49.13.194 (talk) 15:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the review! I didn't see that one in my search; I have added it to the draft. Everymorning talk to me 16:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
    • I have moved it into article space. Everymorning talk to me 22:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
      • I have looked into it and it turns out that the Lancet article is a "personal view", according to this source. Does a personal view meet MEDRS? Everymorning talk to me 03:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Usability of medical navs

An extraordinary amount of work has gone into creating our system of medical navboxes, however they could benefit from the opinions of other editors, particularly relating to how to improve them, and make them more readily accessible. I'm requesting comments here, please have a look at the templates, have a think, and then comment: Template_talk:Medicine_navs#Roundtable_discussion_on_legibiltity_and_usability_of_medical_navs. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:59, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Arcadian has done a lot of work on these and should be a good source of information for that discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Shaken baby syndrome

The article needs extra eyes, especially regarding MEDRS. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:45, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Well I can start off by saying that the main image is inappropriate as it is of an adult. I'd like to pick an image off google, but I'm unsure how we're treating X-rays today. These images are better if we want to show off shaken baby syndrome [[23]] (only X-rays). -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:30, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

More of the same

Some of those reading this will recall how some alt-med pushers criticized Wikipedia's coverage of alternative medicine in March of this year. [24] Well, something similar has happened again, this time with regard specifically to energy psychology. [25] Do you think Leskowitz's claims have any merit? E.g. he criticizes us for citing Quackwatch. Is this a reliable source? It's not peer reviewed, as he notes. Everymorning talk to me 21:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably not the greatest idea to cite Quackwatch. I'm looking at the review article he linked, Accupoint Stimulation in Treating Psychological Disorders, and it's not... the greatest either. "Many of the investigations described in this review were conceived as pilot studies and were conducted by proponents of the method being studied", not to mention, "By way of disclosure of potential conflicts of interest, the author conducts trainings, provides clinical services, and has written books and articles related to the approach examined in this paper." The paper freely admits that it's hard to distinguish effect from other interventions: "Although energy psychology can be conceived of as an independent, self-contained modality, most psychotherapists who learn the approach incorporate it into their existing clinical framework and repertoire."

Basically what the blog post and the comments beneath it are advocating is that as a special interest group they be allowed to COI-edit WP articles advocating the use of accupressure. The available evidence should absolutely be assessed, and he might have a point about Quackwatch although a balanced article could include a quote from it, but that doesn't mean he's been treated unfairly. Cheers, Basie (talk) 22:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

We have problems with those articles, with POV pushers on both sides. Depending on the version he was looking at, he may have been looking at a page that said something not too different from "Acupressure, which doesn't work, is a pseuoscientific practice that doesn't work and is practiced by charlatans upon gullible people" rather than a neutral definition, like "Acupressure is an alternative medicine treatment that involves mashing on particular spots on the body". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, except that methods that are not demonstrated to treat something should not be called "treatments". They may be "methods", "techniques", etc - but not "treatments". -- Scray (talk) 04:31, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Does this apply to conventional medical "treatments" that have no evidence of efficacy, or is it a special rule for things that are (currently) less accepted by (Western) society? If so, then you'll want to spend a while excising claims that Knee arthroscopy "treats" osteoarthritis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:53, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree - if MEDRS say something is effective, then our content should represent such sources. We should not try to judge the evidence when MEDRS provide a message. I did not intend to suggest that we interpret the primary evidence in a manner that is at odds with a high-quality secondary source, if available. I was thinking of situations where the label "treatment" comes from lower-quality sources. -- Scray (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In this case, high-quality sources (both mainstream and alternative) call acupressure a "treatment". That word does not seem to imply efficacy. So knee arthroscopy is a "treatment" even though there is very good evidence against efficacy (this is strong evidence of being worthless, not merely a lack of evidence either way), and acupressure is a "treatment" even though the evidence of efficacy (beyond placebo, which is significant) could be generously described as "limited". Even committed skeptics call it a "treatment". WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The central argument seems to be that, since a review published in a respectable journal exists, it ought to be included. I think you would have to include the above review in very guarded context, since it hardly seems to prove anything. But perhaps, not being familiar with the field, I'm doing it an injustice. Basie (talk) 04:44, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The article in question is Emotional Freedom Techniques. First, Quackwatch is cited once, in the reception section, as part of one sentence (hardly undue weight for a notable alt med critic such as Quackwatch). Numerous other sources including textbooks, and peer reviewed journal articles form the backbone of the article, so that this article focuses on Quackwatch while ignoring all the other critiques suggests how much credit we should place on it. Second, the review they wanted cited is already cited and discussed in the article (suggesting they probably haven't even read the Wikipedia article before critiquing it); it just happens that it was criticized by other source, and the author, who is a practitioner and promoter of EFT, has been widely criticized for his previous work. EFT proponents have been waging a years-long campaign to remove negative critiques and including dubious and highly criticized sources, this just being yet another salvo in their PR campaign to change the article into a more credulous tone. Yobol (talk) 05:02, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

We have someone critical that the page is protected on my talk page User_talk:Doc_James#Your_EFT_article Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

oy, watchlisted. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Pancreatic cancer is now at FAC

Many thanks to all who contributed to the very productive Peer review. I've now started the FAC at the link above. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Sepsis

Sepsis is a top importance article that could use a little work. Doc James has done a good bit lately as has TylerDurden8823. I have tidied up the refs. The article is pretty well written and fairly technical so I don't feel comfortable making much in the way of changes. Any of the skilled editors here want to give it a shot? The section "Cause" is one area where improvement is needed. I think this article should be brought to Good Article quality. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The "cause" and "pathophysiology" sections should be placed next to each other and expanded accordingly. -A1candidate (talk) 08:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Hello MrBill3, TylerDurden8823, A1candidate. I've been doing a fair bit of reading on sepsis recently, but have lacked the uninterrupted time to work up the sepsis article. I am a bit concerned that we are accumulating references from minor journals in a topic where we should stick to only the strongest possible sources. I can particularly recommend doi:10.1128/CMR.00016-12 as a source for the "pathophysiology" section. JFW | T@lk 09:37, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The 2012 surviving sepsis paper can be used more and is freely available. [26] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Can you give a few examples of which journals you mean Jfd? So far I know I've used papers from the journal Virulence and that journal looked like it had a decent enough impact factor. I definitely agree that the CMR paper looks like it could be good too and I agree that the surviving sepsis paper is a very strong source, I just don't want to overuse it to the point that it looks like we're relying too heavily on any one source. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

JFW thanks for the pointer to an excellent article. In addition to up to date and scholarly analysis of current patho and diagnostic info it presents a good background and summary on sepsis. I have formatted it for use as a ref. I pinged you for response to the above question by TylerDurden8823.

• Reinhart, K; Bauer, M; Riedemann, NC; Hartog, CS (October 1, 2012). "New approaches to sepsis: Molecular diagnostics and biomarkers". Clinical Microbiology Reviews. 25 (4): 609–34. doi:10.1128/CMR.00016-12. PMC 3485751. PMID 23034322.

- - MrBill3 (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

TylerDurden8823 I'm just seeing quite a few sources that really don't belong (FASEB J 1991 is simply too old). Virulence is not a core journal and wouldn't be my first choice. Will try to help but my current emphasis is on Guillain-Barré syndrome. JFW | T@lk 01:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

JFW, I'm not sure I know what you mean by core journal. Can you expand on that? I agree that a 1991 paper from FASEB J is far too old for inclusion. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I think he means NEJM, Lancet, BMJ, Cochrane, Annals of Internal Medicine etc. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Got it, will try to do that when possible :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Gerard Francisco

Dear medical experts: This AfC submission has been waiting some time for a review. Is this a notable person, and should the article be accepted as is? —Anne Delong (talk) 00:15, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Non-HDL cholesterol

What should we do with this article? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio issues from [27] and [28]. Basie (talk) 07:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks just picked that up. Redirected to cholesterol. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Class which may need some guidance

This is a class of 40 students from Barnard College working on Women's health [29]. If people have time to review and provide feedback would appreciate it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

This college happens to be in my city. I was not previously aware of this class. I contacted one of the coordinators and offered both online and in-person support. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Best wishes to this highly relevant initiative! 86.164.164.29 (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

The particular page entitled "Women's health" really does need attention, imo. At present it opens with a rather narrow definition (Women's health refers to health issues specific to female anatomy) that perhaps fits Gynecology [30] more closely than the health of women as seen from the broader epidemiological, social and historical perspectives that the page name, "Women's health" [31], implies. Given the inequalities that have historically affected – and in many places continue to affect - women's health care, this page might appear to be a manifestation of systemic gender bias... until you look at Men's health, which has somewhat similar limitations (though restricting the scope of these pages has the practical effect of concealing pertinent information). I feel the "Women's health" page in particular might benefit from input by a broader range of contributors (I'll ping WikiProject Women's History). 86.164.164.29 (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC) ex-31.49.13.194 etc

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Culture of Birth in Haiti

Dear medical experts: I'm not sure that this is the correct project to evaluate this page, but there is a lot of medical content. Is this something that should be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:17, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

From about S2.2 onwards it is probably worth keeping. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Johnbod, how is it now? I removed the irrelevant parts and cut out the duplication in the last part. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've trimmed the sections. I think it's now acceptable. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:10, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I noticed it lacked a lead section, so I have created one. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:16, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Patient.co.uk using CC-By content without attribution

They are using a lot of our images within some of their education pages including on:

[32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]

Have requested attribution. Plus they also need to indicate that these images are CC BY SA. Not sure at what point the entire work something is combined into needs to be CC BY SA... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe that they need to provide attribution to the creator of the image, not to Wikipedia or Commons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Strictly, they need to attribute the images in the way specified on the image file on Commons (or wherever the open licensed image was originally published). Unfortunately most images don't specify this clearly, and I'm not sure what the default is in that case. Many attributions I see elsewhere are to Commons, not the creator. CRUK images say "This image has been released as part of an open knowledge project by Cancer Research UK. If re-used, attribute to Cancer Research UK / Wikimedia Commons". Wiki CRUK John (talk) 10:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The actual main relevant text from the CC-BY-SA 4.0 license:

"Section 3 – License Conditions.

Your exercise of the Licensed Rights is expressly made subject to the following conditions. a. Attribution.

1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:

A.retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: i.identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);

ii.a copyright notice;

iii.a notice that refers to this Public License;

iv.a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties;

v.a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;

B.indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and

C.indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.

2.You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information."

- how many actually do this, I wonder, on blogs etc. To my mind it doesn't leave the "default" situation terribly clear. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 15:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• James suggested that if the work incorporates some CC-By-SA content then that license spreads to other parts of the work. Everyone has trouble explaining how the license works, but is in agreement that it does not spread when CC and traditionally copyrighted work are mixed.

There is no community organization which supports the policing and enforcement of CC-licensed content. This issue has never been centrally managed either by Creative Commons or the Wikipedia community. There is no best practice for a response in these situations.

One perspective on this might be that for the sake of justice, someone should write copyright violators to make them comply with licenses on behalf of uploaders. Another perspective could be that addressing illicit usage can wait until Wikipedians have infrastructure to manage notification tracking and follow-up, with intent to combine a recruitment pitch to contribute to Wikipedia along with a notice of non-compliance. From my perspective, I would rather have this patient.co.uk organization learning about Wikipedia content and re-use practices than I would in having them either merely comply with the license when directed or even worse, for them to remove the content entirely rather than comply.

I have proposed that the Wikimedia community be more direct in presenting valuable photos to health organizations and I hope that in the future every organization has training and workshops for staff on proper use of Wikimedia content, and that they are comfortable reusing it in a way that complies with the license. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Pretty much agree with that, but one simple thing is that Commons doesn't stress at all that the rightsholder should specify the form of attribution it wants, if it is at all bothered. I'm not fussed about this for my own photos, but I am for CRUK. but many institutions with standard Commons templates for their uploads don't give a desired form of attribution. So they can't complain too much if people don't attribute. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki CRUK John Commons' design leads to most people choosing CC-By-SA among their options, so for valid uploads, one might say that CC-By-SA is the default choice. "they can't complain too much if people don't attribute" was a contentious position attributed to the WMF in the Media Viewer controversy, which was one of the largest protests in Wikimedia history. The meta:Letter to Wikimedia Foundation: Superprotect and Media Viewer is the most prominent complaint. A big part of the grief included allegations that the Wikimedia Foundation wanted to force Commons contributors to use default licenses which would not be clearly displayed, and which some users said weakened attribution practices and the culture of expecting recognition for CC-By licensed content. Where you see a problem and reason to blame the users, some protest organizers have suggested that the perception of user blame for licensing and reuse difficulties has been influenced by the WMF's desire to release their software on a deadline.

With regard to this issue, the take-away it is difficult to make promises to any organization that their content will get attribution, and it is difficult to explain to copyright violators what they should do to comply.

I was talking about your upload of CRUK images at Commons:Commons_talk:Username_policy#Confirmation_that_this_is_an_official_policy. You chose a different route for upload than many other Wikipedians in Residence and already your licensing system is corrupted because your OTRS ticket does not match your uploads. You have 392 images covered by an OTRS ticket, and 426 images in the category all purported to be covered by that ticket and saying "Please do not add files to or remove them from this category" but having no way to found out what was added or if anything was removed. It is not clear what either uploaders or content re-users should do, and it is only clear that people have a lot of problems trying to do the right thing. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It would have been useful to have notified me of that discussion, which I'd never seen or heard of, & did not generate any notifications. At my end the CRUK letter to OTRS validated both the 392 images uploaded by Fae and all subsequent uploads by the special account User:Cancer_Research_UK_uploader (Fae was supposed to use the special account but didn't, for a reason I forget). This is the first I've heard from anyone that there is any problem with that approach from the Commons end, and I think you are wrong to say "your OTRS ticket does not match your uploads"; it does. I wrote the actual CRUK permission letter, with internal legal people, and that is clear; what it looks like on the OTRS system I can't see. All subsequent additions have been by the special account. Obviously additions to the category can't be controlled, nor easily traced (if there is a tool for that it would be nice to know) but they are being checked by watching the total image count (see also the category talk page, which needs updating). Also that special account only edits these uploads, so its contributions page is also relevant. I agree with your comments at the other discussion; better controls would be desirable. But it is perfectly clear what re-users should do; they should do what the template says (quoted above). Uploaders should all be within CRUK, and learn what to do internally, using the special account, this is not a situation like some where there is a blanket release of the organization's content on open licenses, and others can upload it. If people want other CRUK images uploaded they need to ask me or at wikipediaATcancerDOTorgDOTuk, the permanent wiki-related email. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki CRUK John Sorry for not notifying you on Commons; at the time everything was working properly and the count matched the upload, so there was no problem to signal to you. It was my own choice to not signal you and my own fault too. If you find a solution to match the OTRS ticket count with the actual number of files in the category, then I would be curious to hear about what you did. Also I might be curious to talk elsewhere about whether you were happy with the outcome of your upload strategy. In my opinion, it seemed reasonable, and I never expected it to become confused so quickly.

I think this relates to re-use rights because if uploaders have trouble giving permission, then I feel hesitation to tell content re-users how to give attribution. You chose to do things one way; other Wikipedians in Residence have used their own templates; the WMF is in the middle of changing best practices with the Media Viewer; and it was never clearer at any time in the past. I do not see any obvious way to talk with professional organizations about off-wiki attribution of CC content. Whatever response is given seems like it must be a response designed for that particular situation. This is unusual, because with most other things on Wikimedia projects, we can send people to follow guidelines. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:32, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

The real position has very little actually to do with Commons; it is all a question of the actual license used. Commons is just a vehicle and host. Under the Creative Commons licenses it is clear that the rightsholder can specify the attribution required within reason. What is not clear to me is the position if nothing is specified, which seems to be the typical case. Also, regrettably, Commons does very little to alert uploaders that they can and perhaps should make a specification. The CRUK permission is not defined by any number of images; as I've said, this is the first suggestion I've heard that this is any sort of problem. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 01:32, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Wiki CRUK John I see. The license says "You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" and then by default, does not have any field for describing how attribution should happen. That is a great point. Uploaders who do request attribution typically do so with Commons:Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0 or something like it, which requires someone to manually place a template like this {{Cc-by-sa-3.0|[http:www.mysite.com Organization Name]}} on it. Almost no one does this, leaving the reuser with no obvious obligation to attribute anything despite the CC-By license. In the original complaint in this thread, File:Asthma_.jpg was being used without attribution in an external website, and this file is CC-By and should have attribution "in the manner specified by the author". But the author specified nothing, so you are suggesting that perhaps no attribution is required. Is this correct? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm saying I'm not clear what the legal situation is where there is no clear specification of the required attribution by the rightholder. There may be precedent, I don't know, but it doesn't seem clear from the CC license alone. Not everyone wants attribution & re-users may be entitled to assume that if none is specifically required, none is needed. On the other hand, 3.1.A above edits to read: "you must ... retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material: i.identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material ..." so that degree of attribution may be an unavoidable requirement, which perhaps was the intention. No doubt there is a legal answer, but I don't know what it is - but I haven't searched CC's FAQs etc. A small amount of copy-editing would make matters clearer. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

It's not hard to attribute images. Using one of the CRUK images as an example, you do this:

1. Open the image in Media Viewer: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Cancer_Research_UK#mediaviewer/File:Diagram_of_a_lymphocyte_CRUK_024.svg
2. Click the 'download' icon on the right-hand edge (looks like an arrow pointing at the floor).
3. It says, "You need to attribute the author – Show me how". Click on that sentence.
4. Copy the text that it gives you (choose plain text or HTML code, depending on what you need). Assuming that the description page is accurate, that's all you need (or something reasonably similar) to comply with (most) licenses on Commons.

If you don't want to use Media Viewer, then I believe there's also a gadget at Commons that does something similar, for people who can find it and want to enable it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:19, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of WHO has gone open access

Specifically the Bulletin of the World Health Organization. I have used one suitable image [[41]] and wish to use this an example of why using an open license is important.

Need to make the article better first though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

TFA

I've been combing through Endometrial cancer since it will be on the main page in six hours. Two things that need talk feedback:

1. The Featured article Menstrual cycle is linked nowhere in the article, while the c-class menstruation is. Why do we have both, what is or should be the difference, and should the FA be linked somewhere in the article instead of the various other links (there are others related to menstruation)?
2. Menstruation is easter-egg linked to the word period in the article (including the lead). OK, yes, we are supposed to use common or layperson terminology rather than medical jargon where possible, but period is not a word understood to a global audience; it is an English colloquialism, I think? Feedback?

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Found and fixed one;[42] it appears to have been a redirect that was not corrected at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It looks like at least Spanish, German, Persian, and Arabic use "period" (as in a cyclical, time-oriented event) to describe menstruation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Main editor is certainly American, if you mean it's a British English thing. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead containing a large glossary of terms

I disagree with adding large glossaries of terms to the leads of our articles such as was done here [43]. Others thoughts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

This should be at the bottom as a navbox. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Am also not sure. I'm in favour of explaining terminology, especially when a reader might not be aware that these terms have specific technical meanings. In Anatomy we have a template that can be used at the bottom of articles, {{Anatomy-terms}} to let readers know. If editors feel like these terms need explaining, something similar ('This article uses terms relating to addiction, for an explanation see...') could be included to direct readers to a Glossary of terms in addiction medicine or some such. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

We have blue links which people can click on to find explanations of terms. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

If a glossary is included, it should be near the top, not the bottom. Wikipedia articles are meant to be read and understood by a wide audience and a glossary of key terms can go a long way in making a technical subject more accessible to the average reader. In order to serve this purpose, it is important the glossary be placed at the top where it would immediately be noticed by readers so that they can refer back to it as they read the article. Readers that would most benefit from the glossary would probably not finish reading the article and never notice it if placed at the bottom. At the same time, I think these glossaries should be kept short and only used when the scope of the glossary and article largely overlap. For example, I think including the {{Addiction glossary}} is very appropriate in Addiction but less so in Opioid dependence. Boghog (talk) 05:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

What good does a glossary do at the bottom of the page? That only results in 2,500 words of confusion followed by "Hey, if I'd known what this word meant at the start, maybe I would have understood what I just spent the last ten minutes reading". If you (where "you" means average, non-medical people, like teenagers in school, not emergency room physicians) need to know what these words mean to understand the article, then it should be at the top of the page. If you don't need to know this, then it shouldn't be on the page at all.

Realistically, I don't think we can assume that readers will click on the blue links, and specifically we should not assume that they will click on the links if they (wrongly) believe that they already know what the term (probably) means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Is disagree with efforts to have articles begin with a long list of definitions of terms. We are not a dictionary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:37, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the glossary should be kept as short as possible. If the glossary becomes too long, it starts to defeat the purpose of having a glossary. At the same time, I strongly believe a brief, well written list of key terms can really help a general reader more quickly understand a technical article. While Wikipedia is not a dictionary, all encyclopedia articles should begin with a good definition. The purpose of a glossary is to provide brief definitions of key terms within the subject area of the article. Putting a glossary at the bottom of an article is next to useless. Boghog (talk) 09:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not especially against this at times. Something like this would be very useful for gene/protein articles of the sort cancer articles link to, and God knows most of them need making much more accessible. I generally dislike the Great White Space next to a long TOC, as here, and that med articles are apparently not allowed to put images here. A glossary at the bottom, in an article this long, is pretty useless, as others have said here. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Agree, in a shorter article though such links are somewhat more accessible. In addition I think these links are useful to target frequent readers who will see them eventually, rather than one-time readers. Plus they should be used in conjunction with other modalities, as I explain in my essay (WP:ANATSIMPLIFY). In the case here, I think the easiest way may be just to include a sentence in the lead: "Many terms used in addiction medicine, such as "addiction" and "withdrawal", have specific meanings. A glossary of such terms can be found at: [x]". I am not in favour of large glossaries being provided in articles as, amongst other things, it is distracting, space consuming, annoying once you have seen it once, and I do think at some point a reader has to be responsible for what they are interested in. (let's say an article has linked wikitext, a link in the lead, a link in the infobox, and a reference in the 'see also' area. In this case, I do not think a glossary is necessary). --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be self-contained (as much as possible) so that people reading offline copies are able to understand them, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes I think that is fair enough but obviously with the way Wikipedia is organised with many articles having a parent/child structure and wikilinks, there is some widespread acknowledgement that articles can't be completely self-contained. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The proposed WP:GLOSSARIES guidelines and especially the embedded glossaries section would seem highly relevant to the above discussion. In short, the proposed guidelines suggests that glossaries of less than 5 items should be imbedded in the lead. Glossaries of more than 25 items should be moved to a stand-alone glossary article. These proposed guidelines seem reasonable to me. Boghog (talk) 21:39, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay and if it is 5 to 25 terms it should occur under a section heading called glossary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:50, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

This is the second time this has been discussed, so I'll explain and illustrate the issue in these articles. I explained my motivation for creating this template here.

My reasoning for placing this in other addiction/dependence articles is to attempt to address the incorrect and/or vague concept references that exist in every article on these topics, provided I haven't rewritten/overhauled it yet. If one reads basically any addiction article (or "dependence" articles that are actually about an addiction) and then compares the use of terminology to this glossary, it should be apparent why the vast majority of them make me facepalm. Articles titled "XYZ dependence" are often described in the lead sentence using the definition of addiction and sometimes even also state that this "dependence" is an aspect/component of addiction (as in opioid dependence). This makes absolutely no sense, since it's using 2 different definitions (substance dependence - the diagnostic definition; drug dependence - the neuropharmacology definition) of dependence to describe 1 form ("substance dependence" involving opioids) in the same sentence. Other articles, like caffeine addiction before I retitled and fixed it, have the opposite problem; they use the term "addiction" to refer to a dependence-withdrawal syndrome (also note that caffeine isn't even an addictive drug...). Except for two that I've rewritten, there are problems like this throughout literally every article on a drug/behavioral addiction/dependence.

In any event, I don't really care where this template is placed, so I removed it from opioid dependence. If people think the inclusion of a wikitable is so bad that we should omit it in spite of the fact that it improves readibility/accessibility in any related article and makes an attempt at clarifying ambiguous terminology, then I'm perfectly okay with leaving our articles on these topics in the laughable state that most of them are in right now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 10:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think many are tentatively supportive. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks from Wiki Ed!

On behalf of Wiki Ed, I wanted to extend a thank-you to this community, particularly bluerasberry for all the help offered toward the new brochure for student editors, which you can find at File:Editing Wikipedia articles on medicine.pdf.

Eryk (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, thanks to everyone who worked on the brochure. I plan to use it immediately!!! Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥ 21:47, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

This follows a July call for comment from Lianna and my own call for comment around the same time. I have already received a message about whether there is an easy way to edit text. No, there is not, except with software which can edit PDF files. Still, changing a PDF is easier than changing these documents after they are printed on paper which is the next step. I copypasted the text of the handout to a Wikipedia page where anyone can edit text there and continue to comment on this. I am also linking this comment page from the file page of that document, so that it is not lost. Ultimately if the document is updated, it will have to be by someone who can manipulate PDF text and make a different PDF file. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:49, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

So which part should we edit if we want to make changes? IMO the "Scard? Don't be!" section should go first.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Doc James I just did a quick copypaste from the PDF into the section "December 2104 first version", which is what I linked. It is not very neat right now but I think that is all the text. Any part of that heading could be edited. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Reddit AMA about Wikipedia health happening today

Sorry, I think the interview is mostly over right now, but perhaps the scientists are still answering questions.

• Science AMA Series: We are scientists at Los Alamos National Laboratory modeling infectious diseases using Internet systems and computational approaches, we just published how to monitor and forecast diseases around the world using Wikipedia. Ask Us Anything!

They are discussing this paper:

• Salathé, Marcel; Generous, Nicholas; Fairchild, Geoffrey; Deshpande, Alina; Del Valle, Sara Y.; Priedhorsky, Reid (2014). "Global Disease Monitoring and Forecasting with Wikipedia". PLOS Computational Biology. 10 (11): e1003892. arXiv:1405.3612. Bibcode:2014PLSCB..10E3892G. doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003892. ISSN 1553-7358. PMC 4231164. PMID 25392913.

As a side note, I talked with the /r/science moderator some time ago about why they disallowed submissions of the dengue fever article. The rule there is that they only allow primary research, and this was a review article. Still, the moderators there are friendly enough about Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

To follow up, this post made the "front page" of Reddit. It got about 500 comments, about 3000 upvotes, and more than 100,000 unique individuals saw the title and clicked through to read the discussion about the article. This is all supporting evidence that there are a base of people in the general population who are now more aware that large numbers of people seek health information through Wikipedia. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Patient choice?

Surely this isn't just a question of NHS hospital bookings?
(Though, to be fair, the initial draft seems to have been trying to title the page Hospital Choice in the NHS, which is currently a redirect, but seems a fair enough page name in the wider scheme of things...)
109.157.83.50 (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Hum, I was going to suggest renaming that page and redirecting [[Patient choice]] to Concordance (medicine). But I see that, in turn is a redirect to Compliance (medicine), which isn't quite the same thing... And that page, which correctly underlines in the lead that "Compliance should not be confused with concordance", doesn't actually doesn't actually seem to use the phrase "patient choice/s" as such. Which kind of leaves me wondering.... 109.157.83.50 (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

It was at Hospital choice in the NHS for years until an idiot moved it in september. It should go to a similar name. Ok, boldly moved to Patient choice of hospital in the English NHS. Patient choice REDIRECTed to Participatory medicine after a quick scan of possibilities. but no strong views on best destination. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

John, your recommended title choice (pun intended) is fine. It is certainly better than the generic "Patient choice". Axl ¤ [Talk] 12:12, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Axl. Actually looking at Participatory medicine again, it is very ropey indeed, and should I think be merged with the much better Patient participation. But I won't do this. Maybe a straight redirect with a note re the lost content on talk even. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John. Patient participation seems an excellent choice. (Fwiw, I think "patient choice" may be quite a frequent search term on Wikipedia.) 31.49.13.194 (talk) 20:18, 27 November 2014 (UTC)ex-109.157.83.50

Ta - I'd switched the redirect, but Participatory medicine remains as it was. Are you the new 109? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 21:50, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

yup... 31.49.13.194 (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've cleaned up a bit over at Participatory medicine. Needs more work, but it's still a noticeable improvement. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 17:08, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but shouldn't it just be merged to Patient participation, maybe with some salvage? There doesn't seem to be any difference between the topics. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

• RE Patient participation vs. Shared decision making:
  There's been some talk (here) over whether these two pages might be merged (probably not a straightforward task). According to the Patient participation page, Patient participation, also called shared decision making, is... (with Shared decision making appearing as an external link). Not ideal, but not an easy fix either. 31.49.13.194 (talk) 18:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Congrats to all who make Wiki Project Medicine what it is

“Wikipedia has been the most widely used single source of information about Ebola in the most affected countries, among people who searched for information through Bing. The use of Wikipedia was greater than that of either CNN, the World Health Organization, or the Center for Disease Control during the time periods examined. The countries in question include: Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea."

I have been collaborating with a researcher from microsoft by the name of Elad Yom-Tom who has provided this interesting data. I think this is a real accomplishment for all the amazing individuals and organizations that have made Wikipedia what it is today including the many dedicated Wikipedians here. While we may disagree from time to time what we do really matters and I hope we can keep that first and foremost. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc James that is terrific. It does create an obligation to make the content as fabulous as we can. JFW | T@lk 22:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing question re: use of MEDRS source for non-medical information

I started a discussion on WP:RSN here regarding the use of a MEDRS compliant source for non medical material. This might be of interest to editors here. Yobol (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Research paper on editors of health-related material on Wikipedia

Hi all. As some of you know, because you took part, User:Hydra Rain and I conducted a study of editors of health-related content on Wikipedia and their motivations. The paper came out today in the Journal of Medical Internet Research: see here. Thanks again to those of you who did take part; Hydra Rain will also be sending a summary of results to participants. There'll be a Wikimedia blog post and Signpost article about the paper as well. I hope you enjoy the paper! Bondegezou (talk) 21:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing it out, Bondegezou. (The interview was years ago—I had forgotten about it.) Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:08, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

It can take a while for research to come out in print... although we probably could have been quicker about it: my fault, not Hydra Rain's! Bondegezou (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Dealwithautism.com

User:Ashishb01 recently added a link to heritability of autism. The link was to this website. Does this look like a reliable source? Everymorning talk to me 14:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

No and removed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

The vagina as an erogenous zone

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Erogenous zone#The vagina isn't an erogenous zone. A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Spam

I don't know if all of you have noticed, but there's a WMF survey underway. The link is in your watchlist notices or here: http://www.allourideas.org/wikimediagadgets There's more information on Meta.

It's pairwise comparison of possible tools (like HotCat) that people might like to see available everywhere/improved/made into a permanent part of MediaWiki software/things like that. The way the survey works is very simple: it offers you a pair of options and you pick your favorite, as many or as few times as you want. Our medical translators and editors working at multiple wikis might particularly want to have their say, since one likely outcome is taking a tool in use here at the English Wikipedia and making it available everywhere. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

RfC on Oseltamivir

Please see Talk:Oseltamivir#RfC:_WP:WEIGHT_in_the_Oseltamivir_article_given_direct_contradiction_between_Cochrane_review_and_the_consensus_of_medical_authorities Jytdog (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sunset Yellow FCF

Could use some eyes on this. We have an edit-warring, fairly new editor who thinks that health effects of food coloring is not a health related issue, but rather is "sociopolitical" so is not subject to MEDRS sourcing. thx. Jytdog (talk) 06:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

In future, let the other editor (me) know when you go canvassing support on project noticeboards please. MLPainless (talk) 13:13, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

And calling me "edit warring" when I reversed one edit compared to the numerous edits you reversed is a bit rich! You have a very combative style, JYtdog. MLPainless (talk) 13:16, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

As you've been warned before MLPainless, these talk boards are not the place to quip about editor behavior (again focus on content not contributor). Also it isn't inappropriate to post at related Wikiprojects asking for more eyes from uninvolved editors. If there was actually discussion going on here that would be one thing, but if anyone did as asked and came to the article, you'd know about it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

MLPainless I did mention I would go to a board and you said OK. I am sorry for not posting a link that I actually did it and for doing it here instead of WT:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oseltamivir (Tamiflu) -- advice of major medical bodies vs EBM

Remember that discussion we had at WT:MEDRS about advice of major medical bodies vs EBM? The conflict is breaking out at Oseltamivir. Doc James is elevating the Cochrane perspective that there is no real evidence to use this drug, over the advice of pretty much every major infectious disease medical body on the planet. He is not providing any sources that there is even a controversy. This, to me, is exactly the WP:ADVOCACY for EBM that I was describing at WT:MEDRS and in my view this violates our obligations under WP:NPOV to actually present the mainstream view with the most weight; it is just off track. Thoughts, other eyes on the article? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Is is unheard of a Cochrane review is not reliable enough for the lede. To satisfy NPOV we can summarise different points of view in the lede. QuackGuru (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not an answer. The question is weight in this article and the basis for elevating cochrane reviews over pretty much every major infectious-disease body on the planet. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm as big a fan of Cochrane as the next guy, but one source cannot overrule every other medical source out there. If Cochrane comes to a conclusion and the wider medical community rejects it, we have to put the weight of the article with the community, not with Cochrane just because it carries that name. Yobol (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The Cochrane review was not being used to overrule other sources. When sources disagree we can include both. The Oseltamivir#Efficacy section can be summarised in the lede. This includes a summary of the Cochrane review. QuackGuru (talk) 21:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

This is a question of WP:WEIGHT. I have no problem using it in the text of the article, but since it basically goes against most of the rest of the medical community, I don't think it deserves to be in the lead. Yobol (talk) 16:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This version seems fair to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Oseltamivir&oldid=637069978 And this entire discussion belongs on the article talk page in my opinion. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

and this is not true QG. until today the Evidence (e.g Cochrane} section was first, and far longer, and buried and sandwiched, the statements by the major medical bodies. Clearly given way more weight. Compare the version before my edits today and the current version. Formerly, I opened this discussion b/c Doc James and I were getting into an edit war and I wanted more voices and eyes. But yes, I will stop responding here. Jytdog (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly the situation. But better on the talk page agree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

? yes exactly the situation. but we are working it out there, i think.... Jytdog (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Keloid

Could someone take a look at Keloid Disorder and Keloid and figure out how best to get a single article on this topic? As indicated by Talk:Keloid Disorder, the doubling arose over this disputed revert. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Great pictures. But requires work. Have tried to pull it into line Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Autism edits

Subtle (see link to child abuse): [44] Gobs of edits, removing ASD and linking to autistic which is a redirect to autism spectrum. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

reported to AIV;[45] too redirects many for me to fix, and with two instances of subtle vandalism, there may be more. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Blocked, but I can't fix all that.[46] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

All fixed by the blocking admin! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Working on Neurobiological effects of physical exercise - need some quick feedback on coverage

Like the header says, I'm working on this article in order to bring it up to GA-quality. I need to source or re-source a lot of content, and probably cut a fair bit of the preclinical content which now has clinical evidence. I'd like feedback on the scope/topics included in this section on the talkpage: Talk:Neurobiological effects of physical exercise#Work in progress. Is anyone aware of any additional topics that are worth covering in the article that I haven't indicated in the bullet next to a citation? (note: these citations are all current medical reviews on humans)

I'd appreciate any feedback/thoughts. Regards, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit: @Jytdog: In deference to our conversation at MDMA, I'm limiting quotes to ~250 words; larger quotes create a reference tooltip that is too big for some screens, so I'm not going anywhere near the 500 word limit that concerned you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 23:51, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

) lovely person, you. Jytdog (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Journal access needed

Global Asthma Network was recreated by an editor who first created it with copyvio, and it was speedied. The recently recreated version still has copyvio, but there is an OTRS tag on the talk page, indicating, I guess, that the same editor is affiliated with the Global Asthma Network and is releasing the wording from copyright ?? In other words, there may be a COI at work.

But of more concern, can someone with journal access check the text? I can't access the full journal reports, but I suspect:

1. Most, or many, of the sources are citing text unrelated to the Global Asthma Network, rather general text that is off-topic to this article. That is, how is notability met?
2. Original research may be present.
3. Because the editor's previous contribs have all been copyvio, I'm concerned that checks vs. the journal text should be done.

Side note, I am off for the morning, no time to address the spa owner who posted overnight on my talk and altered a previous post by Formerly 98 ... an hour or so will be needed to a) undo her alteration of 98's post, and then b) educate her on Wikipedia guidelines and policies, which I don't have. (PANDAS is the subject of long-standing, off-Wiki, anti-SandyGeorgia recruiting, so I expect this will be time consuming ...) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected PANDAS. Which account was altering 98s posts? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, Formerly 98 and Jacob for the help at PANDAS (there has long been a series of SPAs and IPs there, and according to the off-Wiki recruiting, SG is the nazi who protects the article, so more eyes and feedback are appreciated to take the heat off of MOI the Evil One :) This alteration of 98's post (now corrected by 98) was likely only because of a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works, but we also have this account name, which seems related to the IP and the spa owner, and then we have the other recent IPs editing the article, as well as User name Pandasisreal. I have just gotten home from a long day, so will focus on dealing with my talk page tomorrow. Thanks to all who helped, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Side note: I hope that whenever WP:Flow discussions appear, that the English Wikipedia doesn't choose to let IPs edit/vandalize the comments made by logged-in users. I don't think the setting needs to be admin-only (every wiki gets its own setting, and some other projects are choosing to use the admin-only approach), but this alteration wouldn't be possible if comments by experienced editors were basically semi-protected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Bump ... is anyone able to look at that article (Global Asthma Network, that is)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Medicine Webcast Wednesday December 10th 2-3:15pm EST

A Metropolitan New York Library Council Wikipedia webcast will be streaming live on Youtube today, and archived on the METRO Youtube channel afterwards. To access the live program, simply visit METRO's YouTube channel between 2:00 PM and 3:15 PM on Wednesday December 10th. Registration is not required. A direct link to the webcast page will also be posted on METRO's event page before the live program. An archived recording will be available following the session. Visit the webpage for more information. Let me know if you have any questions! per User:OR drohowa

I do. Who are you, and what is that in UTC? Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:43, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It's now. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes it will also be available for latter viewing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Dorothy Howard is the Wikipedian in Residence for the Metropolitan New York Library Council. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

CME for WikiProject Medicine Contributions?

I'm still very new here, and this may well have been suggested in the past. I was wondering if others in the community thought it would attract more contribution from the medical community if WikiProject Medicine were to offer Continuing Medical Education (CME) for some unit of contribution. This would be analogous to UCSF's program of offering course credit to medical students for WikiProject Medicine work. Most health care professionals have to do some version of CME to maintain their licensure and board certification (MD, DO, NP, PA, RN/BSN, PharmD, etc.) so I think a broad range of contributors could potentially be attracted to helping out. Might need to work with the AMA or some other CME-certifying body to design the initiative. What do others think? Thanks. Carlos Rivas (talk) 16:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

For Canada we can currently claim M2 CME credits for Wikipedia (but one can use nearly anything for M2)

I looked into applying for the more valuable M1 CME credits. The amount of bureaucracy is such one would really need staff for the application.

If you are interested in taking this on you have my support. We also have the option of taking Wikipedia articles to a professional standard followed by publication such as for dengue fever. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

But for publication, now that Open Medicine is closed we don't have a currently functioning journal to publish in with the exact licensing as used by Wikipedia. Doc James (and all of these following questions aren't directed only to you), I wonder if we could somehow get by with just using an open license (BMJ Open uses CC BY-NC) instead of the exact type of open license that Wikipedia uses. Why can't Wikipedia editors decide to publish something CC BY-NC that has already been published CC BY-SA? Why can't we also decide to release it under a different open license? Does that open editors up to liability from WP:WMF legal? Or do they just not look kindly on this idea? I'm curious. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 20:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

JMIR is interested in publishing Wikipedia articles and uses a compatible license. Open Medicine may be still sort of functional. The "SA" means that we cannot change the license to CC BY or CC BY NC. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Biosthmors, I believe that it is possible to re-license your own work under as many terms/conditions/etc as you wanted. However, I don't think that you can re-license someone else's work (ever, because you don't own it), and unless the article was written entirely by you (from a copyright perspective; typo fixing and formatting is irrelevant for this determination), then you can't release someone else's work under a different license. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that's right. The license you grant over your contributions in the editing window small print is fixed and irrevocable: "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL with the understanding that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient for CC BY-SA 3.0 attribution" (just above "save page", my bold). But it may be worth exploring if journals a) insist on a single exact license, like the English Wikipedia with text, or b) have a minimum level of openness, but are flexible above that, like Wikimedia Commons. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 14:37, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That doesn't mean that you can't offer additional licenses; that only means that you can't stop offering CC-BY-SA to the world. See c:Commons:Multi-licensing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Multi-licensing is the relevant one here, and you can only vary the license to use some other similar form by another lot of license writers, or to remove the SA aspect, or fully release as PD. So your belief (above) "that it is possible to re-license your own work under as many terms/conditions/etc as you wanted" is not right, though "under as few' terms/conditions/etc as you wanted" probably is. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 16:36, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sure. See "It is within one's rights to license those contributions under any terms one prefers, so long as one does it in addition to also being covered under the CC-BY-SA license (and, if you are the sole contributor, GFDL)."

The reason this matters is derivative works by other people. Let's say that I draw a diagram, and I multi-license it to be CC-BY-SA (as required here) and CC-BY-NC. You take my diagram and make a significant (copyrightable) change to it. You publish your derivative of my work, but only under CC-BY-NC. That's okay under multi-licensing. You're not required to use all the licenses I offered you. You are permitted to pick only one. If I offer only CC-BY-SA, then your derivative work must also be licensed as CC-BY-SA. If I offer you half a dozen, then you can pick whichever license you like best for your derivative work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

in case anyone missed it...

TIME's "Person of the Year",[47]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Paternal age effect

This article is mostly primary sources and in need of a serious trimming. Anyone interested? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Expanding plagiarism detection

I am looking at expanding the copy and paste detection bot globally. Am looking at hiring staff to help. They will not only collect data on the size of the issue for publication but also edit Wikipedia. Are people here okay with that? Please join the discussion here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I delved into WP:Copyclean (particularly WP:SCV) after my return to WP but it often takes me to subject areas I'm not especially interested in. Somewhat off-topic, but I might try staying within the bounds of the health articles and see if I can help make a dent. I wasn't aware of User:EranBot/Copyright, will start tracking it. Basie (talk) 18:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we've only got three articles tagged for copyvio-related problems: History of pain theory, Amlodipine, and Male rape. The last may have been cleaned up (tags often persist beyond their purpose); I know that the main editor was trying to deal with it a couple of months ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If the last few weeks are anything to go by, that'll only be the tip of the iceberg. Plus, every copy/paste is not only plagiarism but potentially a copyright issue. Cheers, Basie (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Addition of unsourced material to Eating disorder not otherwise specified

User:Nutrition.and.Health has recently been adding unsourced material to the article Eating disorder not otherwise specified. I have informed them on their talk page that sourcing is required, and have directed them to WP:MEDRS, however they appear to be ignoring this advice, and have reverted me a third time. It may be helpful if members of this WikiProject could inspect the recent history of the article; I am curious to know if people would agree that the recent additions are not of sufficient calibre for a medical article. Thanks. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My first reaction is that we shouldn't have articles on NOS (not otherwise specified) entities. What decent-quality articles do we have with this sort of title? Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 17:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If they are a recognised & common classification, why not? Compare Cancer of unknown primary origin. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If the section on eating disorder NOS is to large for the eating disorder article than splitting of as a subpage is reasonable. Care must be taken to not simple repeat eating disorder. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:46, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If they're notable, they're notable. I say we shouldn't assume notability because they are used in a classification structure. Not otherwise specified is a common "suffix" added to entities in classification schemes, and one shouldn't be considered notable simply because it's been printed in one. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

My point is that not every subdivision of a condition should necessarily have its own page. Many can be covered and redirected to the parent article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:11, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Submit to 3RR-- probably a grading deadline. Education Program:CUNY, Hunter College/Human Development (Fall 2014) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone who has got involved. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone find it mind-boggling that User:Nutrition.and.Health edit warred, reverting seven times, never responded on talk until the article was locked down, and still was not blocked? [48] There's a good example for anyone who claims that students are or should be treated like any other editor. Any other editor is blocked at 3RR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately it isn't unheard of for an editor to flout all the rules and effectively be rewarded by having their preferred text preserved within a protected article, as has happened here. And editors who try not to break 3RR, who try to engage in dialogue and go through the proper channels, end up with a slap in the face. Somewhat disheartening, and exasperating. But thanks for filing the 3RR report anyway, even if it was effectively ignored; it's nice to know that people care. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 17:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

That is absurd. Is the admin who protected the article related to the education program? If so, are they supposed to be acting in this fashion, in which students appear to be getting preferential treatment? Yobol (talk) 18:04, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No, Yobol. I was heading out to dinner for the evening after filing the AN3 report, noticed that hours had passed and nothing had been done, and in exasperation I asked at the WP:ENI thread that the article be locked to force the students to start talking. The admin (not part of the Education Program, but a new observor on that noticeboard) complied with my request. When I returned from dinner, five hours after filing it, I found that the AN3 had still not been actioned. We can't blame the admin who protected for "the wrong version"-- that happens because PaleCloud and the rest of us didn't editwar, while the student did. Protection of the article aside, it's still interesting that the student wasn't blocked, when most of us would have been. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

PaleCloudedWhite, protection of m:The Wrong Version of an article is almost required under policy.  ;-)

Sandy, I like to think that we cut newbies a little slack, because old hands like us are supposed to know better, while they might not have any idea what the rules are. In this case, though, it was probably deemed pointless. If the article's protected, then also blocking the editor(s) is needless. Blocks aren't supposed to punish the edit warrior, and they needn't be issued if the edit war has been stopped through other means. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but, d'oh, I'm well aware of all of that. The point I'm making is that AN3 is so backed up that a report sat there for five hours before anyone even looked at it, and I had to go elsewhere to ask that the article be locked, when the article could have stayed open to the other students and regular editors if the AN3 had been actioned in a timely way. Not only did it sit for five hours-- it was quite egregious. The editor had reverted seven or eight times, and had not responded, ever, to a single talk page query, either on user or article talk, and had been warned three times. Historically, that would have gotten a swift block. At the time the AN3 sat unactioned, there were multiple other AN3 reports above it in the queue that had also not been actioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/CVac

Dear medical experts: Here's one more of these old AfC submissions. Is this a notable topic, and should it be improved and added to the encyclopedia? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: It may merit a sentence in ovarian cancer under the #Research heading, but there's only information on the clinical trials and nothing in systematic reviews. I found [49], [50], and [51]. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 06:27, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Keilana, I don't know anything about medical research, but I presume that you mean that it's too soon for this to have its own article because it hasn't yet been accepted by the research community as effective? —Anne Delong (talk) 11:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong: Yeah, in effect. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 19:16, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I will let it go, then. —Anne Delong (talk) 23:26, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Psychiatric survivors movement; List of people who have undergone electroconvulsive therapy

there is an editor adding lots of folks to the list article above, and identifying them as "psychiatric survivors" or " elecroshock survivor", etc, in WP's voice. these seems kind of...problematic maybe. I don't know enough about it to comment tho. Psych-y people maybe want to have a look? Jytdog (talk) 02:44, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Next we will have list of people who have taken Prozac which will include the names of 10 to 20% of the Western world. Seriously. Maybe we need a higher bare for this sort of content. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:56, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Notable_cases applies, but it is not an absolute prohibition. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:23, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

My post was kind of vague, sorry. What I wanted to ask, is: should we have descriptions of people as "psychiatric survivors" in WP's voice? I reckon Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Identity might apply, but this what I what I wanted to ask. The question behind that, is: is that label a fringe-y, WP:ADVOCATE kind of thing (almost every person recently added is described as some kind of "survivor"). Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Of course we shouldn't be describing people as "psychiatry survivors" in Wikipedia's voice; the term involves some extremely dubious and fringe-y framing. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm guessing that almost all the "psychiatric survivors" should be described as activists or something of that nature. Best guide is to find reliable sources that describe what they are known for - if there aren't any, they likely shouldn't be on the list anyway. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 17:46, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

thanks for this. It seemed fringey to me but i have not read a lot in that area. The people recently added have written books or the like about their experience and seem to self-identify as "survivors".... hence my bringing in MOS:Identity as well. Jytdog (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing what are your thoughts on the "survivor" label/identity in WP's voice? My intention is that if it doesn't belong in WP's voice, to remove or attribute it and I want to be clear it is correct. Jytdog (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the question of WP:IDENTITY, I think that self-designation really only applies when there's a split among reliable sources among various different terms. Gender self-designation is an outlier in the respect that a person's self-designation can override consistent use in reliable sources. My guess is that while these people refer to themselves as psychiatric survivors in their own texts (which will likely be too fringe to pass muster as WP:RSes), in the literature they will be referred to more neutrally as something like "activist" or "member of the psychiatric survivors movement", etc. 0x0077BE ^{(talk · contrib)} 00:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all. I decided to do this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people who have undergone electroconvulsive therapy Jytdog (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

LSD (Cannabis) for deletion?

Should this article be deleted? Sources are non-MEDRS compliant. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:37, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

It seems not to be a strain used for medical purposes, and no medical claims are made, so I'd say leave it, or merge it maybe, if we have a list (i'm guessing we do). Johnbod (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Some of the info was false, and it got deleted on promotional grounds. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:03, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reliability theory of aging and longevity

I would appreciate the informed opinion of editors here on this hypothesis (obviously not a "theory"). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography/Medics

A new list in project space, around 400 missing biographies of physicians, surgeons and others (emphasis on the UK). Charles Matthews (talk) 15:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Sphygmographs and sphygmomanometers

A sphygmograph

Does anyone from this project know anything about the early history of sphygmographs and sphygmomanometers - devices for testing the spelling capabilities of medical students blood pressure? Our article on the sphygmomanometer looks fine to my unqualified eye, but we also have a stub article on its predecessor, the cumbersome-looking sphygmograph, and I wonder whether it might be worth either expanding it, or possibly merging it with the latter device? Either way, a source or two would be useful (I've located this [52] from 1882, but more recent sources would clearly be preferable). AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Are we sure that picture is not a mislabeled medieval torture device? a13ean (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I really like this picture. I'm happier knowing that this odd contraption existed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikidata for ICD9/10 codes in template

Lots of our templates ({{Digestive system procedures}}, ...) contain a large amount of displayed ICD and other classification system information. This information is useful, but I think that it makes it somewhat more difficult for readers to see the actual title, particularly when there are overlapping systems of classification (eg ICD 9/10, TA/TA/TH, etc.). Is there a way to transfer this data to Wikidata, so that the classification system can be preserved, but not always in the template title? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Tobias1984 can probably help with that, he was also involved with transferring disease infobox data to wikidata. --WS (talk) 23:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Tom (LT), WS: Thanks for the ping. I agree that the codes make the title too crowded. We don't have a property to store "ICD-10-PCS" yet, but I can start a proposal to store such data. --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Tobias1984. I think this will go some way to improving the accessibility of our templates. --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)